What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

[Checkmite]

Okay, maybe some people get it; I have so much trouble finding them, though.

Backstory first (hey, remember who's starting this thread!).

I was talking with this guy at work, who is an idiot. He is a self-styled anarchist, which (he is adamant about pointing out) doesn't mean he wants "no authority", but self authority. He also wants there to be no property and a whole bunch of other things, which I don't mind, because such things will never happen during my lifetime. But he did say something which sort of ticked me off, as it does whenever I hear it from anybody.

He was explaining to me how America has never had "free speech". I asked him if he meant the yelling "fire" sense, and he said no - but any sense. I asked him to elaborate, and he brought up this recent case of the Dixie Chicks. When the Iraq war thing happened, the Dixie Chicks happened to speak against it during an interview or something, and a lot of people went into a hate craze and started breaking their CDs and stuff. It's just another case, this guy explained, where anyone with a "dissenting opinion" is shouted down, sometimes quite loudly, by majority, who of course are all sheep. Thus, the First Amendment's speech protection is a sham, he concluded.

What a complete and utter fool. I didn't laugh at him, but I did call him a complete and utter fool (I suppose I created a hostile work environment for him - oh well). I don't know why so many people make this argument and similar arguments, but it's just plain dumb - don't use it.

The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting speech. It makes it illegal for the government to arrest you, or otherwise take special steps to prevent you from expression, because of your opinion or views. That's it - the First Amendment does not restrict any other entity. If you call your boss an ass, he can fire you for it. And if you say something I think is stupid, I can call you on it.

The Dixie Chicks were not arrested. The government did not forbid airing their critical interview. At no time were their First Amendment rights violated. So many people seem not to understand that the same First Amendment which allows you to call the President a moron is the same Amendment that allows someone - or lots of ones - to call you an idiot for it. Anybody can respond any way they desire. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences. If you want to demand that people should have the right to speak their mind without having to hear any flak at all for it, you're actually restricting speech (how's that for a conundrum?).

Now, there are genuine First Amendment issues. From what I hear, the whole Howard Stern thing might be one. But that has nothing to do with my argument.

Has anyone else heard anybody try this "oh, you're denying my freedom of speech" bullshirt? Doesn't it get seriously aggrevating?

[JAR]

I agree with you Joshua. That guy you just spoke of has a twisted sense of what anarchy is. He's doing what's called expanding the definition, and in this case he is expanding the definition of what suppression of the opposition is.

[Nasarius]

There are instances where it can be argued that corporations are restricting freedom of speech, such as media monopolies (let's forget the First Amendment for a moment and talk about the ideal), but yes, your example is a ridiculous one.
If you say something I don't like, I am completely within my rights to call you an ass and boycott anything you might sell. That's just active dissent.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'd say there's more free speech in the USA than anywhere else. And free speech does include the freedom to be offensive. Of course death threats and the like are excluded.

Free speech does not preclude people from reacting to your offensiveness. Nor does it require anybody to give you a platform from which to speak.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Nasarius
There are instances where it can be argued that corporations are restricting freedom of speech, such as media monopolies ...

What with the internet, who gives a damn about "media monopolies"?

The influence of such is exaggerated, often by people (no not you) who want the monopoly for themselves.

Speech is free and getting more free, despite the best efforts of governments and corporations.

There is much bad news in the world, but this is one positive trend!

[CFLarsen]

You have a right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. You do not have a right to force me to listen to you.

That's what he doesn't understand.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You have a right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. You do not have a right to force me to listen to you.

That's what he doesn't understand.

You hit the nail on the head, where I just pounded close to it.

Bravo!

[Ladewig]

What with the internet, who gives a damn about "media monopolies"?

The influence of such is exaggerated, often by people (no not you) who want the monopoly for themselves.

The problem is that bloggers, internet reporters, and freelance reporters are not allowed into presidental press conferences. Questions that should be asked are not asked.

[crimresearch]

Abdul, have you had a chance to read Bagdikian? I don't believe that he overstates the damage from media monopolies.

And Joshua, it is tempting to label your co-worker an ego-archist, since it seems that they want there to be self rule, wherein *they* get to decide for everyone else what the rules are.

I too am just a little weary of the 'I'm a celebrity, and now that I've used my fame as an entertainer to cram my ill informed opinions on other topics down everyone's throat, anyone who voices their disagreement is 'censoring' me.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ladewig


The problem is that bloggers, internet reporters, and freelance reporters are not allowed into presidental press conferences. Questions that should be asked are not asked.

