# Dangers to free speech.....



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

America was founded on, and has long existed, on the notion that free speech is a fundamental part of who we are....it is no accident that it is part of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

And free speech has long been under assault by those wanting to restrict speech they disagree with......Benjamin Franklin's Grandson, Benjamin Franlkin Bache, the editor of the Philadelphia Aurora newspaper, was jailed by the Federalists as part of their 'Alien and Sedition' act of 1798, for printing stories that the Federalists found offensive and damaging.

There is a fundamental danger in our society whenever legislatures pass laws in a knee jerk fashion to fit unique and random events.....many folks may remember the outrage surrounding the 'Cyber Bullying' case of 13 year old Megan Meier, where she was 'befriended' online by the mother of a former friend, Lori Drew, who convinced her that she was a teenage boy interested in her.....only to demean and humiliate her, the ultimate result being that Meier committed suicide.

Now, Lori Drew deserves to rot in hell.....no doubt about that.......however, one must remember this was, no matter how incendiary, an isolated, almost freak, event.......and as such, legislatures passing these laws are only doing so based on a emotional knee-jerk response to a single act.

When that happens, we ended up getting legislation that's WORSE than the singular wrong they are trying to right.....and that's what I fear we're seeing now.......government taking an EXCUSE to use that event and some others to regulate and control free speech!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28629118/
_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Aurora&action=edit&redlink=1_


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 23, 2009)

That seems a complicated issue all right. 

The thing that occurs to me is that surely she was a minor when her 'free speach' was infringed? How can the laws of freedom of expression apply to those who have not yet reached their majority?

I may be misunderstanding the applicable laws or reading the article wrongly, so don't hesistate to 'set me straight' on this (I'm coming down with a migraine so the old grey cells are not firing right ).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> That seems a complicated issue all right.
> 
> The thing that occurs to me is that surely she was a minor when her 'free speach' was infringed? How can the laws of freedom of expression apply to those who have not yet reached their majority?
> 
> I may be misunderstanding the applicable laws or reading the article wrongly, so don't hesistate to 'set me straight' on this (I'm coming down with a migraine so the old grey cells are not firing right ).



The courts in the US have long ruled that free speech rights apply even to school children, though to a limited to degree in the need for maintaining good discipline.  And this issue is more than just about the girl in the article (though, her case certainly warrants review.....she posted her comments on a private blog, and it should be protected).

The problem is that when we allow government a good excuse to regulate something, they will often take it....and not always for the betterment of society......and when they do get their hands around a thing, they RARELY let go.

This whole 'Bullying' phenomenon, has become a codeword for an excuse to try and regulate and suppress any view we disagree with........Americans need to develop thicker skins and DEAL WITH IT as adults, not children running to mother every time someone says something that hacks us off......but it's going to get worse......wait until the Obama Administration slips the fairness doctrine in to get rid of those 'Bullies on Talk Radio'.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 23, 2009)

That is very true, *Mac*. I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of keeping government hands off the tenet of free speach as much as possible.  Nothing strangles freedom of choice quicker than gagging those that disagree with those in authority.

Thanks for the additional information on how such rights apply to minors :tup:.


----------



## morph4me (Jan 23, 2009)

Seems to me that if we start to regulate what people can write on a computer blog or in an email, it's a very small step to taking those laws and applying them to newspapers, magazines and other media. We already have laws about libel that can be extended to the internet, as long as people want to go through the trouble of tracking down a poster or blogger and go through the legal system, then there's the whole intent issue. A small crack is all that's necessary to start eroding the freedoms we've enjoyed, and it appears to me that cracks are starting to appear all over the place, in the name of security, national or personal.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

morph4me said:


> Seems to me that if we start to regulate what people can write on a computer blog or in an email, it's a very small step to taking those laws and applying them to newspapers, magazines and other media. We already have laws about libel that can be extended to the internet, as long as people want to go through the trouble of tracking down a poster or blogger and go through the legal system, then there's the whole intent issue. A small crack is all that's necessary to start eroding the freedoms we've enjoyed, and it appears to me that cracks are starting to appear all over the place, in the name of security, national or personal.



