Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the no-bill-of-rights-for-you dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too "political" for public display? If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately it's not. It's a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

[...] Earlier this year, following President Trump's repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nation's capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATA's advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions" or "intended to influence public policy."

You don't have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.

Source: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-literally-banned-dc

Also at NPR.


Original Submission #1   Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:57AM (5 children)

    I don't know that non-censorship is in the founding documents or not, I just know you'd have to get rid of myself, the Deucalion formerly known as juggs, and NCommander at the very least to even make the tiniest inroad towards censorship. Their feelings on the matter aren't any weaker or more nuanced than my own; I'm just the biggest loudmouth about it. We're none of us perfect, mind you, but between us we keep each other honest.

    I can objectively and logically demonstrate it for you if you like. If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it. If you cannot refute it, you cannot teach people why it is a foolish position to take. Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret. In an ideal world it would always go like this: Give me your best argument that I may kick the everlovin shit out of it publicly and destroy your ideology for all time.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14PM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @12:14PM (#552242) Journal

    I don't know that non-censorship is in the founding documents or not, I just know you'd have to get rid of myself, the Deucalion formerly known as juggs, and NCommander at the very least to even make the tiniest inroad towards censorship.

    Look, if there's nothing legally binding, as strong as it may be, the assurance is not a foolproof guarantee.
    Now, when it comes the S/N, I'm not actually asking for it - S/N alone is inconsequential for the larger ctx of the entire social phenomenon.

    But if you remember, this has been raised as an example for the larger context of the "underlying ideal" - without casting this ideal in a law, the ideal as valuable as the paper of a verbal contract - nice to have, but not a reliable reality (long gone are the times when two gentlemen shaking hand over a deal was all that was needed).

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @12:24PM (1 child)

      Legally binding isn't a guarantee either. The board can always vote out any rule they don't like because a majority of them are also the only shareholders. Granted it's more difficult than just ignoring or "interpreting" the First Amendment but if it's good enough for the government it's good enough for private entities.

      Which ties in with my point. Guarantees by the government not being worth the paper they're printed on, all you really have is the unwillingness of the people to put up with certain types of shenanigans. Thus it's absolutely crucial to this society that we maintain a majority of people who carry that unwillingness.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @03:33PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @03:33PM (#552358) Journal

        Legally binding isn't a guarantee either.

        I meant to say legally binding has better guarantees than just a verbal promise (maybe marginally better, but better anyway).

        Guarantees by the government not being worth the paper they're printed on, all you really have is the unwillingness of the people to put up with certain types of shenanigans

        I have a saying that I hold dear: "a cat can be skinned in more than a single way" (to any given problem, there ain't a single solution). So no, I can't believe that's "all you really have".
        What other solutions are there? I don't know, I'm not living in your country.
        For example, change the way you elect a government and/or what power the govt has, so that shenanigans are not even possible in the first place. Look, the Switzerland's direct democracy seems to make them less prone to govt misbehaviour.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday August 11 2017, @03:17PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 11 2017, @03:17PM (#552342) Journal

    I can objectively and logically demonstrate it for you if you like. If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it. If you cannot refute it, you cannot teach people why it is a foolish position to take. Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret.

    Are you serious? Or are you trying to slip it in as a "torpedo" then assert "it is called a joke, son"?

    Anyway, I'm going to treat it as serious. And with all my seriousness I'm going to say: this is misleading by omission, and it isn't objective one.

    1. incomplete - "If you cannot hear a position, you cannot refute it.". Set in equivalent form (a => b is equiv with !b => !a) "To refute a position, you need to hear it first"
      The underlying incorrect assumption: the positions are adopted by an individual only by "hearing" them.
      There are heaps of position which are formed in the mind people people without being heard as such from somewhere else: from delusions and prejudices to ideals and hope to modelling assumptions and hypotheses ones generate in the not-yet-published research the ones conduct by themselves
      This world is awash with the first ones, especially prejudices. Mathematicians are eating the latest on everyday basis. Most of the normal people jave

      To be completely correct, this part needs the following additions: "You cannot refute position without becoming aware of them" (which is natural, refuting a position is a conscious act). "To become aware of the positions of others, one needs to 'hear' them"

      Bottom line "incomplete":

      • free speech/liberty of expression is only necessary to assess the position publicly held by others, positions not known to you previously
      • free speech/liberty of expression is not sufficient to refute a (pro)position - those left aside include:
        - positions unconsciously held by the one meant to refute them;
        - positions not shared by others - liberty of speech does not mean obligation of speech
        - positions which cannot be refuted (objectively demonstrated or undecidable positions)
        - positions the would-be-refuter refuses to even cast a judgement over them, much less refute
    2. not objective - "Thus you unwittingly plant the seeds of destruction for everything you hold dear by allowing contrary notions to grow in secret.". Oh, wow!

      Holding a position dear is (highly) likely subjective, because "dear" means nothing for the soundness of that position (unless the only thing you hold dear is the adherence to sound positions; and if you say this, I'm not going to believe you - no one has such a dispassionate live without being dead)
      It is safe to bet notions contrary to everything you hold dear are growing in "secret" all the time - it's just that you don't hear them because the free speech doesn't mean "obligatory speech". And it will happen more frequently if your attitude is "Give me your best argument that I may kick the everlovin shit out of it"

      And wait, there's more! If the positions you hold dear are objectively unsound (and you may not beeven aware of some of your positions) then everything about the "we need free speech" part of your argumentation is useless. Your measuring stick will be "Does it fit my everlovin measuring stick? If not, it is unsound, no matter how objectively sound that point is"

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:50PM

      1) Incorrect. It is not possible to understand someone else's position without knowing what that position entails. You are not a mind reader, thus it must be spoken or otherwise communicated to you by them. Refuting a position you simply assume someone else has is disingenuous at best but more likely simply you intentionally building a strawman.

      2) Only the fact that not arguing against positions that oppose your own is allowing them to grow unchecked need be objective, which it is. The actual positions are irrelevant.

      Now I've objectively and logically shown you precisely why free speech is desirable. If you have further refutations you'd like to attempt, I'm happy to shoot them down as well.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.