Why is access to presidential press conferences necessary?

It is only access to the public forum that counts.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Something else about free speech:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_our_islamic.html

[thaiboxerken]

What about the FCC? I think that is an instance where free speech is being violated based on the vagueness called "decency". Now, individuals can be finded up to 1/2 million USD for saying something "indecent" on a public circuit. If they had a clear definition of what "decent" is, then maybe I wouldn't complain. As of now, they can impose this fine at will.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What about the FCC? I think that is an instance where free speech is being violated based on the vagueness called "decency". Now, individuals can be finded up to 1/2 million USD for saying something "indecent" on a public circuit. If they had a clear definition of what "decent" is, then maybe I wouldn't complain. As of now, they can impose this fine at will.

Yeah? So Howard Stern gets slapped down by the FCC for saying "Have you ever f**ked a n****r?" on the radio?

I can agree with the argument against censoring this kind of stuff without concluding that we are Fascist pigs stifling dissent because of this FCC ruling.

There is a lack of a sense of proportion here.

[Tmy]

I think kooky anarchy guy has a point. What good is free speech if there is a conspiracy to silence everyone.

The rap on the Dixie Chix was similar to the current Stern issue. You had a big company like Clearchannel who kinda fanned the anti- Dixe Chix campaine. There radio stations weretehfisrt to ban the Chix records. DJ's would get fired if they played them. Mind you Clearchannel heads have a close relationship with the Bush's.

You could argue that the Dixie Chick outrage was manufactored in order to punish them.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Yeah? So Howard Stern gets slapped down by the FCC for saying "Have you ever f**ked a n****r?" on the radio?
.
That is false. He never said that. You cant say the f-word on radio.

The real story was a caller asked a guest if she ever slept with a n***er. Clearchannel used that as pretext to pull him off.


The FCC is worse. THey take things that were said YEARS ago and then fine you. Plsu they pick n choose who to fine. Howrad got fined for saying the same things that were said on Ophra. But she doesnt get fined cause the FCC is targeting him. Its unfair to have vauge rules and selective enforcement.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy

The FCC is worse...

You don't have to convince me that the FCC stinks. Nothing I said should be interpreted as a defense of the FCC.

In fact I am in favor of eliminating the agency entirely.

But that's not about political censorship.

[hgc]

Joshua,

Did you happen to ask your muddle-headed "anarchist" what should have been done to benefit the Dixie Chicks in this situation? What power should have been brought to bear to stop the reaction? To protect their position?

It sounds the same as all kooks who think our freedoms are encoded into law only to support their point-of-view. Like the Christian crypto-theocratists, who think our freedom of religion protects our right to be a Christian nation.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I'd say there's more free speech in the USA than anywhere else.I'd say it's about the same as in Europe. And Australia. And probably some other places I can't think about.

[a_unique_person]

And in some ways worse. You can say 'f**k' on the radio, for example. (if you warn people that they may be about to hear a word they may object to).

There was just a huge controversy because they had a segment on a pre-school childrens show about a child being taken on an outing by it's "two mums". Well, not that big a controversy, depending on if you are the kind of person who thinks it is that controversial a subject.

Eg, Sex and the City is shown on free to air TV over here, it's not just restricted to an adults channel on pay tv.

[American]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Has anyone else heard anybody try this "oh, you're denying my freedom of speech" bullshirt? Doesn't it get seriously aggrevating?

Nice piece. I'd boil it down to saying that freedom to speak does not trump my freedom to act based on it.

Maybe you should become a lawyer, so you'd be the only one living who I don't despise.

(ps- Joshua, it seems I have been confusing you with another poster named Theodor, because I am old and I don't learn names very well. If I have ever struck you with friendly-fire.... no offense. (pps- if I MEANT to strike you down, then please roll over and die already....))

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tmy
You could argue that the Dixie Chick outrage was manufactored in order to punish them.

That's fine - Clearchannel is a private entity that isn't restricted by the First Amendment. It would certainly be nice if everyone who started a set up to broadcast to billions of people worldwide would hold the ideal (as opposed to the Amendment, as mentioned by Nasarius) of free speech foremost and not engage in such things; on the other hand, Clearchannel's decision to "punish" them in this way (if that's true) could be seen as speech in and of itself.

[Skeptic]

He also wants there to be no property

He can start by giving up his own.

