Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
So by your lights, short of being arrested and incarcerated there is no way to abridge my freedom of speech rights?
Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
I think you missed the point here. You replied to the post, clearly without having either opened the link or read the article.
Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
That must have been on the faded section of the Bill of Rights.
As for the police chief story, is there anybody in here who agrees with Swedish pastor's, but not the police chief's firing or vice-versa? That's what I really want to know.
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
This has become one of the more confusing threads. So if I'm not exactly 'on point' forgive me.
First, 'free speech' is primarly about political speech - although the courts have effectively broadened it into 'free expression' (porn, art, etc.).
Second, courts have recognized that a public employee may engage in free speech political activities, off the job.
Third, government employers have a right to enforce workplace rules that are for the purpose of conducting a harmonius business enviroment: e.g. no political ads on desks, etc. They also have the right to direct their employees to NOT discuss budget, work process, etc. (unless called before congress)as it relates to their job. It is grounds for termination if this rule is violated (as I found out).
It does not matter that the Chief thought her job function was of such pressing national security concern that she went to the press or politiced Congress - that's the rules in civil service.
However, I do feel for her. I know how stressful it is to see a looming disaster in one's area of responsibility and feel like you're talking to a brick wall. This kind of 'head in the sand' budgeting is so common that, after a while, you get used to sitting on dynamite...knowing that when it goes off you'll probably be blamed (hence document the sh*( out of your objections).
Organizations are generally sick: they want everyone to be a 'team' player...to 'get on the train'...to accept that in the fight for budget, its a zero sum game - some lose so than others can win.
Which is why I retired early...had enough of that crap.
That must have been on the faded section of the Bill of Rights.
As for the police chief story, is there anybody in here who agrees with Swedish pastor's, but not the police chief's firing or vice-versa? That's what I really want to know.
Ya, I do: the pastor is a victim of political repression, the police chief is a victim of civil service rules designed to keep politics (and undermining the boss) out of the organization.
Ya, I do: the pastor is a victim of political repression, the police chief is a victim of civil service rules designed to keep politics (and undermining the boss) out of the organization.
Well, maybe her political views were stymying her own and others' productivity, but it's shaky ground nonetheless. In a sense you're right though. The pastor was a victim of an unjust law while the police chief was the victim of an unjust employer...I guess.
So when you can't win an argument you start picking at grammar. Point noted. I'll file the same mental note for Sammi as well.
You've not addressed how both examples of speech repression in the United States are not in fact repression. You want to pick around the edges (you didn't get the gender right in your reply, etc.) because you don't want to deal with the fact that both examples were clear cut examples of the opposite. The one couple were trespassing. They were cited and released. The second example was someone politicing over the head of their boss via the press. The second example wasn't even on HER own private time. Also again the Constitution guarantees you the freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee freedom from consequencs. It doesn't guarantee that your mom won't be ashamed of you, your boss won't fire you, or that other people will agree with you. That isn't repression. Taking someone, charging them with speech crimes, and then sending them to jail, that is in fact repression.
So either point out how these links are in fact repressed free speech in your view, repression on par with sending someone to jail for simply offending someone.
But were does opinion end and incitement begin? The question I was trying to ask was about how we should regard speech that encourages, facilitates or endorses criminal acts tacitly instead of explicitly.
But were does opinion end and incitement begin? The question I was trying to ask was about how we should regard speech that encourages, facilitates or endorses criminal acts tacitly instead of explicitly.
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence. This is not incitment when:
A speaker expresses visceral hate.
A speaker speaks on private or designated public property.
A speaker does not intefer with other's rights.
Now what about advocating 'civil disobediance' (sit-downs, traffic blockage)...is that speech 'incitement'?
Is saying "America desearves 9/11" incitement ?
Is saying "Fag's ought to burn in hell" incitement?
Is advocating a sit-down blocking an outside of a military base incitement?
Is Patton's "All real Americans love the sting of battle" and "we're going to go through them like crap through a goose" incitement?
I don't think that most (all of these) are incitement.
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence. This is not incitment when:
A speaker expresses visceral hate.
A speaker speaks on private or designated public property.
A speaker does not intefer with other's rights.
Now what about advocating 'civil disobediance' (sit-downs, traffic blockage)...is that speech 'incitement'?
