Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Freedom of Speech is merely the right to speak against the government without fear of imprisonment/execution/disappearance.  It does not enforce speech between individuals.

Conservatives and Democrats giving each other verbal shit isn't a violation nor a compliance of freedom of speech.  Trump shutting out reporters on grounds of "fake news" or whatever can be a violation of free speech (or press actually, but they're related nonetheless).

It is a lot more than the ability to speak out against the government. Remember that Freedom of Speech is freedom of thought.

As well the government certainly DOES enforce speech between individuals... because it must, and in doing so it must maintain freedom of speech.

That is why the Conservatives cannot injunction the Democrats and prevent them from speaking.

[MrRoboto75]

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

And conservatives are by no means obligated to offer democrats any method of speaking, except perhaps in actual government (congress has to work somehow).  Someone could set up a soapbox on my front lawn if they wanted to, but I'm still within my rights to tell him to get off my property.  Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking.

[Neonivek]

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

Could the government not ban you from its own government websites? to my knowledge it very well can.

So it is still maintained to be true.

Plus laws pertaining to the internet are archaic (Remember profanity was illegal on the internet in the US until 2002).

Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking

There is apparently a bit of debate with the second one (Airports and Supermarkets have had this come out legally quite a bit)

AS WELL! There is more to the first part then you would think. What happens when someone is FORCED to listen? I don't mean "Kidnapped" I mean Captive Audience.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

And conservatives are by no means obligated to offer democrats any method of speaking, except perhaps in actual government (congress has to work somehow).  Someone could set up a soapbox on my front lawn if they wanted to, but I'm still within my rights to tell him to get off my property.  Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking.

So if a bunch of the biggest companies in America got together and, say, founded a mutual blacklist of everybody who had ever publicly supported a politician who wasn't "business friendly" or a laundry list of "sensitive issues" and fired them all, that's cool with you? Or who issue lawsuits against consumer critics for harming their productivity?

Because you can reframe a lot when you make freedom a government-only thing. The state need not act directly to suppress people, it can do so through orthogonal channels. Unless, of course, the right to free speech is guaranteed as a practicality and not a minor hurdle to overcome.

If your bar is so low that you can just go with the old trick of getting "unrelated" thugs to do your dirty work, then you don't even have to be clever about it. Even fairly uncreative tin tyrants know that one.

[EnigmaticHat]

I didn't "violate their free speech" because I can't do that because I'm not the government

A lot of the freedoms outright spread out to the people because they apply to the government.

Essentially BECAUSE the government MUST guarantee these rights, it means it must protect them from others within specific limits.

It is why I cannot sue you swearing online (which was illegal until 2002... no really)

So yes freedom of speech applies to everyone and YES it even applies to your example of someone punching you for wearing a swastika. If the government tried to make it legal to punch people on the moral ground that they are a Nazi sympathizer, that would immediately hit free speech.

It might even prevent a business from, say, firing such an individual for wearing that tattoo, even if they keep it hidden during office hours.

This is because there is NO such thing as a "Violation of free speech" legally. The government cannot break that because it isn't a law.

---

Also I am really sad that the "Moral outrage making it legal" isn't one I pulled entirely out my ass.

Neo I'm sorry but that's factually wrong.  The government being unable to restrict free speech doesn't automatically mean that it must apply that same restriction to citizens.  I don't know why it would work that way?

For your tattoo example, that's just a shit reason to fire someone.  If I was fired for chewing gum loudly one time and I wasn't given a warning I could sue for that too.  Doesn't mean that the government categorically guarantees that no one can be fired for obnoxious behavior.  And to be honest in the tattoo example (in my inexpert legal opinion) the question would probably hinge on whether the employee's expression AKA the tattoo was harmful to the company's ability to make money AKA its image.  If someone gets a tattoo of a middle finger on their forehead and they work costumer service yeah they aren't going to win that court battle when they're inevitably fired.

[Neonivek]

Well the question is MEtalSlimeHunt is how do you make something a "Government Only Thing" that doesn't affect everyone?

If the Government must respect Freedom of Speech it also means it must pass laws that protect freedom of speech.

If they make laws that allowed other people to infringe upon it, then in what way are they protecting it?

