Freedom of speech: limits, abuses, unfettered expression, etc

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

It ought to be a no brainer, but when a segment of the population believes that "free speech" means "the right to say what I think, but supress the speech of those I disagree with", then it exposes - as we have seen - the deep divides in American society.

I grew up in the sixties, watching the civil rights movement in the US from afar. It's deja vu all over again! Only this time the racists have their own man in the White House. And - to bring it fully back to the OP - free speech is exposing him, to those with eyes to see, for what he is. (In fairness, I don't think Trump is a racist - he despises all people equally.)

Trump's entry into this is that he wants to suppress speech which disagrees with him, as any authoritarian would tend to do. (That's not the tell for him being racist.)

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

-- Herbert Hoover
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/herberthoo122373.html

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Continuing with Ten Oz's point regarding the government providing a forum for those who don't have a 'voice', would you then agree that universities should provide and make accessible ALL viewpoints so as to promote free thinking and intelligent discussion ?

It sees like, these days, universities are the first places where violence erupts and non-mainstream ideas are censored.
Should you not be allowed to present a radical idea on a university campus, without fear of being attacked ?
Or is the concept of 'safe spaces' only safe for things/ideas we agree with ?

Not all speech is protected. Slander and libel, for example. If this "radical speech" includes lies/propaganda, why should a campus feel compelled to assist in its dissemination?

[MigL]

Are you implying all ideas are either 'truth' or 'lies', Swansont ?
Most ideas or 'radical speech' consists of opinions.

And, Ten oz, if part of an intelligent discussion at a Catholic University consists of the merits/detriments of Satanism, I, for one, don't see a problem with it.
But again, that's my opinion.

I'll give a typical example...
Say I wanted to discuss, on this forum, the POSSIBILITY of the welfare state contribution to the 'absent father' problem with Black-Americans.
How long do you think that discussion ( no matter how intelligently conducted ) would last before descending into accusations of 'racism' and 'political correctness' run amok.

It seems like some topics CANNOT be discussed, either because we are too quick to take offense, or too insensitive to the plight of others.
Is that the way it should be ?

[Area54]

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

Say I wanted to discuss, on this forum, the POSSIBILITY of the welfare state contribution to the 'absent father' problem with Black-Americans.

How long do you think that discussion ( no matter how intelligently conducted ) would last before descending into accusations of 'racism' and 'political correctness' run amok.

Excellent point. I already hear (metaphorically of course) offence being taken as some members imagine the course of such a discussion.

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

A Christian University shouldn't be obligated to provide

@ MigL, I did not comment on the merits of having opposing views discussed at Universities. Rather I said Universities should not be obligated. If they choose to bring in people of various views, which most Universities currently do, than more power to them. I just don't feel they should have a legal obligation to bring in every Tom, Dick, and Harry that feels they have something to say. University administrators should be able to make decisions about what is and isn't useful for their students. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

 

How long do you think that discussion ( no matter how intelligently conducted ) would last before descending into accusations of 'racism' and 'political correctness' run amok.

It seems like some topics CANNOT be discussed, either because we are too quick to take offense, or too insensitive to the plight of others.
Is that the way it should be ?

You think your views should be free from criticism? That isn't how free speech works. You can start a thread about whatever you want, make it as Intelligent as you can, but you cannot control the response nor should you be able to in my opinion. Many posters have told me I am wrong about things. You specifically have accussed me of inaccurately labelling Conservative behavior. It doesn't mean you or anyone else is oppressing me and my freedom of speech. Posters are free to call something you say racist if that is what they understand it to be no different than you are free to post the things you understand. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Ten oz
Grammar

[MigL]

You're right Ten oz , they're not obligated ( didn't mean to imply that you said any different )

But, at least in Canada, university is heavily subsidized by the Government, and most have, as a mission statement, to present all available viewpoints, so as to 'expand' the thinking of young minds, no matter how unsavoury the subject.
I'm sure right now, in some Israeli University, they are discussing whether, historically, A Hitler was good or bad for Germany in the 20s and 30s.

I don't think any idea can be inherently racist ( or bigoted/discriminatory/etc ).They either have some factual elements, and merit discussion, or are easily falsifiable, and require a very short discussion.

Edit:

Just noticed your edit and I agree with the general opinion. Everyone  is free to respond as they see fit.
But I disagree on what we define as 'intelligent discussion'. Once you call someone a racist, you have effectively ended the intelligent part of the discussion.

