The price and promise of free speech
America, where people freely exercise their right to say what they think, should be attuned to the potential for harm.
President Barack Obama stood before the U.N. General Assembly last week and spoke of an Arab Spring that “captivated” the world and affirmed America’s belief “that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values — they are universal values.”
He went on to deliver a gratifyingly strong defense of what is, perhaps, a uniquely American reverence for free expression — and, thankfully, to argue that even countries that do not accept it should not tolerate violence as a legitimate form of protest.
Few, if any, democracies go as far as the United States in protecting political speech that reasonable people can regard only as hate speech, e.g., “The Innocence of Muslims” video that inflamed the Muslim world.
September 30, 2012 - 8:04 AM
“A serious argument can be made about what limits should be placed on free speech and the societal damage hate speech can do, a debate in which the U.S. needs to be fully engaged.”
Would this “serious argument”…. “allow” me to disagree with your premise? Or, since “hate speech” is bad per se, (would I digress if I asked who makes the determinations & definitions?) would disagreeing with such “limits” be hate speech?
Your position is vintage Newspeak.
The most troubling issue to deal with when deciding whether something is hate speech and should be suppressed is the who gets to decide and what criteria are used when making the determination that something constitutes hate speech. How do we decide what is hate speech versus speech that is merely politically unpopular or offensive? All too often these days, political parties or advocates of certain issues proclaim any position contrary to their own to be hate speech. Hopefully everyone can see the danger inherent in allowing such a subjective determination of what constitutes hate speech.
So, if I say or write something that offends you, that’s MY problem? Perhaps becoming more tolerant towards others (such as not killing someone because they drew a cartoon of the prophet) is in order.
As I posted on an earlier thread, check out:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1184966448.shtml is a good write-up on “Content-Based Speech Restrictions vs. Content-Neutral Speech Restrictions”
**
SNIP
Under nearly every theory of free speech, the right to free speech is at its core the right to communicate — to persuade and to inform people through the content of one’s message. The right must also generally include in considerable measure the right to offend people through that content, since much speech that persuades some people also offends others. (There might be some limits on this right to offend, for instance if (1) the speaker is communicating to someone who has already said that he doesn’t want to hear the message, and (2) the speaker can stop speaking to this unwilling listener, while still continuing to try to persuade or inform other potentially willing listeners.)
Persuading and informing people may certainly cause harm; the listeners might be persuaded to do harmful things. But the premise of modern First Amendment law is that the government generally may not (with a few narrow exceptions) punish speech because of a fear, even a justified fear, that people will make the wrong decisions based on that speech: “[T]he people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments…. [I]f there be any danger that the people cannot evaluate the information and arguments advanced by [speakers], it is a danger contemplated by the Framers of the First Amendment.” Thus, punishing speech because its content persuades, informs, or offends especially conflicts with the free speech guarantee, more so than punishing speech for reasons unrelated to its potential persuasive, informative, or offensive effect.
SNIP
**
IMHO, the problem with “A serious argument can be made about what limits should be placed on free speech and the societal damage hate speech can do” is that far more damage can be done by the criminalization of persuading and informing people.
Some making such arguments are intentionally authoritarians using sophistry as a means of deception.
Others are just out of touch and self-centered, IMHO.
There is an old saying, “Some make things happen. Some watch things happen. Others haven’t got a clue what’s happening.”
IMHO, if one believes in freedom one need to be in the some-make-things-happen group. Otherwise… too late!
When it comes to the lose of freedom, I am reminded of Martin Niemöller famous quote:
**
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.
**
IMHO, the freedom to “speak out” is essential to all freedoms and to justice. Just think of the Civil Rights movement. Do you believe that we would be where we are today had freedom of speech been curtailed so as to not “inflame” others?
Any criticism of Christianity should be illegal and the Bigots that spread dangerous anti-Christian information should be jailed.
You might want to read this in today’s paper
http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/2012/09/pick-up-a-banned-book-at-the-library/comment-page-1/#comment-144792
Comment by Henry
Do we need a font to cover irony, tongue-in-cheek, parody, satire, sarcasm and any other form of “I’m not being literally serious” or “there is a discrepancy between what I’m saying and what is meant?
Or are you serious?
“Obama gave no quarter in its [free speech] defense: He reminded the world assembly [UN] of Americans’ willingness to die “to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with.”
