What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

[Checkmite]

You could argue that the Dixie Chick outrage was manufactored in order to punish them.

That's fine - Clearchannel is a private entity that isn't restricted by the First Amendment. It would certainly be nice if everyone who started a set up to broadcast to billions of people worldwide would hold the ideal (as opposed to the Amendment, as mentioned by Nasarius) of free speech foremost and not engage in such things; on the other hand, Clearchannel's decision to "punish" them in this way (if that's true) could be seen as speech in and of itself.

 

[Skeptic]

He also wants there to be no property

He can start by giving up his own.

 

[Skeptic]

I think kooky anarchy guy has a point.

I think I am not surprised you think kooky anarchy guy has a point.

But if kooky anarchy guy agrees with you, perhaps you should rethink your position.

 

[American]

It would certainly be nice if everyone who started a set up to broadcast to billions of people worldwide would hold the ideal ... of free speech foremost....

N.P.R. didn't. There are no conservative commentators on NPR. If there is even one, then I guess you will tell me that Alan Colmes is a hard-fighting liberal on Fox, not just a devil's advocate meant to set-up their guests for ridicule.

 

[JAR]

I think kooky anarchy guy has a point. What good is free speech if there is a conspiracy to silence everyone.

Free speech is good because if Bush was to get rid of it, the Dixie Chicks would have been thrown in jail for protesting the Iraq War.

 

[RandFan]

The guy is a moron.

Having said that. I'm not fond of boycotts and I think it appropriate to speak out against them. I don't think that people who truly value the spirit of free speech should seek to silence anyone. Of course speaking out against the Dixie Chicks is just as important as anything the Dixie Chicks has to say. And, calling for boycotts is itself protected speech. One can speak out without calling for boycotts and I would encourage any and everyone not to call for boycotts.

If we are effective at silencing someone through public pressure and boycotts then we have effectively censured that person. The only response to bad speech is more speech. If people call for boycotts be it Dixie Chicks, Rush Limbaugh or Laura Slessinger then we should speak up and say boycotts are not the answer but we recognize that calling for a boycott is a protected form of speech.

 

[Chanileslie]

This is a hard concept to get across to a lot of people that freedome of speech and/or expression does not mean freedom from consequences and reprecussions. It just means the government can't take retribution against one because one said something of which the government may not approve.

 

[gnome]

I think a point can be made about free speech even if someone's first amendment rights aren't technically being violated.

For example, I would find it somewhat contradictory for someone to claim to love the First Amendment, but then tell everyone that disagrees with him to shut up. More so if they actually take steps to prevent the person from being heard.

The point being, if you truly are in favor of the First Amendment, doesn't it also follow you should agree that it's a good thing for people to speak their mind?

The answer of course is "Yes (as long as I agree.)"

 

[peptoabysmal]

How about when Jimi Hendrix played the Star Spangled Banner (or should I say Star Mangled Banner) at Woodstock?

I have to wonder if the anarchist in question would have no problem boycotting one of the C&W artists such as Jim Lane (We Are The U.S.A.) who did patriot songs.

 

[UserGoogol]

The first amendment only protects people from having the government restrict their speech. That's a given.

The question is ultimately a semantic one over what "free" speech is. The government, after all, is ultimately just another group of people, although a very special group of people, and one which is supposed to represent "everyone." Although the Constitution only protects us from having our speech restricted by the government, and rightly so, perhaps people should be even freer in their speech than just being free from the government.

But of course it's not that simple. The methods by which people restrict speech are not all that harmful. And many forms of restricting speech are themselves speech. And there you get into a complex infinite loop, which is simply not the sort of thing you want to be getting into in your moral systems.

So uh... I guess you can't have universal totally free speech.

 

[ceo_esq]

Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

I'd say it's about the same as in Europe. And Australia. And probably some other places I can't think about.

I disagree about Europe. For example, a number of European countries have criminalized various forms of "hate speech" - restrictions that would violate the First Amendment if adopted in the United States.

Conversely, I can't think offhand of any restrictions on freedom of expression which are permissible under U.S. law but which would be illegal in those European countries with whose laws I am familiar.

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

I'd say it's about the same as in Europe. And Australia. And probably some other places I can't think about.

Are Denmark and Norway and Finland in Europe now? Hello, CFLarsen, Bjorn and pillory!

 

[Tmy]

That's fine - Clearchannel is a private entity that isn't restricted by the First Amendment. , Clearchannel's decision to "punish" them in this way (if that's true) could be seen as speech in and of itself.

What if the govt is using a private entity to surpess others speech? Thats the issue in the Stern thing. That Clearchannel is a tool of the Whitehouse cause of their connections. OR the FCC is strongarming them to dump Stern or else theyll mess with their station licenses. Its kinda like a mob set up.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I have always interpreted free speech to mean you have the right to say what you want without the government cracking down on you, you do not have the right to be protected from other consequences such as people not liking you, people thinking you are an utter @$$ due to your words, people not buying your records (or whatever) as a result of not liking what you say, people giving dissenting opinions, etc.

I have never found this to be all that revolutionary a view, though your co-worker is a nut, I don't why you have never met many people who get this point. I have always thought I was in the majority opinion on it.

Basically you have a right to free speech, but you do not have any entitlement to being protected from the natural consequences of that speech. What isn't to get?

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

I disagree about Europe. For example, a number of European countries have criminalized various forms of "hate speech" - restrictions that would violate the First Amendment if adopted in the United States.

Examples, please?

 

[Bjorn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

Are Denmark and Norway and Finland in Europe now? Hello, CFLarsen, Bjorn and pillory!

Yeah - Norway was in Europe last time I checked (December 2003). As for Denmark it has been a few years (Copenhagen and Kisserup 1996, IIRC), but Finland might be a myth much like Atlantis (I mean, is Pillory real?)

 

[daenku32]

So, how long have we enjoyed freedom of speech?

Since in a context of Freedom of speech in a society would mean that the society itself, not just government, would avoid infringing on your rights. Those being things like a fair trial and protection of criminal laws (can't shoot someone)..

So, wonder how long you have been able to walk in the south and make fun of Jesus?

I know that claiming to be an Atheist would have got you killed until very recently.

 

[daenku32]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

Yeah - Norway was in Europe last time I checked (December 2003). As for Denmark it has been a few years (Copenhagen and Kisserup 1996, IIRC), but Finland might be a myth much like Atlantis (I mean, is Pillory real?)

I was born and raised there (in Finland). But I'll take it's secret location to my grave.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What Nobody 'Gets' About Free Speech

Examples, please?

The UK has an Incitement to Racial Hatred act and a provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act which covers incitement to religious hatred. If we include protests, or even gathering together in public to talk about stuff, then there's some rather scary provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act as well as the Anti-Terrorist Act. In fact the latter would be ludicrous if it wasn't so scary; according to the definition of terrorism that it uses the bloody Ramblers' Association is a terrorist group...

 

[crimresearch]

Apparently to some US law enforcement officials, even silence isn't protected by free speech...
(Some Quaker's meet for an hour of silent worship)

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n032802a.html

" Those labeled “criminal extremists” include the American Friends Service Committee, an 85-year-old pacifist Quaker group that has won the Nobel Peace Prize for its advocacy of nonviolent social change, and Sister Antonia Anthony, a 73-year-old Franciscan nun whose opinions and lawful protest activity are documented in police files. "