Very true!  And unfortunately both current political parties are more than happy to do so based on their own pet reasoning.......those that thought Obama was some kind of cure for this are going to be sadly mistaken, as the left promises whole new ranges of restrictions on free speech for their own reasons.

It's time to start fundamentally reviewing the direction we're going as a country.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 23, 2009)

What a shame that adult educators can't apply the general rule of tolerance and use the tool they've earned through the years called "experience" and know where this speech was coming from.

And it is most definitely dangerous to silence blogs, etcetera.

Grrrr.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> What a shame that adult educators can't apply the general rule of tolerance and use the tool they've earned through the years called "experience" and know where this speech was coming from.
> 
> And it is most definitely dangerous to silence blogs, etcetera.
> 
> Grrrr.


 I couldn't agree more.......ultimately, the damage done by a passing comment in a personal blog is EXTREMELY negligible......the damage done to free speech by silencing it is incalculable!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 23, 2009)

So how long before our free speech (alibet as long as we follow the forum guidelines) are going to be regulated HERE? Or any other forum?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 23, 2009)

She was complaining about the school--a govt. entity. It's complicated by her status as a minor, but yes, if she can't complain, what message does _that_ send? I hope she wins her suit.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

morph4me said:


> Seems to me that if we start to regulate what people can write on a computer blog or in an email, it's a very small step to taking those laws and applying them to newspapers, magazines and other media. We already have laws about libel that can be extended to the internet, as long as people want to go through the trouble of tracking down a poster or blogger and go through the legal system, then there's the whole intent issue. A small crack is all that's necessary to start eroding the freedoms we've enjoyed, and it appears to me that cracks are starting to appear all over the place, in the name of security, national or personal.


 

The problem too is as any parent can tell you, banning or regulating something also makes it more attractive. I don't listen to or read quite a lot of things as I either find them not to my taste or distasteful but thats my choice, the minute one of these sources is banned or taken to court I would become instantly attentive. For example I really don't like jazz music I'm afraid, so never listen to the radio stations dedicated to it but if it were to be banned (as in Nazi Germany) I would campaign strenously to get it back on air though I wouldn't listen to it still. 

 For some groups too such as extreme right wing, fascist type groups or rascist groups being banned or taken to court legitimises them in their eyes, it also bring very welcome publicity to them that they don't deserve. 

I don't believe free speech means you can say exactly anything you want, I don't believe racial hatred should be spouted or incitement to riots etc but over here the law has always been more than adequate to deal with that as I suspect it has been in America. New legislation is rarely needed to control the worse elements who abuse free speech. 

I can understand governments wishing to block free speech from a Machevellian point of view, getting rid  opposition etc but sometimes I think the worse offenders are the do gooders who mean well in trying to protect us but end up with more draconian legislation than the would be tyrants. The Lord save us from the well meaning!


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2009)

Doesn't surprise me.  The educational system, including academia, supports free speech only when it directly benefits themselves. 

Doesn't anyone remember the "drunken pirate" - the young lady that was denied her degree in education at the last minute because of a MySpace page that showed her drinking form a plastic cup on Halloween?  

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0426072pirate1.html

Who is the REAL bully?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 23, 2009)

Carol is absolutely right here.  This sort of behavior by the school systems has been going on for a long time, and any latching on to "cyber-bullying" legislation is opportunistic on their part.  Speech by students out of school, and speech and actions by educators outside of school, has been used to end careers, deny graduation, initiate discipline, and similar.  Unfortunately, with the rise of such easy communication, we are also seeing the private sector do this more and more.  Make inflammatory comments on your blog that get wide attention?  Say goodbye to your job.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The problem too is as any parent can tell you, banning or regulating something also makes it more attractive. I don't listen to or read quite a lot of things as I either find them not to my taste or distasteful but thats my choice, the minute one of these sources is banned or taken to court I would become instantly attentive. For example I really don't like jazz music I'm afraid, so never listen to the radio stations dedicated to it but if it were to be banned (as in Nazi Germany) I would campaign strenously to get it back on air though I wouldn't listen to it still.
> 
> For some groups too such as extreme right wing, fascist type groups or rascist groups being banned or taken to court legitimises them in their eyes, it also bring very welcome publicity to them that they don't deserve.
> 
> ...