What the piece fails to mention is that the Obama Administration put pressure on YouTube to yank the video which they did not do.
And at this moment, the filmmaker of “The Innocence of Muslims” video sits behind bars without bond for violating parole. Odd that he was arrested within 48 hours of Obama’s UN address. Just a coincidence? I wonder!
It would seem that Obama is sending a different message than what he proclaimed in his UN speech.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444712904578024682007326890.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion
The larger point of Benghazi and the dozens of other anti-American riots throughout the Middle East is that they were not so much influenced by the video which very few actually saw, but the hatred of America that Islamists around the world harbor and the utter failure of Obama’s Middle East policy.
Obama does not want to admit prior to the election is that anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, as witnessed by the riots, is higher now than when he took office and the video had very little to do with it.
The War on Terror is not over and al Qaeda and its affiliates are very much alive and well and have the capability to attack American interests and embassies around the world.
Obama may not be interested in the terrorists but the terrorists are very much interested in America.
I think what is blatant “sophistry” is the idea that no one can know what hate speech is so therefore we should do nothing about it.
The premise of trying to curb hate speech has not one damn thing toi do with an opinion of POV that is only “contrary to their own”.
Hate speech is speech that is offensive to virtually anyone who hears it. It is lies, distortions beyond any possible credibility and it is offense so outrageous that it will or seems meant to “incite” violence, hate or retaliatory action.
Free speech was Patrick Henry claiming liberty and stating his willingness to die for it. Free speech is Ron Paul saying that civil rights legislation was wrong because of property rights that should trump it. Free speech is Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, OWS, The TEA Party,
Free speech is not excrement called art, it is not screaming expletives and “Kill the sand n___ers”, on a street corner. Free speech is not calling gays or minorities offensive names to create a scene or provoke a fight. Free speech is not insulting and intimidating new neighbors from another country.
Free speech is “Dawn of the Dead” and “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “The Satanic Verses”, it is not “the innocence of muslims”. Free speech is “Coexist (in religious symbols”, not calling people “savages”.
Because you see the damage of fighting free speech with death in other countries, that is no reason to want no line for hate speech in this country. If people want “a race war”, or “a religious war”, the surest way is to support hate speech as the precious free speech.
This issue has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with decency. Political free speech is going to anger someone, but If you have to check your decency, values and ideals to uphold hate speech that should be a problem for us all.
An other example to add to the Greek example, which I posted on the earlier thread about the problem with content based censorship and religious offense laws:
http://tinyurl.com/9mrdnsb
**
Russian city cancels Jesus Christ Superstar performance over religious complaints
Published: 29 September, 2012, 23:20
Rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar has been pulled before a performance in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don following complaints from Orthodox Christians. The believers claim the production is in breach of a controversial new religious offense law.
A group of eighteen private citizens sent a letter to the administration of the large city in the south of the country ahead of a touring performance of the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, which premiered 42 years ago.
“In our view the image of Christ presented in the opera is incorrect. If they want to stage a play about the life of the Savior, they should first clear it with the local church authority,” one of the offended believers told Life News.
“Now that there is a law for these offenses, we have decided to appeal to the state for help.”
SNIP
**
This whole episode – including the President’s and editorials such as this one in the Roanoke Times – is a wonderful bit of dissemination.
The embassy was not attacked, and the ambassador killed, because of a stupid, poorly made, grainy video…there are many, many more pieces of anti-Islamic literature, books, articles, films, etc. that are better made, and much more likely to incite violence. To think that that crappy video pushed them over the edge is silly.
But no one has suggested, certainly no one in the west, that making such crappy videos is any abuse of the First Amendment, and no is suggesting that the makers do not have that right. It’s a non-issue.
But by making it the issue, it deflects from the real cause: that the Arab world is getting sick of a close to a century of western meddling. By pretending that they are rioting and killing because of a damned video allows the US to claim a high ground that doesn’t exist, and to pretend a foreign policy that has the US playing world cop and committing American lives and resources to causes that are not our own, is somehow morally justified. This ensures we will continue to gain and cultivate the enmity of just about everyone, and practically promises more reprisals.
Congratulations – Goebbels could not have done it better.
