Free speech is for the speech you hate.

Once again, Mark Steyn nails it.

Free speech is for the speech you hate.

An old Soviet joke: An American tourist in Moscow in the 1980s is arguing with a Russian about the relative merits of the two countries. He says, "In America, we have free speech. If I want to, I can protest against President Reagan." The Russian says, "Ha! We too are just the same. If I want to, I too can protest against President Reagan."

Free speech is for the speech you hate. "Hate speech" is the weasel's way of attacking free speech.

I agree. What we should be focusing on is that the proper response to speech with which we disagree is more speech, NOT violence.

I don't care if you call my mother the worst thing you can think of, insult my system of belief and make rude gestures. You have a right (in my country) to say it. I can walk away or I can argue, but I don't get to hit, stab or shoot you.

It was the supreme court that said there's such a thing as "fighting words."

I still quote Owen Wister's "The Virginian" -- "When you say THAT -- SMILE!"...

>1 Doug1943: I'm wary of clicking on any links to Steyn's website, since the last one you posted include a graphic image of a person being killed.

No snuff pictures on that link. Just a guy holding a copy of Charlie Hebdo.

ETA - I do agree graphic images should be prefaced with a warning. People should be able to choose if they see that stuff.

Yes, sorry about that. It shocked me too -- I've deliberately avoided all the horrible, so-easily-available stuff that ISIS finds useful to post, if possible. Once you've seen an image like that, it burns itself into your mind and you can't get it out. (But apparently not everyone feels that way -- it seems that there are now more British Muslims fighting with ISIS than serving in the British military. I can imagine the ISIS Media-Advisory Group ... "What can we do NOW, to get the next wave of recruits from Europe ? Real-time rapes? Disemboweling?")

But I'll put a health-warning on anything similar in the future.

It's an old conflict, and one that those concerned about the sensitive feelings of others never seem to grasp: that the laws that prevent people from saying hurtful things to the weak in the society will inevitably be used by those in power to suppress speech and ideas.

Bruce: I think that the problem is that no one likes cognitive dissonance. If our political enemies just spouted obvious nonsense, it wouldn't be so bad. It's when they have some truth (just a few grains, of course!) in what they're saying, that we feel moved to suppress it.

And as you say, people who want to suppress free speech, acting from a position of power (as you do when you want to suppress it), always think that they'll be in power for ever.

Thus today conservatives would like very much to have free speech on campus, so that conservatives could speak on campus without being howled down by Leftist mobs, to have political diversity there so that conservative would-be professors could be hired without having to pass a political test, etc. All very proper. (Every social science department should have at least one Marxist and one Libertarian.)

But that's not what they were saying in the 1950s, when Communists were being fired for not signing Loyalty Oaths.

Oh well. The Owl of Minerva flies at dusk.

>9 RidgewayGirl: ... howled down by Leftist mobs

I love how careful you are to choose words that are as neutral as possible. : )

Were there conservatives among those mobs? If so, it's news to me. But I guess anything's possible.

Seriously, I do try very strongly to take proper note of the shades of opinion and behavior on the Left. Not everyone to the left of center is against free speech, of course. And historically, the Left had a better position on this issue than the Right, as I have said.

But I don't have the vocabulary, if indeed it exists, to distinguish among the shades of opinion that are to the Left of mainstream liberalism. So I usually try to distinguish between mainstream liberals, who are generally -- I hope -- in favor of free speech, from those to their Left, who are generally not.

However, I am always open to suggestions.

By the way, the same problem arises with respect to the Right.

On Left or Right, it's not all black or white, there are many shades of, er, grey.

"Fifty" or so hm...

The party out of power always claims oppression and censorship; and when they come back into power, they proceed to become what they allegedly opposed.

Yep. That's exactly right.

I used to believe that there were people who were genuine civil libertarians, and of course there are some.

The first organization I joined, as a radicalizing teen-ager in Texas in the late 1950s, was the American Civil Liberties Union (led by my Unitarian Sunday-school teacher!). And the ACLU, to its great credit, still has a pretty good record on many issues of civil liberties, despite expanding their brief to the usual Lefty concerns which are not issues of civil liberties at all.

But I was surprised to find out, recently, that the founder of the ACLU, in the early 1930s, wrote that his fight for civil liberties was really just a way of advancing the fight against capitalism, and that the repressions taking place in the Soviet Union under Stalin were fine by him. Oh well.