Neo I'm sorry but that's factually wrong.  The government being unable to restrict free speech doesn't automatically mean that it must apply that same restriction to citizens.  I don't know why it would work that way?

Ok shoot. Give me an example.

I mean you are so sure that the government in no way passes laws pertaining to free speech. So show me these in action.

[Gizogin]

Freedom of speech is more than the inability of the government to censor what we say or print. It's the ability of every person to profess an opinion without fear of coming to harm because of it.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to listen to me or to give me a platform (Kathy Griffin is a recent example). It explicitly does not cover advocating or inciting violence (and there's a difference between saying "Nazis deserve to be punched" and saying "go out right now and punch a Nazi"), nor does freedom of speech cover libel or slander.

There's no specific crime of "inhibiting free speech" because any action that would violate this right is already a crime, usually assault or destruction of property. We cannot exempt certain people or groups from these crimes (be it by granting amnesty for those who commit them or by reclassifying the acts so that they are or are not crimes when committed by/against certain people or groups) just because we disagree with their opinions. That's why we can't allow people to punch Nazis "because they're Nazis"; it's a crime regardless of the opinions or affiliations of the parties involved. If that's not the case, then it is a violation of free speech; we're saying that certain opinions render a person ineligible for protections afforded to everyone else.

EDIT: From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

[Neonivek]

Freedom of speech is more than the inability of the government to censor what we say or print.

What I am saying is that this aspect spreads to everything else. Because they cannot censor someone, it also means they cannot pass a law that allows someone else to censor someone, at least within the reasonable limits (Limits that apply to the Government as well)

And for the people who keep giving dumb examples... The government could do that too. YES the government could pull an article if they gave out a newspaper, yes the government could ban you from their online forum, yes the government could prevent you from using the Whitehouse to run a KKK meeting.

It is how it works in practice.

[EnigmaticHat]

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

And conservatives are by no means obligated to offer democrats any method of speaking, except perhaps in actual government (congress has to work somehow).  Someone could set up a soapbox on my front lawn if they wanted to, but I'm still within my rights to tell him to get off my property.  Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking.

So if a bunch of the biggest companies in America got together and, say, founded a mutual blacklist of everybody who had ever publicly supported a politician who wasn't "business friendly" or a laundry list of "sensitive issues" and fired them all, that's cool with you? Or who issue lawsuits against consumer critics for harming their productivity?

Because you can reframe a lot when you make freedom a government-only thing. The state need not act directly to suppress people, it can do so through orthogonal channels. Unless, of course, the right to free speech is guaranteed as a practicality and not a minor hurdle to overcome.

Inter-corporate cooperation (beyond buying and selling) has no place in capitalism and corporate blacklists should be heavily illegal in general.  "Freedom" isn't a government only thing, that was never my argument.  My point is that free speech in specific means something specific and if you're going to use free speech as part of an argument you should know what it means.  More broadly, shutting down criticism is still shutting down someone's speech; you have a right to say what you want, I have a right to criticize that speech.  And I always have the right to show you the door when you're on my property, and I always have the right to just stop listening.

Freedom is already protected.  If I attack you that's a crime, if I imprison you that's a crime, if I hurt your livelyhood unduly even in a variety of petty ways then you can sue me.  But "freedom" doesn't mean the right to other people's stuff.  No one has to give you a job, no one has to let you onto their private property, no one has to amplify your voice.  You don't have a right to control other people's words, and you don't have a right to anyone's ear.  That includes critical words and the sympathy of critical people, freedom doesn't mean that you get those things.

But yes, if no one wants to hire Richard Spencer because he would hurt their company's image that's his own damn fault and I have no sympathy.  And again, did you even read my wall of text?  You are using the words free speech 100% incorrectly.

[Pancakes]

-snip-

Whoa, loads of posts while I was at work.

Yeah, I pretty much just meant that names are just names, nothing more. The Nazis could have had a different name, wouldn't have changed what they did

[MrRoboto75]

AS WELL! There is more to the first part then you would think. What happens when someone is FORCED to listen? I don't mean "Kidnapped" I mean Captive Audience.

http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/can-the-government-limit-speech-to-protect-a-captive-audience.html

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

And conservatives are by no means obligated to offer democrats any method of speaking, except perhaps in actual government (congress has to work somehow).  Someone could set up a soapbox on my front lawn if they wanted to, but I'm still within my rights to tell him to get off my property.  Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking.