Is saying "America desearves 9/11" incitement ?
Is saying "Fag's ought to burn in hell" incitement?
Is advocating a sit-down blocking an outside of a military base incitement?
Is Patton's "All real Americans love the sting of battle" and "we're going to go through them like crap through a goose" incitement?
I don't think that most (all of these) are incitement.
We're experiencing a lot of this here around where I live. I'll give a rundown of what's going on:
Salt Lake City hosts the mormon's "general conference," in which scads and scads of LDS folks gather to discuss the status of the church and other things. Recently, an organization of evangelical street preachers from PA have come down and taken to doing and saying some really nasty, nasty things. They take the church's "holy garments" and pretend to wipe their asses with them. They call women leaving the conference whores. They try to get a rise out of the church members.
The local courts have ruled that what these guys are doing is not protected free speech, since it contains "fighting words" (that is, language specifically designed to incite violence).
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence.
Well, from what I've read, that appears to be pretty much the US legal definition (under the Brandenburg test, if there is no call to imminent criminal activity the speaker is exercising his or her right to free speech)...but this thread has gotten me thinking about the extent to which hate speech can eventually contribute to an environment where criminal activities are more likely. Would the Nuremberg Laws have been accepted in Germany in 1935 without the preceding 15 years of de-humanizing anti-Semitic rhetoric from the Nazis?
All said, I don't believe that simply offending either a group or an individual should be punishable by law...but I reckon that there are varying degrees of intent to be taken into consideration.
We're experiencing a lot of this here around where I live. I'll give a rundown of what's going on:
Salt Lake City hosts the mormon's "general conference," in which scads and scads of LDS folks gather to discuss the status of the church and other things. Recently, an organization of evangelical street preachers from PA have come down and taken to doing and saying some really nasty, nasty things. They take the church's "holy garments" and pretend to wipe their asses with them. They call women leaving the conference whores. They try to get a rise out of the church members.
The local courts have ruled that what these guys are doing is not protected free speech, since it contains "fighting words" (that is, language specifically designed to incite violence).
Interesting stuff.
The court?s have been very reluctant to restrict speech based on ?fighting words? (the concept was created in a 1942 case) unless it is a face to face challenge (like going up to a woman calling her a stinking whore bitch) ? but yelling at a group leaving the conference (I assume the grounds are private) is not sufficient.
Without knowing the exact circumstances, its difficult to predict where this will end up legally. If the preachers wiped their asses, or screamed insults, at a body of attendees they may be immune. However, if they chased an individual down the street screaming they may have been guilty of harassment or disturbing the peace.
Having been around Berkeley during some of its worst days, this kind of behavior is not new to me (they were always street preachers screaming I was going to burn if I walked by their corner). I?m sure for LDS people it?s a shock.
The court?s have been very reluctant to restrict speech based on ?fighting words? (the concept was created in a 1942 case) unless it is a face to face challenge (like going up to a woman calling her a stinking whore bitch) ? but yelling at a group leaving the conference (I assume the grounds are private) is not sufficient.
Actually, that's pretty much what they're doing, as I understand it.
Quote:
Having been around Berkeley during some of its worst days, this kind of behavior is not new to me (they were always street preachers screaming I was going to burn if I walked by their corner). I?m sure for LDS people it?s a shock. [/B]
Yeah, especially considering it's so highly organized. At two of the universities I've attended (both public), there were serious talks about establishing "free speech zones" where the preachers could come and call people whores.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
So by your lights, short of being arrested and incarcerated there is no way to abridge my freedom of speech rights?
Originally posted by addabox
So by your lights, short of being arrested and incarcerated there is no way to abridge my freedom of speech rights?
So unless the government hands you a printing press, a megaphone and your own cable show, they are abridging your freedom of speech?
Get to the point, arguments should not be like vague shotgun blasts.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
I think you missed the point here. You replied to the post, clearly without having either opened the link or read the article.
Originally posted by trumptman
Only you would entirely miss the point. Free speech is not free of consequences from all of regular life. If I say I boss is a stupid idiot, she or he might fire me. However I am not tossed in jail for my thoughts. You ignore the fact that the people supposedly repressed in these articles are not in fact going to jail for what they have said, regardless of gender.
Wise up and realize the difference.
Nick
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
Originally posted by midwinter
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
That must have been on the faded section of the Bill of Rights.