>13 Doug1943: the founder of the ACLU

You mean Roger Nash Baldwin, right? It's true he wrote Liberty under the Soviets, but later A new slavery, so I think it's fair to say his opinions on Stalin evolved.

There is a big difference between stating one's belief's and/or opinion's and a personal attack. Somewhere along the way personal attacks became the norm and hence a "right" of those who engage in what they claim to be "free speech"

Example :
Holding up a sign in protest that says "I believe that God hates fags" Or "I believe abortion kills"
is far different than holding up a sign saying "God hates fags" Or "Baby killer !"

The first two are stating a personal belief....a right that we all have in this country. The other two are judgmental and could be perceived as a personal attack. An extreme example but ,in almost all discourse on any given subject there is a way to exercise one's right to free speech without interfering with the rights and dignity of others. Treat others as you want to be treated type thought process. Not much of that going around lately.
Sadly most of our discourse from the government on down is in the category of the second two statements. In all reality, much of what we spew today in the name of "free speech" is bullying. Pushing buttons until a reaction and then stepping back and saying we have the right to engage in this type of behavior.
There will always be button pushers and bullies but I , for one, do not see that they deserve protection. They know what they are doing.

It is my belief that free speech was MEANT to be about the first statements.....not the second two.

>15 faceinbook:

Meant by whom?

By the Founders? I think you severely underestimate the personal nature of early Federal attacks. "Baby killer!" is nothing compared to the direct personal attacks they slung about.

>15 faceinbook: It is my belief that free speech was MEANT to be about the first statements.....not the second two.

Not so.

>16 timspalding: the election of 1800 is a glorious example of free speech in action. Didn't Jefferson's people call Adams a hermaphrodite, and Adams' people call Jefferson a half-breed?

I didn't know the hermaphrodite part. We need to bring that kind of thing back.

Oh, yes! How much more interesting election campaigns would be.

"John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

and

"Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on hoe-cakes"

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/29/sources-for-attack-ads-circa-1

Those were the days when attack ads really knew how to attack!

I would suppose it depends on the objective behind what you are saying.....if the reason is to make your opinions known with a possibility for discourse and/or change, one would use the second set of sentences. If your intention is degrade and instigate than the first would apply.

We've seen what has happened when a great name caller like Ms Palin is given the public stage. She leaves a path of destruction rather than progress.

I guess if I am wrong than the internet is the fulfillment of all that is free speech ? Since there is little discussion and a whole lot of people feeling free to name call, slander, hack and harm at will. I think LT has some rules regarding this and there is a reason behind those rules. Once the name calling starts the game is over.

I know what the Founders said and did.....I also know that often men tend to hold other's to a higher standard than they do themselves. I see no REASON behind some of what we call free speech other than to show off the basic stupidity of the person whose "free speech" is all about being nasty. In reality it says more about themselves than anything else.

We don't even have elections based on the best candidate anymore......probably more about who is the least offensive. Cable news isn't about facts and news....it is about "free speech".......Fox has taken it to a new level in that they are free to lie, exaggerate and what ever else they think will improve ratings.

How is this conducive to progress ? If all of this constitutes free speech......it sure is unpleasant and nonproductive.

With every "right" we have , we also have a responsibility. What is an individual's responsibility when it comes to free speech ? Or do we just forget that part ?

>21 faceinbook: I'd disagree with your characterization of the internet as a place of little discussion and much name calling. Terrible things happen on the internet, that's true. Gamergate is an ever lovely example of that, but places where people are uncivil are easy enough to avoid and there are good discussions, serious discussions, often between people with strong and differing opinions taking place in a spirit of respect and intelligence every single day.

I think if one chooses to consume the kind of media that causes outrage and offense, one can be trapped in a sort of vicious circle. It takes a little patience and perseverance, but one can find places where one feels as though we are communicating and places with a real sense of community. I do think that sometimes we enjoy being offended, but to blame the internet for that is misplaced.

>21 faceinbook: We've seen what has happened when a great name caller like Ms Palin is given the public stage. She leaves a path of destruction rather than progress.

I think Sarah Palin was probably called as many names herself as she ever managed to dish out on her own.

the internet is the fulfillment of all that is free speech ?

Not all, but certainly an unavoidable result.

I see no REASON behind some of what we call free speech other than to show off the basic stupidity of the person whose "free speech" is all about being nasty. In reality it says more about themselves than anything else.

If you don't think it worth listening to, you don't have to listen.

We don't even have elections based on the best candidate anymore

You say that like we've based on elections on "best candidates" in the past.

