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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @05:55PM (6 children)
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)
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)
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
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
A place without blacks? I'm there.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday August 19 2017, @06:41PM
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
Your idea was called a "Thuisland" [wikipedia.org] in South Africa:
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).