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: 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.