What is an individual's responsibility when it comes to free speech ?

The only responsibility we have as individuals is to decide for ourselves what is worth listening to, what is worth responding to, and what is worth saying. But we have no responsibility to foist any of that on others, though. Nor do we have any right to be listened to, or responded to, or agreed with. We have control over our own actions and thoughts, not anyone else's.

How then does one define "hate" speech ? One person's free speech is another person's hate speech.

I am not advocating trying to control anyone's speech....just making the observation that what some people feel is free speech is counter productive to accomplishing that which they want to accomplish....unless all they want is to bully others, which is a sad statement. Explains a lot about where we are at.

>23 southernbooklady:
"I think Sarah Palin was probably called as many names herself as she ever managed to dish out on her own"
I think you are probably right. But, she does make my case perfectly, look what she left behind in so far as the Republican Party.
Words are important and speech is a powerful tool that can be used to build or destroy. Guess that is all I was trying to say.

The cartoonist had every right to draw his pictures......but he was also aware that he was pushing an envelope. I'm not sure we should be surprised by the outcome.

>24 faceinbook: How then does one define "hate" speech ? One person's free speech is another person's hate speech.

Which is an excellent reason not to legislate against it.

The cartoonist had every right to draw his pictures......but he was also aware that he was pushing an envelope. I'm not sure we should be surprised by the outcome.

I reserve the right to be surprised when someone shoots at me for something I've said, instead of something I've done.

A comment that I cherish:

It’s nothing to do with the contents; it’s the context. We are not against freedom of speech, but there’s no right to offend.
       — Harmander Singh, spokesman for the advocacy group Sikhs in England reacting to Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti, December, 2004

>25 southernbooklady: to >24 faceinbook:

Which is an excellent reason not to legislate against [hate speech].

I'm comfortable with legislating against speech that promotes or excites violence against an individual or group. "X is/are a pollution to our society. All X should be eliminated" does not fall within my notion of protected speech.

>26 librorumamans: We are not against freedom of speech, but there’s no right to offend

Offense is one of those things that can't be given if it is not accepted.

I'm comfortable with legislating against speech that promotes or excites violence against an individual or group. "X is/are a pollution to our society. All X should be eliminated" does not fall within my notion of protected speech.

I wouldn't be. Comfortable, that is. "Hate" can't be standardized, it's all about...to cite your quote above...context. Legislate against the phrase "All X should be eliminated" and 90% of the comedy circuit would end up in jail.

People say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. There's enough evidence on LT of how easily we misinterpret what we say to each other. A bomb in an office, a burning cross on a lawn, a man hanging from a tree, however....these are unambiguous acts and therefore a much more sure foundation on which to build the law.

>27 librorumamans: Well, sure, you're right in the broadest sense, and in my generic example of speech that I would disallow I was hypothesizing a context of inciting to violence rather than laughter.

I think, however, that a society genuinely committed to the wide protection of discourse will recognize in law the importance of context and will have a bar, a bench, and a press (at least) that are committed to the principle as well.

In other words, a healthy polity that is committed to the ideal of free speech will be very cautious and thoughtful about how it restricts public discourse — and it's only worth discussing the question where the polity is healthy.

>29 librorumamans:
Thank you ! I think another word for it would be civilized ?

>28 southernbooklady:
You are correct in so far as the idea that we are responsible for what we choose to hear and/or respond to but we also have a responsibility to create a civil society. A society that foster's the idea of progress and security for our young. Children are not safe anymore.....not on the streets, not on the internet, not even in schools. This is because we have stretched the idea of individual "rights" to the ridiculous. We've done it everywhere, including within our justice system. At some point the good of the whole HAS to trump the right of the individual attempting to harm the whole. I suppose one could argue the definition of "harm" as well.

I believe this is a very fine balance but I do think it is something we need to do unless we want to live in chaos.

children are not safe anymore....

The reality is that crime rates are down, while fear is up. We are scared to let our children roam, unlike our parents. And one parent can't let a child roam alone -- the reason we were relatively safe as children as we wandered the streets and parks and woods was that all the other kids were doing the same. A child alone is at risk. A child playing with their friends in the woods, while some teenagers smoke a few yards away is safe.

I have no idea how to reverse this trend - we are so committed to being frightened. But there is a movement toward having "free range kids" and I hope it succeeds. One of the best parts of getting to live in Germany for a few years is that children here are able to roam and my children love the independence of being able to run to the grocery store or bakery for me, to take the dog to the park or to take the U-Bahn to a friend's house.