So if a bunch of the biggest companies in America got together and, say, founded a mutual blacklist of everybody who had ever publicly supported a politician who wasn't "business friendly" or a laundry list of "sensitive issues" and fired them all, that's cool with you? Or who issue lawsuits against consumer critics for harming their productivity?

Because you can reframe a lot when you make freedom a government-only thing. The state need not act directly to suppress people, it can do so through orthogonal channels. Unless, of course, the right to free speech is guaranteed as a practicality and not a minor hurdle to overcome.

If your bar is so low that you can just go with the old trick of getting "unrelated" thugs to do your dirty work, then you don't even have to be clever about it. Even fairly uncreative tin tyrants know that one.

That's all the bill of rights says.  Government cannot create a law that restricts citizen's freedom of speech.  The rest comes from the Supreme Court.

[wierd]

This is a losing battle Neon.  Today, people DO NOT understand the motivational morale behind the famous quotation:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
---Evelyn Beatrice Hall

For those interested, this page explores the history of that saying, and how it relates to Voltaire.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

Fascinating, because the original item being discussed was a book that was very disfavored by both the government, *AND* academia of the time.  Voltaire rightly disapproved of the attacks against the text and author (the book being publicly incinerated even!), and made the statement to publicly assert that being publicly or governmentally disfavored is *NOT* justification for censorship and reprisal.

Again, it appears that these days, people are all too quick to latch onto hot button items that they find HIGHLY disfavorable, and condemn, ridicule, and persecute anyone who does not toe their hardlined views on the matter.

See for instance, the swastika.  Does it EVER cross their tiny minds that maybe, just maybe, the person with the tattoo is using the swastika CORRECTLY? (Protip: It was not always associated with the malign influence of the german national socialist movement. It is a symbol with very ancient origin and meaning that was coopted by said national socialists.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika  Apparently not, because their first gut instinct is to "Punch the fucker."

Likewise, it never seems to cross their minds that the very mechanism they are employing (humiliation, violent reprisal, and condemnation) to suppress an undesired idea or opinion is exactly the mechanism used by every oppressive regime ever--- But that does not apply to THEM, because they are *RIGHT*-- don't you know? (Just like the National Socialists honestly believed they were too! But don't let that little thing sting you too harshly. These people are just so much better in every imaginable way than those national socialists were!)



Really kids, just because you find something offensive, and some morons use language or imagery in an offensive way, does not mean the language or imagery themselves are always 100% in-line with such morons.  Let them use the language, and the imagery. Just ignore what they have to say, because what they have to say lacks objective substance. Counter them with reason, not irrational hatred or violence. THAT is the way of enlightenment.

Reason demands that you allow people to speak without reprisal. Otherwise, unpopular (but true) ideas will never gain traction, and humanity suffers for it. (See also, Dark Age Europe.)

It most certainly is neither progressive NOR enlightened to engage in hatemongering or violence when somebody says or does something you dislike or disapprove of. The progressive and enlightened thing, is to attempt to see where they are coming from, and earnestly evaluate any truth their words may have, then go on with your life.

[Neonivek]

This is a losing battle Neon.  Today, people DO NOT understand the motivational morale behind the famous quotation:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
---Evelyn Beatrice Hall

For those interested, this page explores the history of that saying, and how it relates to Voltaire.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

Fascinating, because the original item being discussed was a book that was very disfavored by both the government, *AND* academia of the time.  Voltaire rightly disapproved of the attacks against the text and author (the book being publicly incinerated even!), and made the statement to publicly assert that being publicly or governmentally disfavored is *NOT* justification for censorship and reprisal.

Again, it appears that these days, people are all too quick to latch onto hot button items that they find HIGHLY disfavorable, and condemn, ridicule, and persecute anyone who does not toe their hardlined views on the matter.

