PDA

View Full Version : Free Speech



Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 12:25 PM
Free speech is that which the government has not yet prohibited; and by majority vote, it may prohibit any kind of speech.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 12:32 PM
You need to specify the question for your poll, before I answer it.

I'm guessing this is the issue you have in mind:

"even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment
protection may be restricted on the basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny”
(i.e., if the government shows that the restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is
“the least restrictive means to further the articulated interest”)."

David G
02-12-2016, 12:34 PM
Yes... too muddy to reply.

Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 12:43 PM
I tried to make it as cut and dried as possible. Cut out all qualifications, exceptions, discount coupons, everything but straight yes or no.

How's this:

The government has legitimate authority, by majority vote, to ban any kind of speech.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 12:46 PM
Osborne, how many revisions to the thread have you made? I'm not on this forum full time and I'm a bit confused.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 12:49 PM
I tried to make it as cut and dried as possible. Cut out all qualifications, exceptions, discount coupons, everything but straight yes or no.

How's this:

The government has legitimate authority, by majority vote, to ban any kind of speech.

The majority vote thing kind of messes the issue up. You do know that it winds up as a majority vote of the supreme court and not the legislative branch. I'd be more comfortable if you'd specified whose vote.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 12:59 PM
OK, I'll give you a qualified yes, since a vote of the court can do it. Plus, even a city council could do it by what would be found in the courts to be an "illegal vote." The illegal vote could quash free speech which had an important "timeliness" factor. Ruling after the fact that the speech was legal doesn't make amends.

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 01:04 PM
Does you question apply just to governments or does it include people being sacked for talking out of turn?
Are you talking of the USA or all of the worlds nation states?

Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 01:07 PM
Osborne, how many revisions to the thread have you made? I'm not on this forum full time and I'm a bit confused.


Lost track. Couldn't figure out the poll thing. The original question and the one in #4 are the same question, I say.

Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 01:10 PM
The majority vote thing kind of messes the issue up. You do know that it winds up as a majority vote of the supreme court and not the legislative branch. I'd be more comfortable if you'd specified whose vote.

Right, I should have said "the majority of society" which typically means the legislature. If we had a triumvirate and no legislature, it would be two of the three triumvirs.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 01:18 PM
Right, I should have said "the majority of society" which typically means the legislature. If we had a triumvirate and no legislature, it would be two of the three triumvirs.

Sorry, but it's getting muddier. Are we talking hypothetical goverments or specifically the U.S. government as it currently exists? Are we talking ideals or practicalities. If practicalities, then a renegade cop on the street can take away your right to free speech, either temporarily or for the rest of your life (you may only be alive for a very short time).

Steve McMahon
02-12-2016, 01:28 PM
Yup.
For instance, hate speech is against the law here as it should be.

Waddie
02-12-2016, 01:37 PM
The government is not the source of our rights; they are inalienable and not dependent on any government action, pro or con. A government may seek to limit those rights, and is only correct to do so when they can demonstrate an overwhelming benefit to the society as a whole by doing so. Hence, your restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as it causes an imminent physical danger to all around. But to limit rights to free speech based on simple political correctness does not meet the requirement. People have the right to offend others, like burning a flag.

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it......

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 01:43 PM
The government is not the source of our rights; they are inalienable and not dependent on any government action, pro or con. A government may seek to limit those rights, and is only correct to do so when they can demonstrate an overwhelming benefit to the society as a whole by doing so. Hence, your restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as it causes an imminent physical danger to all around. But to limit rights to free speech based on simple political correctness does not meet the requirement. People have the right to offend others, like burning a flag.

I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it......

regards,
Waddie

This argument has been running here http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?198999-The-Contemporary-State-of-Intellectual-Liberty-in-Britain for 11 pages.
You might want to join in. If you do, can you state where the right comes from if not from the people through their government, God given, or from where?

Vince Brennan
02-12-2016, 01:43 PM
Reboot! Reboot!

" 'Tis bootless to exclaim."

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 01:57 PM
The government is not the source of our rights; they are inalienable and not dependent on any government action, pro or con. A government may seek to limit those rights, and is only correct to do so when they can demonstrate an overwhelming benefit to the society as a whole by doing so...

regards,
Waddie

Very nice ideals, but practically speaking, the only rights you have are those that you (or like minded individual who may support you) are physically able to secure at any particular time. Thats why it's so important that out society remain civil.

Waddie
02-12-2016, 01:58 PM
This argument has been running here http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?198999-The-Contemporary-State-of-Intellectual-Liberty-in-Britain for 11 pages.
You might want to join in. If you do, can you state where the right comes from if not from the people through their government, God given, or from where?

Ever hear of the idea of "human rights"? That we have certain inalienable rights as a result of simply being human beings? The idea has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles. It doesn't depend on the existence of any God, nor is it tied to the actions of any government. In fact, according to the premise of "human rights', government may only guarantee those rights, but not take them away.

IMO; a beautiful solution as to where our rights emanate.

regards,
Waddie

Waddie
02-12-2016, 02:02 PM
Very nice ideals, but practically speaking, the only rights you have are those that you (or like minded individual who may support you) are physically able to secure at any particular time. Thats why it's so important that out society remain civil.

Two different topics; ideally what rights exist as opposed to what rights you may be able to secure. And yes, I agree that only those rights that you can secure are the only ones you actually possess and can act on. But that doesn't mean that the others don't exist, at least in theory.

regards,
Waddie

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 02:10 PM
To someone enslaved from childhood those rights which you say exist in theory may be unimaginable to the slave. How can the inconceivable exist, even in theory?

Waddie
02-12-2016, 02:19 PM
To someone enslaved from childhood those rights which you say exist in theory may be unimaginable to the slave. How can the inconceivable exist, even in theory?

Just because the slave cannot even conceive of having Human Rights, it doesn't demonstrate they don't exist. Rights of any kind are an intellectual construct, and do not exist in nature. They are a product of the human mind in it's enlightened form. As we humans evolve physically, we also evolve intellectually (at least I hope we do) and the concept of inalienable human rights is a product of that evolution. It shows progress. We now even extend the concept of rights to animals and nature. Mainly the right to humane treatment and the protection of nature. Part of that enlightenment is the realization that our rights come not from any God or government but from inside each one of us.

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 02:24 PM
Ever hear of the idea of "human rights"? That we have certain inalienable rights as a result of simply being human beings? The idea has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles. It doesn't depend on the existence of any God, nor is it tied to the actions of any government. In fact, according to the premise of "human rights', government may only guarantee those rights, but not take them away.

IMO; a beautiful solution as to where our rights emanate.

regards,
WaddieWith respect, that is no answer. Things don't just pop into existence from nowhere, so where did this right come from?