Re: Comment by 89Hoo — September 30, 2012 @ 9:07 pm
“But no one has suggested, certainly no one in the west, that making such crappy videos is any abuse of the First Amendment, and no is suggesting that the makers do not have that right. It’s a non-issue. [emphasis added]”
———————
How can you ignore:
http://tinyurl.com/d7prpzz
**
French court bans Christ advert
[Pic of ad]
France’s Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci’s Christ’s Last Supper.
SNIP
**
——–
http://tinyurl.com/8p8nkju
Different models on free speech as U.N. debates resolution on curbing ethnic, religious hatred
By Associated Press, Published: September 28
GENEVA — Amid the firestorm over an American film that mocks the Prophet Muhammad, the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva voted Friday on a resolution by a group of African and Latin American governments urging countries “to counter the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.”
The developing world nations are essentially telling the West: Curb free speech that inflicts wounds based on race or religion. But the West is far from uniform on how to balance free speech rights it considers sacrosanct with efforts to tackle the spread of racial, ethnic or religious hatred.
SNIP
**
——–
And well before the latest:
http://tinyurl.com/9su7jgo
Criminalizing intolerance
Op-Ed
At a United Nations conference this week, free speech is in the cross hairs.
December 12, 2011|By Jonathan Turley
This week in Washington, the United States is hosting an international conference obliquely titled “Expert Meeting on Implementing the U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18.” The impenetrable title conceals the disturbing agenda: to establish international standards for, among other things, criminalizing “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” The unstated enemy of religion in this conference is free speech, and the Obama administration is facilitating efforts by Muslim countries to “deter” some speech in the name of human rights.
SNIP
Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.
SNIP
**
—–
Do you consider the EU In the west?
http://www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1618FirstMeetingReport.pdf
**
European Convention on Human Rights
•Considered as general principles of EU law (European Court of
Justice – 1969)
•EU Lisbon Treaty (in vigor since 1.12.2009) provides for EU
accession to the ECHR
ARTICLE 9
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.
Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms
of others.
**
**
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA
on combating racism and xenophobia
• Adopted in 2008 by the Council.
• This legislation obliges EU Member States to penalise the
intentional public incitement to violence or hatred against groups
of individuals by reference to their race, colour, religion, descent
or national or ethnic origin. Religion should be understood as
broadly referring to persons defined by reference to their
religious convictions or beliefs.
• Hate speech, including on the basis of the religion or belief of a
person or a group of persons, must therefore constitute a
criminal offence in all Member States, which must be prosecuted
and, if the relevant national judge so determines, punished with
the penalties also provided for in the Framework Decision.
**
Other relevant EU legislation
• Audiovisual Media service Directive 2010/13/EU prohibits
content inciting to hatred on ground of race, sex, religion or
nationality in all audiovisual media services (broadcast and on –
demand services) whatever the means of delivery, including the
internet.
**
If you don’t think that the filmmaker was arrested at this time not for political reasons, then you are naive at best!
The Obama justice department knew where this guy was all along and picking someone up for parole violation is purely at the discretion of the prosecutors. He was not a flight risk and they could have got him at any time.
The Obama administration did not want him taking advantage of his new found fame and giving media interviews or worse, making a follow-up anti-Muslim video.
His arrest at this time was purely to silence him and placate the Muslims. The truth is that there is nothing that the administration could do to this guy that would appease the Islamists.
His arrest is the Obama adminstration silencing free speech, contrary to his UN address.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — September 30, 2012 @ 7:18 pm
“This issue has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with decency. Political free speech is going to anger someone, but If you have to check your decency, values and ideals to uphold hate speech that should be a problem for us all.”
—————
Sandi,
Your “decency, values and ideals” are not universally shared. Therefore, some of what is OK with one on those standards “is going to anger someone” else. Hence, your distinction does not hold up.
Careful 89hoo, there are far lwers that can’t and won’t handle that concept.
12 – more dissembling (in my post #11 I used the term dissemination – an incorrect term and usage, but there is no edit capability on this forum) on the part of the west – they don’t seriously think it will have an impact in terms of stopping riots and assassinations (well, no one with a brain things it will), but it sure diverts from the real reason, and offers a wonderful excuse to infringe on liberties.
15 – Mattyr – the Bushes would hardly label themselves as far left-wingers, and most neoCons have blinders to their Trotskyite roots and how close they really are to the CPUSA/Dem Party crowd. And Americans have been playing world cop for a century now, if you look at the War to End All Wars as the starting point.
