Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 19 2017, @04:13PM   Printer-friendly

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.

  1. The First Amendment Only Applies to Government?
  2. What's Said May Provoke Violence in the Room (A Clear and Present Danger)
  3. What's Said May Provoke Violence Outside (Public Safety)
  4. Speech Can or Should Be Restricted Based on Content (Hate Speech)
  5. 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.


Original Submission

 
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 Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:39PM (31 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:39PM (#556417)

    the nazis, the fascists, the pureblood dictators, they all started with free speech and only later formalized slavery, shooting children in the streets and gas chambers. they're smart, they don't lead with the atrocities.

    why do americans ignore the facts of history? certain ideologies are absolutely intent on destroying society. they don't generally bother announcing going after your right to speak, they just go for your throat. think long and hard about this before you start clamouring to let them speak, because if they can take away the human rights of $out_group, they can take away your rights.

    the modern variants, e.g. confederate sympathizers, holocaust deniers, white nationalists, make no mistake - they want blacks and jews dead, or at best in chains with a gun to their head. pretending that it's ok because the threat isn't in the room right now makes you an accomplice.

    let them keep talking and you'll find that all it takes is one form with a checkbox to make you a member of an out group - in chains with a gun in your back, forced to dig a mass grave that you'll end up in.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=4, Informative=1, Overrated=2, Total=7
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:54PM (#556423) Journal

    Funny that the countries with more terrorists and in bigger danger of being a failed state are the ones with the least free speech and other individual rights. Freedom is key to security and prosperity. Restrictions on freedom only bring poverty and corruption, and real radicalization. The numbers speak for themselves.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:50PM (#556703)

      Surely you see that the ideology being preached by neo-Nazi movements would seek to suppress individual liberties for all, correct? Shouldn't we opposed something so anti-American as that as vigorously as possible? Why should we shield those who seek to destroy our values with our values? I don't believe in that. It might make me a lesser person but I'm not about to hand a convicted murderer a knife and trust he won't stab me with it when I turn around.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:55PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:55PM (#556424)

    America needs segregation. But not by race, as was attempted in the past, but by ideology. While not pleasant, forcibly relocate (just like we did with the native americans) anyone who doesn't meet the ideological qualifications for the new region to another one, hopefully with closer ideological leanings and similiar geographical makeup (mountain people to mountains, plains to plains, city to city, etc.)

    Give the white surpremacists a stronghold state or two, possibly reboundarying it with buffer zones for existing and unrelocatable groups (probably native americans, unless they were forcibly relocated from somewhere else and we can get them to volunteer and repatriate some of their original land to them.)

    Similiar with 'Black only' types, Jew-only types, etc. Given the sheer quantity of people in the US, it should be possible to give each group an 'exclusive' region, after much drama and paperwork, and then enforce those borders like they keep talking about doing to mexico. All those white haters can live in their own little clusterfuck and prove how superior they are to us. Same with the black supremacists. The Jewish supremacists already have Israel, but like the aforementioned groups as well as the Muslim supremacists they prefer to taint everywhere with their presence. Push each of these groups into their own region, do what is necessary to provide uniform supply of resources, so each group can't claim disenfranchisement because of oppression, and then let them live like they want, dealing with them harshly if they step out of bounds.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:04PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:04PM (#556427)

      Give the white surpremacists a stronghold state or two,

      A whole state, for 200 people? Hardly fair, or even workable. You would have a better chance with a couple thousand libertarians trying to take over a state, but that doesn't seem to be able to work, either.

      We could just ignore the TMB, while he goes off ranting about Nazis being muzzled, and women being able to speak. Free speech entails no obligation to listen.

      • (Score: 2) by http on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:42PM (2 children)

        by http (1920) on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:42PM (#556438)

        If you think it's only 200, you're in for a nasty surprise. There's more than that at your school. Or your kid's school, if your demographic goes that way.

        --
        I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:15PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:15PM (#556486) Homepage Journal

          Only if you go by the SJW definition of "racist". Which is to say "white or disagrees with me".

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @05:01PM (#556721)

          A place without blacks? I'm there.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:41PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:41PM (#556437) Homepage Journal

      Give the white surpremacists a stronghold state or two...

      There aren't enough of them to merit Rhode Island. There are less than 10k Klan members left in the entire US, for instance.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:56PM

      by fritsd (4586) on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:56PM (#556444) Journal

      Your idea was called a "Thuisland" [wikipedia.org] in South Africa:

      In the apartheid era in South Africa, the concept was given a different meaning. The white government had designated approximately 25% of its non-desert territory for black tribal settlement. Whites and other non-blacks were restricted from owning land or settling in those areas. After 1948 they were gradually granted an increasing level of "home-rule". From 1976 several of these regions were granted independence. Four of them were declared independent nations by South Africa, but were unrecognized as independent countries by any other nation besides each other and South Africa. The territories set aside for the African inhabitants were also known as bantustans.