Two different topics; ideally what rights exist as opposed to what rights you may be able to secure. And yes, I agree that only those rights that you can secure are the only ones you actually possess and can act on. But that doesn't mean that the others don't exist, at least in theory.

regards,
Waddie

All very well in theory, but even with the Amended Constitution of the US preventing the GOVERNMENT infringing free speech, there is no protection from your church congregation or your employer from doing so. So it is not a Universal right.
With every right comes responsibility, so whilst I agree with "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it......" there are limits. Politics, religion, science, philosophy yes for certain, but even the UDHR allows for limits to be set. If people cannot discipline themselves to be responsible, then society can ask government to impose limits :
Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Keith Wilson
02-12-2016, 02:25 PM
How can the inconceivable exist, even in theory?Eh? The measure of what can possibly exist is what the human mind can conceive of? Whose mind? Hooo boy, that's pretty limiting.

BrianY
02-12-2016, 02:27 PM
Just because the slave cannot even conceive of having Human Rights, it doesn't demonstrate they don't exist. Rights of any kind are an intellectual construct, and do not exist in nature. They are a product of the human mind in it's enlightened form. As we humans evolve physically, we also evolve intellectually (at least I hope we do) and the concept of inalienable human rights is a product of that evolution. It shows progress. We now even extend the concept of rights to animals and nature. Mainly the right to humane treatment and the protection of nature. Part of that enlightenment is the realization that our rights come not from any God or government but from inside each one of us.

regards,
Waddie

So if these rights are the product of human thought, why can't humans determine that they, like all other products of human thought or activity, can be abridged, modified, banned or otherwise "messed with" ? What makes them "inalienable"?

TomF
02-12-2016, 02:27 PM
Eh? The measure of what can possibly exist is what the human mind can conceive of? Whose mind? Hooo boy, that's pretty limiting.See that one over in the cartoon thread about the consequences of God becoming an atheist? :D

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 02:27 PM
Waddie, what you are essentially saying is that the concept of human rights is a construct (to me mainly a human political construct).

I like the construct. I support it politically because I think it can provide meaning to many people when they attempt to justify or support particular forms of societal interactions.

However, the construct is fragile and continually shown to be fleeting by human brutes who have other ideas.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 02:38 PM
Eh? The measure of what can possibly exist is what the human mind can conceive of? Whose mind? Hooo boy, that's pretty limiting.

A couple of minutes on the rack with some glowing red irons in the fire off in the corner and you would renounce this thought, and truly believe your renunciation.:d

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 02:45 PM
So if these rights are the product of human thought, why can't humans determine that they, like all other products of human thought or activity, can be abridged, modified, banned or otherwise "messed with" ? What makes them "inalienable"?

Which is precisely the point that I have been arguing with Osborne.

Waddie
02-12-2016, 02:56 PM
With respect, that is no answer. Things don't just pop into existence from nowhere, so where did this right come from?

Of course they do; Science makes new discoveries, develops new explanations for old phenomenon. We "discover" things everyday. New things are developed. One of those new things is the idea of human rights.


All very well in theory, but even with the Amended Constitution of the US preventing the GOVERNMENT infringing free speech, there is no protection from your church congregation or your employer from doing so. So it is not a Universal right.

Just because an institution refuses to acknowledge human rights and infringes upon them doesn't mean the rights aren't universal. In fact, the concept of human rights provides the intellectual, moral foundation for opposing the infringement you speak of. Because we have human rights, even if the government allows oppression of them, we are justified in opposing both the church and the government.




So if these rights are the product of human thought, why can't humans determine that they, like all other products of human thought or activity, can be abridged, modified, banned or otherwise "messed with" ? What makes them "inalienable"?

They can. Our entire experience, how we experience the world, is a construct of the human mind. No one forces humans to experience or interpret the world in similar fashion. Each of us has a perspective. You are free not to believe in human rights. You are free to believe everything emanates from government if you want, or that our rights come from God. You can even choose to believe that humans have no rights, as we are simply a higher form of animal and nature has no concept of "rights". You simply choose, after much thought, hopefully, which belief system best guarantees your rights, if you do believe we have any rights.

So I would ask you, which belief system best guarantees our rights? That our rights come from government? That belief is full of pitfalls. What type of government, and run by whom? Who decides what those rights are? Government, even good ones, are full of people who can't agree on anything.

How about the idea that our rights come from God? Which God, whose God? There are many Gods, and many different concepts of what is allowed. Would it be Jesus or Allah? Too many variances in this belief system. And how do you convince the many atheists that this is the correct path? Nope, they won't buy it.

That our rights come from each one of us as a good consequence of being born human, and which can't be taken from us by any God or government (inalienable), starts to look pretty good. It is a totally secure way of insisting on our rights. The believer in "Human Rights" insists that the slave has rights even though the slave master, be it an individual or government, refuses to acknowledge them, and even if the slave has no concept of such rights.

And yes, in the history of humanity, this is a fairly new idea, part of the intellectual evolution of mankind.

regards,
Waddie

isla
02-12-2016, 03:01 PM
"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"...

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

Is it possible that being shackled to some inflexible doctrine, such as the 1st amendment or the Bible (if translated literally as some folks do), can actually represent a restriction on intellectual liberty?

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 03:07 PM
Waddie, watch out, your support of ideas of inalienable human rights seems to have some of the trappings of religiosity. (I'm not saying this in a disparaging way, but to me you are saying: "this is so because I believe it is so.")

BrianY
02-12-2016, 03:16 PM
That our rights come from each one of us as a good consequence of being born human, and which can't be taken from us by any God or government, starts to look pretty good. It is a totally secure way of insisting on our rights. The believer in "Human Rights" insists that the slave has rights even though the slave master, be it an individual or government, refuses to acknowledge them, and even if the slave has no concept of such rights.

And yes, in the history of humanity, this is a fairly new idea, part of the intellectual evolution of mankind.

regards,
Waddie

OK...not arguing, just trying to think this through....

So how are those rights determined? Who decides which rights are on the "inalienable rights" list? Here in the US, the list includes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are there other rights that should be on the list? Are these rights different from country to country, culture to culture?

Waddie
02-12-2016, 03:17 PM
Waddie, watch out, your support of ideas of inalienable human rights seems to have some of the trappings of religiosity. (I'm not saying this in a disparaging way, but to me you are saying: "this is so because I believe it is so.")

There is no religiosity in that. Everything you "believe is so" is because of how you experience and interpret the physical world with your five senses. Therefore, ALL experience is filtered and relies to some degree on belief.

The idea of "government" is a belief system. The idea of God is a belief system. Both are constructs of the human mind. You are free to believe either of these is the source of any rights you may possess. I simply believe, for reasons previously stated, that our rights are a happy consequence of being human.

regards,
Waddie

Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 03:19 PM
Sorry, but it's getting muddier. Are we talking hypothetical goverments or specifically the U.S. government as it currently exists?

What's the diff? Why would different governments be held to different standards?


Are we talking ideals or practicalities.

Both. It's the law in the USA. Furners are going to have to explain for themselves.

It's the law in the USA based on the rationale that there are natural rights, and free speech is one of them. That applies, by its terms, to everyone, everywhere. It applies to humans. That's why they're called "human rights". That's what the name means.


