Scooter and Sue--I am not including within free speech the right to order or solicit (and thereby enter into a conspiracy to murder) the death of another human being, nor am I including the calling in of a flse alrm or bomb scare, which can and will cause panic and divertisment of valuable resources, nor am I inclusing harassment (like calling up and making empty threats) or menacing (believable threats). Likewise for inciting people to violence. Each and every one of these are crimes, and rightfully so, because they directly affect others and harm them in some way. Obscenity? I personally don't believe that there is anything so obscene that it deserves to be banned forever (like the knights who say "nee"), but I would ban anything that involves those those who are too young to grant consent or those who did not grant it and were secretly taped, etc.
However, each and every one of the above llaws are not directed at the speech, but at the direct and credible harm to others occasioned by the speech or what is requested. it is quite different, IMHO, from banning ideas or political beliefs from being discussed or presented publicly. Yes Sue, some countries that have these policies have not descended into totalitarianism, but all I can say is, let's not make it too easy on them. Free speech is probably our best and only defense against totalitarian governments (how many totalitarians embrace it?), and IMHO no government or person should be able to ban ideas or political views from being debated.
AndFWIW, I don't think the US is all that great a defender of free speech; it has a better track record than many countries, but not a great one--especially in the last decade or so.
"Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
Absurd remark unworthy of further comment. Come on, Sue, this is beneath you.Sue U wrote:Really? So it's wrong to criminalize making terroristic threats? Conspiracy to commit murder? Extortion? What about civil liability for libel?Jarlaxle wrote:As I said, I find fault with all police states that criminalize speech.
Scooter's point is spot on.
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8905
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
It's not absurd in the least. The test of a principle is how well it works in the extremes. There is no denying that laws criminalizing terroristic threats, extortion, conspiracy, incitement to riot, obscenity, fraudulent misrepresentation, etc. outlaw speech based on its content. You apparently have nothing to say about that. Saying simplistically that you "find fault with all police states that criminalize speech" does absolutely nothing to advance understanding of the issue, unless you believe categorically that the crimes listed above should not be crimes.
GAH!
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
I think the German authorities make a mistake by trying to ban everything related to the Nazi period...
It may have made sense at one time, but it really doesn't make much now, (especially in the era of the internet where everything is available internationally anyway) and can even be counter productive....
Banning something can tend to give it a "mystique" that many young people find attractive. The very fact that it's forbidden can create more fascination with it and draw more attention to it than it would have otherwise.
I also think that the claim that banning swastikas, etc. has had anything significant to do with the fact that fascism has not re-emerged as a potent force in Germany is kind of silly. I can think of a lot more important factors, (like the fact that the country was occupied for five years, and at least in the case of West Germany, the country was bound tightly to the West through the Marshal Plan and the NATO alliance, and then went on to enjoy immense economic success, for starters)
It may have made sense at one time, but it really doesn't make much now, (especially in the era of the internet where everything is available internationally anyway) and can even be counter productive....
Banning something can tend to give it a "mystique" that many young people find attractive. The very fact that it's forbidden can create more fascination with it and draw more attention to it than it would have otherwise.
I also think that the claim that banning swastikas, etc. has had anything significant to do with the fact that fascism has not re-emerged as a potent force in Germany is kind of silly. I can think of a lot more important factors, (like the fact that the country was occupied for five years, and at least in the case of West Germany, the country was bound tightly to the West through the Marshal Plan and the NATO alliance, and then went on to enjoy immense economic success, for starters)
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
So it's an absolute principle except when it's not absolute. Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.Big RR wrote:Scooter and Sue--I am not including within free speech the right to order or solicit (and thereby enter into a conspiracy to murder) the death of another human being, nor am I including the calling in of a flse alrm or bomb scare, which can and will cause panic and divertisment of valuable resources, nor am I inclusing harassment (like calling up and making empty threats) or menacing (believable threats). Likewise for inciting people to violence. Each and every one of these are crimes, and rightfully so, because they directly affect others and harm them in some way.
And Germany has decided, based on its lived experience, that there will be direct and credible harm to others occasioned by giving free rein to Nazis to spread their poison.However, each and every one of the above llaws are not directed at the speech, but at the direct and credible harm to others occasioned by the speech or what is requested.
No matter how you slice it, the difference between their position and yours is nothing but a matter of degree, no "absolute principle" whatsoever.
