Charlottesville: It's about the 1st Amendment

[idav]

To everyone:

I want you to imagine a different scenario: imagine you bought tickets to a concert in the park. While you're at the concert, a bunch of people who don't like that kind of music show up just outside the concert area and start protesting with their bullhorns, drowning out the music. Are those bullhorn wielders okay with you? Do you feel you've had your rights trampled on? Would you expect the police to come and restore order? Can you see how freedom of speech includes the right to hear what you want to hear?

There really is no formality in the ideal of free speech. The only right it affords us is not getting arrested for it, that's all. There is still plenty more to get arrested for, like disturbing the peace or bopping the guy in the head cause they didn't like the speech.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Does the music at the concert promote white supremacy? If so, I would certainly be there with that bullhorn drowning out that garbage.

Is the one with the bullhorn the white supremacist? If so, I would certainly be upset with him spewing his hate.

This

 

[icehorse]

I think we may have different ideas about "the left, Icehorse. HUGE, HUGE, HUGE? I see the left as a tiny voice in the wilderness. Are you including moderate, middle-of-the-road types as left?

A fair question. I'm not talking about classical liberals. I'm talking about the BLM, SJW, cancelling controversial speakers at college campuses sort of left. Steve Pinker has called this slice of the left "the left pole". For lack of an official phrase, I'll use left pole. The left pole is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE compared to the alt-right.

 

[icehorse]

There really is no formality in the ideal of free speech. The only right it affords us is not getting arrested for it, that's all. There is still plenty more to get arrested for, like disturbing the peace or bopping the guy in the head cause they didn't like the speech.

Hmmmm. Isn't it the case that over the decades reams and reams of laws have been created to address all of the intricate ins and outs of the 1st amendment?

 

[Mister Silver]

I'm talking about the BLM, SJW, cancelling controversial speakers at college campuses sort of left.

Abortion is a controversial subject. Whether or not to allow Hitler-style speaking on campus is hardly controversial; I certainly would not want any child of mine to witness that.

 

[Falvlun]

You're not addressing my arguments.

Yes, I did. Why are you now running away?

Your argument was that you had a right to hear specific speech ("If Counter protestors shout over a speech I want to hear, then isn't that impinging on my constitutional rights?" -Icehorse). I want to know where you think that right comes from. I also then made the logical conclusion that if your "right to hear" was enforced, then that would necessarily result in the freedom of speech of others being curtailed.

Your other argument was that the counter protestors infringed upon the Nazi's freedom of speech. I asked you to explain where in the Constitution it says that citizens must provide others with a platform for their speech, or where it says that citizens must refrain from interrupting or interfering with other people's speech. I also made the logical conclusion that if you believe the counter protesters should not have been allowed to speak, then you are, in fact, advocating the restriction of freedom of speech.

You can feel free to correct any misconceptions I have regarding your arguments. But they are your arguments, and I specifically addressed them.

 

[idav]

Hmmmm. Isn't it the case that over the decades reams and reams of laws have been created to address all of the intricate ins and outs of the 1st amendment?

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We're too nice; too respectful, too tolerant and too hesitant to criticize or put our foot down.

I think this may be where the Left in general fails, and even produces things like warped authoritarian Right ommunist-Marxist regimes. Seriously, the extreme Left, when they are actually moved to extreme measures, are known for sometimes making sure no sentient beings are harmed during their operations. The Democrats, they are acting like they don't want to win 2018 or 2020. Republicans play hardball politics. And win.

 

[Falvlun]

To everyone:

I want you to imagine a different scenario: imagine you bought tickets to a concert in the park. While you're at the concert, a bunch of people who don't like that kind of music show up just outside the concert area and start protesting with their bullhorns, drowning out the music. Are those bullhorn wielders okay with you? Do you feel you've had your rights trampled on? Would you expect the police to come and restore order? Can you see how freedom of speech includes the right to hear what you want to hear?

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The left pole is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE compared to the alt-right.

Is it really that much bigger, or are the alt-right types just beginning to crawl out of the woodworks and expose themselves publicly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, you're not reading carefully. I have said many times on this thread that we should criticize and marginalize and ridicule these asshats relentlessly.

I was reading fine. I was taking you at face value.

You said that the left-wing protesters and the media were "trampling on the first amendment." You're implying that they're breaking the law and that they have no right to say what they're saying.

Maybe you didn't actually mean this literally. Maybe you were going for hyperbole... but this doesn't communicate well online.

 

[Valjean]

Abortion is a controversial subject. Whether or not to allow Hitler-style speaking on campus is hardly controversial; I certainly would not want any child of mine to witness that.

Seems to me it would be a good 'teachable moment.'
I'll have to agree with Icehorse here. Let them speak, if only to know thine enemy.

Censorship won't eliminate a movement, it'll more likely radicalize it and drive it underground.

 

[fantome profane]

When did I mention that incident?

But that is the problem with this thread. You aren't talking about "that incident". And talking about what happened in Charlottesville without talking about "that incident" is like complaining about the quality of the hors d'oeuvrethe served on the Titanic. You are missing the whole point of what happened.

 

[icehorse]

I want to know where you think that right comes from. I also then made the logical conclusion that if your "right to hear" was enforced, then that would necessarily result in the freedom of speech of others being curtailed.

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.

 

[icehorse]

But that is the problem with this thread. You aren't talking about "that incident". And talking about what happened in Charlottesville without talking about "that incident" is like complaining about the quality of the hors d'oeuvrethe served on the Titanic. You are missing the whole point of what happened.

Really? Why can't we focus a discussion on everything that happened before that moment?

 

[icehorse]

I was reading fine. I was taking you at face value.

You said that the left-wing protesters and the media were "trampling on the first amendment." You're implying that they're breaking the law and that they have no right to say what they're saying.

Maybe you didn't actually mean this literally. Maybe you were going for hyperbole... but this doesn't communicate well online.

I think you're conflating a few ideas here. I never said the counter-protestors had no right to say what they said. Of course they do. But stating an opinion and shouting over your adversary's speech are two different things.

 

[Mister Silver]

I heard it first from Hitchens, and I respect the quality of his research.

As an atheist who respects logical ideas from others of like minds, atheists only really have one thing in common. That means atheists can be very stupid in what they state and attempt to promote, including Hitchens.

 

[icehorse]

Is it really that much bigger, or are the alt-right types just beginning to crawl out of the woodworks and expose themselves publicly?

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

 

[icehorse]

As an atheist who respects logical ideas from others of like minds, atheists only really have one thing in common. That means atheists can be very stupid in what they state and attempt to promote, including Hitchens.

Hitchens was not a one trick pony.

 

[Mister Silver]

Hitchens was not a one trick pony.

You've certainly made him into one.