If practicalities, then a renegade cop on the street can take away your right to free speech, either temporarily or for the rest of your life (you may only be alive for a very short time).

Just goes to show, you have no right to live. How can you have a right if someone can infringe it? <-- Really?

Osborne Russell
02-12-2016, 03:27 PM
A government may seek to limit those rights, and is only correct to do so when they can demonstrate an overwhelming benefit to the society as a whole by doing so.

Or great harm. Same as overwhelming benefit, IMO. The point is, it's not a matter of balancing and changing and all that squishy stuff. Some categories of things are not under the protection of the doctrine. Everything else is. In the US, that is constitutional law.


I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it......

Sounds serious.

BrianY
02-12-2016, 03:28 PM
Just goes to show, you have no right to live. How can you have a right if someone can infringe it? <-- Really?

You're right. You have no god-given or otherwise supernaturally bestowed right to anything. You only have the rights that society grants to you. They way our society grants rights is through our government and the creation and enforcement of laws.

Dave Wright
02-12-2016, 03:34 PM
Just goes to show, you have no right to live. How can you have a right if someone can infringe it? <-- Really?



Oh come on now, I gave up on these silly discussions in dorm rooms 50 years ago. The only reason I'm responding is that I'm waiting for a flight to Phoenix and have nothing better to do.

The answer: someone doesn't infringe upon my "right" to live because I just might bite his face off during the encounter.

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 03:51 PM
OK...not arguing, just trying to think this through....

So how are those rights determined? Who decides which rights are on the "inalienable rights" list? Here in the US, the list includes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are there other rights that should be on the list? Are these rights different from country to country, culture to culture?

Yes they vary country to country, culture to culture, and are determined by the custom and practice of the people that form those societies. They are held to be so due to a consensus, or by being enshrined in law by a representative government. Hence we will not tolerate Hate Speech, but the US allows aerosols full reign. I think that by allowing hate speech, the US does not allow for "the pursuit of happiness", but hey, that is just me.

Waddie
02-12-2016, 05:46 PM
I don't think a discussion of where our rights come from is out dated or sophomoric at all. It's good to have a philosophical basis for supporting whichever political policies you might prefer. That means you've thought through the issue.

Human Rights are not cultural based, do not vary depending on the society in which the individual lives, but are indeed universal and inalienable. We could list them here, but there are many internet sites which do that, and discuss each.

I think the majority of intellectually advanced people on this globe adhere to the idea of universal inalienable Human Rights; at least I hope they do. However, there probably are many people who think government is the source; a very dangerous idea, as history has proven.

Have we as a species measured up? Of course not; we still deny certain rights but we're making progress. Human Rights is an ideal held out in front of us as a goal. We should measure ourselves by progress made toward that ideal.

regards,
Waddie

Peerie Maa
02-12-2016, 05:59 PM
^ Google takes you to the summary of the UDHR. There are a few of those like the right to work that are almost impossible to deliver and is impossible if we do attain the right to participate in democratic government, which is another right listed.
And yes, I guess that a lot of nations do fail in a few areas.

Duncan Gibbs
02-12-2016, 06:38 PM
I've already stated my position on the other thread that I support free speech, just not the totally unfettered type that Osbourne supports. There is no such thing as "all or nothing" in this World. Just because the Allies defeated Nazi Germany in WWII doesn't mean Nazis stopped existing, or stopped believing in their demented ideals, nor that such ideals didn't live on in others who have come later regardless of the consequences that had so drastically been experienced.

So, with regard to the above, I re-ask the questions that I asked on the other thread:
1. How did Hitler and the Nazis convince an entire nation to turn on it's Jewish, LGBT and non-white population, whilst going into a war that would lead to the effective destruction of their own nation?
2. What means were used?
3. Is it a reasonable suggestion that limits be placed upon such means, so that such a complete destruction of almost every human right (including free speech) on such an industrial scale can never happen again?

I'm not voting on this poll because I believe the question to be so simplistic as to be next to useless.

(BTW Tom, I'm glad you enjoyed Zippy! :D)

BrianY
02-12-2016, 09:25 PM
Re: your #3 -

no.

The question presumes that the only thing that led to the rise of Nazism , Hitler etc. was unrestricted speech. That's an incredibly simplistic position. If that same speech occurred in a different place at a different time, there's no guarantee - in fact, I think it's highly unlikely but I can't prove it - that the same series of events would happen.

Duncan Gibbs
02-12-2016, 10:31 PM
I say yes.

If you read about the how anti-semitism was promulgated in both post WWI Germany and Austria it occurred because such sentiment was being whipped up by particular individuals based upon lies of the worst kind by using the press to cultivate base prejudice against Jews. Such sentiment (hate speech) built upon itself by being multiplied as more and more people tuned into such sentiment and began to be converted to it. Of course part of the deal was pointing to the circumstances that people found themselves in and then using the Jews, Gypsies and any other minority to blame for a such social woes.

There is nothing about any of the pronouncements about "The Jews" in the multiple publications which are anything other than hate speech.

You can examine the whole Dreyfus Affair in Fin de siecle France and see the whole set of similar pronouncements being made, but then being quashed once the truth about the officer was finally revealed. Emile Zola was even forced to flee into exile because he wrote in defence of Dreyfus.

The idea that 'speech' is always an innocent agent and cannot be used to end the rights of others is an utter, utter nonsense. History is littered with such examples.

What about The House of UnAmerican Activities? Someone simply had to make an accusation, however unfounded, and this effectively ruined a raft of other human rights of those accused, including their right to free speech.

All of these things are in subtle play all of the time. This is the 'vigilance' part of liberty in its truest definition.

PeterSibley
02-12-2016, 10:47 PM
It went deep and long in Germany, Luther's writings on Jews would curl your hair so Nazi anti-antisemitism was feeding in rich ground.

BrianY
02-12-2016, 11:03 PM
Duncan -

while everything you wrote is true, you cannot discount the effect and influence of the horrible economic situation and the humiliation of post-WWI era Germany. The trials of the post war period made the German people much more receptive to Hilter's message. Hitler exploited their feelings anger and resentment and humiliation and focused it all on the Jews. In a more prosperous, prouder time, the German people would have less need to blame their troubles on a convenient scapegoat and may have been less receptive to Hitler's speech.

likewise, fears about the rise of communism and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Russians made Americans much more receptive to the McCarthy-ites. That same sort of speech would be laughed off today. Although the speech might be exactly the same, people are not nearly as receptive because the times have changed, the conditions and circumstances have changed.

the point is that speech alone doesn't make people behave in certain ways. The speech has to be appropriate for the circumstances and conditions of the time and people have to be receptive. An excellent example of this is the current presidential race. Thirty or 40 years ago, would Trump or Sanders have ever been considered legitimate candidates? It's unlikely. However, people are angry and they want change and they're willing to listen to and support candiates who tap into and exploit that anger.

skuthorp
02-12-2016, 11:05 PM
More a traditional scapegoat as well as a convenient one.