      Have you ever heard of Eugène Terre-Blanche (nomen est omen) [wikipedia.org]? He was disappointed that the Apartheid regime wasn't strict enough against nie-blankes (non-whites).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:13PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:13PM (#556432)

    the modern variants, e.g. confederate sympathizers, holocaust deniers, white nationalists, antifa, BLM, Islamists make no mistake - they want blacks, jews or whites dead

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (#556447)

      This is the thing I find most interesting. I think it's a giant pink elephant in the room. This [wikipedia.org] is the list of the 25 fundamental goals of the Nazi party. Economically and socially they align extremely well with groups like Antifa. Our history records the Nazis as far right, but they were called National Socialists for a reason. The thing that separates them is, ostensibly, the racism. Yet increasingly these groups are now adopting, as you mention, 'white male' as their own version of the Jew. And for the exact same reasons. And they're the ones now working to normalize violence as part of their political platform and restrict freedom of speech - all while calling everybody who disagres with them nazis. The number of parallels is interesting if nothing else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:44PM (#556467)

        And they are sponsored by big capital too.

        Islamists also have eerie similarities with WWII Germany.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:14AM (#556550)

        The big difference is that Hilary didn't have anywhere near the charisma and integrity of Adolf.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:11PM (#556448)

    So we should turn our backs on freedom of speech--a fundamental right--because something bad could happen at some unspecified point in the future that's not even really caused by the speech itself but by people's actions. And this authoritarian drivel gets modded up?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:38PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @07:38PM (#556451)

      if you don't understand that speech and action are fundamentally connected, why discuss anything with you on any topic? you must be a whiz at business, what with making contracts and not having to follow through on them.

      everywhere in life but especially in politics, speech is how you find like minded people and co-ordinate with them to actually do things... and there are some things that should not be done.

      little pissbaby thinks commonsense rules gleaned from history are 'authoritarian'.

      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:19PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:19PM (#556455) Journal

        We simply hear speech; but we perform actions. In between is the mind, and in the process of deriving action from speech, the mind becomes responsible. That's us, the listeners.

        The laws only apply to actions, when they are well written.

        It is our actions we are, and should be, responsible for. This is why we need to think about what we hear.

        I have heard Hitler's speeches. I have yet to gas a Jew. Etc.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:25PM (#556461)

        if you don't understand that speech and action are fundamentally connected, why discuss anything with you on any topic?

        If you don't understand that freedom of speech is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs, then you're an authoritarian scumbag and our values are utterly irreconcilable. I'd say you'd be happier in North Korea.

        little pissbaby thinks commonsense rules gleaned from history are 'authoritarian'.

        Here's your "common sense": 'If we let group X speak, then at some unspecified point in the future this could lead to undesirable results. Therefore, we need to limit their ability to speak now.' This logic could be used to limit your, my, or anyone's right to speak based on completely unlikely 'what if' scenarios. Maybe you should self-censor before that happens.

        The problem with Germany was hardly freedom of speech; that's an overly simplistic way of viewing it. It's also too simplistic to believe that everything would play out the same way.

        But I'll be extremely generous and assume that your delusions are correct. So what? I value freedom over safety. I would rather take the risk of something undesirable happening in the future than limit people's free speech rights, because I am not an authoritarian coward. I would also oppose mass surveillance even if it stopped terrorism. You are the type of authoritarian coward who could be persuaded to discard any of your rights in the name of safety, since you lack principles.

        Like I said, you could have all the authoritarianism you want in North Korea; that country seems more in line with your values.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:10PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:10PM (#556508) Journal

        if you don't understand that speech and action are fundamentally connected

        So all your politicians do exactly what they say they'll do? >
        Further, a point of speech is to persuade others. History has shown that heavy handed punishment of speech by the authorities makes listeners more sympathetic to the target's speech.

  • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:13PM (5 children)

    by Sulla (5173) on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:13PM (#556454) Journal

    The problem is that we have communists on one side and neo-nazis on the other. If we attribute all the deaths from WWII the Nazis stand at a kek 50-80 million, the commies stand at 150-400 million between Russia/Cambodia/Burma/China.

    Who do you side with? When you say you don't like either, you become a target of Antifa.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:45PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @08:45PM (#556468)

      If we attribute all the deaths from WWII the Nazis stand at a kek 50-80 million, the commies stand at 150-400 million between Russia/Cambodia/Burma/China.

      Where are you getting these figures? Common, realistic estimates are about 20 million for Hitler and 100 million for 20th Century Communism.

      Who do you side with?

      Neither, they're opposing cheeks of the same asshole!