Remember, it was the younger Bush that shamelessly dissembled by proclaiming that “they hate us because we’re free”, because the stupidest thing ever uttered by a US President. No, George, they hate us because we’ve been in their faces for many decades and continue to bomb the crap out of them. It’s called ‘blowback’ (pause while the 12-year olds in the room giggle). Nothing wins hearts and minds like obliterating villages. True to his words, though, Bush imposed a whole slew of laws, reds and agencies to curb the freedoms we enjoy…ironic, no?
#9 Please keep working on your list:
FREE SPEECH HATE SPEECH
—– —–
—– —–
—– —–
—– —–
When you have every possibility defined & submitted, we will codify into law and start picking up the troublemakers.
Thank you for your dilligence;
O’Brien.
—–
—–
—–
First of all 89Hoo, to pretend “a damned” and damnable video had nothing to do with protests in several countries and cities is just not honest. Can anyone prove it was not the match the terrorists needed for cover? No, you cannot. It was obviously offensive because they told us it was. When it was translated the cable to Cairo warned of the protests to come.
Always ready with the big Nazi scare lines. What is it with you folks and extremes. We do not cut off the hands of thieves nor the tongues of hate mongers, but acknowledging there is a line is the only way to preserve our values and the value of our free speech When free speech is the same as pornography and filth, there is no value.
Second, Dave Hicks, I did not say word one about “my” decency, values and ideals being the bar. You need to pretend there is no bar, no measure, no universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation and again, no, you cannot, because there is.
John R, no one has alleged that anyone did not know where the “film maker” was. His parole violations of using an alias and using the internet were not known before this film made news. Is the right wing media seriously that lacking, or is it you?
I cannot fathom the idea that smut is art, that hate is sanctioned, that insult, incitement, and immorality must be allowed for us to have free speech. When our rights are used to cover and allow filth, hate and demoralizing speech, it is an abuse of them. It goes against the values, decency and ideals of this entire nation to uphold and even celebrate some of the things we do.
Do you think possession of child pornography should be a crime? Why?
Do you think possession of a “snuff film” should be a crime? Why?
Why are lies in a court room perjury and lies on a militia website free speech?
Why is it against the law to vandalize a mosque or church but not against the law to put lies, insults and deliberate incitement about either on the internet?
When there is no bar, there is no value.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 1, 2012 @ 11:57 am
“You need to pretend there is no bar, no measure, no universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation and again, no, you cannot, because there is.”
—————–
Sandi,
If there is a worldwide or universal agreement on decency, values and ideals; please explain all the turmoil.
Please explain not just the conflicts in the developing world, but also the other cases, which I have posted to this and various threads: a French court banning Christ advert; Greece arresting an man for blasphemy for a play on words about a saint’s name; a Russian court cancels Jesus Christ Superstar following complaints from Orthodox Christians that it is in violation of a religious offense law, the SCOTUS cases for which I have provided links, etc.
Explain the AP observation, “But the West is far from uniform on how to balance free speech rights it considers sacrosanct with efforts to tackle the spread of racial, ethnic or religious hatred.”
If there is a worldwide or universal agreement on decency, values and ideals, why hasn’t the POTUS and/or Sec. of State brought that fact to the forefront in their speeches? If there is a worldwide or universal agreement on decency, values and ideals, where is it proclaimed in the UN struggles with the issue? Surely if it existed the world leaders would know about it.
I don’t have to pretend anything. I just need to observe. OTOH, if you claim a “worldwide or universal agreement” it is incumbent on you to cite where that agreement is documented.
#18 – “Why are lies in a court room perjury and lies on a militia website free speech?”
You goofed, Sandi. MSNBC is not spelled “militia website”.
#18 “Always ready with the big Nazi scare lines. What is it with you folks and extremes.”
This from the same person who 4 days ago posted:
“When we read about a child named Adolf Hitler, see two adorable looking girls singing white supremacy songs, happen upon a Phelps Klan protest, hear right wing dogma or ‘sex,drugs and rock-n-roll’ coming from a child’s lips or meet a teen who does not understand reproductive events, it is hard to buy that society and the great Satan “the state” have no stake in that child who will eventually grow up.”
As to; “Do you think possession of child pornography should be a crime? Why?
Do you think possession of a “snuff film” should be a crime? Why?
Why are lies in a court room perjury and lies on a militia website free speech?
Why is it against the law to vandalize a mosque or church but not against the law to put lies, insults and deliberate incitement about either on the internet?