PeterSibley
02-12-2016, 11:14 PM
Duncan -

while everything you wrote is true, you cannot discount the effect and influence of the horrible economic situation and the humiliation of post-WWI era Germany. The trials of the post war period made the German people much more receptive to Hilter's message. Hitler exploited their feelings anger and resentment and humiliation and focused it all on the Jews. In a more prosperous, prouder time, the German people would have less need to blame their troubles on a convenient scapegoat and may have been less receptive to Hitler's speech.

likewise, fears about the rise of communism and the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Russians made Americans much more receptive to the McCarthy-ites. That same sort of speech would be laughed off today. Although the speech might be exactly the same, people are not nearly as receptive because the times have changed, the conditions and circumstances have changed.

May I suggest Islamic terrorists and Syrian refugees ?

Duncan Gibbs
02-13-2016, 12:52 AM
the point is that speech alone doesn't make people behave in certain ways.
Every advertising executive, copyrighter, art-director and (nearly every) client would beg to differ.

What about "free speech" that peddles lies about the deleterious health effects of certain products that have been proven to kill in numbers: Asbestos, tobacco, junk food and sugary beverages. The tobacco industry here decided that their intellectual property was being impinged with the advent of plain packaging laws. Fortunately IMHO they lost their case.

I can keep offering up examples where "free speech" impinges upon the rights of others as outlined in the UDHR.

Hell, the Dixie Chicks were effectively forced to apologise in the USA for their anti-GW Bush statement that were made in the UK. Commercial reality kicked in. Money controls speech more than any government could ever possibly hope for. If your average corporation was a government there'd be howls of righteous indignation about the rise of totalitarianism. A bit late really...

Critique, actual free speech, has a long history of being suppressed in all sorts of ways, from economic to violent action.

Hate speech OTOH gets a free pass by our libertarian friends just about every time.

PeterSibley
02-13-2016, 01:58 AM
Very nicely put Duncan.....

Osborne Russell
02-13-2016, 02:43 PM
Re: your #3 -

no.

The question presumes that the only thing that led to the rise of Nazism , Hitler etc. was unrestricted speech. That's an incredibly simplistic position.

Yep. Like some words had magic power, merely by being spoken, to call forth evil in otherwise sane people, and those are the words that have to be made taboo.


If that same speech occurred in a different place at a different time, there's no guarantee - in fact, I think it's highly unlikely but I can't prove it - that the same series of events would happen.

The time and the place are the critical factors. If you say, "Let's kill the bastards!", it's different if you're pacing on a stage in an empty theater, yelling it over and over, because it's a line in a play you're rehearsing; or yelling it to a crowd which has already seized and bound the bastards and stands over them with clubs.

It's the government's burden to prove the circumstances in every case. You can't forbid whole subject areas in advance. Apart from being wrong, it doesn't work and can easily be counter-productive.

See the policeman guard the Nazis
guard the Nazis
guard the Nazis
See the policeman guard the Nazis
In the USA.

Duncan Gibbs
02-13-2016, 06:39 PM
Yep. Like some words had magic power, merely by being spoken, to call forth evil in otherwise sane people, and those are the words that have to be made taboo.
This statement is utterly laughable!

Either words have power (and therefore free speech is important), or words don't have power, and therefore free speech is just "an inalienable right" that has no real effect in the World at all.

How do you think people are convinced to go and buy this product over that one?

How do you think ordinary Germans, Austrians and Sudentenland Czechs - doctors, farmers and office clerks - were convinced to mobilise en-masse to man to extermination camps, join the SS and mow down innocent civilians either side of the heat of battle?

How do you think ISIL are able to convince good children from good families to travel to Syria?

What means do you think are used? Words don't have magic power, but to pretend they don't have power to call forth evil in otherwise sane people is a delusion. They do.

I suggest you read Arendt's essay 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' and then try and tell us about how impotent words are.

Maybe read Walter Benjamin's 'The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction' and explain how words don't matter either way and that there is no distinction between the aesthetic and anaesthetic.

Osborne Russell
02-14-2016, 02:24 AM
"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"...

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.

Is it possible that being shackled to some inflexible doctrine, such as the 1st amendment or the Bible (if translated literally as some folks do), can actually represent a restriction on intellectual liberty?

All kinds of things are possible. Do you have some familiar or likely scenario in mind?

PeterSibley
02-14-2016, 02:58 AM
I recommend something a little dated, Chomsky's ''Manufacturing Consent'', the power of words, little words carefully dropped.

isla
02-14-2016, 11:13 AM
All kinds of things are possible. Do you have some familiar or likely scenario in mind?

In the course of my various travels within the US I have met a few people who think that their protections under the 1st amendment are absolute. They say thing like..


Free speech is the right to say what you think. no restrictions. you can be a white supremist KKK member spouting trash. go ahead. Free speech
in America citizens are trusted to interpret right and wrong...they are not told what is right and wrong by the ruling party.

Of course we know that this is not true. There are many exceptions and exclusions. But people with this kind of absolutist view limit their own intellectual freedom because they are unable to discuss each case on its merits. They also restrict other people's intellectual freedom by refusing to have a rational discourse on the subject of free speech. The mere fact that exceptions and exclusions exist suggests that individual cases can be discussed by judges, and are often found to be excluded from 1st amendment rights. There is nothing wrong with the 1st amendment. It is a noble piece of legislation and obviously well intended, but many people do not seem to know that it is not absolute, and they are often afraid to challenge offensive speech because of it.

Osborne Russell
02-16-2016, 11:31 AM
In the course of my various travels within the US I have met a few people who think that their protections under the 1st amendment are absolute. They say thing like..



Of course we know that this is not true. There are many exceptions and exclusions. But people with this kind of absolutist view limit their own intellectual freedom because they are unable to discuss each case on its merits.

Yes, they do it to themselves, the doctrine (the real one) doesn't do it to them.


They also restrict other people's intellectual freedom by refusing to have a rational discourse on the subject of free speech.

True, but there's no way you can force them to without destroying the entire structure. It doesn't work, the attempt is very destructive, and it would be morally wrong if you succeeded. One major point of freedom of speech is that discussion leads to enlightenment. I still believe it after many years in the Bilge.


The mere fact that exceptions and exclusions exist suggests that individual cases can be discussed by judges, and are often found to be excluded from 1st amendment rights. There is nothing wrong with the 1st amendment. It is a noble piece of legislation and obviously well intended, but many people do not seem to know that it is not absolute, and they are often afraid to challenge offensive speech because of it.

I feel I must quibble with "exceptions and exclusions". There are only a few candidates for the label -- libel, slander, incitement, etc. -- and they haven't been pushed out from underneath the umbrella of free speech, they weren't under it in the first place. And that is so, not because the legislature made it that way, but because the constitution made it that way. That means the legislature is not empowered to make new exceptions. They didn't make the ones we already have. Technically, they're not exceptions.

Osborne Russell
02-16-2016, 01:32 PM
This statement is utterly laughable!

