Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:41AM (12 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:41AM (#556555) Journal

    A general can lead only those that choose to follow. That choice is the real offense.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @02:03AM (9 children)

    It is indeed but the leader is not blameless. The blame game is most definitely not zero-sum.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:47PM (8 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:47PM (#556671) Journal

      With the choice to turn your back, what exactly is the leader guilty of? Think beyond the legalities for a minute. What did the leader do to compel his followers to act involuntarily? The incitement thing still doesn't fly. It only gives the guilty individuals the opportunity to hide in the crowd, the same way an executive hides inside his corporation to avoid prosecution. The amendment says: ...the right of the people peaceably to assemble.... Once the rioting starts, all bets are off. Each person who riots is guilty. That may or may not include the leaders. There are no leaders, only followers. Take out the leader, and they'll choose another.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @03:50PM (7 children)

        Let's have ourselves an extreme example then. You're literally saying Hitler should have been absolved of all wrongdoing because he never actually did anything but speak? No. When you give orders regarding or intentionally impart useful information in the furtherance of a crime, you are a criminal.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:28PM (6 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday August 20 2017, @06:28PM (#556738) Journal

          You should follow through on your example. How famous would Hitler be if nobody followed? And besides, we shouldn't go on and on about Hitler. He received an awful lot of support and encouragement from the outside above and below him when they had the chance to shut him down early on.

          Information *in the furtherance of a crime* is just another pretext, and it dilutes your ideas of "free speech", especially with the presently very fluid definition of "crime", watch the action or reaction. That is what you should prosecute. Thee guy who offensively draws first blood is the one to hang first. The triggerman is the bad guy.

          The power is not in the words, it is in us, to dispose of as we see fit. The contrary is learned helplessness. To control speech is to control thought, which of course is the intention. It is an appeal to instinct at the expense of reason. I'll grant that its expedience cannot be denied.

          We're back to free will again. Do we or don't we have it? Just say no so I can back off.

          Oh, and yes, there are situations where words necessitate immediate action with 100% certainty, but this ain't it.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @07:34PM (5 children)

            If the power is not in the words, why are you arguing?

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @08:08PM (4 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday August 20 2017, @08:08PM (#556772) Journal

              Got some free time before dinner... I'm not keeping you from anything, am I?

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday August 20 2017, @10:38PM (3 children)

                Just making a point. I believe you're the only person in all of history to ever argue that words are completely harmless.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 21 2017, @07:52AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday August 21 2017, @07:52AM (#556917) Journal

                  They are completely harmless. And nobody has scientifically proven otherwise. They have no intrinsic value of any kind. All responses to them have to be taught as a conditioned reflex. There is nothing about them that has the ability to compel action outside that conditioning, aside from maybe the decibel level.

                  And why am I arguing, you ask? Because I choose to. Need I another reason? I'm trying to get to the fundamentals that nobody else will even approach.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 21 2017, @10:09AM (1 child)

                    As a rebuttal, I offer every leader of any sort in human history. There's your empirical evidence. If you still fail to draw the conclusions that the history of your species all but screams, there's little I can do to help you.

                    You know I'm a big free speech guy but there's a huge difference between recognizing that the up sides of unfettered expression outweigh the down sides and saying there are no down sides.

                    --
                    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday August 21 2017, @04:34PM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday August 21 2017, @04:34PM (#557092) Journal

                      As a rebuttal, I offer every leader of any sort in human history.

                      None of that accounts for the choice to follow, but of course telling people to look in the mirror makes me the heretic. Expedience rules. I can only write it off as a conditioned rote response, but it needs to be challenged at every turn. If my little "crusade" is a solitary one, I can live with that.

                      --
                      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:08AM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 20 2017, @09:08AM (#556624) Journal

    Nonsense. You've heard of the draft. Sure, you can dodge the draft, but there are often some serious consequences, possibly including execution. Bottom line, a private soldier probably bears little or no resposibility for war crimes, because he is given orders, and little if any choice in the matter. The senior officers who give the orders, are also the same officers who will prosecute and punish any form of insubordination - and they bear almost, if not all, of the responsibility for war crimes.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:26PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday August 20 2017, @01:26PM (#556665) Journal

      Physical prosecution and punishment go way beyond speech and the context of this discussion. An electric cattle prod can incite a person, the words by themselves cannot.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..