Bill Hicks on freedom of speech

[AdMan]

This is today's "Letter of Note" and I think worth sharing, even if it's 19 years old.

In May of 1993, deeply offended by its "blasphemous" content, a priest wrote to Channel 4 and complained about the recent screening of "Revelations," a recording of Bill Hicks's live show at London's Dominion Theatre some months before (a show which, incidentally, can be seen in its entirety here).

Upon receiving said complaint, Channel 4 passed it on to Hicks himself. Hicks then responded to the priest directly with the following letter. It doesn't disappoint.

Here's the letter.

Sadly, Bill Hicks was diagnosed with cancer the very month he wrote that letter and died less than a year later.

 

[Almo]

Good one. The letter I mean.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Sadly, Bill Hicks was diagnosed with cancer the very month he wrote that letter and died less than a year later.

That's what happens when you mess with the big man!

 

[AdMan]

That's what happens when you mess with the big man!

You know, right after I clicked on "Submit Reply" I thought exactly that.

 

[WildCat]

That's what happens when you mess with the big man!

That and chain smoking.

 

[Cleon]

Sadly, Bill Hicks was diagnosed with cancer the very month he wrote that letter and died less than a year later.

And we're still waiting for Denis Leary to follow suit...

 

[Darat]

And we're still waiting for Denis Leary to follow suit...

Proves god doesn't exist!

 

[RandFan]

Thank you. I firmly believe freedom of speech is often misunderstood even by those who think they support freedom of speech. Some think freedom of speech is some arcane bit of legalese that pertains to solely to protection of citizens from govts or simply has to do with political speech. As if there were no spirit or right of speech apart from govt and speech criticizing govt.

Though it is true that the First Amendment only protects your right from govt infringement, that's not all that it is. Freedom of speech is the free exchange of ideas so that the best ideas will survive in the market place of those ideas. The more censorial institutions are the less free flow of ideas there are. The more impoverished we as a society are.

We should value free speech simply for the intrinsic value of free speech.

 

[Darth Rotor]

We should value free speech simply for the intrinsic value of free speech.

What is the intrinsic value in a lie?

A lie can be an example of free speech.

Do you wish to encourage lying?

It is my understanding that the logic behind the protection of Free Speech is that people should be free to speak the truth.

In that I will accept the notion of intrinsic value.

 

[AdMan]

What is the intrinsic value in a lie?

A lie can be an example of free speech.

Do you wish to encourage lying?

It is my understanding that the logic behind the protection of Free Speech is that people should be free to speak the truth.

In that I will accept the notion of intrinsic value.

Who is to determine if what is spoken is a lie?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Who is to determine if what is spoken is a lie?

I see our rep from the Ministry of Truth has arrived.

And right on time.

 

[AdMan]

I see our rep from the Ministry of Truth has arrived.

And right on time.

WTF are you talking about? Ministry of Truth? No idea what that is.

I asked a valid question based on your post.

Do you have an answer to the question?

 

[Freddy]

Darth,

I know this discussion goes beyond protection from government retaliation, but it's worth noting that the Supreme Court agrees that lies have no intrinsic value. That's why false statements of fact can be the basis for civil liability, and in some cases even criminal liability (e.g., the Stolen Valor Act).

As to the lie vs. opinion distinction, courts do make that determination, though they require that the statement would be regarded by a reasonable person as a serious (rather than sarcastic or whatnot) claim of fact, rather than an opinion or mere rhetorical excess.

 

[AdMan]

I see our rep from the Ministry of Truth has arrived.

And right on time.

Are you confused, seeing as you apparently think you are replying to someone else than me?

"Right on time"? I started this thread to highlight an old letter on freedom of speech by Bill Hicks. I have no idea what point it is you are trying to make.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Lucidly and elegantly put. Kudos, Hicks. I love you, you crazy son of a bitch.

 

[jiggeryqua]

All the adjectives I would have used have been used already, but thank you for the link, not only for that letter but for bringing my attention to an entertaining and informative archive. J.R.R.T's scathing response to some Nazis is well worth a read too.

 

[Virus]

Hicks was OK as a comedian, but if he were alive today he'd be a Truther.

 

[Eddie Dane]

And we're still waiting for Denis Leary to follow suit...

Odd.
Considering that everything else Leary has done, seemed to trail what Hicks did in the previous six months.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Hicks was OK as a comedian, but if he were alive today he'd be a Truther.

I think he was more than OK.
I loved his style.

Impossible to know if he'd be a truther, but I'd estimate the chances at a good 70%

He certainly swallowed the JFK conspricrap hook, line and sinker.
He believed in a secret cabal running the US from behind the scenes.
He thought the first Gulf War was a 'fireworks show" to take our mind of the economy.
So he checks those boxes, yeah.

 

[Ladewig]

I see our rep from the Ministry of Truth has arrived.

And right on time.

The irony. It burns.

In the analogy that you created, you are closer to any 1984 government officials than anyone else in this thread. You are the one wanting to limit free speech based on content. AdMan was pointing out a flaw in your description of how free speech works.