Either words have power (and therefore free speech is important), or words don't have power . . . .

False dichotomy. The third choice is: they don't have the power you assert.

Words are a medium of communication. Communication is a means of persuasion. If words persuaded just by being spoken, you couldn't really call it persuasion, you'd have to call it magic.

Certainly would speed things up. You'd only have to say something once.

isla
02-16-2016, 03:40 PM
Yes, they do it to themselves, the doctrine (the real one) doesn't do it to them.

Of course the doctrine doesn't do it to them, it is their misguided belief in the doctrine's absolute protection that causes the problem. But why do they have that belief? Is it simply that they don't read about the various cases which challenge the doctrine?



True, but there's no way you can force them to without destroying the entire structure. It doesn't work, the attempt is very destructive, and it would be morally wrong if you succeeded. One major point of freedom of speech is that discussion leads to enlightenment. I still believe it after many years in the Bilge.

I wouldn't dream of forcing anybody to argue with me, but it is disappointing sometimes to be denied the opportunity for intelligent discourse. Not here in the Bilge of course. Plenty of discussion going on here, and I think it is intelligent, although some might disagree :)




I feel I must quibble with "exceptions and exclusions". There are only a few candidates for the label -- libel, slander, incitement, etc. -- and they haven't been pushed out from underneath the umbrella of free speech, they weren't under it in the first place. And that is so, not because the legislature made it that way, but because the constitution made it that way. That means the legislature is not empowered to make new exceptions. They didn't make the ones we already have. Technically, they're not exceptions.
Well I have to disagree with that. There have been a number of landmark rulings by SCOTUS, such as..

Bethel School District v. Fraser
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/bethel.html

Recognizing that one of the important purposes of public education is to inculcate the habits and manners of civility as valued conducive both to happiness and to the practice of self-government, the Supreme Court emphasized that "consciously or otherwise, teachers—and indeed the older students—demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class". Under the Fraser standard, school officials look not merely to the reasonable risk of disruption, but would also balance the freedom of a student's speech rights against the school's interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools have discretion to curtail not only obscene speech, but speech that is vulgar, lewd, indecent, or plainly offensive.

And Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Censorship, Student Press Rights
http://landmarkcases.org/en/landmark/cases/hazelwood_v_kuhlmeier

Hazelwood East High School Principal Robert Reynolds procedurally reviewed the Spectrum, the school’s student-written newspaper, before publication. In May 1983, he decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two of the articles, and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication deadline. The journalism students felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that Principal Reynolds had the right to such editorial decisions, as he had “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

There are others which are not education related, but you get the idea.

Duncan Gibbs
02-16-2016, 05:29 PM
False dichotomy. The third choice is: they don't have the power you assert.

Words are a medium of communication. Communication is a means of persuasion. If words persuaded just by being spoken, you couldn't really call it persuasion, you'd have to call it magic.

Certainly would speed things up. You'd only have to say something once.
^ Who said anything about words being spoken "once?"

Either words have power to persuade, or they do not. If the later is correct then we have nothing to worry about from hate speech, and nor should we worry ourselves with free speech. I mean, what's the point.

However, if the inverse is true, and words do have power to persuade, then we have a bundle to worry about from hate speech (and it's promulgation from however minor the spoken example of it may appear) and plenty to celebrate and protect with free speech. I'm the first to admit that the line between the two isn't exactly clear and sometimes our laws will hit and sometime they will miss (either in favour of hate speech, or against free speech), and that being able to have the discussion about the line is is very much a (the?) vital part of the intellectual liberty of a nation. To abrogate responsibility and not tackle hate speech is to cheapen the real value of free speech, as well as endanger other rights of other people other than free speech rights.

Like that hateful preacher and his cohort of 'protesters' that heckle the grieving families of fallen soldiers. I strongly believe the families' rights (to privacy for a start, and then a whole slew of other rights as outlined in the UDHR) are being breached by the Phelp's congregation.

But still you haven't countered a single example, of the many I've presented, where actual, real political grievances have been violently quashed by both state and federal governments in the USA, whilst hate speech appears to get a free pass every time. I'm waiting.

purri
02-16-2016, 06:07 PM
Free speech comes with social and cultural obligations.

Osborne Russell
02-16-2016, 08:01 PM
Isla, I don't see the legislature creating any new restrictions of speech in those cases. Students are not full citizens, seems to be the idea.



We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings," Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 . . .


Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Osborne Russell
02-16-2016, 08:14 PM
^ Who said anything about words being spoken "once?"

I did.


^ Either words have power to persuade, or they do not. If the later is correct then we have nothing to worry about from hate speech, and nor should we worry ourselves with free speech.

If they didn't, there'd be no point saying them.


I mean, what's the point.

Beats me. Persuade me, and please start with explaining what you're talking about.


However, if the inverse is true, and words do have power to persuade, then we have a bundle to worry about from hate speech (and it's promulgation from however minor the spoken example of it may appear) and plenty to celebrate and protect with free speech. I'm the first to admit that the line between the two isn't exactly clear and sometimes our laws will hit and sometime they will miss (either in favour of hate speech, or against free speech), and that being able to have the discussion about the line is is very much a (the?) vital part of the intellectual liberty of a nation. To abrogate responsibility and not tackle hate speech is to cheapen the real value of free speech, as well as endanger other rights of other people other than free speech rights.

Because we have a bundle to worry about doesn't mean every approach is valid. And no one is advocating not tackling.


Like that hateful preacher and his cohort of 'protesters' that heckle the grieving families of fallen soldiers. I strongly believe the families' rights (to privacy for a start, and then a whole slew of other rights as outlined in the UDHR) are being breached by the Phelp's congregation.

Be that as it may, it doesn't touch the existence or the extent of the right of free speech.


But still you haven't countered a single example, of the many I've presented, where actual, real political grievances have been violently quashed by both state and federal governments in the USA, whilst hate speech appears to get a free pass every time. I'm waiting.

I still don't understand what you mean. If you mean there have been instances of infringements of the right of free speech, and instances where hate speech, whatever it might mean, has gone untouched, I agree, I guess. Separate instances. But you want a case where both happened "in the same example"? You mean in the same legal case? How do you know if something was given a "free pass"? What does that even mean? More importantly if either of us could find such a case, what would it illustrate?

Duncan Gibbs
02-16-2016, 08:59 PM
Obfuscation and sophistry in the extreme, but let me address your points one by one.


I did.
I didn't. So this idea of "magical" power is a straw-man argument at best.


If they didn't, there'd be no point saying them.
Well! There's something we can agree on!


Beats me. Persuade me, and please start with explaining what you're talking about.
Speech either has power to persuade other people, or it doesn't. Ergo, the right of free speech is important for advocacy of political and social grievances, whilst hate speech has the capacity to endanger such a right, along with other rights. History is littered with examples of both modes of speech at work and being successful.


