Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

The death of free speech

281 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

aquatus1
2 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

"While I disagree with what you say I will defend to the death your right to say it."

So, unfortunately, that is indeed what you believe Free Speech to be. 

Quote

If you want to wear a KKK outfit and stand on the street corner shouting racist rhetoric, that is your right. Now, you will get your derriere beat but your right to say it is protected.

Not in the U.S.  You are protected by laws saying that people can't go around beating other people in general, but no, there isn't a law that you deserve protection simply because you are talking.

Free Speech in the U.S., especially in regards to the First Amendment, is quite clearly defined.  The targets of the law is the government, and the law states that the government shall not make any laws abridging freedom of speech (among others).  The First Amendment specifically limits the power of the government to interfere with the people attempting to speak, and forbids it from interfering.

The First Amendment does not give you the right to speak anywhere you want.  Nor does it guarantee you protection for speaking.  If you want people to listen to you, you will have to do it the old-fashioned way: you have to prove yourself worthy of their time.

Incidentally, the First Amendment is hardly static.  It is regularly contested, as it should be.

 

Quote

 

Freedom of speech includes the right:

  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “Shout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

 

  • Not a complete list.
Quote

For all intents and purposes, this is a new Civil War to save Western culture.

Well, I do agree with the civil war part, though probably not in the way you meant it.

**Edit:  I have no idea why half of this is crossed out, and I can't get rid of it, so please just ignore it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568

Epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace are not protected forms of speech (which would include calling for violence to be committed). 

So, yes, there are limits to free speech protections from the Government.

As far as saying whatever you want to a private citizen (that doesn't include any of the above), you risk backlash. Also, as an FYI, forums (such as this) social media sites (like Facebook) can restrict what you say (as they are privately owned - just like if you were in my home).

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
39 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

So, unfortunately, that is indeed what you believe Free Speech to be. 

Not in the U.S.  You are protected by laws saying that people can't go around beating other people in general, but no, there isn't a law that you deserve protection simply because you are talking.

Free Speech in the U.S., especially in regards to the First Amendment, is quite clearly defined.  The targets of the law is the government, and the law states that the government shall not make any laws abridging freedom of speech (among others).  The First Amendment specifically limits the power of the government to interfere with the people attempting to speak, and forbids it from interfering.

The First Amendment does not give you the right to speak anywhere you want.  Nor does it guarantee you protection for speaking.  If you want people to listen to you, you will have to do it the old-fashioned way: you have to prove yourself worthy of their time.

Incidentally, the First Amendment is hardly static.  It is regularly contested, as it should be.

I must not understand the 1st to the degree that you do. I was referring more to the content of speech itself, as I am aware and I do agree that private businesses/schools/institutions are awarded their own set of rules. I also agree you don't deserve protection simply for speaking (which is how the concept of "safe spaces" was born). All in all, good post dudeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 hour ago, Odin11 said:

It's funny and very telling that I only hear or see this line when people are talking about hate groups.

Hey it's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Seems the definition of free speech is whatever the left decides it is at a given moment, depending on who is speaking and whether or not the left thinks they should be heard. They also reserve the right to beat you up if you dare disagree with them. Hmmm, I can already see a big problem with this.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seems the definition of free speech is whatever the left decides it is at a given moment, depending on who is speaking and whether or not the left thinks they should be heard. They also reserve the right to beat you up if you dare disagree with them. Hmmm, I can already see a big problem with this.

That sounds about right.  Notice they don't attack in CCW states?   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
14 hours ago, sees said:

What's missing in your quote is the topic of the proposed speech.  That it is highly provocative and unpopular is very relevant here!   I find it inspiring that it offends the morality of so many.  It should cause pause for thought and possible reassessment of her stance.... 