All of these acts are already crimes. The only need to paint them in ideological PC terms is to restrict speech & (supposed) thought by the state, toward some false utopia.
A; “universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation….”
Now that’s progressive. Try frontal labotomy. Quicker, cheaper & irreversible.
Re: my last
I should have pointed out that this thread discussion is about the world not just “in this nation.”
However, if you want to redefined the discussion to just this nation, explain the plethora of court cases? How do you explain the divisiveness of various “demonstrations” political, religious, etc. Tell be about agreement on issues like the role of state v. church; picketing abortion clinics with various pictures, displaying the on campuses, etc.
Dave Hicks, what part of this sentence speaks to or for “worldwide or universal agreement”? I said, verbatim: “You need to pretend there is no bar, no measure, no universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation and again, no, you cannot, because there is.”
I am not discussing “free speech” in other countries, certainly not in the nations that have never had it and have no real concept of it, they are not the issue in this argument. Maybe you need to “observe” more closely.
Jim Lucas, caring about the well being of children is neither extreme, nor Nazi” behavior.
WHY are they “already crimes”? Are they not “speech”? Is it not “free”?
I still do not believe the commentary nor the thread is about free speech all over the world and why would it be? We have no more effect on the laws in Karachi than they have on the laws here. I was certainly not speaking of the world.
I have no need to “explain the plethora of court cases” as that has no bearing where there is no law. I also do not need to “explain the divisiveness of various “demonstrations” political, religious, etc”. Such divisions will exist regardless of laws curtailing hate and inciting speech. We do not “agree” on all of the laws we have now, why do we all need to agree on every free speech law (if any) that comes to pass?
You want the cart before the horse. Until there is a bar, a legal limit, a threshold that any of them have to reach, discussing them individually is a waste and serves no purpose. We know beyond doubt, I will not be writing or passing any law on the subject.
Why is anyone allowed to harass a church, a funeral, or an abortion clinic? You cannot assault a person without repercussion, why can you assault an organization without it? Oddly, the same people who protest outside an abortion clinic and yell out at people or hold hurtful signs are the first to demean and disdain the PETA protests or war protesters. We are not nearly as universally agreed on free speech as some want to pretend.
#23 No, Mrs. Saunders, they are:
sexual assault
murder
perjury
vandalism/destruction of private property
They are not protected by “free speech” any more than using a gun to commit crime is protected by “the right to keep and bear arms”.
I submit the parallel to point out your solution seems (to me) to denigrate both rights when it suits your, IMO, mis-guided view of what the world is, should be….and can be.
Hitler & the Nazis (you brought them up) were quite sure they were using the collective state to create a better world.
Re: “I am not discussing “free speech” in other countries, certainly not in the nations that have never had it and have no real concept of it, they are not the issue in this argument.”.
—————–
Why not? Is this whole discussion about us limiting free speech because of what others think — be they living here or abroard?
Look at the thread OP and the editorial
SNIP
America, where people freely exercise their right to say what they think, should be attuned to the potential for harm.
President Barack Obama stood before the U.N. General Assembly last week and spoke of an Arab Spring that “captivated” the world and affirmed America’s belief “that freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. These are not simply American values or Western values — they are universal values.”
He went on to deliver a gratifyingly strong defense of what is, perhaps, a uniquely American reverence for free expression — and, thankfully, to argue that even countries that do not accept it should not tolerate violence as a legitimate form of protest.
Few, if any, democracies go as far as the United States in protecting political speech that reasonable people can regard only as hate speech, e.g., “The Innocence of Muslims” video that inflamed the Muslim world.
SNIP
**
Re: My request for an explanation of “the plethora of court cases”, in this country; “the divisiveness of various “demonstrations” political, religious, etc”, in this country; the lack of “agreement on issues like the role of state v. church; picketing abortion clinics with various pictures, displaying the on campuses”, in this country; etc.
If there is “universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation” why the above? If there is “universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation” why the need for a new law?
Still waiting!
BTW, while you are at it, please address the conflicting opinions on the RT blogs and your alleged “universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation.”
The bounty on the jailed video journalism who made the Muslim video is now $300,000.
Check again Jim Lucas, I did not bring “Goebbels” (ergo Nazi/Hitler) into this discussion “first”.