Because we have a bundle to worry about doesn't mean every approach is valid. And no one is advocating not tackling.
You appear to be doing nothing other than advocating an absolutist position on free speech as deus ex machina type of politic; one devoid of context, meaning and consequence. You've not set out any type of position on hate speech other than it's totally allowed under the umbrella of free speech. I disagree. The two are quite separate because of their intent. Free speech is there to enhance all the other rights within society, whilst hate speech is there to reduce such rights. The difference is subtle; I know...


Be that as it may, it doesn't touch the existence or the extent of the right of free speech.
Yes it does. The hateful yelling of the Phelps congregation is intended to effect a reduction, or elimination of the rights of the LGBT community. It is intended to reduce the rights of grieving families to peaceably mourn their fallen family.


I still don't understand what you mean. If you mean there have been instances of infringements of the right of free speech, and instances where hate speech, whatever it might mean, has gone untouched, I agree, I guess. Separate instances. But you want a case where both happened "in the same example"? You mean in the same legal case? How do you know if something was given a "free pass"? What does that even mean? More importantly if either of us could find such a case, what would it illustrate?
No. I don't "want a case" as you've outlined. I've given multiple examples where free speech has been violently suppressed. Others have given multiple examples where it's been suppressed via legal means, whilst there appears to be no real protection for free speech as set within the context of employment in the USA, which makes the whole issue of free speech as being "inalienable" a bit moot. You've stated that speech that may be made to support ISIL should be protected, and shown examples where neo-Nazis have been given legal protections to make hateful utterances.

What does it illustrate? It illustrates that the case outlined in the OP is a hill of beans in comparison to the violent and legal suppression of free speech being used legitimately in the USA, whilst hate speech has been, or "should be" given protection, which completely disabuses the illusion that "intellectual liberty" is somehow under grave threat in the UK and that it's somehow a sobering lesson for the USA. I argue, as have others here, that the situation is quite the reverse.

Have at it!

PeterSibley
02-16-2016, 09:09 PM
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/53/file-44871414-png/Blog-Related_Images/sam-cartoon.png

isla
02-17-2016, 09:24 AM
Isla, I don't see the legislature creating any new restrictions of speech in those cases. Students are not full citizens, seems to be the idea.

Except they are seen as landmark cases, so it was assumed before those rulings that young people had the same rights as adults, ergo they represent a new restriction.

For example, in Tinker v. Des Moines (1965)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_ District

Where the court found in favour of students (Aged 15, 13 and 11) because they were banned from wearing black armbands to protest against the Vietnam war, and to support the Christmas truce proposed by Senator Robert F. Kennedy..

The court's 7-2 decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Osborne Russell
02-17-2016, 03:06 PM
Except they are seen as landmark cases, so it was assumed before those rulings that young people had the same rights as adults, ergo they represent a new restriction.

Exclusion, I would say, but your point is taken. A new exclusion.

I disagree with it. I think compulsory education per se is arguably an infringement of liberty. Therefore I'm not real concerned about speech that interferes with its function, whatever that means.

The point is, those cases are just that, cases, as in judiciary, not legislature. Not the mere will of the majority, expressed on its own initiative, for its own purposes. Not necessarily even applicable in subsequent cases.

Osborne Russell
02-17-2016, 03:14 PM
Obfuscation and sophistry in the extreme, but let me address your points one by one.


I didn't. So this idea of "magical" power is a straw-man argument at best.

How do you know which words to ban? By recognizing the magic power of some to produce an effect merely by their being spoken.


No. I don't "want a case" as you've outlined. I've given multiple examples where free speech has been violently suppressed. Others have given multiple examples where it's been suppressed via legal means, whilst there appears to be no real protection for free speech as set within the context of employment in the USA, which makes the whole issue of free speech as being "inalienable" a bit moot. You've stated that speech that may be made to support ISIL should be protected, and shown examples where neo-Nazis have been given legal protections to make hateful utterances.

Your point and reasoning are completely opaque to me.


What does it illustrate? It illustrates that the case outlined in the OP is a hill of beans in comparison to . . .

Your Aunt Tillie. You're changing the subject. And, what do you mean, "the case outlined in the OP"? It's a simple question.

We could save a lot of time if you answered my question: what is the source of the right of free speech? Drop the "depends what country" BS. If it's a universal right it has a universal source. What is it?

Peerie Maa
02-17-2016, 03:34 PM
Your point and reasoning are completely opaque to me. This I can understand.;)






We could save a lot of time if you answered my question: what is the source of the right of free speech? Drop the "depends what country" BS. If it's a universal right it has a universal source. What is it?

You have been told often enough. Us, Homo Sapiens, we the people came up with it. We then had our governments write down what we thought was appropriate.

Osborne Russell
02-17-2016, 03:47 PM
You have been told often enough. Us, Homo Sapiens, we the people came up with it. We then had our governments write down what we thought was appropriate.

What, not whom. From what principle?

Peerie Maa
02-17-2016, 04:02 PM
What, not whom. From what principle?

Dunno, I was not there.
I can surmise that Protestant religious thinkers decided that it was right and proper to remove the (Catholic) middle men and go straight to the text of the bible and then be free to discuss it. Then came the battle about the Divine Right to Rule and ACB's reference to the Bill of Rights that gave the British parliament protected Free Speech. And so it developed and was expanded, just as for example Universal Suffrage developed slowly.

Where Osborne, do you think it came from, as it is obvious that it has not always existed? It certainly did not exist where the Catholic Church held sway.

Peerie Maa
02-17-2016, 06:27 PM
I think compulsory education per se is arguably an infringement of liberty.

I missed this first time around. Are you a lunatic all of the time, or just on Wednesdays?

isla
02-17-2016, 06:31 PM
Exclusion, I would say, but your point is taken. A new exclusion.

I disagree with it. I think compulsory education per se is arguably an infringement of liberty. Therefore I'm not real concerned about speech that interferes with its function, whatever that means.

What it means is that you are comfortable with restrictions on free speech when it is connected to a policy that you disagree with. A policy which has been a cultural norm in your country since the 17th century.




The point is, those cases are just that, cases, as in judiciary, not legislature. Not the mere will of the majority, expressed on its own initiative, for its own purposes. Not necessarily even applicable in subsequent cases.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. With reference to the cases I have mentioned..

In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (1965) was cited and discussed as a precedent.

In Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) both Tinker v. Des Moines (1965) and Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) were cited and discussed as precedents.

So once established any previous case can be used as a precedent to support or defeat a new case.

Duncan Gibbs
02-17-2016, 06:37 PM
And if a ruling is dismayed by enough people and/or their elected representatives then the laws can be changed to alter the continuing effect of such a legal precedent.

Osborne Russell
02-18-2016, 10:31 AM
What it means is that you are comfortable with restrictions on free speech when it is connected to a policy that you disagree with. A policy which has been a cultural norm in your country since the 17th century.

I don't get it. What policy do you mean? My country didn't exist in the 17th century.



So once established any previous case can be used as a precedent to support or defeat a new case.