As for the police chief story, is there anybody in here who agrees with Swedish pastor's, but not the police chief's firing or vice-versa? That's what I really want to know.
Originally posted by midwinter
Why would the founders bother with protecting your freedom to say something stupid in your house? "Freedom of Speech" is clearly meant to protect political speech.
This has become one of the more confusing threads. So if I'm not exactly 'on point' forgive me.
First, 'free speech' is primarly about political speech - although the courts have effectively broadened it into 'free expression' (porn, art, etc.).
Second, courts have recognized that a public employee may engage in free speech political activities, off the job.
Third, government employers have a right to enforce workplace rules that are for the purpose of conducting a harmonius business enviroment: e.g. no political ads on desks, etc. They also have the right to direct their employees to NOT discuss budget, work process, etc. (unless called before congress)as it relates to their job. It is grounds for termination if this rule is violated (as I found out).
It does not matter that the Chief thought her job function was of such pressing national security concern that she went to the press or politiced Congress - that's the rules in civil service.
However, I do feel for her. I know how stressful it is to see a looming disaster in one's area of responsibility and feel like you're talking to a brick wall. This kind of 'head in the sand' budgeting is so common that, after a while, you get used to sitting on dynamite...knowing that when it goes off you'll probably be blamed (hence document the sh*( out of your objections).
Organizations are generally sick: they want everyone to be a 'team' player...to 'get on the train'...to accept that in the fight for budget, its a zero sum game - some lose so than others can win.
Which is why I retired early...had enough of that crap.
Originally posted by Eugene
That must have been on the faded section of the Bill of Rights.
As for the police chief story, is there anybody in here who agrees with Swedish pastor's, but not the police chief's firing or vice-versa? That's what I really want to know.
Ya, I do: the pastor is a victim of political repression, the police chief is a victim of civil service rules designed to keep politics (and undermining the boss) out of the organization.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Ya, I do: the pastor is a victim of political repression, the police chief is a victim of civil service rules designed to keep politics (and undermining the boss) out of the organization.
Well, maybe her political views were stymying her own and others' productivity, but it's shaky ground nonetheless. In a sense you're right though. The pastor was a victim of an unjust law while the police chief was the victim of an unjust employer...I guess.
Originally posted by trumptman
So unless the government hands you a printing press, a megaphone and your own cable show, they are abridging your freedom of speech?
Get to the point, arguments should not be like vague shotgun blasts.
Nick
Nor should they be complete non-sequiturs.
Originally posted by addabox
Nor should they be complete non-sequiturs.
So when you can't win an argument you start picking at grammar. Point noted. I'll file the same mental note for Sammi as well.
You've not addressed how both examples of speech repression in the United States are not in fact repression. You want to pick around the edges (you didn't get the gender right in your reply, etc.) because you don't want to deal with the fact that both examples were clear cut examples of the opposite. The one couple were trespassing. They were cited and released. The second example was someone politicing over the head of their boss via the press. The second example wasn't even on HER own private time. Also again the Constitution guarantees you the freedom of speech. It doesn't guarantee freedom from consequencs. It doesn't guarantee that your mom won't be ashamed of you, your boss won't fire you, or that other people will agree with you. That isn't repression. Taking someone, charging them with speech crimes, and then sending them to jail, that is in fact repression.
So either point out how these links are in fact repressed free speech in your view, repression on par with sending someone to jail for simply offending someone.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So when you can't win an argument you start picking at grammar. Point noted. I'll file the same mental note for Sammi as well.
A non sequitur isn't an element of grammar. In this context, it's a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by midwinter
A non sequitur isn't an element of grammar. In this context, it's a logical fallacy.
You're right. Instead of reading that as complete non-sequitur, I read it as incomplete non-sequitur. Either way I mislabeled it.
Nick
Originally posted by Scott
Maybe that new term could be "opinion"?
But were does opinion end and incitement begin? The question I was trying to ask was about how we should regard speech that encourages, facilitates or endorses criminal acts tacitly instead of explicitly.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
But were does opinion end and incitement begin? The question I was trying to ask was about how we should regard speech that encourages, facilitates or endorses criminal acts tacitly instead of explicitly.
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence. This is not incitment when:
A speaker expresses visceral hate.
A speaker speaks on private or designated public property.