How is possession of child pornography “sexual assault”? How do you sexually assault anyone by viewing it? Why is that not free speech?
How is possession of a snuff film “murder”? Unless it is the killer watching his work, what makes it “murder”? Why is that not free speech?
BECAUSE WE SET A BAR! We MADE it illegal. We MADE it a crime. Because it offends our universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation!
Why are lies on a militia website free speech? Does no one think they are indecent? Does no one think they can or do incite? Does no one think they are immoral.
Why is it “vandalism/destruction of private property” on THINGS and “free speech” to put lies, insults and deliberate incitement about a mosque or church or religion on the internet? You cannot do it to a person, why can you do it to a group?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO BAR! Apparently these things do not matter to our universal agreement on decency, values and ideals in this nation.
I say they should.
Nit pick all you want. It is stupid to pretend some “plethora of court cases” means anything. We are a litigious society. What does that have to do with whether we should restrict free speech more than we do? Those agreements will not be settled by future laws. Disagreements, protests, and division will not be ended by free speech restrictions. If you have a point, make it and stop asking arcane and irrelevant questions of how a law not even made or being discussed will affect them.
Maybe those cases are BECAUSE we do not have better, more clearly defined and understood laws. A law or laws restricting free speech or kinds of speech is not a “come to Jesus” end to all disagreement and strife. Like the cases of the internet bullies and kids taking their life, these things evolve and they need to be examined in the light of jurisprudence and the morality of our nation.
“I gotta right” is not the be all and end all.
#29 Not even close. The assault is in the original depiction. It is not a “snuff” movie if no one is snuffed. Your attempt to equate direct vandalism & physical destruction to “speech” belies your “point”.
Again, Mrs. Saunders….what is this “universal” (but not?) “bar” (but not?)….who determines such, on what basis, and enforced by whom & on what authority?
I brought up Goebbels, as an example of someone who excelled at dissembling the truth. And again, he would be proud of what SHOULD be a discussion of US foreign policy being turned instead to one of how we should limit First Amendment rights. Turn a legitimate discussion into an opportunity to curtail basic human liberties. And I stand by that comparison…this discussion continues to confirm it.
Jim Lucas, you not having answers does not make me wrong. Not even close! FYI, “universal” is qualified with “in this nation”, do try to keep up.
89Hoo, where the hell do we get off discussing foreign policy in terms of free speech? We cannot even agree on what it is. In neither thread is that something we can with any integrity, discuss.
“Dissembling” and Goebbels were your additions but neither is truly addressing our foreign policy either. Unless, like him you call what we say “the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous” and believe that the writer of the commentary was attempting to “Conceal one’s true motives, feelings, or beliefs“.
Obama’s words merely mirrored our conflicted and muddled “standing” on the issue. They were not lies, certainly not “big lies”. And I do not see it as propaganda to admit the truth: “A serious argument can be made about what limits should be placed on free speech and the societal damage hate speech can do, a debate in which the U.S. needs to be fully engaged. The harm words can do often is unique to a region or nation, deeply rooted in its history. In a world of instant, unfiltered communication, all nations need a greater understanding of each other.”
If you want to keep trying to explain what you meant, feel free. I believe I have been clear and on topic.
#30 Mrs. Saunders….please make up your mind. Are you looking for changes in the law? Or some nebulous (mandated?) “universal” “bar”?
In either or both, what do you advocate?
The only thing I hear you saying is that the Constitution is expendable any time you think it offends (you)….and/or your “ideals”.
Sandi, I don’t have a problem with most if not all the situations you describe as speech that should not be protected. My concern is when partisans deem things hate speech because the speech disagrees with their position. And despite your assertion above to the contrary, it happens quite frequently. In fact, it happens in these very threads. People who say they believe Obama’s policies seem to ascribe to the socialist doctrine are dismissed as engaging in fear mongering and hate speech. Say you don’t like Obamacare and people start the talk about how all the opposition to Obama’s agendas are borne from a subconscious racism or hate. People who say they support traditional marriage are accused of “hating” homosexuals. People who say they don’t approve of abortion are accused of hating and having declared war on women. Like it or not, the hate speech tag is too easily hung on political dissent or disagreement.
That’s what concerns me. I have no issue with outlawing speech that calls for a race or religion to be wiped from the face of the earth. I have issue with allowing partisan politics to arbitrarily declare something hate speech because they don’t like it. Whether they realize it or not, that type of suppression as big a threat to freedom as is hate.