1. If and when a new case comes up
2. If the precedent is followed.
3. Applies narrowly.

Such a process is a long way from a simple majority vote to adopt anything at all.

isla
02-18-2016, 06:37 PM
I disagree with it. I think compulsory education per se is arguably an infringement of liberty. Therefore I'm not real concerned about speech that interferes with its function, whatever that means.



I don't get it. What policy do you mean?

I don't understand what it is you don't get. You implied (above) that you don't approve of compulsory education. That is the policy I referred to. You also say that you are not concerned about speech which interferes with its function, which suggests that you are selective about what kind of speech you consider to be worthy of protection.


My country didn't exist in the 17th century.

Well if you are going to be pedantic (I assume you are American, correct me if I'm wrong) I will change "your country" to "the American Colonies"..

The first American schools in the thirteen original colonies opened in the 17th century. All the New England colonies required towns to set up schools, and many did so. In 1642 the Massachusetts Bay Colony made "proper" education compulsory; other New England colonies followed. Similar statutes were adopted in other colonies in the 1640s and 1650s.




1. If and when a new case comes up

Nine years after the previously mentioned cases..

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007): SCOTUS
At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, a high school principal saw some of her students unfurl a large banner conveying a message she reasonably regarded as promoting illegal drug use (it read Bong Hits 4 Jesus). Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, the principal directed the students to take down the banner. One student—among those who had brought the banner to the event—refused to do so. The principal confiscated the banner and later suspended the student. The Ninth Circuit held that the principal’s actions violated the First Amendment , and that the student could sue the principal for damages.



2. If the precedent is followed.

Then it went to SCOTUS..

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our cases make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969) . At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986) , and that the rights of students “must be ‘applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.’ ” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use. We conclude that the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it.



3. Applies narrowly.

Every time a kid waves a Marijuana banner in or around any school in the United States.



Such a process is a long way from a simple majority vote to adopt anything at all.

My intention was simply to show that exceptions and exclusions to the protection provided by the 1st, in addition to libel, slander and incitement, do exist, and that the 1st is not as absolute as some people believe.

Osborne Russell
02-19-2016, 01:37 PM
I don't understand what it is you don't get. You implied (above) that you don't approve of compulsory education. That is the policy I referred to. You also say that you are not concerned about speech which interferes with its function, which suggests that you are selective about what kind of speech you consider to be worthy of protection.

Sorry, what I meant to say was, I'm not concerned about this need of the state which supposedly justifies abridging the rights of students, IOW I deny that it's that vital.



. . . Bong Hits 4 Jesus. . . special characteristics of the school environment.’ ” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S. 260, 266 (1988) (quoting Tinker, supra, at 506). Consistent with these principles, we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech . . .[/I]

(emphasis added)



My intention was simply to show that exceptions and exclusions to the protection provided by the 1st, in addition to libel, slander and incitement, do exist, and that the 1st is not as absolute as some people believe.

That's never been in serious question.

As to the school situation, the rationale is that the kids are in custody, which means the custodian has the responsibility and thus the power to protect them. Of course it's the state that demands they submit to being held in the first place. IOW you can mess them around because they're kids. How could that be extended to curtailing the speech of adults?

I haven't read this stuff but if what you say is so, about the tradition of public education, it would seem to be another area to which the doctrine of free speech didn't extend in first place, like libel etc. Therefore it doesn't support the proposition that the legislature can invent new areas of non-protection. AFAIK this thing with schools is the most recently announced exclusion; announced with a claim of an extensive basis in history. As opposed to something like, "an elevator is a confined space and therefore, to protect the public safety, the legislature has power to forbid discussing politics in an elevator." You can't just make S up.

Speaking of legislature, if they have the power, why doesn't the executive? The executive is also an expression of majority will. Why bother with a law when you can just issue an order?

The powers of the state are limited. That's the principle of civil rights. Take away that principle and there are no civil rights.

Duncan Gibbs
02-19-2016, 06:58 PM
Sorry, what I meant to say was, I'm not concerned about this need of the state which supposedly justifies abridging the rights of students, IOW I deny that it's that vital.
But protecting hate speech, under the banner of free speech is. Got it!

And you pretend to lecture me about "argument by definition"?

isla
02-20-2016, 06:23 AM
There seems to be a bit of wrestling going on about the right way to approach speech in schools. These two statements seem to me to be contradicting each other..

Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,”

The marijuana banner case (Morse v Frederick) caught my attention because I worked in Scottish secondary schools (high schools) for 23 years before I retired. I wish I had a pound for every kid I had seen wearing a t-shirt with marijuana leaves printed on it, or a patch sewn onto a school bag. It's a popular motif in youth culture. Dare I say, it's nothing more than an attempt to look "Cool". Virtue signalling if you like. http://picture.idfshirts.com/newproducts/tshirt/big/a8039d12m.jpg




As to the school situation, the rationale is that the kids are in custody, which means the custodian has the responsibility and thus the power to protect them. Of course it's the state that demands they submit to being held in the first place. IOW you can mess them around because they're kids. How could that be extended to curtailing the speech of adults?

But these speech restrictions (including designated free speech zones) are common in colleges too, where the students attend voluntarily and are adults. To be fair, several of these free speech zones have been successfully challenged in court, but many colleges still retain speech policies..

In a report published this year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that 58% of 427 major colleges and universities surveyed maintained restrictive speech codes despite what Senior Vice President Robert Shibley called a "virtually unbroken string of legal defeats" dating to 1989. Even in California — unique in the nation for two state laws that explicitly bar free speech restrictions at public and private universities — the majority of campuses retain written speech codes, he said. Among 23 California State University campuses surveyed by the group, 12 were rated "red" for employing at least one policy that "clearly and substantially restricts" free speech.

Cal State L.A., for instance, was cited for barring electronic communications that would "offend" others, a policy the foundation said could bar speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-free-speech-20140702-story.html

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 02:27 PM
There seems to be a bit of wrestling going on about the right way to approach speech in schools. These two statements seem to me to be contradicting each other..

Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

At the same time, we have held that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,”


Yep.

If compulsory education is legal, then the state has custody of the children during school hours and is responsible for their physical security, at a bare minimum. As far as speech goes, I don't see any issues. The incitement thing obviously applies, and time and place things, i.e. you can't interrupt class . . . not by right, anyway.

As to content, I don't know. There is this instinct to protect the tender ones, one on the one hand, and the supposed policy of preparing them to think critically about the real world. Seems funny to teach kids about the real world by forbidding them to speak of it but what do I know.

I think the statement about "no automatically co-extensive" is wrong. There has to be a reason, i.e. an exclusion, to take away the right of free speech in every instance.


But these speech restrictions (including designated free speech zones) are common in colleges too, where the students attend voluntarily and are adults. To be fair, several of these free speech zones have been successfully challenged in court, but many colleges still retain speech policies..

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

My impression has been that the modern wave of anti-free speech in colleges started in the US and took a while to take root elsewhere. Makes sense if you consider: where are partially educated young people going to run into the brick wall first, and hardest? People who -- from whatever motives -- want to refine society with government as their instrument?

