SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A basic right in the U.S.A. has been the Freedom of Speech, yet of late it has been under heavy threat. United States Foreign Service Officer (ret.) and author of Hooper's War Peter Van Buren at We Meant Well blogs about Five Bad Arguments to Restrict Speech.
"Open discussion, debate, and argument are the core of democracy. Bad ideas are defeated by good ideas. Fascism seeks to close off all ideas except its own."
The blog entry itself is rather long and contains numerous links to supporting material. Here is the list; below the fold includes an elaboration on the statement and a summary. Read the blog itself for more details and exposition.
- The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
- What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
- What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
- Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
- Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
[...] 1. The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
The first fallacious argument used to shut down free speech is that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution only applies to government, and so universities or other entities are entitled to censor, restrict or shut down altogether speech willy-nilly.
Short Answer: Not really. Public funding invokes the First Amendment for schools, and free speech runs deeper than the Bill of Rights. It's as much a philosophical argument as a legal one, not a bad thing for a nation founded on a set of ideas (and ideals.)
[...] 2. What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
Some claim that certain conservative speakers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, who purposefully use anti-LGBTQ slurs to provoke their audiences, should be banned or shut down. Their speech is the equivalent of yelling Fire! in a crowded movie theatre when there is no actual danger, provoking a deadly stampede for the exits.
Short Answer: The standards for shutting down speech are very restrictive, and well-codified. Milo comes nowhere close.
[...] 3. What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
The idea that a university or other venue cannot assure a speaker's safety, or that the speaker's presence may provoke violent protests, or that the institution just doesn't want to go to the trouble or expense of protecting a controversial speaker has become the go-to justification for canceling or restricting speech. Berkley cited this in canceling and then de-platforming (rescheduling her when most students would not be on campus) Ann Coulter, whose campus sponsors are now suing, and New York University cited the same justification for canceling an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos.
Short Answer: Canceling a speaker to protect them or public safety is the absolute last resort, and some risk to safety is part of the cost to a free society for unfettered speech.
[...] 4. Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
There are no laws against "hate speech." A speaker can call people names, and insult them by their race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. What many people think and say is hateful. It is carefully thought out to inspire hate, to promote hate, to appeal to crude and base instincts. Indeed, that is their point. But there is no law or other prohibition against hate speech. Even restrictions on "hate speech" meant to prevent violence, often cited as the justification to restrict such speech, are by design extremely narrow.
Short Answer: You cannot restrict hate speech. Free speech means just that, with any limited restrictions content-neutral.
[...] 5. Free Speech Should Not Be Subject to the Heckler's Veto
Another argument used by some progressives is that the so-called Heckler's Veto is in itself protected speech. Someone may have a right to speak, but someone else has the same right to shout them down and prevent them from being heard.
Short answer: Free speech is not intended to mean whomever can literally "speak" the loudest gets to control what is said. The natural end of such thinking is mob rule, where Speaker A gets a bigger gang together to shout down the gang Speaker B controls.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:53PM (12 children)
You just made that claim in a venue that is specifically designed to encourage debate and admins who will never silence speech that isn't clearly and without question breaking the law. Personally, I wouldn't silence it even then but not doing so could get us shut down, so we go with the lesser of two evils.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:29PM (10 children)
Yes, you a have practical issue there, but the law is fickle and capricious, based solely on the whims of the majority. These days more people are becoming rabidly anti-1st amendment. When they become a majority we have a serious problem with majority rule itself. Some things should never be subject to a popular vote. So, does the minority fight back, or sit back? I still hope (against all odds) that we can develop an indelible internet that is impossible to censor. That should put an end to the argument altogether.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
Thankfully, the Venn diagram of gun ownership doesn't include many of them. Neither does the military. There's pretty much zero possibility of them winning a violent clash of ideologies with those of us who do value our rights.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:12PM (2 children)
But they can scare enough people into doing their dirty work for them non violently through legislation. It is those people following along that jump on the bandwagon you have to watch out for. What do we do when a majority becomes anti-freedom? Is there a peaceful way to stop them? Or do we have to *put down our books and pick up a gun*?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:06PM (1 child)
Obligatory observation about you both being nutjobs.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:38PM
Without any explanation there, I'll just have to assume you're conducting a drive-by with nothing really to say. Still working on the "infinite monkey theorem" I take it?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Troll) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:52PM (5 children)
No they aren't. It is the same sort of thing that has always gone on. One side or the other always whining the government should do something, or the government shouldn't allow that, etc., etc., piss, moan. Should it actually come down to something actually in danger of being done on a government level to restrict free speech, the vast majority wake up and oppose it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:46PM (4 children)
Funny, there wasn't much opposition to the Patriot Act, and various other gag orders passed at the time and more recently, certainly not enough to affect the vote. I believe you overestimate the liberalism in the US. It won't be difficult to get people to go along if you can convince them that only Nazis and other terrorists want free speech and privacy, which looks like is getting easier all the time.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:29AM (3 children)
Exactly.
It might be interesting to read The Turner Diaries again, substituting "Antifa" in suitable places.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:34AM (2 children)
Oh, you white supremacist, Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:09AM (1 child)
Oh, you illiterate shite, AC!!
Oh, wait. You think that I AGREE WITH everything I've ever read? If so, then fek, you're not even smart enough to be illiterate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21 2017, @05:55PM
No, I have a reasonable doubt that you CAN read, or that if you are able, you actually ever exercise such a skill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:42PM
Nowhere did I suggest silencing anything or anyone. If anything, I am merely guilty of stating the obvious regarding the general nature of modern debate in broad terms. I am 100% in favor of free speech.
Said favor does not require approval of hyperbole, just a tolerance, which is all I will begrudge it.