And the evidence that this has happened to a greater degree than, say, the U.S. or the U.K. where such bans on speech were never enacted?Lord Jim wrote:I think the German authorities make a mistake by trying to ban everything related to the Nazi period...
It may have made sense at one time, but it really doesn't make much now, (especially in the era of the internet where everything is available internationally anyway) and can even be counter productive....
Banning something can tend to give it a "mystique" that many young people find attractive. The very fact that it's forbidden can create more fascination with it and draw more attention to it than it would have otherwise.
I don't know that it has. I do know that in 65 years there has been no evidence that it has caused any groundswell of support that is ready to explode and vomit itself up to the surface at any moment.I also think that the claim that banning swastikas, etc. has had anything significant to do with the fact that fascism has not re-emerged as a potent force in Germany is kind of silly.
It's easy to play armchair quarterback when it wasn't your country that destroyed itself and took the best course it knew how in order to rise up again from the ashes.
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
I don't think that any serious person genuinely contends that freedom of speech is an absolute principle in the sense that we should always disregard the consequences of speech, no matter what those consequences may be. I don't see anyone here defending defamatory speech, and I don't see anything in U.S. constitutional law that affords defamatory speech any First-Amendment protection. Same with threats of criminal action, conspiracies to commit crimes, incitement to commit crimes, and so on.
What does strike me as an absolute principle is that no speech should ever be forbidden on the ground that it offends somebody. When an identifiable harm is the wrongful ruination of someone's reputation or the wrongful instilling of fear of bodily harm, etc., that is one thing. But when the supposed "harm" is merely that one person doesn't like hearing what another person says, that is a different thing entirely.
The lines to be drawn are -- as is true of almost all line-drawing -- difficult to demarcate in close cases. But the facts set forth in the opening posting do not seem to me to be a close case.
Someone is displaying a Confederate flag on her own property -- in full public view, but still on her own property. She has not (as far as we can tell) advocated violence against the black people who are offended by her flag. She has not advocated violence (or any other criminal (or even otherwise wrongful) behavior) against black people or anyone else. She has not suggested that anyone take any action at all in response to her displaying her Confederate flag.
As far as I can see, the only reason that (some of) her neighbors are exercised about her displaying her flag is that her flag offends them. And there, we do run into an absolute principle. Whatever the proper result might be when someone's speech (or other expression of opinion) damages someone's reputation, advocates criminal violence, etc., this is not that case.
This is a case in which some people find her flying the Confederate flag offensive. (And although no one near me is flying a Confederate flag, so I cannot say for sure, I think that I might well also be offended by it.)
This is a case in which the complaining parties have nothing to complain about except that they are offended by her flag. To which the absolute principle replies: Tough shit.
What does strike me as an absolute principle is that no speech should ever be forbidden on the ground that it offends somebody. When an identifiable harm is the wrongful ruination of someone's reputation or the wrongful instilling of fear of bodily harm, etc., that is one thing. But when the supposed "harm" is merely that one person doesn't like hearing what another person says, that is a different thing entirely.
The lines to be drawn are -- as is true of almost all line-drawing -- difficult to demarcate in close cases. But the facts set forth in the opening posting do not seem to me to be a close case.
Someone is displaying a Confederate flag on her own property -- in full public view, but still on her own property. She has not (as far as we can tell) advocated violence against the black people who are offended by her flag. She has not advocated violence (or any other criminal (or even otherwise wrongful) behavior) against black people or anyone else. She has not suggested that anyone take any action at all in response to her displaying her Confederate flag.
As far as I can see, the only reason that (some of) her neighbors are exercised about her displaying her flag is that her flag offends them. And there, we do run into an absolute principle. Whatever the proper result might be when someone's speech (or other expression of opinion) damages someone's reputation, advocates criminal violence, etc., this is not that case.
This is a case in which some people find her flying the Confederate flag offensive. (And although no one near me is flying a Confederate flag, so I cannot say for sure, I think that I might well also be offended by it.)
This is a case in which the complaining parties have nothing to complain about except that they are offended by her flag. To which the absolute principle replies: Tough shit.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
Well, no she's not a sovereign Confederate nation to fly that flag, but she IS effectively alienating herself from her new community by suggesting symbolically that she is.
The shit to the fan will reflect accordingly.
The shit to the fan will reflect accordingly.
