Skip to main content
Topic: Free Speech ain't what it used to be! (Read 15797 times)

Free Speech ain't what it used to be!


Reviewing a new book, Professor Eugene Volokh (founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog by and for legal scholars, and interested laymen), said little more than that he liked it.
The book's Amazon blurb reads:
Quote
In Freedom From Speech,  author and First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff offers a troubling and provocative theory on why we can expect challenges to freedom of speech to grow in the coming decades, both in the United States and abroad. Lukianoff analyzes numerous examples of the growing desire for "intellectual comfort," such as the rise of speech restrictions around the globe and the increasing media obsession of punishing "offensive" utterances, jokes, or opinions inside the United States. To provide a preview of where we may be headed, Lukianoff points to American college campuses where speakers are routinely disinvited for their opinions, where students increasingly demand "trigger warnings" for even classics like The Great Gatsby, and where students are told they cannot hand out even copies of the Constitution outside of "free speech zones." Lukianoff explains how increasingly global populations are arguing not for freedom of speech, but, rather, freedom from speech.



I bring this up because it's an enduring interest of mine; but also because I've recently argued here about something similar: The plain meaning of words, as applicable to U.S. Constitutional "interpretation" and -specifically- the harms done (actual or potential) by theories of incorporation (and, more recently, "reverse incorporation") from the 14th Amendment…


(One of my posts was recently "reported" for moderation and, subsequently, edited by a moderator… I don't mean to complain or contend I was treated unfairly — whatever that means in such a context.
Of course, America's 1st Amendment guarantee of the right to free speech has no import here: This is a private discussion board and, as such, offers -whatever other means of relief- the simple expedience of free association.
Still, I would have preferred that the offending post been deleted in toto… Editing my words, well-meant or not, is akin to plagiarism or the very sort of "interpretation" I was attempting to argue against! unless the original remains available…
Dear Moderator: Make your points in your own posts! If you quote me, give the source, please. :) )


I will be interested to read any comments posted in this thread. The opinions expressed thereby do matter to me…in an academic sense.


Should this very topic be taken to be a "discussion of moderation," I can only respond with an old punch-line: "Madam, we've already determined what you are… We're just haggling over the price!"


At any rate: I've said my piece, and will leave to others whatever exploration of substantive issues they find as a result.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #1

Maybe time for Rockwell to paint a slightly different one...
How naive... mentally, not technically.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #2
What most separates man, among other things, from the animal world is man's unique ability to speak, to express his thoughts, to verbally present an idea--a concept, & then to discuss these ideas & concepts with others.

Man is also capable, as we can all attest, capable of expressing an opinion--good, or bad, beneficial, or detrimental, intelligent, or daft, popular, or not.

Who has the right to determine if any persons free speech should be censored, specifically & especially when the speech doesn't call for, or cause, direct violence towards another human being or beings?

I say no man has that right!

There will be some that say, & I love this example, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a permitted form of free speech.

Wrong!!!!!

It is & should be permitted.

You jump to your feet & exclaim in disbelief ....... It should be permitted you say!!?? 

Why, I've always been told since being a child that that was forbidden.

Hell, you can't say that!

Well, if I notice the drapes on the stage erupting in flames, I'll take the chance that the Federal Government won't prosecute me for screaming FIRE ......  FIRE!!!

And so should we all.

We should all take this so called 'banned' or 'forbidden' speech & use it as we freely must if the circumstances call for it.

Now that that myth has been addressed, back to the Freedom of Speech.

Was the Freedom of Speech granted to or bestowed upon us by any government of political leader(s)??

No, it is what some call a "Natural Right", a right bestowed upon mankind by a much higher power --- from a time way before memory or record.

Petty political posturing, or any so-called correctness, gives no man the right to censor another man's 'Natural Right to Free Speech', simply because he, or others, may disagree with, or dislike what is, or was said.

I firmly believe [glow=blue,2,300]ALL [/glow] speech is protected by mankind's [glow=lightblue,2,300]Natural Right to the Freedom of Speech,[/glow] & no mortal man has the right to censor another man's speech, specifically & especially when that speech doesn't call for, or cause, direct violence towards another human being or beings.