I agree with your general points, but I can tell with your comments on 'racial hatred' speech that you're European......as Europe has restricted such speech......in the US, however, our courts have (so far) concluded that even THAT speech is protected......and SHOULD BE!  As the damage done by RESTRICTING even that speech far outweighs the damage OF the speech.

I suspect in the VERY NEAR FUTURE we'll see restriction of 'Hate Speech' as well.......with MANY folks cheering it on......that is how Liberty dies!


----------



## morph4me (Jan 23, 2009)

As much as we might like to see restrictions on hate speech, any restriction on freedom of speech just opens the door for interpretation of what hate speech is, and then next thing you know it becomes hate speech if someone says anything at all that could be construed by someone, no matter how much they have to stretch to do it, as hate speech. We do have some restrictions, e.g. not yelling fire in a crowed theater, on what we can get away with. We also have laws regarding slander, but I'd hate to see it go much further than that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

morph4me said:


> As much as we might like to see restrictions on hate speech, any restriction on freedom of speech just opens the door for interpretation of what hate speech is, and then next thing you know it becomes hate speech if someone says anything at all that could be construed by someone, no matter how much they have to stretch to do it, as hate speech. We do have some restrictions, e.g. not yelling fire in a crowed theater, on what we can get away with. We also have laws regarding slander, but I'd hate to see it go much further than that.



And the list of what would QUALIFY as 'Hate Speech' would continue to grow, as new powers saw a chance to use it to silence opposition.

It's been done in America before, and fortunately it's been defeated......as I mentioned earlier the Federalists used the Alien and Sedition act of 1798 to silence Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, and critic of the Federalists, and his newspaper, the 'Philadelphia Aurora', and put Bache in prison, for printing unflattering and critical stories about the Federalists, where he died before the act could be struck down!

One should also study Woodrow Wilson's domestic policies during WWI, and his use of millions of volunteers to suppress ANY dissent within the country.....so effective was Woodrow Wilson that even today it's not widely known.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I agree with your general points, but I can tell with your comments on 'racial hatred' speech that you're European......as Europe has restricted such speech......in the US, however, our courts have (so far) concluded that even THAT speech is protected......and SHOULD BE! As the damage done by RESTRICTING even that speech far outweighs the damage OF the speech.
> 
> I suspect in the VERY NEAR FUTURE we'll see restriction of 'Hate Speech' as well.......with MANY folks cheering it on......that is how Liberty dies!


 

We don't restrict free speech and laws in each country are different on this point. What we have in the UK is an offence 'inciting racial hatred' which means if for example the National Front or their military offshoot Combat 18 start their rants about Asians, black people etc which usually consist of 'rivers of blood' being called for they can be prosecuted.  We've also had recently radical Muslim clerics calling for their supporters to kill British people. Saying you hate a particular race or group of society is not illegal, however calling for the deaths of and violence against an ethnic group is an offence. It actually constitutes 'threatening behaviour' which is an offence in it's self ( thats the one where if someone is threatening you, you're then aloowed to strike first as you are 'in fear of your life')

*Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994*

_154 Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress _
_In Part I of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section_
*4A Intentional harassment, alarm or distress *

_(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he _
_(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or _
_(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, _
_thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress._
_(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling. _
_(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove _
_(a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or _
_(b) that his conduct was reasonable. _
_(4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. _
_(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.. _

*Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable *

*155 Offence of racially inflammatory publication etc. to be arrestable *

_In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (h) inserted by section 166(4) of this Act, there shall be inserted the following paragraph_
_(i) __an offence under section 19 of the [1986 c. 64.] Public Order Act 1986 (publishing, etc. material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred);_.