The topic is irrelevant. It may be provocative and unpopular to some people, but you challenge such speech with more speech rather than squelch it. Offensive speech still is protected speech, and that's how it should be in a constitutional republic. Berkeley's actions should "cause a reassessment" of their label as the birth of the free speech movement.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I find this so ironic in that it can be both applied to the people protesting a speech and the people complaining about the protestors exercising their freedom of speech to protest said speech.

You're missing the point by a country mile. No one wants to deny peaceful protests, no matter what group protests. Our beef is with censorship and rioting. The baby Marxists can stamp their tiny feet to their hearts' content just so long as they don't break the law during their temper tantrums.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I've always understood free speech to mean you're free to say what you want but I'm also free to say what I want in reply. It also means I'm free to not listen if that's my wish.

which is not what's happening here.

what is happening here is censorship, violent censorship.

To make an analogy, the KGB used to send agents around to writers houses and tell them they really enjoyed reading the writer's last article, and if they wanted it to be their last they could continue on their way. That's a threat. Meanwhile the Nazis would just destroy the printing press. That's an action.

which is happening here?

what are we seeing?

the threat or the action?

either way, we're seeing something from the playbook of two of the most vile ideologies of the 20th repeated by people who, on the whole, were only babies in the 20th century. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
8 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I've always understood free speech to mean you're free to say what you want but I'm also free to say what I want in reply. It also means I'm free to not listen if that's my wish.

which is not what's happening here.

what is happening here is censorship, violent censorship.

To make an analogy, the KGB used to send agents around to writers houses and tell them they really enjoyed reading the writer's last article, and if they wanted it to be their last they could continue on their way. That's a threat. Meanwhile the Nazis would just destroy the printing press. That's an action.

which is happening here?

what are we seeing?

the threat or the action?

either way, we're seeing something from the playbook of two of the most vile ideologies of the 20th repeated by people who, on the whole, were only babies in the 20th century. 

Great post. The radical (that word almost feels overused in 2017,) Professors who preach the most hate and encourage violence turn out to have strong ties to real Communism. There's a little old Asian lady (name escapes me,) who has been seen at a few of the "protests". She teaches in Berkley and has a long history of activism for Chinese brand Communism. Not exactly what I would pay exorbant amounts of cash for my kid to learn.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
18 hours ago, Hi-NRG Eurobeat Man said:

Although OP's claims may be a bit bloated, students do need to start learning that freedom of the speech is the first amendment of the US. Everyone from moderates to even buffoons wearing nazi attire have the right to speak their ideas on american soil without any repercussions whatsoever. If students can't accept that, we may see a very different America in the future...

I think more students know the meaning of the first amendment than posters on UM.  Like when someone gets fired for their Facebook post, and we have to see the first amendment posts?  Tell those people that they need to learn the meaning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
13 hours ago, Lilly said:

Undergrad college students (primarily age 18 to 21) are being told by their professors that any political opinion other than that of the far left is horrific and evil. Any political speakers other than those supporting the far left are vilified, labeled as Nazis and summarily shouted down. And let's be real here, the protesting students aren't just exercising their freedom of speech to protest those they disagree with...they are violently rioting, destroying property, physically attacking those they disagree with.

When self control, civility and basic human decency are discarded in favor of violence, hatred and destructiveness we have a very big problem. All that stands between anarchy and a society based on violent tribalism is The Constitution of the United States and the structure of law and human rights contained therein. IMO what we are seeing take place at various universities is even worse than the suppression of freedom of speech, it's an attack on the very foundation of society.

LOL, what?  I have been in college as recently as the fall semester, and you are full of it.  If you haven't been to college recently, how can you accurately make that statement?  Want to post some proof of your statement Lilly?  Some actual proof, and not some crazy article of another loon that hasn't been to college in 20 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seems the definition of free speech is whatever the left decides it is at a given moment, depending on who is speaking and whether or not the left thinks they should be heard. They also reserve the right to beat you up if you dare disagree with them. Hmmm, I can already see a big problem with this.

