Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[icehorse]

Do you not see how this example proves the point that not all speech is desirable or deserving of protection, and that there are limits?

You don't care for the speech of the bullhorn people ruining your concert. You think they should be stifled.

I don't care for the speech of Nazis and racists ruining my country. I think they should be stifled too.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Of course not all speech is desirable - doh! And yes of course, as I've said several times on this very thread, there ARE limits to free speech. But not as many as people think. As for "not deserving of protection" - now that's the nut of the question. Who's smart enough to tell you what you aren't allowed to hear? I know of no one I'd give that power to.

 

[icehorse]

You've certainly made him into one.

Really? you're gonna have to connect the dots on that one. His views on free speech occasionally overlapped with his views on religion, but often no such overlap existed.

 

[icehorse]

I'm sure there is but that's the gist of it. I can go somewhere say whatever I want but within confines of the law. If I went into Walmart preaching into the intercoms they might get me for something else, doesn't mean free speech is violated.

I think your argument is apples and oranges. The 1st amendment was meant to protect just the sort of speech the asshats were pursing last weekend. It was put in place so protect against the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Mister Silver]

When allowances are made for certain re

Really? you're gonna have to connect the dots on that one. His views on free speech occasionally overlapped with his views on religion, but often no such overlap existed.

If Hitchens was as smart as he claims to be, he would understand that the allowance of free speech upon impressionable minds is not a good thing. Imagine Hitler freely speaking to a class of elementary school kids; do you seriously support that sort of message to be impressed on such young minds, especially considering that a country full of adults followed it as though it was the perfect promise of a better future?

 

[icehorse]

When allowances are made for certain re

If Hitchens was as smart as he claims to be, he would understand that the allowance of free speech upon impressionable minds is not a good thing. Imagine Hitler freely speaking to a class of elementary school kids; do you seriously support that sort of message to be impressed on such young minds, especially considering that a country full of adults followed it as though it was the perfect promise of a better future?

This seems like a tangent? I mean, if you want to crank up a separate thread to debate indoctrination of children, I'll participate but how does that apply in this thread?

 

[Mister Silver]

This seems like a tangent? I mean, if you want to crank up a separate thread to debate indoctrination of children, I'll participate but how does that apply in this thread?

Think critically, no one's stopping you except yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

You're allowed to say more than what most people think, but there are limits.......................

OK..... do you have any idea about the limits?

Can any group of people meet up and march together through public streets heavily armed?
Can people shout messages, or display signs which provoke others into criminal actions?
Can people Incite others to commit violent acts?
Can people shout out defamatory lies about others?

..... just askin'.....

 

[icehorse]

OK..... do you have any idea about the limits?

Can any group of people meet up and march together through public streets heavily armed?
Can people shout messages, or display signs which provoke others into criminal actions?
Can people Incite others to commit violent acts?
Can people shout out defamatory lies about others?

..... just askin'.....

As I've said maybe three previous times in this thread, the test appears to be "imminent violence". And as I've also said many times in this thread, I think these alt-right asshats are very familiar with the limits and they know how to walk right up to those limits without crossing the line.

So heavily armed? depends on the state. Presumably if they were too heavily armed for Virginia, the cops would have stopped them before they got starte.
Provoking into criminal actions - probably protected.
Incitement, probably protected if it's not considered imminent.
Defamatory lies, probably protected.

 

[icehorse]

Think critically, no one's stopping you except yourself.

Make your argument, you haven't demonstrated that you're worth playing guessing games with.

 

[Mister Silver]

Make your argument, you haven't demonstrated that you're worth playing guessing games with.

You're the one suggesting there is anything to guess because I already made my case. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

 

[icehorse]

You're the one suggesting there is anything to guess because I already made my case. Your lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem.

Can anyone here restate the case that @Mister Silver says he made?

 

[oldbadger]

As I've said maybe three previous times in this thread, the test appears to be "imminent violence". And as I've also said many times in this thread, I think these alt-right asshats are very familiar with the limits and they know how to walk right up to those limits without crossing the line.

So heavily armed? depends on the state. Presumably if they were too heavily armed for Virginia, the cops would have stopped them before they got starte.
Provoking into criminal actions - probably protected.
Incitement, probably protected if it's not considered imminent.
Defamatory lies, probably protected.

Hi.....
I'm not American but I think that you've got this wrong, somewhat.

'Incitement to commit a crime' is a criminal offence mostly everywhere in the Western World.

Conspiring to commit violence, or provoke violence, is probably criminal in the US.

Slander and Libel are torts.

Do you think that a person could use any media to advertise how to manufacture human traps, or b-mbs etc?

Much is claimed about 'freedom of speech' but just try defaming a neighbour with lies and see what happens.

 

[Notanumber]

Any free speech directed against an ideology is all right by me provided it is made in a space that is accessible to anyone that cares to listen. Anything said is then open for debate and ridicule if necessary.