Now, I could go on, & on, & on, but I think I've made my point.

You may disagree with what I've freely expressed here today, but I, having the Right to Free Speech .... the  'Natural Right'  of Free Speech ...... the ever expressed & time honored Freedom of Speech ........ today, like it or not, I used that most basic of all freedoms, to lay out my ideas for all of you to discuss ....  freely.

In parting may I freely say, I will defend - with my life if need be - my right, as well as yours, to do so -- so help me God!


Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #3
A long and eloquent defense for simple name calling  in lieu of the precise right to exchange ideas.

Freedom of speech as never been completely unlimited. I say these ranking it as my most cherished freedom. If you yell "Fire! Fire!" if the drapes are indeed on aflame, you need not fear prosecution and it is not a risk. But if you falsely make the cry, causing unnecessary panic and injury as people attempt to flee, it is not protected speech. You have no natural right to do so. You do have a natural right to criticize government authority and this is important as the first line of defense against tyranny. 

But the issue at hand his non-governmental agencies. You have the right to make a piece of art that's offensive to many, such as less than flattering images of say Jesus and the Virgin Mary. The gallery also has the right to show or refuse to display your work as part of their free speech. Forums usually have some type of moderation and this one is moderated with feather touch.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #4

A long and eloquent defense for simple name calling  in lieu of the precise right to exchange ideas.

Freedom of speech as never been completely unlimited. I say these ranking it as my most cherished freedom. If you yell "Fire! Fire!" if the drapes are indeed on aflame, you need not fear prosecution and it is not a risk. But if you falsely make the cry, causing unnecessary panic and injury as people attempt to flee, it is not protected speech. You have no natural right to do so. You do have a natural right to criticize government authority and this is important as the first line of defense against tyranny...... 



I defend only "The Right", so in that I'm glad to see you agree with what I wrote.

I disagree with your statement though  "Freedom of speech has never been completely unlimited."

I can, as well as anyone can, say whatever I want to or about you.

The remedy is simply not to listen, show backbone & not let it bother you, or take me to court........All of which is subsequent to me exercising my Unlimited Freedom of Speech.

If I'm willing to pay the price, your statement falls flat on it's face.

You can ignore me.... after I said it, & therefore you already heard it.

You can punch me in the nose, but that's only (lets hope) after I said it & you've already heard it, & also assuming
that I let you (not likely).

I can even scream Fire Fire in a crowded theater, which would be real stupid & could get someone hurt or killed, & end me in hot water, but all those remedies are after the fact......after I exercised my Freedom of Speech.

Government can fine me, take away a portion of my freedom for a time, but that only comes after I exercise my Freedom of Speech --- not before.

In this forum, if I wanted to call you a flaming stupid ignorant self-centered one way mother fukin' asshole (which I won't do mind you because I know your not, & I have no reason to say something that stupid), but for this example lets say I did....& you take offense, whereas your remedy is to report me, in the hopes of getting me banned, or sanctioned for breaking the TOS. As long as I'm willing to pay the price, I can exercise my unlimited right to free speech.....be it probably only one time .... but remember the remedy only applies after the fact of me exercising my right , after I said it, & after you've read it.

Again, the above litany of abuse was only as an example, & I would never lose control enough to stupidly say something as idiotic as that, but think about it .........

Do you see my point?


Also, in closing might I say, all -- each & every remedy -- is conditional on me already expressing my freedom of speech, not before, & none of those remedies can stop me from exercising it again as long as I'm willing to pay the price for exercising it.

That is unless the remedy exercised against me is fatal.

Then, & only then, is my freedom of speech actually & truly limited.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #5
"Free Speech" may--or may not-- be limited in The Public Square, but it does have limits on just about every forum system I know. Engage in name-calling here, expect to get moderated. If I didn't do it, somebody else would-- we have several here--because this is a privately owned forum.