They cavil and rationalize, and from time to time develop the resolution to say, the rights of man cannot stand in the way of social progress.

John Smith
02-22-2016, 02:32 PM
Free Speech is a concept. Not all speech is permitted. Fraud and libel are illegal. Truth is a good defense to both.

I've found people tend to believe in the concept of free speech when they are thinking just in terms of the concept. However, in practice it is quite different. People can get fired for stating opinions that are not popular, while a political ad can tell outright lies without consequence.

As a nation, I don't think we've come to terms with this concept.

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 02:34 PM
But protecting hate speech, under the banner of free speech is. Got it!

Hate speech isn't protected. Free speech is protected.


And you pretend to lecture me about "argument by definition"?

Grammar too. Subject - verb - direct object. In "Hate speech is protected", hate speech is the object. Via the miracle of the passive voice, the subject isn't named, but in context can only be the government. The implication is that the government's object is to protect hate speech, which isn't true.

The definitions I use are decades if not centuries old and change slowly if at all. Completely orthodox, to the point of being used in school texts on government. Speaking of which, I know the schools didn't teach you people that jazz about the legislature defining free speech. Where did you get it from?

Duncan Gibbs
02-22-2016, 05:04 PM
Hate speech isn't protected. Free speech is protected.
...


Grammar too. Subject - verb - direct object. In "Hate speech is protected", hate speech is the object. Via the miracle of the passive voice, the subject isn't named, but in context can only be the government. The implication is that the government's object is to protect hate speech, which isn't true.
You've just pointed out the deficiencies of your own non-sentence, and you now pretend to lecture me on Grammar. You're not the sharpest stick in the mud are you!


The definitions I use are decades if not centuries old and change slowly if at all. Completely orthodox, to the point of being used in school texts on government. Speaking of which, I know the schools didn't teach you people that jazz about the legislature defining free speech. Where did you get it from?
The definitions you use are made up by you to suit the circumstances you find yourself arguing in. The state in Isla's example have clearly breached the students' free speech. But it's not free speech to you because it's not "vital." I would have thought that discussion and protest against the failed "War on drugs" was legitimate free speech in whichever context, particularly that of a student body. I point out all the times free speech has been violently suppressed, (The Bonus Army protests, Civil rights march from Selma, protests against racially motivated police shootings, and so on,) and you've made no comment on these examples, other than to say that you don't get what I'm saying. Then you post pictures of neo-Nazis in the USA marching with a police guard.

What am I to infer from all this?

I've inferred that free speech in the USA isn't protected (either from violent or legal suppression by government or business), but that hate speech is protected, and quite actively too. Phelps was famous for using the courts to silence his critics. I've also inferred that you really haven't the foggiest about what free speech actually is; why it's a human right; nor that you understand the relationship between free speech and all the other human rights; or that you understand the difference between hate speech and free speech. You obviously haven't the first clue about any of this and you're making it up as you go along. Arguing the point with you is an exercise in shovelling water, and so I couldn't be bothered any more.

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 07:35 PM
...


You've just pointed out the deficiencies of your own non-sentence, and you now pretend to lecture me on Grammar. You're not the sharpest stick in the mud are you!

It's your sentence.


I've inferred . . . that hate speech is protected . . .


The definitions you use are made up by you to suit the circumstances you find yourself arguing in.

Name one.



The state in Isla's example have clearly breached the students' free speech. But it's not free speech to you because it's not "vital."

No. The state's asserted interest in prohibiting is not vital, is what I clearly said.

I would have thought that discussion and protest against the failed "War on drugs" was legitimate free speech in whichever context, particularly that of a student body. I point out all the times free speech has been violently suppressed, (The Bonus Army protests, Civil rights march from Selma, protests against racially motivated police shootings, and so on,) and you've made no comment on these examples, other than to say that you don't get what I'm saying. Then you post pictures of neo-Nazis in the USA marching with a police guard.


We're speaking of the legal protection of free speech and the moral basis of the protection. The fact that the right is nevertheless violated doesn't prove that the right doesn't exist. Violation of a law doesn't make the law not the law. That would make law absurd. You want me to say these violations prove something else? What?

[QUOTE=Duncan Gibbs;4810248]I've inferred that free speech in the USA isn't protected (either from violent or legal suppression by government or business), but that hate speech is protected, and quite actively too.

Intentionally?


I've also inferred that you really haven't the foggiest about what free speech actually is; why it's a human right . . .

I've asked you many times why it's a human right, and you've given no answer.


. . . nor that you understand the relationship between free speech and all the other human rights; or that you understand the difference between hate speech and free speech.

You assert that there's a difference, but never said what it is or why it matters, especially, how does it affect the origin and nature of the right, i.e. how does "hate speech" mean that the extent of the right is less than it otherwise would be?


You obviously haven't the first clue about any of this and you're making it up as you go along.

Some very elementary research into the matter would show you that if anything the contrary is true. Test these against any source you can find:

1. The right of free speech is the unalienable right of man, arising from the fact of his existence, prior to all government, inseparable from life itself.
2. That being so, it cannot be limited by mere majority opinion.

Duncan Gibbs
02-22-2016, 08:32 PM
It's your sentence.
I didn't write "Hate speech isn't protected." You did, so it's YOUR sentence and not mine.

As for the rest of your post, it's so completely fact free and devoid of logic, I restate that I could not be bothered engaging with you any more.

I've given you answers and examples aplenty, that you've chosen to ignore them really isn't my problem.

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 08:34 PM
Ever hear of the idea of "human rights"? That we have certain inalienable rights as a result of simply being human beings? The idea has become quite fashionable in intellectual circles. It doesn't depend on the existence of any God, nor is it tied to the actions of any government. In fact, according to the premise of "human rights', government may only guarantee those rights, but not take them away.

IMO; a beautiful solution as to where our rights emanate.

More than fashionable; the foundation of our nation's claim to legitimacy.

RonW said it was "a stupid question" but obviously it isn't. The vote is even. Only 14 people can even bring themselves to declare, one way or the other. That's on a largely American forum.

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 08:35 PM
I didn't write "Hate speech isn't protected." You did, so it's YOUR sentence and not mine.

As for the rest of your post, it's so completely fact free and devoid of logic, I restate that I could not be bothered engaging with you any more.

I've given you answers and examples aplenty, that you've chosen to ignore them really isn't my problem.

What is the origin of the right of free speech?

Duncan Gibbs
02-22-2016, 08:54 PM
Human society: Where else would it come from?

Osborne Russell
02-22-2016, 09:07 PM
Human society: Where else would it come from?

The existence of the individual, prior to the existence of society. From birth.

Where in society would it come from? From society's need of self-preservation? That would imply that the existence of a given society is more important than the existence of a given individual. Once you start down that road, there's no stopping. You'll find yourself asserting a divine, or at any rate pre-individual, moral origin of society.