Dangers to free speech.....

[Tez3]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.



Agreed, but that's what governments do.

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]

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]

.

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.....

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

Agreed.

...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.

.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

[/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]

What an excellent summation! Well said.
lori

 

[Tez3]

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.....

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

 

[morph4me]

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.

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

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

Sarge,

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




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.





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.


How precious!:barf:

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.