      When you say you don't like either, you become a target of Antifa.

      Correct. It was violence from the communists that enabled Mussolini and Hitler to seize power. [theepochtimes.com] Chomsky gets it. [dailywire.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:41PM (#556495)

        But in Boston, they were down to about 20. Power? This is why we cannot have white supremacy! All these white racists suck at math.

      • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:18AM (1 child)

        by Sulla (5173) on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:18AM (#556551) Journal

        For the Nazis I just gave them the entire 80 million from WWII on the highest estimates. I did this because if I didn't someone else wld try to refute my other numbers and say I'm a Nazi for underestimating. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties [wikipedia.org]

        Admitedly I haven't looked up the numbers on communist caused deaths in a decade or so, so I guess this is a good chance to see what the modern counts are.
        Cambodia - 1-3 million
        China Great Leap Forward - 55
        NK Famine - 1-3 if we want to count these
        Tibet annexation - .5 (some claim more, but I think part of the 55 above)
        Russian Revolution - 8
        Russian Famine 21/22 - 5
        Russian Famine 32/33 - 7
        Russian Gulag - 4.5
        Chinese Revolution - 17
        Just a few of the events but I ran out of time. Looks like ~100 so I was way off.

        --
        Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:49AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:49AM (#556559)

          You are a Nazi, AND you are underestimating.

            Or just making stuff up off of the intertubes. What do all these dead people you are talking about have to do with anything? Nazism is evil, even if it never harmed a fly, because it is dumb. Nazis are dummkopfs. There, I said it.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:50PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 19 2017, @11:50PM (#556527) Journal

      When you say you don't like either, you become a target of Antifa.

      Speaking of which - I'm yet to see a death caused by antifa yet there are heaps of deaths caused by white supremacists.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:01PM

    by shortscreen (2252) on Saturday August 19 2017, @09:01PM (#556476) Journal

    You seem to think that atrocities depend on ideology and are a recent invention in human history. Counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:00PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 19 2017, @10:00PM (#556504) Journal

    the nazis, the fascists, the pureblood dictators, they all started with free speech and only later formalized slavery, shooting children in the streets and gas chambers. they're smart, they don't lead with the atrocities.

    why do americans ignore the facts of history? certain ideologies are absolutely intent on destroying society. they don't generally bother announcing going after your right to speak, they just go for your throat. think long and hard about this before you start clamouring to let them speak, because if they can take away the human rights of $out_group, they can take away your rights.

    The facts are that words don't shoot children or build gas chambers. Let us keep in mind that a fair bit of the laws that were exploited by Wiemar Republic Nazis once they were in power were before used by the enemies of the Nazis to suppress those very Nazis (and the Communists who were also seen as a threat). What's much more ridiculous than the words and ideals of Nazis are people who pave the way for a Nazi tyranny in a failed attempt to fight them.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:49AM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 20 2017, @12:49AM (#556544) Journal

    You may be right. So, do you suggest that we hunt down Antifa members like we would hunt rabid dogs?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:40AM (2 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:40AM (#556583) Journal

      So, do you suggest that we hunt down Antifa members like we would hunt rabid dogs?

      How many deaths so far from antifa actions?
      How many deaths so far from white supremacists actions?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:02AM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:02AM (#556622) Journal

        Quality, not quantity.

        You're suggesting that because Texas documented x rabid dogs last year, and Oklahoma documented x/2 rabid dogs, that Oklahoma might stop destroying rabid dogs.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:42PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:42PM (#556668) Journal

          Quality,..
          You're suggesting that...

          Speaking of quality, I suggest keeping the dogs which haven't kill (yet) on leash until you can determine if they are of rabid "quality" or not.
          Meanwhile, keep a peeled eye on the dogs mob you know to have killed in the recent very past.

          And... yeah, if you (the law and order mob, not you runaway) pride yourself in doing your job, keep the two kind of dogs separated, otherwise your "quality" sounds hollow.

          Fair enough for yea, Runaway?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:30PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:30PM (#556740) Journal

    Free speech is one thing: incitement to violence is another. Let the stupid inbreed sheet-heads march all they want saying "I hate niggers" but as soon as one of them even suggests actual violence, come down on them like a ton of rectangular buildin'-things.

    A friend from college, one of the most dour humorless people I've ever met (think about who this is coming from here...) has uncharacteristically suggested fighting these fucks with mockery. Specifically coating them in glitter, trailing them with a tuba playing ridiculous music, and dressing in deliberately satirical versions of their costumes. He's also been tinkering with the idea of Bayesian poisoning, which he refers to as "shitting in an ocean of piss." I can only surmise he means infiltrating these groups and spreading false information about where and when rallies take place, gaining information for doxxing, etc.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...