Here in the States, we have "Freedom of the Press" enshrined in the First Amendment. Now about that: Freedom of the Press really extends only to those who actually own the press. If you write a letter to the editor and expect it to appear on the editorial/personal opinion pages-- it might appear or it might not. Write a scathing letter about the paper's editorial policies and I think I can guarantee that your letter will never see the printing press.

Here, the admins took some time to write a "Terms & Conditions" section--- the "T&C" button above-- that tells you what you can and can't get away with. It's the usual stuff you'll find on most forums-- and I think you'll find that "personal attacks" will get moderated.

"Free Speech" is not an absolute, as with all other "freedoms" you have to exercise some responsibility with it.



Ahhhh---- yelling "Fire-- fire!!!" in a crowded theater just may terminate your right to free speech fatally, as it happens. You could be trampled in the panicked rush to the exits that you started. So--- that might not be one of the better examples to use.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #6
Somewhat off the topic of forum posts, but still relevant to free speech is how readily people accuse each other of taking away free speech when they're doing no such thing. For instance, when Phil Robertson made statements against gay people and in favor of marrying 15 year olds some, conservatives in particular, accused "the Left" (often not actually Leftists) of attempting to strip him of 1st amendment rights. In fact, "the Left" merely made counter arguments to Robertson and did not attempt to take him to court, etc. In doing so, Robertson's critics were merely exercising their free speech, which has nothing to do with infringing his. People seem to forget that free speech flows both ways.


Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #7
Ahhhh---- yelling "Fire-- fire!!!" in a crowded theater just may terminate your right to free speech fatally, as it happens. You could be trampled in the panicked rush to the exits that you started. So--- that might not be one of the better examples to use.


"the Left" merely made counter arguments to Robertson and did not attempt to take him to court, etc.


My points exactly, in MJM's example above, the person yelling  "Fire--Fire"  may lose his Freedom of Speech permanently along with his life,
but that was only after he exercised his Right to Free Speech, albeit for the last time.  Nothing stopped him before his exercising his right.

Another point I make, as evidenced in 'Coony's post, without knowing or caring anything about the subject matter, I know that this guy Robertson, whoever he is,  said what he said, & the so called "Left" heard what he said, a perfect example of Free Speech exercised, & note if there was a remedy (being taken to court), it would only be available after the fact, & not before. So if Robertson, knowing he might be taken to court for what he says, is aware of the consequences, & decides to express himself again anyway, he is free to do so,  & then he might, or might not, be subject to the remedy ---- not before.

It seems basically, IMHO, that free speech is alive & well, but it might just mean that people seem to be more readily offended by it than ever before, & therefore seek remedy more often than ever before. This may be aided because government has made these remedies more readily available than ever.

This raises more question:

Are people becoming too thin skinned,     rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?

Could this be some sort of surfacing feminine trait, that some in government seem too eager to accommodate to, maybe hoping to get the complainer's vote(s)?

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #8
Are people becoming too thin skinned,     rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?
It's hard to say. You might deplore the "PC" of today, but it seems one set of "taboo" subjects have been replaced by another. In the old days, being say or speaking on behalf of gay rights on a Tv show or being outed as gay would have gotten you blacklisted. There seems to have always been some form of political correctness, even before the term existed or at least came into widespread use. All that's changed is what's considered politically correct. What was interesting about the Robertson incident is that his defenders managed to "forget" his comments about marrying girls, not yet women, This was actually worse than his is anti-gay comments. It seems folks have a tendency to overlook and idle's other speech and behavior, if he/she says one thing they agree with.

Oh, Robertson is the Duck Dynasty guy. Since he made his comments, he his ratings have nosedived. Rather or not that was a remedy of the marketplace or if a show about hunting ducks has gone stale is hard to say. The A&E network's remedy for his remarks was a very brief suspension, far weaker than what would have earned someone with controversial viewpoints in the past.

note if there was a remedy (being taken to court), it would only be available after the fact, & not before

That's the case in countries with freedom of speech, such as the US. In other countries some "offensive" comments, especially against the government, could earn the remedy of you not being heard from again - perhaps because your vocal cords are buried six feet under ground. Some people complain of censorship in this country, all the while being able to air their views without fear of a legal penalty (or perhaps they do have unfounded fear.)