 Protest is also protected under the first amendment.  Who are you to decide who's rights are more important when it comes to protesting a speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
14 hours ago, Lilly said:

Undergrad college students (primarily age 18 to 21) are being told by their professors that any political opinion other than that of the far left is horrific and evil. Any political speakers other than those supporting the far left are vilified, labeled as Nazis and summarily shouted down. And let's be real here, the protesting students aren't just exercising their freedom of speech to protest those they disagree with...they are violently rioting, destroying property, physically attacking those they disagree with.

When self control, civility and basic human decency are discarded in favor of violence, hatred and destructiveness we have a very big problem. All that stands between anarchy and a society based on violent tribalism is The Constitution of the United States and the structure of law and human rights contained therein. IMO what we are seeing take place at various universities is even worse than the suppression of freedom of speech, it's an attack on the very foundation of society.

You wrote at various universities.  Were you Implying every university that everyone in the United States goes to, or various ones?

Edited by South Alabam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

 Protest is also protected under the first amendment.  Who are you to decide who's rights are more important when it comes to protesting a speech?

Free speech vs peaceful protest. The free speech is protected, the protest turned violent, is not protected. The goal of these "protesters" is to quell the free speech, and often it turns to violence. Their goal from the onset. Not peaceful protest but breaking up the "free speech" with violence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
42 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

LOL, what?  I have been in college as recently as the fall semester, and you are full of it.  If you haven't been to college recently, how can you accurately make that statement?  Want to post some proof of your statement Lilly?  Some actual proof, and not some crazy article of another loon that hasn't been to college in 20 years?

My daughter is currently a student at Boston University.

As for saying that I'm "full of it" and a "loon that hasn't been to college in 20 years"...this indicates serious immaturity and a profound lack of civility on your part.

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
36 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

You wrote at various universities.  Were you Implying every university that everyone in the United States goes to, or various ones?

I meant at certain universities. Obviously not every university in the nation is going to advocate and/or tolerate such behavior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
1 hour ago, Lilly said:

I meant at certain universities. Obviously not every university in the nation is going to advocate and/or tolerate such behavior.

Oh I see. I thought Agent Orange must have attended every university in the United States, and not various ones as you stated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

CCW states

That explains why no ones getting rowdy around here.:gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Personally, I see the death of free speech coming from something along the lines of banning protests all together under the pretense of the violence that everyone here seems to be saying is happening.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

When I went to hear a lecture by Carl Sagan, James Leakey,  astronomer Thomas Gold, or Sir David Attenborough , I paid money and bought a ticket.  Why do public Universities feel compelled to offer speaking platforms to right  or left?  Education would be a better application of public funds.  I know you might say that these viewpoints are educational,but only in a broad sense.  In another sense, organizations on the Left  are using 18-21 year old immature, easily influenced, young people with too much time and too little discipline to be their foot soldiers and further their own ends which have nothing to do with education. This platform is a waste of public money, a waste of young people's education, and inflames stupidity and ill-will. I am not opposed to free speech, but I am not sure it needs to be publicly subsidized. If Ann Coulter or Hillary Clinton wants to exercise their free speech, let them rent a hall or stand in a public park. Universities have a responsibility to preserve and transmit culture and knowledge, why do we think they are supposed to host political speakers?  Maybe that's too reactionary, just asking.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

 Protest is also protected under the first amendment.  Who are you to decide who's rights are more important when it comes to protesting a speech?

Who are you to make that decision, or infringe on the rights of others of free assembly? It's protected under the law, as well. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Who are you to make that decision, or infringe on the rights of others of free assembly? It's protected under the law, as well. 

Your right to swing your fist ends at my right to not be punched in the face, that sort of thing.

when protests violate the rights of people who didn't even attend the protest then something needs to be done.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Your right to swing your fist ends at my right to not be punched in the face, that sort of thing.

when protests violate the rights of people who didn't even attend the protest then something needs to be done.

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.