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tmy
I think kooky anarchy guy has a point.

I think I am not surprised you think kooky anarchy guy has a point.

But if kooky anarchy guy agrees with you, perhaps you should rethink your position.

[American]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

It would certainly be nice if everyone who started a set up to broadcast to billions of people worldwide would hold the ideal ... of free speech foremost....


N.P.R. didn't. There are no conservative commentators on NPR. If there is even one, then I guess you will tell me that Alan Colmes is a hard-fighting liberal on Fox, not just a devil's advocate meant to set-up their guests for ridicule.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think kooky anarchy guy has a point. What good is free speech if there is a conspiracy to silence everyone.
Free speech is good because if Bush was to get rid of it, the Dixie Chicks would have been thrown in jail for protesting the Iraq War.

[RandFan]

The guy is a moron.

Having said that. I'm not fond of boycotts and I think it appropriate to speak out against them. I don't think that people who truly value the spirit of free speech should seek to silence anyone. Of course speaking out against the Dixie Chicks is just as important as anything the Dixie Chicks has to say. And, calling for boycotts is itself protected speech. One can speak out without calling for boycotts and I would encourage any and everyone not to call for boycotts.

If we are effective at silencing someone through public pressure and boycotts then we have effectively censured that person. The only response to bad speech is more speech. If people call for boycotts be it Dixie Chicks, Rush Limbaugh or Laura Slessinger then we should speak up and say boycotts are not the answer but we recognize that calling for a boycott is a protected form of speech.

[Chanileslie]

This is a hard concept to get across to a lot of people that freedome of speech and/or expression does not mean freedom from consequences and reprecussions. It just means the government can't take retribution against one because one said something of which the government may not approve.

[gnome]

I think a point can be made about free speech even if someone's first amendment rights aren't technically being violated.

For example, I would find it somewhat contradictory for someone to claim to love the First Amendment, but then tell everyone that disagrees with him to shut up. More so if they actually take steps to prevent the person from being heard.

The point being, if you truly are in favor of the First Amendment, doesn't it also follow you should agree that it's a good thing for people to speak their mind?

The answer of course is "Yes (as long as I agree.)"

[peptoabysmal]

How about when Jimi Hendrix played the Star Spangled Banner (or should I say Star Mangled Banner) at Woodstock?

I have to wonder if the anarchist in question would have no problem boycotting one of the C&W artists such as Jim Lane (We Are The U.S.A.) who did patriot songs.

[UserGoogol]

The first amendment only protects people from having the government restrict their speech. That's a given.

The question is ultimately a semantic one over what "free" speech is. The government, after all, is ultimately just another group of people, although a very special group of people, and one which is supposed to represent "everyone." Although the Constitution only protects us from having our speech restricted by the government, and rightly so, perhaps people should be even freer in their speech than just being free from the government.

But of course it's not that simple. The methods by which people restrict speech are not all that harmful. And many forms of restricting speech are themselves speech. And there you get into a complex infinite loop, which is simply not the sort of thing you want to be getting into in your moral systems.

So uh... I guess you can't have universal totally free speech.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I'd say it's about the same as in Europe. And Australia. And probably some other places I can't think about. I disagree about Europe. For example, a number of European countries have criminalized various forms of "hate speech" - restrictions that would violate the First Amendment if adopted in the United States.

Conversely, I can't think offhand of any restrictions on freedom of expression which are permissible under U.S. law but which would be illegal in those European countries with whose laws I am familiar.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I'd say it's about the same as in Europe. And Australia. And probably some other places I can't think about. Are Denmark and Norway and Finland in Europe now? Hello, CFLarsen, Bjorn and pillory!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


That's fine - Clearchannel is a private entity that isn't restricted by the First Amendment. , Clearchannel's decision to "punish" them in this way (if that's true) could be seen as speech in and of itself.

What if the govt is using a private entity to surpess others speech? Thats the issue in the Stern thing. That Clearchannel is a tool of the Whitehouse cause of their connections. OR the FCC is strongarming them to dump Stern or else theyll mess with their station licenses. Its kinda like a mob set up.

[Nyarlathotep]

I have always interpreted free speech to mean you have the right to say what you want without the government cracking down on you, you do not have the right to be protected from other consequences such as people not liking you, people thinking you are an utter @$$ due to your words, people not buying your records (or whatever) as a result of not liking what you say, people giving dissenting opinions, etc.