 

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #9
Are people becoming too thin skinned,     rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?

No, nothing's any different. In 1951 Willem Frederik Hermans was taken to court for having one of his literary characters say:
Quote from: Ik heb altijd gelijk
De katholieken! Dat is het meest schunnige, belazerde, onderkruiperige, besodemieterde deel van ons volk! Maar die naaien er op los! Die planten zich voort! Als konijnen, ratten, vlooien, luizen. Die emigreren niet! Die blijven wel zitten in Brabant en Limburg met puisten op hun wangen en rotte kiezen van het ouwels vreten!

Quote from: Translation
Catholics! Those are the most filthy, crazy, sleazy, buggered part of our people! But they're fucking like crazy! They reproduce! Like rabbits, rats, fleas, lice. They don't emigrate! They remain seated in Brabant and Limburg with pimples on their cheeks and rotten teeth from eating wafers!

The court case by the salafistic illiberal freedom-of-speech hating socialists and Catholics (who said stuff at least as bad about capitalists and unbelievers all the time*) was not, of course, successful. Naturally, the same happened when Wilders compared the Qur'an to Mein Kampf. But is it any different? No, I think not.

* Probably without ever clearly saying they're actually talking about intercourse at all — they were and are great tone trolls.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #10
No, nothing's any different. In 1951 Willem Frederik Hermans was taken to court for having one of his literary characters say:

Or when Alan Ginsburg was put on trial in 1957 for his poem Howl and  Shig Murao was jailed for selling it and Lawrence Ferlinghetti tried for publishing it. The book was seized by US customs using the "think of the children" argument (the exact words were  "You wouldn't want your children to come across it." ) Many of what are today considered great literary works were banned from schools, libraries, as in the case of Ginsberg, their author's put on trial.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #11
Freedom of speech... words taken by the wind.
Relativism has already finished with it, no matter what people want to say no one will actually listen.
That's what free of speech and free from speech means.

Speech was substituted by a permanent noise, empty of any content.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #12
Perhaps not. There seen to be less cases of people actually being to court for publishing controversial works critical of the government, society, etc than before. In that case, the OP might be correct in "Free Speech ain't what it used to be!" but wrong in how; it might have actually increased at least in the sense of what's legally permissible without fear of prosecution. For instance, is allowed to continue practicing their freedom of speech and distorted religion . In the past, the fore mentioned Phil Robertson himself might have faced legal trouble on obscenity charges for his word choice.(he got a little graphic talking about rectums and vaginas.) His words most certainly would not have been printed as is in a mainstream publication, lest the publishers face legal heat. Today, the only "censorship" he got was conflicting opinions.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #13
In that case, the OP might be correct in "Free Speech ain't what it used to be!" but wrong in how; it might have actually increased at least in the sense of what's legally permissible without fear of prosecution.

That's what I'm saying, you can say whatever you want because it will not matter. Words were emptied of content and/or consequence, be it for insults or if you have something to say constructive. Instead of no more censorship, censorship it's total because no message passes.

It's a matter of how, as you say. How relativism disguised as total freedom destroys societies.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #14
Quote from:      LA TIMES  http://tinyurl.com/lvs3ys2   
College students in California and three other states filed lawsuits against their campuses Tuesday in what is thought to be the first-ever coordinated legal attack on free speech restrictions in higher education.

Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, a 20-year-old studying computer science, alleged that Citrus College in Glendora had violated his 1st Amendment rights by restricting his petitioning activities to a small "free-speech zone" in the campus quad.

According to Sinapi-Riddle's complaint, a campus official stopped him last fall from talking to another student about his campaign against spying by the National Security Agency, saying he had strayed outside the free-speech zone. The official said he had the authority to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus if he did not comply..............CONTINUED

Quote
It was shocking to me that there could be so much hostility about me talking to another student peacefully about government spying. - Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, college student


Can it be that the bastions of higher education, Colleges & Universities, seemingly want to control the free exchange of ideas!!??