Edited September 25, 2017 by MigL

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

You're right Ten oz , they're not obligated ( didn't mean to imply that you said any different )

But, at least in Canada, university is heavily subsidized by the Government, and most have, as a mission statement, to present all available viewpoints, so as to 'expand' the thinking of young minds, no matter how unsavoury the subject.
I'm sure right now, in some Israeli University, they are discussing whether, historically, A Hitler was good or bad for Germany in the 20s and 30s.

I don't think any idea can be inherently racist ( or bigoted/discriminatory/etc ).They either have some factual elements, and merit discussion, or are easily falsifiable, and require a very short discussion.

Discussing whether Hitler was good or bad is different than bringing actual Nazis on campus to host events. 

 

As I previously said I support the idea that the govt should provide accommodations for under represented voices. Considering they are no open Nazis in federal elected positions here in the U.S. it can be argued that Nazis qualify as an under represented voice. Unfortunately Nazis are also considered enemies to the state so that complicates matters. So provided a specific Nazi group isn't considered a terrorist organization by DHS and wants to speak and/or protest I think the govt should accommodate it by providing access to public property (street, park, etc) well as security. That of course is assuming the Nazi group makes the request in a reasonable time frame. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by Ten oz
Misspell word

[Ten oz]

On 9/24/2017 at 9:19 AM, Ten oz said:

UC Berkeley recently cancelled their Freedom of Speech week which has led to criticism from various groups with some insisting, Milo Yiannopoulos specifically, they will proceed as planned with their events on and or near campus. The decision to cancel by campus officials wasn't a frivolous one in my opinion. When conservative writer Ben Shapiro appeared on campus the school spent about $600,000 on security blowing through its annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000. I don't think UC Berkeley should be forced to financially subsidize new media figures self aggrandizing promotion events. Ben Shapiro has a radio show Milo Yiannopoulos is a published author both have platforms where their speech can be heard. I see no reason why UC Berkeley is under any obligation to host their brands. I see no difference between them demanding campus access and a pop musician demanding the campus allow them to set up in their quad and promote their new songs.

 

I have seen where posters have lambasted moderators on this site claiming their freedom of speech was being oppressed. What are the limits? Can freedom of speech be abused or is any and all  unfettered expression equal and deserving of protection?

I bold is the question I raised. The example atthe time was UC Berkeley but since that time wehave seen a much larger national discussions. psychological resident is asking the NFL to force players to stand for the anthem, President has pondered revoking NBC license, and more details have come out regardiong the manner in which Russian intelligence used social media to manipulate the 2016 election. All of these recent developments challange what the limits of free speech are and what expressions should be protected.

 

1 - Should an employer be able to force employees to participate in rituals meant to show individual aduration or respect?

2 - Should the executive branch be able to suspend or otherwise punish media?

3 - Should a nations govt (intellegence agencies) be able to intervene in media if that media is be exploited by foriegn aggressors to promote propaganda? If yes with what burdens or limits and if no does that make freedom of speech a death pact?

[swansont]

On 9/25/2017 at 0:35 PM, MigL said:

Are you implying all ideas are either 'truth' or 'lies', Swansont ?

No. I'm not sure how one would arrive at that point from what I said. I said "includes".  A lot of the rhetoric in question includes falsehoods. i.e. a subset of the speech.

On 9/25/2017 at 0:35 PM, MigL said:

Most ideas or 'radical speech' consists of opinions.

Opinion does not pop up, fully formed, on its own, like Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus. Underneath there is factual (or not) information. Something on which an opinion is based. And a lot of things defended as opinion is asserted as fact.

On 9/25/2017 at 0:35 PM, MigL said:

 I'll give a typical example...

Say I wanted to discuss, on this forum, the POSSIBILITY of the welfare state contribution to the 'absent father' problem with Black-Americans.
How long do you think that discussion ( no matter how intelligently conducted ) would last before descending into accusations of 'racism' and 'political correctness' run amok.

It seems like some topics CANNOT be discussed, either because we are too quick to take offense, or too insensitive to the plight of others.
Is that the way it should be ?

Well, you would be asked for the studies that show this, because what you've stated in this example is not an opinion, even if one were to assert it as one.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 1 - Should an employer be able to force employees to participate in rituals meant to show individual aduration or respect?

Employers have more leeway in this regard than the government does. It probably depends on the details. If the CEO demands being called "your excellency" I'm not sure what recourse an employee has.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

2 - Should the executive branch be able to suspend or otherwise punish media?