In Europe they have a problem we don't have here, so in austria and Germany Holocaust denial is illegal, I can see where they are coming from here but I can also see the implications to free speech.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We don't restrict free speech and laws in each country are different on this point. What we have in the UK is an offence 'inciting racial hatred' which means if for example the National Front or their military offshoot Combat 18 start their rants about Asians, black people etc which usually consist of 'rivers of blood' being called for they can be prosecuted.  We've also had recently radical Muslim clerics calling for their supporters to kill British people. Saying you hate a particular race or group of society is not illegal, however calling for the deaths of and violence against an ethnic group is an offence. It actually constitutes 'threatening behaviour' which is an offence in it's self ( thats the one where if someone is threatening you, you're then aloowed to strike first as you are 'in fear of your life')
> 
> *Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994*
> 
> ...



None of that is illegal in the US!  The only kind of speech illegal in the US is immediate incitement to riot (actually out in the street actively inciting an imminent riot) and shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

Such evil books as the 'Turner Diaries' are perfectly legal here and, distasteful as they are, it's reassuring that we don't prosecute folks for distasteful, sometimes even evil, speech.

I'm aware of the 'Inciting racial hatred' laws of Europe and Canada, and I find even those dangerous.


My personal view is that power of government should be the LAST resort solution to social problems, not the first.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

In this country you can write and say that you hate 'purple' people, that they stink, are nasty, subhuman, pinch your jobs, your women, your dogs etc etc ad nauseum but what you can't do is write or shout out in public that they should be killed, battered or otherwise harrassed or harmed. You can say that in the privacy of your own home however but not to the public. 
You cannot in this country legally threaten violence to anyone even your own family. I imagine most countries have similiar laws.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In this country you can write and say that you hate 'purple' people, that they stink, are nasty, subhuman, pinch your jobs, your women, your dogs etc etc ad nauseum but what you can't do is write or shout out in public that they should be killed, battered or otherwise harrassed or harmed. You can say that in the privacy of your own home however but not to the public.
> You cannot in this country legally threaten violence to anyone even your own family. I imagine most countries have similiar laws.


 The only restriction we have the US is an IMMINENT threat of physical violence is considered an assault......meaning if you I yell in your FACE that i'm going to kill you right now, for example.

But the difference between the US and other western counties is our implicit 1st Amendment.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> None of that is illegal in the US! The only kind of speech illegal in the US is immediate incitement to riot (actually out in the street actively inciting an imminent riot) and shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
> 
> Such evil books as the 'Turner Diaries' are perfectly legal here and, distasteful as they are, it's reassuring that we don't prosecute folks for distasteful, sometimes even evil, speech.
> 
> ...


 


Mmm, the law here is a *criminal* law not a civil law ( I see the difference in our laws is about to pop up again lol) 
If MT were to allow it you could write up and call me all the names under the sun, you can repeat that in public, you can tell everyone you hate me but what you can't do here is say 'I'm going to kill you' or 'I'm going to come around and break your arms and legs'. If you stand in front of me threatening to beat me up or kill me that's threatening behaviour and a criminal offence. It also gives me the right to hit you first if I think you are going to carry out your threat.

The inciting racial violence paragraph is an adjunct to the threatening behaviour charge. People have been threatening racial minorities with violence and death, thats the crime with which they are charged with. I hope I'm explaining the law properly so you can see thats it's a criminal problem here not a social one.