It is when things are preached to a clique behind closed doors or when the young are indoctrinated with an ideology that concerns me.

Why are the peaceful Rightists automatically catapulted into the category of being classed as Alt-Right, Far-Right, KKK or Neo-Nazis by the Leftists and the media?

Antifa and other “hard left” contingents remind me of the football hooligans that used to attend matches in the UK looking for a fight.

Has there been any confirmation that acid was contained in the pepper spray used by the Antifa on the Alt-Rightist known as “Baked Alaska.”?

 

[Falvlun]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Of course not all speech is desirable - doh! And yes of course, as I've said several times on this very thread, there ARE limits to free speech. But not as many as people think. As for "not deserving of protection" - now that's the nut of the question. Who's smart enough to tell you what you aren't allowed to hear? I know of no one I'd give that power to.

You've already made that determination: we aren't allowed to hear the bullhorn people in your concert scenario. What if I wanted to hear what they had to say?

You are simply picking winners and losers here and aren't owning up to the fact. You think your right to hear speech trumps other people's right to shout over that speech. Personally, I think that shouter's speech should be given higher priority.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Can anyone here restate the case that @Mister Silver says he made?

He's asking if you recognize that there are limits to the blanket Civil Liberty granted by the Freedom of Speech.

He gave you an example that is usually policed by local sensibilities, using Hitler in a classroom full of children, IIRC.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe that free speech rights are broader than what I *think* you're implying. When "The Satanic Verses" was published, the religious (not just Muslims), cried "blasphemy", violence ensued, the book was banned in many areas, and the many politicians blamed the novelist, not the churches. When the Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad, again violence broke out, and very, very few news agencies in the West were brave enough to publish the cartoons. When speakers get de-invited to speak on college campuses we're seeing censorship in another form. In all of these cases, listeners are denied the right to hear (or read as the case may be.) You might be correct that not all of this is covered under the 1st amendment, but it's all a part of a society that values free speech.

As for where this idea comes from, I heard it first from Hitchens, and I respect the quality of his research.

So, in other words, the 1st Ammendment is not being violated. Rather, a societal concept of free speech is. So when you say you have all these rights not mentioned in the 1st Ammendment, you are using the term causally, rather than in a legal way. Unless you have court cases or legal rulings that indicate the 1st Ammendment has been interpreted to include those concepts of free speech or rights?

Perhaps you could link to Hitchens' arguments. Keep in mind, however, that Hitchens doesn't bestow rights.

Regardless, whether it's your argument or Hitchens', you have yet to address my criticism: Why should your right to hear, trump the rights of other people to speak? You are upset that the neo-Nazis didn't get to fully speak their mind, but you condemn the counter protestors that spoke theirs. How is that not a double-standard?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well there are a LOT of left-pole types out there, I sure hope there aren't as many Nazis!

Think of it this way:
There has, at least as far as modern history is concerned, always been more on the Right, Republicans, Conservatives in America than those on the Left, Democrat, Liberal (with those who are at least self-identified as moderate being the most numerous). Now, based on this, given there are more on the Right than the Left, that the population is skewed/tilted in one direction, which is probably going to be producing more extremists, regressives, and other nasty sorts? And if not more, the numbers shouldn't be all that different.

 

[shmogie]

What happened in Charlottesville is a clear a case of how not to handle it but I'm not convinced rights were violated. The anti-protest group had a right to free speech too.

Of course the have the right of free speech. NOBODY has the right to commit violence.

The nation his horrendously divided, if violence becomes the method of dealing with this, it is going to be very ugly.

 

[icehorse]

Hi.....
I'm not American but I think that you've got this wrong, somewhat.

'Incitement to commit a crime' is a criminal offence mostly everywhere in the Western World.

Conspiring to commit violence, or provoke violence, is probably criminal in the US.

Slander and Libel are torts.

Do you think that a person could use any media to advertise how to manufacture human traps, or b-mbs etc?

Much is claimed about 'freedom of speech' but just try defaming a neighbour with lies and see what happens.

I think you've broadened the playing field a bit. When I woke this morning I thought that I also wanted to broaden the field a bit. But it feels a bit late in this thread to do so. So, hypothetically, I'm thinking of framing this question in terms of universal human rights, which include freedom of expression.

 

[icehorse]

You've already made that determination: we aren't allowed to hear the bullhorn people in your concert scenario. What if I wanted to hear what they had to say?

You are simply picking winners and losers here and aren't owning up to the fact. You think your right to hear speech trumps other people's right to shout over that speech. Personally, I think that shouter's speech should be given higher priority.

Wrong. If instead, the people with bullhorns wanted to have a protest across the street and not use bullhorns, I would totally support that. It's not an either / or, it's a both. What I'm arguing is that stifling is not allowed. Of course protests are allowed.