Forming laws that we deem appropriate is not remotely saying “that the Constitution is expendable” regardless of what you “hear”. Perhaps that precedent was set when the folks who wrote the constitution held slaves and spoke of rights as only pertaining to free white men, or maybe it was the fact that they immediately set about making laws in addition to or even seeming in conflict to the constitution. Who knows, but we have been at it a while now and whining about the dangers to the constitution from laws meant to assure an orderly society is futile.
The entire world will survive without foul movies like “innocence of Muslims”, and lies from “Sovereign Citizens”.
The credibility of the information on the internet is seriously in question and yet many believe it all. It should matter if you lie, even when not under oath. It should matter when you believe your lack of religion gives you carte blanche for “Piss Christ” or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a pedophile.
Your right to swing your fist has to end before it connects with my nose and your right to hate speech has to end before it connects with either the imbeciles who will believe you or the people who do not deserve to suffer your bile.
I would get that selective and erroneous hearing looked at, it might let you foolish when I have not once said this was about what “offends me” and what are only “my ideals”.
Mrs. Saunders, dodge as you wish & pick your universe.
Still waiting for definitions, authority & application in the universe, galaxy, solar system, planet, country, state……your choice.
You introduced me to a pretty good word/concept a while back. Obfuscation. Thank you.
33 – Sandi, my comments were not directed at you, specifically, but to the direction of the conversation in general.
Here is my point: Americans are being killed overseas for one reason, and one reason only: because they are there, and because the US has been meddling in foreign affairs for close to a century now. It’s not about a stupid movie, and it’s not because we are free.
But here we are discussing speech that should be protected and speech that should not. Yes, Goebbel’s statement absolutely applies – the big lie is that they hate us because we are free, or because some nutcase made a crappy movie. Again: THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE INSIST ON PLAYING WORLD COP, AND ON STICKING OUR NOSES WHERE THEY DON’T BELONG.
Of course they target our ambassadors, and of course their security forces kill our soldiers (security forces trained by us…they were smart enough to wait for us to train them and arm us)…we make it very easy for them.
Here’s an interesting quirk of physics for you: no one who is not in Afghanistan can be killed in Afghanistan (Iraq, Libya, etc). I didn’t believe it either, but my buddy Angus – a doctoral candidate in physics at the University of Maryland – demonstrated for me. I’ll repeat: no one who is not in Afghanistan can be killed in Afghanistan. If you are doubtful and if are interested, I’ll have Angus explain it to you.
But I’m sure if we curtail a few 1st Amendment rights here in the US – irrespective of whether we agree on definition or not – they’ll quit shooting the American troops occupying their cities, telling them what they can and cannot do, and generally being a pain in the ass.
But no one in either the neoCon/GOP or CPUSA/Dem Party camp has suggested that maybe we SHOULDN’T be playing world cop, and maybe we SHOULD bring the troops home, and may we SHOULDN’T be meddling in other nations’ affairs. Such would be heresy…so to keep that suggestion from being brought up, our President says we may need to curtail some free speech. Just like Goebbels drew it up.
Chuck, if there existed clear laws and precedents, people might not be so quick to “deem” or proclaim something “hate speech”. Not having that bar and definition is part of the problem. The law(s) would decide how far they go and like everything else, me or you “saying” something is “hate speech” would not make it so.
In general, political speech that is not threatening, inciting, or outright blatant lies cannot be considered hate speech and deeming it so demeans that which is truly hate. I know I have been guilty of that, but this conversation has helped me hone in on what is real hate and what is merely crass, boorish and telling. I will make every attempt to not use the term except in cases where it is real. It has muddied the waters, on that I agree. The laws must not do that, which means most of the speech you discuss is going nowhere.
The guy with the monkey and Obama mask is offensive, childish, disgusting etc, but it is not hate speech. I do not believe that restrictions on vile speech “ascribe to the socialist doctrine” but I do not believe those advocating free speech for anything are conservative either. Unless this is used as a political tool, it is not a left and right issue, it is a decency and standards issue.
I consider “fear mongering” to be a legitimate political critique.
I do not think that saying “opposition to Obama’s agendas are borne from a subconscious racism or hate” is hate speech. I do not think “People who say they support traditional marriage” and leave it at that “are accused of “hating” homosexuals”, but even so, that is not “hate speech” unless you start with the pejoratives and hell fire for people daring to support equality.