It would be the same if you threatened your own wife and not a ethnic minority. The threat has to be implicit and overt btw not a stretch to make it into a threat.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

If you didn't like what was being said or written about you your recourse would be to the Civil Courts to sue either for slander or libel. It would be a costly business though as in civil law you have to pay to take a case to court, in the Criminal Courts the Crown Prosecution Service take the cases to court and the defence can be paid for out of public funds if you can't afford a barrister or solicitor.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm, the law here is a *criminal* law not a civil law ( I see the difference in our laws is about to pop up again lol)
> If MT were to allow it you could write up and call me all the names under the sun, you can repeat that in public, you can tell everyone you hate me but what you can't do here is say 'I'm going to kill you' or 'I'm going to come around and break your arms and legs'. If you stand in front of me threatening to beat me up or kill me that's threatening behaviour and a criminal offence. It also gives me the right to hit you first if I think you are going to carry out your threat.
> 
> The inciting racial violence paragraph is an adjunct to the threatening behaviour charge. People have been threatening racial minorities with violence and death, thats the crime with which they are charged with. I hope I'm explaining the law properly so you can see thats it's a criminal problem here not a social one.
> ...



No, I understand completely....and the UK's laws are actually pretty reasonable.......France, I know, actually has laws on the books about writing things about religious and racial groups that are considered offensive.....Germany actually has banned many things related to the Nazis (understandable, but still a bit frightening), Canada even has some laws on the books about saying certain things of religious and racial groups.

And while I don't condone racists or their rantings.....I find them less dangerous than government interference in free speech.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 23, 2009)

In a typically acidulous mood, H. L. Mencken-my hero!one of them, anyway- wrote in 1929: _"The *danger of free speech* does not lie in the menace of ideas, but in the menace of emotions. If words were merely logical devices, no one would fear them. But when they impinge upon a moron they set off his hormones, and so they are justifiably feared.* Complete free speech, under democracy, is possible only in a foreign language.*" _

The ancient Greeks, the Founders, and the subsequent courts, Oliver Wendall Holmes and John Stuart Mill were all aware of the dangers *of* free speech.



sgtmac_46 said:


> And while I don't condone racists or their rantings.....I find them less dangerous than government interference in free speech.


 
Agreed, but that's what governments *do*.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> If you didn't like what was being said or written about you your recourse would be to the Civil Courts to sue either for slander or libel. It would be a costly business though as in civil law you have to pay to take a case to court, in the Criminal Courts the Crown Prosecution Service take the cases to court and the defence can be paid for out of public funds if you can't afford a barrister or solicitor.



Most of our laws on such things are ENTIRELY civil, and even those, such as libel and slander, apply to individuals, not groups.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> In a typically acidulous mood, H. L. Mencken-my hero!one of them, anyway- wrote in 1929: _"The *danger of free speech* does not lie in the menace of ideas, but in the menace of emotions. If words were merely logical devices, no one would fear them. But when they impinge upon a moron they set off his hormones, and so they are justifiably feared.* Complete free speech, under democracy, is possible only in a foreign language.*" _
> 
> The ancient Greeks, the Founders, and the subsequent courts, Oliver Wendall Holmes and John Stuart Mill were all aware of the dangers *of* free speech.
> 
> ...



The price of a free society is a thick skin.......and that's what governments 'do' if you want to live in a maternalistic despotic state.

Me, I prefer rude liberty to polite bondage......a dying view, apparently.

Speaking of Mills....



> [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]'We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.' -John Stuart Mill [/FONT]


[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]

[/FONT]





> [FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]'The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:  if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.' -John Stuart Mill [/FONT]


[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

On the subject of liberty, I defer to Samuel Adams...



> "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending against all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks." -Samuel Adams





> "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams



....and one that gives me hope....



> "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."  Samuel Adams


----------



## elder999 (Jan 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> .
> 
> Speaking of Mills....


 


> "The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited;* he must not make himself a nuisance to other people."*-John Stuart Mill


 
He was no fan of censorship, though.....



sgtmac_46 said:


> .
> The price of a free society is a thick skin.....


 
Agreed.



sgtmac_46 said:


> ...and that's what governments 'do' if you want to live in a maternalistic despotic state.