A speaker does not intefer with other's rights.
Now what about advocating 'civil disobediance' (sit-downs, traffic blockage)...is that speech 'incitement'?
Is saying "America desearves 9/11" incitement ?
Is saying "Fag's ought to burn in hell" incitement?
Is advocating a sit-down blocking an outside of a military base incitement?
Is Patton's "All real Americans love the sting of battle" and "we're going to go through them like crap through a goose" incitement?
I don't think that most (all of these) are incitement.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence. This is not incitment when:
A speaker expresses visceral hate.
A speaker speaks on private or designated public property.
A speaker does not intefer with other's rights.
Now what about advocating 'civil disobediance' (sit-downs, traffic blockage)...is that speech 'incitement'?
Is saying "America desearves 9/11" incitement ?
Is saying "Fag's ought to burn in hell" incitement?
Is advocating a sit-down blocking an outside of a military base incitement?
Is Patton's "All real Americans love the sting of battle" and "we're going to go through them like crap through a goose" incitement?
I don't think that most (all of these) are incitement.
We're experiencing a lot of this here around where I live. I'll give a rundown of what's going on:
Salt Lake City hosts the mormon's "general conference," in which scads and scads of LDS folks gather to discuss the status of the church and other things. Recently, an organization of evangelical street preachers from PA have come down and taken to doing and saying some really nasty, nasty things. They take the church's "holy garments" and pretend to wipe their asses with them. They call women leaving the conference whores. They try to get a rise out of the church members.
The local courts have ruled that what these guys are doing is not protected free speech, since it contains "fighting words" (that is, language specifically designed to incite violence).
Interesting stuff.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I don't think its that difficult. Incitement ought to begin when a speaker advocates major violence.
Well, from what I've read, that appears to be pretty much the US legal definition (under the Brandenburg test, if there is no call to imminent criminal activity the speaker is exercising his or her right to free speech)...but this thread has gotten me thinking about the extent to which hate speech can eventually contribute to an environment where criminal activities are more likely. Would the Nuremberg Laws have been accepted in Germany in 1935 without the preceding 15 years of de-humanizing anti-Semitic rhetoric from the Nazis?
All said, I don't believe that simply offending either a group or an individual should be punishable by law...but I reckon that there are varying degrees of intent to be taken into consideration.
Originally posted by midwinter
We're experiencing a lot of this here around where I live. I'll give a rundown of what's going on:
Salt Lake City hosts the mormon's "general conference," in which scads and scads of LDS folks gather to discuss the status of the church and other things. Recently, an organization of evangelical street preachers from PA have come down and taken to doing and saying some really nasty, nasty things. They take the church's "holy garments" and pretend to wipe their asses with them. They call women leaving the conference whores. They try to get a rise out of the church members.
The local courts have ruled that what these guys are doing is not protected free speech, since it contains "fighting words" (that is, language specifically designed to incite violence).
Interesting stuff.
The court?s have been very reluctant to restrict speech based on ?fighting words? (the concept was created in a 1942 case) unless it is a face to face challenge (like going up to a woman calling her a stinking whore bitch) ? but yelling at a group leaving the conference (I assume the grounds are private) is not sufficient.
Without knowing the exact circumstances, its difficult to predict where this will end up legally. If the preachers wiped their asses, or screamed insults, at a body of attendees they may be immune. However, if they chased an individual down the street screaming they may have been guilty of harassment or disturbing the peace.
Having been around Berkeley during some of its worst days, this kind of behavior is not new to me (they were always street preachers screaming I was going to burn if I walked by their corner). I?m sure for LDS people it?s a shock.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The court?s have been very reluctant to restrict speech based on ?fighting words? (the concept was created in a 1942 case) unless it is a face to face challenge (like going up to a woman calling her a stinking whore bitch) ? but yelling at a group leaving the conference (I assume the grounds are private) is not sufficient.
Actually, that's pretty much what they're doing, as I understand it.
Having been around Berkeley during some of its worst days, this kind of behavior is not new to me (they were always street preachers screaming I was going to burn if I walked by their corner). I?m sure for LDS people it?s a shock. [/B]
Yeah, especially considering it's so highly organized. At two of the universities I've attended (both public), there were serious talks about establishing "free speech zones" where the preachers could come and call people whores.