In the US the president does not have the authority to do so. It's pretty clearly spelled out in the 1st amendment.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

3 - Should a nations govt (intellegence agencies) be able to intervene in media if that media is be exploited by foriegn aggressors to promote propaganda? If yes with what burdens or limits and if no does that make freedom of speech a death pact?

Depends on whether laws are being broken.  Does a foreign power have freedom of speech rights?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1 - Employers have more leeway in this regard than the government does. It probably depends on the details. If the CEO demands being called "your excellency" I'm not sure what recourse an employee has.

2 - In the US the president does not have the authority to do so. It's pretty clearly spelled out in the 1st amendment.

3 - Depends on whether laws are being broken.  Does a foreign power have freedom of speech rights?

1 - True but even still employers find themselves at the center of numerous harrassment and discrimination lawsuits ever year. Any supervisor who demands being called "your excellency" is begging for trouble. Within a professional environment I think most people accept an obligation to be professional. One should call their boss ma'am or sir. Those are nuetral professional ways to address individuals. For the sake of structure within a team a variety of titles might be applied like "Chief", "Lead", "Director", "Point", and etc. These are just titles and not representations of a persons individual values. Calling someone by their professional title isn't a display of individual aduration. If I ever met President Trump I would call him "Mr. President"; that is his title and using it is not an endorsement.

 

2 - Yet the President still pondered it openly all the same. The executive branch has also been openly hostile to different media outlets and to an extent has attempted to punish them by banned cameras at press briefings and usual access to the administration. So I think the question is valid. This administration is doing what it can regardless of what's spelled out in the 1st Admendment.

 

3 - U.S. Constitutional rights only apply to those who are residents of the U.S.. However there is anonymity online and I think people would like to keep it that way. Not only that but if a citizen searches out foriegn propaganda and then circulates it aren't they (the citizen) protected by the 1st admendment to have the ability to do so? Which is why I referenced a death pact. Should freedom of speech be unfettered to the point on allowing our sovereign demise; foriegn aggressors to manipulate our society to the extent of influencing elections and policy? It is a difficult question to answer as many things in society are manipulated by disinformation and lies. From the climate change debate to taxes there is a lot of fake information out there and we obviously cannot and shouldn't trust the govt's to filter what information citizens can and cannot access. At the same time it is the govt's job to protect citizens from foriegn attack. So there is a real balancing act here.

 

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

1 - True but even still employers find themselves at the center of numerous harrassment and discrimination lawsuits ever year. Any supervisor who demands being called "your excellency" is begging for trouble.  

But what law would be broken? On what might one base a lawsuit, if that's what the boss insisted on?

Quote

 

2 - Yet the President still pondered it openly all the same. The executive branch has also been openly hostile to different media outlets and to an extent has attempted to punish them by banned cameras at press briefings and usual access to the administration. So I think the question is valid. This administration is doing what it can regardless of what's spelled out in the 1st Admendment.

Trump has pondered on many things unsupported by the constitution or at odds with the norms of politics. He's had travel bans blocked by the courts. Other legal actions are pending. Any act to suppress the first amendment would result in similar resistance. It would take time, but the courts have the final say.

Quote

3 - U.S. Constitutional rights only apply to those who are residents of the U.S.. However there is anonymity online and I think people would like to keep it that way. Not only that but if a citizen searches out foriegn propaganda and then circulates it aren't they (the citizen) protected by the 1st admendment to have the ability to do so?

Sure. But that's not the scenario you had proffered. And that person is still subject to the same limitations on the right to free speech as s/he would otherwise be.

 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

1 - But what law would be broken? On what might one base a lawsuit, if that's what the boss insisted on?

2 - Trump has pondered on many things unsupported by the constitution or at odds with the norms of politics. He's had travel bans blocked by the courts. Other legal actions are pending. Any act to suppress the first amendment would result in similar resistance. It would take time, but the courts have the final say.

3 - Sure. But that's not the scenario you had proffered. And that person is still subject to the same limitations on the right to free speech as s/he would otherwise be.

 

1 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm

 

I think it can be argued that demanding to be called 'your excellency" without appropriate reason (governors, ambassadors, and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops typically use the title) is offensive conduct as it is demands the use of an epithet which could lead a work environment where a reasonable person feels mocked or ridiculed. If someone were fired from a job for calling their supervisor/employer ma'am or sir rather than "your excellency" I believe they would have grounds for a harrashment suit unless that supervisor or employer met the standard criteria for being call "your excellency".

 

2 - So we should ignore things the President says since he has proven himself to be an empty loud mouth? I agree but it is tragic all the same.