 
No, that's what governments do whenever they get or are given the chance. Doesn't matter much what you, I or anyone else wants if we don't scream loudly enough, and aren't willing to back up those screams with iron and lead.



sgtmac_46 said:


> .
> 
> Me, I prefer rude liberty to polite bondage......a dying view, apparently.


 
Me as well-and yes, it's sadly true that it's a dying view.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> No, that's what governments do whenever they get or are given the chance. Doesn't matter much what you, I or anyone else wants if we don't scream loudly enough, and aren't willing to back up those screams with iron and lead.


 No, I agree, COMPLETELY, governments are a greedy master, as Paine said, a 'necessary evil at best and an intolerable one at worst'......that's why they RARELY give back power given to them.





elder999 said:


> Me as well-and yes, it's sadly true that it's a dying view.


 I believe history is cyclical......and that a people who grow spoiled with wealth and affluence almost always deteriorate to despotism, much as the Romans did before us, out of sheer laziness and desire to be 'taken care of'. 

Regardless, it is VERY sad that it's a dying view......


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

France has quite fierce privacy laws too, you even have to be careful who you photograph there. 
Our situation here is that free speech is a civil affair, the law we have at the moment is concerned with public order which is not civil. If the government starts mixing the two I'd hope we'd resist.

The only other law which restricts speech and is the one I have most contact with is the Official Secrets Act which is actually a law, well several laws really. It does restrict what people say and do.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The only other law which restricts speech and is the one I have most contact with is the Official Secrets Act which is actually a law, well several laws really. It does restrict what people say and do.


 

That is another altogether reasonable restriction on free speech, but it's one _almost_ all who are subject to volunatrily submit to.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> That is another altogether reasonable restriction on free speech, but it's one _almost_ all who are subject to volunatrily submit to.


 

Ah, no theres the thing, it's a law and everyone is subject to it, like it or not. Signing the Official Secrets Act is just a reminder of the terms of the law not that you agree to abide by it. I can't say anything other than it is necessary though.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The problem too is as any parent can tell you, banning or regulating something also makes it more attractive. I don't listen to or read quite a lot of things as I either find them not to my taste or distasteful but thats my choice, the minute one of these sources is banned or taken to court I would become instantly attentive. For example I really don't like jazz music I'm afraid, so never listen to the radio stations dedicated to it but if it were to be banned (as in Nazi Germany) I would campaign strenously to get it back on air though I wouldn't listen to it still.
> 
> For some groups too such as extreme right wing, fascist type groups or rascist groups being banned or taken to court legitimises them in their eyes, it also bring very welcome publicity to them that they don't deserve.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I can remember in High School the 2Live Crew Nasty As They Wanna Be controversy.  I mean gee that was late 80's early 90's.  It was Tipper Gore this etc.  The group is this and they said that.  "Think of the Children", the list goes on.  However by the late 90's pop stations were openly playing Minem or Marshall Mathers whoever he is.  They were also playing R&B or hip hop where the subject material was about a single mom was justifing protitution because it paid good money.

2 Live Crew get banned, shut down, sued, etc. and not played on the radio.  However, 10 years later and now 20 years later.  Well you see the outcome.

Who else remembers how Ozzy and Rob Halford got sued over supposed suicides?  The parents blamed the music.  Now you have music that talks about people commiting suicide over obsession and this music gets radio air play.  Go figure.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 23, 2009)

matt.m said:


> Who else remembers how Ozzy and Rob Halford got sued over supposed suicides.


 
They actually had a mass _Black Sabbath_ burning when I was a kid.

In _New York_, no less-nowhere near the "Bible Belt."

In friggin' _*Westchester County*_, even-not 30 miles from NYC!

some people.....


----------



## teekin (Jan 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The price of a free society is a thick skin.......and that's what governments 'do' if you want to live in a maternalistic despotic state.
> 
> Me, *I prefer rude liberty to polite bondage...*...a dying view, apparently.
> 
> ...