>30 faceinbook: At some point the good of the whole HAS to trump the right of the individual attempting to harm the whole.

Which is why we make laws against committing actual violence, not theoretical violence.

>29 librorumamans: and it's only worth discussing the question where the polity is healthy.

A society that limits freedom of expression is generally considered unhealthy. The health is a result of the free expression of our ideas. Freedom of expression is the cure.

>33 southernbooklady: I expect we're talking past each other.

>31 RidgewayGirl:
"The reality is that crime rates are down, while fear is up. We are scared to let our children roam, unlike our parents. And one parent can't let a child roam alone -- the reason we were relatively safe as children as we wandered the streets and parks and woods was that all the other kids were doing the same. A child alone is at risk. A child playing with their friends in the woods, while some teenagers smoke a few yards away is safe. "

Yes crime rate is down but not so much gun deaths. Two and three yr. olds are killed while sitting on their parents laps....in their homes. School shooting are pretty much a norm.

Perhaps we could look at "free speech" in the media form of our news broadcasts.
What is "The News" today ? In reality there is no news....it is all about commentators exercising their right to free speech. Fine, they have the right but we have lost an institution that reported daily events. Many American's tune into news broadcasts from other countries to learn what is really happening.

Is this a productive thing or have we skipped right past a responsibility that journalists and news broadcasters used to adhere to, and that would be reporting without bias (as much as possible) what was going on ? There is no truth anymore.......what ever you choose to believe is the truth....including in the news. It is your right to make up your own truth and say what ever it may be as part of your job as anchorman.

Of course Brian Williams made up a few hum dingers and is paying a price but what of Fox News and the horrible smear campaign against our current President. The amount of lies told were far more damaging than Mr. Williams helicopter whopper.

>35 faceinbook: Yes crime rate is down but not so much gun deaths. Two and three yr. olds are killed while sitting on their parents laps....in their homes. School shooting are pretty much a norm.

And you think this is a hate speech issue?

>36 faceinbook: Many American's tune into news broadcasts from other countries to learn what is really happening.

they also buy clothes and iphones made in China.

In truth, I don't understand what you want here. You want the news to change? Watch the kind of news that gives you the reporting you want. You want people to take responsibility for what they say? The only thing you can do is take responsibility for what you say, and counter them when you think they are wrong.

Or are you asking for some kind of national standard of polite and honest discourse? Good luck with that, and getting anyone to fairly enforce it.

>37 southernbooklady: I was responding to >31 RidgewayGirl:

>38 southernbooklady:
"they also buy clothes and iphones made in China."

Not the same thing at all.

"In truth, I don't understand what you want here."

I don't WANT anything. I am making personal observations. I don't know how to achieve the "best" way. Personally I don't believe that , as a nation, we are progressing. In fact sometimes I think we are falling behind in many ways. Some of this is due, I believe to a failure to consider what is best for us collectively as opposed to our individual wants and desires. While the individual is important and should have their freedoms, it is just as important to impress upon a growing society that one's freedoms are not always in the best interest for a productive society. As American's we are generally pretty selfish......it has stood us well in the past but the dynamics of our world are changing and we can't seem to get past operating as if we have the space and liberty to do whatever it is we choose to do, without hurting others. It is no longer a reality. Too many people and less space.

I remember the day Kennedy was shot. I remember it well, was my 13th birthday. I recall the reaction we had as a country. Our response was a mixture of respect for the highest office in this country, respect for those whose opinions did not match up with our own and a sense of loss as a whole entity, a nation. I suspect that if Obama were assassinated the reaction today would not look the same at all. All kinds of free speech exercising would take place. Probably not much different than the capture of Sadam Hussein in Iraq. Chaotic. Is this what America is aspiring to become ? The rich and the poor. Half of the country feeling they have a "king" or a "dictator" as their news media has repeatedly told them....a Constitution ignorer and what ever the heck else they feel free to say. Words and speech have consequences. How does one enlighten and educate a nation when the motives and agenda's behind "free speech" are to instill fear and violence ? Don't have the answer....just wondering.

I can't change anything.....only my own actions. I value self governing above all else but see a sad lack of this in the society I call my own. Treating others as I would like them to treat me is another daily goal. Yet what I observe from many, including those entrusted with keeping the standards and rules of our society civil, is a boat load of hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.

Somehow I don't see this as a positive for a group of civilization. My opinion and observation only. What I WANT is immaterial.