Again, now or when we finally realize the problem is big enough to deal with, we know there is a line and when it is crossed, people get called out. Sure, the monkey in the Obama mask can be called racist. So can a diatribe saying he is a Muslim (recent political caller on tape) or that he will “call in the UN troops”, “wasn’t born here”, and other insane lies.
It is not “People who say they don’t approve of abortion” it is the people who want to outlaw it and press into a private decision that get called out, which is not hate speech. Neither is saying they “declared war on women”.
I grant you that “hate speech tag is too easily hung on political dissent or disagreement”, but that, except for the most vile and egregious filth and lies, is not really hate speech.
I also would fight and I do not believe people would accept partisan speech laws anymore than they do other laws which seem partisan. That would kill all the potential for setting the bar, and leave us where we are, or worse.
89Hoo, we are certainly having two different conversations. Nothing we do about free speech is going to change the historical facts of why they hate us. I never even hinted it could or should. This is not about them.
Nothing about our allowing bile and vile to be normal discourse is going to change the opinion of the world. That is not the goal or the point.
They have legitimate reasons to hate us, they do not have legitimate reasons to kill us, especially those trying to help their country. We will no doubt leave and allow the people who want and need our help to be again under the thumb of oppression because we cannot help people who cannot help themselves.
I do not believe I gave any impression that this effort had anything to do with foreign policy. Nothing could be further from reality. They do not give a flip about our rights or how we exercise them. They do care that we do not sanction the hate in that film. But that is human decency not foreign policy.
Sandi,
In your thinking, if “a” says something derogatory about a religious figure that is important to “b” and “b” takes offense to the point of violence, wherein lies the hate / the crime?
Is the factual truth of what “a” said a factor? Who gets to decide the factual truth?
—–
In your thinking, if “a” says something about religious beliefs of “b” and “b” takes offense to the point of violence, wherein lies the hate / the crime?
Is the factual truth of what “a” said a factor? Who gets to decide the factual truth?
—–
In your thinking, if “a” says something about the gender, sexual preference, race, ethnic origin, politics, etc of “b” and “b” takes offense to the point of violence, wherein lies the hate / the crime?
Is the factual truth of what “a” said a factor? Who gets to decide the factual truth?
—–
In all the above, if “b” takes offense but not to the point of violence wherein lies the hate that you would make a crime?
—–
If it has nothing to do with “b” taking offense or with action or reaction by “b”, how do you define the crime?
Again, this issue is not simply about someone (a, b, or c) “taking offense”. That is an open ended road to nowhere. Did you just see Michael take offense because he thought John R has suffered a personal attack when Gdad said that to John R, “Everything’s a “coverup”? Taking offense is not the operative outside of whatever civil court action someone might want to undertake.
In free speech laws, just like all of our other laws, the offense is considered to have been against society, against us all. Which is why the prosecution is the state/federal and not your lawyer against my lawyer as in civil cases.
What is it about that you are stumped over? People take offense at the drop of a sigh. That has no bearing on the discussion IMO. If we had more free speech laws, those egregiously offended or those who saw the offense, can complain to the police as we do for all other crime and the courts will adjudicate. Why are you acting like this is another system we are speaking of? People will still be “taking offense” and offering offense till the end of time, that is not the same as committing a crime of offense once we establish parameters for the offense. I do not see that happening, but I can clearly see the need for it.
Re: Comment by Sandi Saunders — October 2, 2012 @ 3:35 pm
“In free speech laws, just like all of our other laws, the offense is considered to have been against society, against us all. Which is why the prosecution is the state/federal and not your lawyer against my lawyer as in civil cases.”
——————
Then why do you raise “slander and libel laws” laws on the other thread?
See: #26 @ http://tinyurl.com/9fhohh2
“There are already slander and libel laws as well. So do not continue with the notion that there are not some “universal” agreements on restriction of some free speech already. Or that they were not for good reason.”
You need to keep your arguments in line. Are you arguing for expanded criminal or civil sanctions?
Arguing in two threads on the same subject is exhausting, but I do not believe I am being unclear nor are my arguments not “in line”.
Since the free speech laws I want examined could be left to a civil court with a plaintiff taking on the perpetrator, or whether they rise to the level of criminal activity and the government takes them on remains to be seen, does it not?