 

3 - You are answering questions with challanges yet I have advocated nothing. I am asking if there should be limitations if/when speech is assisting promotion of foriegn propaganda designed to negatively impact the country? Currently there are none.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

1 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm

 

I think it can be argued that demanding to be called 'your excellency" without appropriate reason (governors, ambassadors, and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops typically use the title) is offensive conduct as it is demands the use of an epithet which could lead a work environment where a reasonable person feels mocked or ridiculed. If someone were fired from a job for calling their supervisor/employer ma'am or sir rather than "your excellency" I believe they would have grounds for a harrashment suit unless that supervisor or employer met the standard criteria for being call "your excellency".

But it's not based on any of the listed things(protected classes).

epithets, name-calling, ridicule and mockery are directed at the person being harassed.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

2 - So we should ignore things the President says since he has proven himself to be an empty loud mouth? I agree but it is tragic all the same.

No, of course not. Resist at every turn.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

3 - You are answering questions with challanges yet I have advocated nothing. I am asking if there should be limitations if/when speech is assisting promotion of foriegn propaganda designed to negatively impact the country? Currently there are none.

Sure there are. Election law restrictions apply.

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

But it's not based on any of the listed things(protected classes).

epithets, name-calling, ridicule and mockery are directed at the person being harassed.

No, of course not. Resist at every turn.

Sure there are. Election law restrictions apply.

I don't see anyway to conclude the discussion regarding "your Excellency". I think if a person was fired for not calling someone that, provided the title wasn't fitting as previously described, they could make a legal complaint. It is a theoretical suit against a theoretical demand. 

 

Election laws absolutely do not prevent foriegn govts from using social media to promote propaganda. Election laws only cover watch those associated with campaigns do. Foriegn actors, anyone, can create all the Twitter and Facebook accounts they won't and promote any and all stories, conspiracies, ideologies, and etc they want. 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't see anyway to conclude the discussion regarding "your Excellency". I think if a person was fired for not calling someone that, provided the title wasn't fitting as previously described, they could make a legal complaint. It is a theoretical suit against a theoretical demand. 

But you can't point to a law that would be used as a basis for such a complaint.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Election laws absolutely do not prevent foriegn govts from using social media to promote propaganda. Election laws only cover watch those associated with campaigns do. Foriegn actors, anyone, can create all the Twitter and Facebook accounts they won't and promote any and all stories, conspiracies, ideologies, and etc they want. 

This is moving the goalposts. You weren't talking about social media before.

[Ten oz]

On 10/13/2017 at 9:29 AM, Ten oz said:

I bold is the question I raised. The example atthe time was UC Berkeley but since that time wehave seen a much larger national discussions. psychological resident is asking the NFL to force players to stand for the anthem, President has pondered revoking NBC license, and more details have come out regardiong the manner in which Russian intelligence used social media to manipulate the 2016 election. All of these recent developments challange what the limits of free speech are and what expressions should be protected.

3 - Should a nations govt (intellegence agencies) be able to intervene in media if that media is be exploited by foriegn aggressors to promote propaganda? If yes with what burdens or limits and if no does that make freedom of speech a death pact?

 

On 10/13/2017 at 0:40 PM, Ten oz said:

 

3 - U.S. Constitutional rights only apply to those who are residents of the U.S.. However there is anonymity online and I think people would like to keep it that way. Not only that but if a citizen searches out foriegn propaganda and then circulates it aren't they (the citizen) protected by the 1st admendment to have the ability to do so? Which is why I referenced a death pact. Should freedom of speech be unfettered to the point on allowing our sovereign demise; foriegn aggressors to manipulate our society to the extent of influencing elections and policy? It is a difficult question to answer as many things in society are manipulated by disinformation and lies. From the climate change debate to taxes there is a lot of fake information out there and we obviously cannot and shouldn't trust the govt's to filter what information citizens can and cannot access. At the same time it is the govt's job to protect citizens from foriegn attack. So there is a real balancing act here.

 

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

But you can't point to a law that would be used as a basis for such a complaint.

This is moving the goalposts. You weren't talking about social media before.

I have been talking about social media. I referenced social media specifically in the First post you quoted. My online anonymity follow by circulation comments were meant in context to be referencing social media; standard news media is not anonymous and social media is the way average citizens circulate info in 2017. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I said media rather than social media simply to be inclusive but I am primarily taking about social media as it is what Russia primarily used to interfere in 2016 and I did mention that already. 

 

Not that we are clear can you answer the question? 

[Kevin Mulisa Isaya]

Freedom of speeches must have limits