Much more about this shocking fact can be found here

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #15
We've discussed that before. Slightly problematic for that cause is that FIRE, the group that "red flags" colleges for infringement apparently considers rules against harassment on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation infringements on of first amendment rights as they do with East Tennessee State University . So they undermine their own credibility. To obtain alarming sounding figures such as 58% of schools restrict free speech, they throw in rules that have nothing to do with free exchange of ideas (a little original intent anyone?)  Even so, by their own account, the percent of infringing colleges has declined substantially from 75%.

Of course infringement occurs, but we need separate what's genuine infringement and what's not.

For instance, from the link:

Quote
Chicago State University faculty members Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz sued over what they said were repeated attempts to silence a blog they write on alleged administrative corruption.
This is bad, if it's true. But where's the blog? What's the university's answer to the allegation. What evidence do the faculty members have and how do we know the allegations aren't libel?

As far as Googling it goes, put in the right search terms and it will tell you what you want to hear, even if it's not the true.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #16
Aarrgh!


Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #18
Only for you 'Coony, only for you!!!

I know you're teasing me, but there might but some truth to, but not just for me. The search engines are starting to smart for the user's own good in some cases. It possible for a liberal user and conservative to enter the same search terms, but get different result based on the site they're more likely to click on. This can be problematic if you're looking for objective sites on politically charged subjects. So if you tell somebody "Google it!" the sites on top might be what you think they are, in fact they might credence to viewpoints opposite of yours.

Even the news is like that. Fox tells conservative viewers what they want to hear. The basic news piece might be correct, but tons of bias thrown. But MSNBC does the same for liberal viewers.

But back on the subject. "Free speech zones" are dubious. However, in the university not too long ago, my free speech was never stifled. I regularly turned in essay that were politically opposed to the professor and still made Magna Cum Laude. Meanwhile, the cases brought up by FIRE raise more questions than answers. A student steps outside the "free speech zone" to talk to another student about NSA activities. He gets reprehended under the harassment codes. Why harassment?  Something doesn't add up. Was the student pestering the other guy after being repeatedly told to leave him alone? Based on my personal experience, there has to be more to the story.

So I have to stand by what I said before. Based on past prosecutions merely for selling books, McCarthyism in the 1950's, etc there actually seems to be more free speech then in the past. That's not mention anyone can "print" there own newsletters, publish their opinions online without having to through the expense of purchasing a printing press or having another company print it up for them. There's not only seemingly less censorship, but more opportunities to share your ideas with the world.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #19
An example about Google's tendency to bias things according to your past searches: Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van. Clicked on a few links, looked at some websites. Can you guess what Google Ads serves up to me today on every website I visit that has ads? Yep--- tons and tons of stuff for trucks.

Politically, it'll be the same. Look up a few conservative websites, and Google will slowly learn you have Tea-Party sympathies and from then on everything you see will have a Right-Wing slant to it.

We all have a tendency to seek "truth" that tickles our ears. Whether what tickles our ears is actual TRUTH or not is another matter.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #20
From a while back, I offer this essay for your consideration…


Why? Because fundamental rights are — fundamental! Free speech. Free association. Religious freedom.The right to keep and bear arms, otherwise known as "self-defense AND revolution"… :) Are there others?
Certainly! And they fit comfortably with these named.


Those that don't are -shall we say?- suspect?


No legal theory obviates rational debate and political controversy or accommodation to the changing views of the polity. (The "evolved" view of the 14th Amendment comes close, though; its champions make, always, the same argument: Give us what we'll settle for now, or you'll get what you least desire -eventually…) Well, no legal theory that comports with the U.S. Constitution.
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #21
Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.


Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #22

Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.


Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?


Gee, I dunno---- think my wife, if I should ever have one, would get upset if she sees I've been looking at load-restraining-bars, ratchet straps and moving-blankets?
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #23

Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.


Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?
Your browsing history isn't communicated to anyone and I find it useful on occasion. Tracking cookies are a different matter, and I think Firefox including stuff like that under advanced history settings is a perfect illustration of the general problems with its recent (4+) interface changes.

Re: Free Speech ain't what it used to be!

Reply #24
When people feels the need to encrypt their messages there's no free speech.
A matter of attitude.