I have never found this to be all that revolutionary a view, though your co-worker is a nut, I don't why you have never met many people who get this point. I have always thought I was in the majority opinion on it.

Basically you have a right to free speech, but you do not have any entitlement to being protected from the natural consequences of that speech. What isn't to get?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I disagree about Europe. For example, a number of European countries have criminalized various forms of "hate speech" - restrictions that would violate the First Amendment if adopted in the United States.Examples, please?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Zep
Are Denmark and Norway and Finland in Europe now? Hello, CFLarsen, Bjorn and pillory! Yeah - Norway was in Europe last time I checked (December 2003). As for Denmark it has been a few years (Copenhagen and Kisserup 1996, IIRC), but Finland might be a myth much like Atlantis (I mean, is Pillory real?) :p

[daenku32]

So, how long have we enjoyed freedom of speech?

Since in a context of Freedom of speech in a society would mean that the society itself, not just government, would avoid infringing on your rights. Those being things like a fair trial and protection of criminal laws (can't shoot someone)..

So, wonder how long you have been able to walk in the south and make fun of Jesus?

I know that claiming to be an Atheist would have got you killed until very recently.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Yeah - Norway was in Europe last time I checked (December 2003). As for Denmark it has been a few years (Copenhagen and Kisserup 1996, IIRC), but Finland might be a myth much like Atlantis (I mean, is Pillory real?) :p

I was born and raised there (in Finland). But I'll take it's secret location to my grave.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Examples, please?
The UK has an Incitement to Racial Hatred act and a provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act which covers incitement to religious hatred. If we include protests, or even gathering together in public to talk about stuff, then there's some rather scary provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act as well as the Anti-Terrorist Act. In fact the latter would be ludicrous if it wasn't so scary; according to the definition of terrorism (http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1) that it uses the bloody Ramblers' Association is a terrorist group...

[crimresearch]

Apparently to some US law enforcement officials, even silence isn't protected by free speech...
(Some Quaker's meet for an hour of silent worship) :p

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n032802a.html

" Those labeled “criminal extremists” include the American Friends Service Committee, an 85-year-old pacifist Quaker group that has won the Nobel Peace Prize for its advocacy of nonviolent social change, and Sister Antonia Anthony, a 73-year-old Franciscan nun whose opinions and lawful protest activity are documented in police files. "

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by BillyTK
The UK has an Incitement to Racial Hatred act and a provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act which covers incitement to religious hatred. If we include protests, or even gathering together in public to talk about stuff, then there's some rather scary provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act as well as the Anti-Terrorist Act. And in the US:

The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a “No War for Oil” sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a “free speech zone” half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Free speech only if you agree ...

... the trend lines in federal attacks on freedom of speech should raise grave concerns to anyone worried about the First Amendment ...Both quotes from the well-known lefties in "The American Conservative'.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Examples, please?

I was thinking more like Germany's banning of the Nazi party, symbols, etc. Would it violate the First Amendment in the US? Sure. Is it a big deal? Not really.

[jj]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Has anyone else heard anybody try this "oh, you're denying my freedom of speech" bullshirt? Doesn't it get seriously aggrevating?

Well, the guy seems to mingle "freedom to speak" with others "freedom to not listen".

But what about using the Secret Service to keep all anti-Bush demonstrators 8 blocks away, and held involuntarily against their will until he's gone?

Not all people who object to his policies are terrorists, Ashcroft's claims notwithstanding.

[Tmy]

I always found it odd that our govt would crusade so much against curse words, but not racial slurs. Its okay to toss around the n word but if the f-word slips out theres hell to pay!

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Nasarius
I was thinking more like Germany's banning of the Nazi party, symbols, etc. Would it violate the First Amendment in the US? Sure. Is it a big deal? Not really. But you are right.

To be banned in the US, speech would have to intend to produce "imminent lawless action" and it must be "likely to produce such action." Like "No war for oil" close to the president. :p

You made me curious: Is it illegal to say that you are a nazi in Germany?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
This is a hard concept to get across to a lot of people that freedome of speech and/or expression does not mean freedom from consequences and reprecussions. It just means the government can't take retribution against one because one said something of which the government may not approve.
Chanileslie, what you have given us here is a brilliant definition of freedom of speech and expression. And you have also presented your definiton of it with a show of emotional detachment from the subject of free speech, which shows that in this case, you are reasoning more with logic than with emotion, which is a skill that is hard to find and which I wish to acquire, but so far have been a failure at acquiring.