What an excellent summation! Well said.
lori


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

elder999 said:


> They actually had a mass _Black Sabbath_ burning when I was a kid.
> 
> In _New York_, no less-nowhere near the "Bible Belt."
> 
> ...


 

Maybe they just didn't like the music and were cold?


----------



## morph4me (Jan 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm, the law here is a *criminal* law not a civil law ( I see the difference in our laws is about to pop up again lol)
> If MT were to allow it you could write up and call me all the names under the sun, you can repeat that in public, you can tell everyone you hate me but what you can't do here is say 'I'm going to kill you' or 'I'm going to come around and break your arms and legs'. If you stand in front of me threatening to beat me up or kill me that's threatening behaviour and a criminal offence. It also gives me the right to hit you first if I think you are going to carry out your threat.
> 
> The inciting racial violence paragraph is an adjunct to the threatening behaviour charge. People have been threatening racial minorities with violence and death, thats the crime with which they are charged with. I hope I'm explaining the law properly so you can see thats it's a criminal problem here not a social one.
> ...


 

I guess the bard would be in trouble for this little gem "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 23, 2009)

morph4me said:


> I guess the bard would be in trouble for this little gem "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."


 

 In a play it's fine as it's a character's line and Shakepeare could prove it's reasonable which is all he needs to do.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 23, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> When that happens, we ended up getting legislation that's WORSE than the singular wrong they are trying to right.....and that's what I fear we're seeing now.......government taking an EXCUSE to use that event and some others to regulate and control free speech!
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28629118/



Sarge,

I'd like to focus on this last story and offer my thoughts as a middle school teacher-librarian/techie.



> {Avery} Doninger was a star student at Mills, and in 2007 she wanted to run for senior class secretary, a position that included the honor of speaking at her graduation ceremony.
> 
> 
> But Karissa Niehoff, the schools principal, rejected Doningers candidacy over a personal blog entry Doninger posted from her home computer. In the posting, Doninger reported  inaccurately, it turned out  that a school event she had helped organize had been canceled. She blamed douchebags in central office for the supposed cancellation and reported that a flood of complaints had pissed off the school districts superintendent.




Her free speech was to report inaccurate information and call people names. It doesn't surprise me... She's young, and young people can do impulsive things. This sort of behaviour is well-rewarded in popular culture. There are pundits and singers and actors who make good money talking out there **** and name-calling.


Having made this mistake, the appropriate thing for her to do (perhaps she did) is to apologize.





> Doninger ran as a write-in candidate and won, only to be barred from taking office.



I think the school / school board handled this all wrong. Absolutely, there should be a consequence for her behaviour. I love working with kids all day, and I've had my share of flared tempers and bad language, but at the end of the day it is not OK for students to make up stuff and call people names. It doesn't have to be the end of the world, but I do not verbally abuse students, and I expect the same in return. 

Squeezing her out of the election had a predictable result. I think interfering with the student election was a poor choice, but that seems to be a school / school district decision, not a legislative one. If the electorate wants her as their rep, that's what they want.



> That led her mother to sue the school district on her behalf. The Doningers lost this month in U.S. District Court; their attorney promised to appeal the decision all the way to the Supreme Court.


How precious!:barf:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Sarge,
> 
> I'd like to focus on this last story and offer my thoughts as a middle school teacher-librarian/techie.
> 
> ...


 I think it's perfectly okay for them to do so in a forum not controlled by the school.....by all means schools are government instruments, and there should be a sphere of influence outside their control, where free speech applies.


----------



## searcher (Jan 23, 2009)

The only reason why the 1st Ammendment has been around as long as it has, is because we have the 2nd Ammendment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2009)

searcher said:


> The only reason why the 1st Ammendment has been around as long as it has, is because we have the 2nd Ammendment.


 You'll get no disagreement from me.......the 2nd Amendment is the linchpin of the bill of rights!


----------



## Carol (Jan 23, 2009)

The Second protects the rest.


----------