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
Andrew D wrote:I don't think that any serious person genuinely contends that freedom of speech is an absolute principle in the sense that we should always disregard the consequences of speech, no matter what those consequences may be. I don't see anyone here defending defamatory speech, and I don't see anything in U.S. constitutional law that affords defamatory speech any First-Amendment protection. Same with threats of criminal action, conspiracies to commit crimes, incitement to commit crimes, and so on.
What does strike me as an absolute principle is that no speech should ever be forbidden on the ground that it offends somebody. When an identifiable harm is the wrongful ruination of someone's reputation or the wrongful instilling of fear of bodily harm, etc., that is one thing. But when the supposed "harm" is merely that one person doesn't like hearing what another person says, that is a different thing entirely.
The lines to be drawn are -- as is true of almost all line-drawing -- difficult to demarcate in close cases. But the facts set forth in the opening posting do not seem to me to be a close case.
Someone is displaying a Confederate flag on her own property -- in full public view, but still on her own property. She has not (as far as we can tell) advocated violence against the black people who are offended by her flag. She has not advocated violence (or any other criminal (or even otherwise wrongful) behavior) against black people or anyone else. She has not suggested that anyone take any action at all in response to her displaying her Confederate flag.
As far as I can see, the only reason that (some of) her neighbors are exercised about her displaying her flag is that her flag offends them. And there, we do run into an absolute principle. Whatever the proper result might be when someone's speech (or other expression of opinion) damages someone's reputation, advocates criminal violence, etc., this is not that case.
This is a case in which some people find her flying the Confederate flag offensive. (And although no one near me is flying a Confederate flag, so I cannot say for sure, I think that I might well also be offended by it.)
This is a case in which the complaining parties have nothing to complain about except that they are offended by her flag. To which the absolute principle replies: Tough shit.
They are entitled to picket her flag and to express their view that it is offensive. Doing so is an essential part of having a public debate about the meaning of symbols. The white southern community turned the flag into an explicit symbol of racist hatred and cannot now pretend that it means something else. Among innumerable other examples it was flown to celebrate the acquittal of the murderers of Emmitt Till. If white southerners did not want it to become a symbol of racism they would have to have object at its use as such.
They are not entitled to forbid her legally and they are not doing so.
I would say "tough shit" to the woman flying the flag if she expects to be protected from hearing the opinions of others when she engages in open racism. She is behaving in a way decent people ought to condemn and they are doing so.
yrs,
rubato
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
I really don't see what the brouhaha is...
She has a perfect right to fly the flag,; they have a perfect right, (so long as they don't cross the line into harassment or intimidation) to protest (they can protest the color of her door, if it floats their boat) everybody should be happy...
She might try to take this opportunity to reach out to her neighbors and try to educate them on the history of the Confederate Battle flag, (including the fact that it never flew over a single plantation) and it's significance to her....
That may or may not be effective.....
A lot of time when people have reached a conclusion about something, it's difficult to get them to open their mind to facts they were unaware of.
She has a perfect right to fly the flag,; they have a perfect right, (so long as they don't cross the line into harassment or intimidation) to protest (they can protest the color of her door, if it floats their boat) everybody should be happy...
She might try to take this opportunity to reach out to her neighbors and try to educate them on the history of the Confederate Battle flag, (including the fact that it never flew over a single plantation) and it's significance to her....
That may or may not be effective.....
A lot of time when people have reached a conclusion about something, it's difficult to get them to open their mind to facts they were unaware of.
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: "Black neighbors to picket woman's Confederate flag"
There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation in the public mind about the Confederate Battle Flag, due in large measure to the fact that there are folks who have a vested interest in spreading this misinformation and whipping up outrage....People like Al Sharpton, who are constantly looking for new ways to be offended, because being offended is how they make their living....
It also doesn't help of course, that some racist groups use the Confederate Battle flag prominently in their rallies, (showing that they too are ignorant of it's history and meaning) But those same racists also frequently use the American flag and the Christian Cross, and no rational person would say that they shouldn't be displayed just because a tiny handful of racist kooks use them.
We should never let those types dictate how symbols will be viewed.
It also doesn't help of course, that some racist groups use the Confederate Battle flag prominently in their rallies, (showing that they too are ignorant of it's history and meaning) But those same racists also frequently use the American flag and the Christian Cross, and no rational person would say that they shouldn't be displayed just because a tiny handful of racist kooks use them.
We should never let those types dictate how symbols will be viewed.