See for instance, the swastika.  Does it EVER cross their tiny minds that maybe, just maybe, the person with the tattoo is using the swastika CORRECTLY? (Protip: It was not always associated with the malign influence of the german national socialist movement. It is a symbol with very ancient origin and meaning that was coopted by said national socialists.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika  Apparently not, because their first gut instinct is to "Punch the fucker."

Likewise, it never seems to cross their minds that the very mechanism they are employing (humiliation, violent reprisal, and condemnation) to suppress an undesired idea or opinion is exactly the mechanism used by every oppressive regime ever--- But that does not apply to THEM, because they are *RIGHT*-- don't you know? (Just like the National Socialists honestly believed they were too! But don't let that little thing sting you too harshly. These people are just so much better in every imaginable way than those national socialists were!)



Really kids, just because you find something offensive, and some morons use language or imagery in an offensive way, does not mean the language or imagery themselves are always 100% in-line with such morons.  Let them use the language, and the imagery. Just ignore what they have to say, because what they have to say lacks objective substance. Counter them with reason, not irrational hatred or violence. THAT is the way of enlightenment.

Reason demands that you allow people to speak without reprisal. Otherwise, unpopular (but true) ideas will never gain traction, and humanity suffers for it. (See also, Dark Age Europe.)

It most certainly is neither progressive NOR enlightened to engage in hatemongering or violence when somebody says or does something you dislike or disapprove of. The progressive and enlightened thing, is to attempt to see where they are coming from, and earnestly evaluate any truth their words may have, then go on with your life.

I mean a good example weird of how the "Freedom of Speech" protects you from OTHER PEOPLE. Is the fact that people cannot attack you in civil court over just uses of free speech.

It is why if I criticized Apple and suddenly everyone read my article and stopped buying Apple products... They cannot sue me for damages (well... successfully... if the courts are working).

The government is offering a foyer for it, but they aren't the ones suing me but providing said laws.

[EnigmaticHat]

Freedom of speech is more than the inability of the government to censor what we say or print. It's the ability of every person to profess an opinion without fear of coming to harm because of it.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to listen to me or to give me a platform (Kathy Griffin is a recent example). It explicitly does not cover advocating or inciting violence (and there's a difference between saying "Nazis deserve to be punched" and saying "go out right now and punch a Nazi"), nor does freedom of speech cover libel or slander.

There's no specific crime of "inhibiting free speech" because any action that would violate this right is already a crime, usually assault or destruction of property. We cannot exempt certain people or groups from these crimes (be it by granting amnesty for those who commit them or by reclassifying the acts so that they are or are not crimes when committed by/against certain people or groups) just because we disagree with their opinions. That's why we can't allow people to punch Nazis "because they're Nazis"; it's a crime regardless of the opinions or affiliations of the parties involved. If that's not the case, then it is a violation of free speech; we're saying that certain opinions render a person ineligible for protections afforded to everyone else.

EDIT: From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Three things.  First of all, I guarantee you that the UN has nothing against antifa.  Secondly, the UN has issued humans rights criticisms towards the US, but its for things like mass incarceration and voter suppression.  The UN doesn't give a shit who reddit bans or who internet liberals make fun of.  Thirdly, the declaration of human rights isn't legally binding in the US or anywhere on Earth.  Not in the conventional sense that laws are legally binding against private citizens at least.  And finally, AGAIN, just because you get banned off an internet forum or antifa yells at you has done NOTHING to deny you your rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  You get to assemble, freely and peacefully in a location.  Antifa gets to assemble, freely and peacefully, in a nearby location.  YOU are the one calling for other people to be denied their rights, because you're saying that Antifa is breaking the law when they aren't and thus suggesting THEIR right to free and peaceful assembly should be taken away.

Yes, the punch nazis stuff is rude but I guarantee you that the US has tolerated far more openly violent movements than antifa.  And far more threatening signs than "fuck Trump" or "punch nazis".  The legal definition of a threat is vague but consistent.  Among other things, threats count for less the larger the group their targeting.  Hence why when my idiot High School friend said "we should nuke Iraq" that was threatening speech but it wasn't illegal, because the threat is vague and implausible.  Even something like "we should kill the blacks" isn't a legally punishable threat unless its expressed in certain contexts.  That's just how it works and has always worked.  Bear in mind this is not theoretical, there are people who have said things like "we should kill the n*****s" a time in which actual lynchings were occurring and there was a pretty plausible chance that person would put their money where their mouth is and still they were protected by free speech.  Whereas antifa has never killed someone and I dare you to prove me wrong with a source that isn't a badly formatted conspiracy theory website.

And no, the government does not guarantee your voice will be heard and it does nothing, and should do nothing, to prevent louder and more numerous voices from drowning you out.  Provided those voices come from private citizens who aren't breaking the law.  Freedom of speech means that you have a voice, it doesn't not mean you have a soap box, and it does not mean that you have an audience.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your speech has positive effects, or any effects at all.  It certainly doesn't mean you're free of the consequences of your speech.  If you tell someone they're subhuman, and they hate you, that's their thoughts and their right.  If you tell someone they're subhuman and they hate you and as a result of that hate they punch you, only the punch was the crime.  The hate, and any legal expressions of it, were totally legal.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If that were true, then for example no one could be banned from bay12.  It would infringe on free speech, after all.

And conservatives are by no means obligated to offer democrats any method of speaking, except perhaps in actual government (congress has to work somehow).  Someone could set up a soapbox on my front lawn if they wanted to, but I'm still within my rights to tell him to get off my property.  Freedom of Speech does not obligate anyone to listen to the speaker, nor accommodate them for their speaking.

So if a bunch of the biggest companies in America got together and, say, founded a mutual blacklist of everybody who had ever publicly supported a politician who wasn't "business friendly" or a laundry list of "sensitive issues" and fired them all, that's cool with you? Or who issue lawsuits against consumer critics for harming their productivity?

Because you can reframe a lot when you make freedom a government-only thing. The state need not act directly to suppress people, it can do so through orthogonal channels. Unless, of course, the right to free speech is guaranteed as a practicality and not a minor hurdle to overcome.

Inter-corporate cooperation (beyond buying and selling) has no place in capitalism and corporate blacklists should be heavily illegal in general.  "Freedom" isn't a government only thing, that was never my argument.  My point is that free speech in specific means something specific and if you're going to use free speech as part of an argument you should know what it means.  More broadly, shutting down criticism is still shutting down someone's speech; you have a right to say what you want, I have a right to criticize that speech.  And I always have the right to show you the door when you're on my property, and I always have the right to just stop listening.

Freedom is already protected.  If I attack you that's a crime, if I imprison you that's a crime, if I hurt your livelyhood unduly even in a variety of petty ways then you can sue me.  But "freedom" doesn't mean the right to other people's stuff.  No one has to give you a job, no one has to let you onto their private property, no one has to amplify your voice.  You don't have a right to control other people's words, and you don't have a right to anyone's ear.  That includes critical words and the sympathy of critical people, freedom doesn't mean that you get those things.

But yes, if no one wants to hire Richard Spencer because he would hurt their company's image that's his own damn fault and I have no sympathy.  And again, did you even read my wall of text?  You are using the words free speech 100% incorrectly.

Well, given that I didn't respond to a post made by you, I'm not sure why you think I would have read your wall of text. Unless MrRoboto is your alt?

The xkcd-level of "banning people from websites is not a violation of free speech" is not what is at issue here. Public protests aren't anybody's property, so allowing one group of people to "shut down" another, even if that is the extremes of antifa and neo-nazis, is indeed a functional violation of free speech. If the group activity of corporations shouldn't be allowed to reach out and suppress people orthogonality, than surely non-corporate group action meets the same bar. And have no doubt that the members of the state are involved, on some level, with these activities with the intent of enforcing suppression.

But even if they were not, the state absolutely has a legitimate role in preventing people from being intimidated or assaulted for filming protestors, not just because those things are crimes on their own but because they violate the free speech of the victim.

Free speech is not just a plain law but a foundational value of the United States. The state is obligated to ensure our liberties exist in fact, not just in word. Much of the struggles in this nation are based in people insisting that rights on paper are all we ought to have. Black people had the same rights as whites on paper since the end of the Civil War, but yet we clearly see that it was not respected in fact.

As long as a right leaves open orthogonal avenues of attack, it doesn't exist. It is child's play for both the state or any other group to avoid such a simple restriction.