>37 southernbooklady:
"And you think this is a hate speech issue? "

No not a hate speech issue but it is an issue of individual "rights". Gun advocates have pushed their view of what constitutes their "rights" way past ridiculous into the insane category. We've let it go to the point where it will be very difficult to turn that train around. Maybe we can't but then we live in a society where gun's in Walmart are in purses next to two year olds. Fact ! We have to live with that.

Nothing is different about the right to "free speech" . People will use their rights to the extent that they change society and it isn't always a change for the good. Another fact. But then, maybe that is just the way it is. I don't know.....I haven't lived anywhere else or experienced any other society.

I think it is beneficial at times to think of others FIRST. I was raised that way.....it has been both a blessing and a curse. I see a growing trend of me firstness, my way or the highway. If I WANT anything it would be a personal balance between the two in the members of society who are called upon to make our laws, enforce them and interpret them. I realize that this may be a high expectation but it would be something to strive for rather than who can tell the biggest lies or who has the most money.

From another thread:

"According to a Pew Study, only 29 percent of the public claims to regularly read the newspaper, and the Jenkins Group reports that 42 percent of college graduates never read a book after graduation. Eighty percent of American families did not buy a book in the last year.

The results of such widespread lack of curiosity or interest in knowledge are as demoralizing as they are predictable. Only 58 percent of Americans can identify the Taliban, two-thirds cannot name a single Supreme Court Justice, and 29 percent do not know the name of the Vice President.

The Constitution has little or nothing to do with the tasks of most Americans’ jobs, and that might explain why, according to Newsweek, 70 percent of Americans have no idea what their country’s most important historical, political, and legal document even is."
==========
Explains a lot.

>33 southernbooklady: & >34 librorumamans:

As I was dashing out the door (more or less) this morning, I suggested that the two of us were talking past each other. Out of curiosity as to whether this is the case, I wonder which of the following you would consider protected speech:

• mischieviously shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre — that old chestnut;
• slander or libel of an individual or group such as to cause them significant damage;
• oratory or writing that inflames a crowd so that it heads to the x-neighbourhood to smash windows, spray graffiti, and crack heads if possible;
• teach anti-semitism and holocaust denial in a public high-school classroom and grade students on this material.

This last item refers to R. vs Keegstra, an important case in Canadian jurisprudence in which the final decision was not unanimous.

>42 librorumamans: for myself.

mischieviously shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre — that old chestnut;

not a free speech issue a reckless endangerment issue. the right to speak is not the right to endanger others.

slander or libel of an individual or group such as to cause them significant damage;

again the right to speak is not the right to endanger others.

oratory or writing that inflames a crowd so that it heads to the x-neighbourhood to smash windows, spray graffiti, and crack heads if possible;

May be slander or libel.

teach anti-semitism and holocaust denial in a public high-school classroom and grade students on this material.

Teaching is only an act of free speech if you are self employed. Otherwise you have no more right to pontificate on the evils of international jewry as a teacher than you do as a copywriter for B&H Photo Video. Do it in your own time.

>43 SimonW11: mischieviously shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre — that old chestnut;

not a free speech issue a reckless endangerment issue. the right to speak is not the right to endanger others.

This also applies to speech that is "fraud" -- ei, advertising a product as one thing, when in fact it is something else is not protected speech. Recently the New York State told a a number of stores to take the generic herbal supplements off their shelves because the store brands, when tested, were discovered not to have any of the supplements they were supposed to:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/chains-pull-dietary-aids-off-shelves-af...

In fact, advertising of all sorts has to follow guidelines to protect against fraud. Those ads you see for prescription drugs on television have a set of guidelines that force them to include all those disclaimers. Cigarette packages are required to carry warning labels, food products are required to carry nutritional information...none of this violates the free speech of the companies involved.

Direct "credible" death threats are also considered exempt from free speech protections, but even here the problem of establishing credibility has no easily one-size-fits-all solution. If you are the president of the United States, the bar is set very low. If you are a woman playing an online game, the bar is set very high.

libel, in this country, is devilishly hard to prove for just this reason.

"Incitements to violence" are an interesting case because it is the kind of charge that can only really be determined after the fact: if you scream at people to burn down city hall, and everyone ignores you, then you've hardly incited anything. The proof of an incitement to violence is the violence itself.

In the case of that final hypothetical, incitement to violence, surely it is the person committing the violent act who is to blame. After all, we didn't consider the "I was only following orders" excuse to be a particularly good one during the Nuremberg Trials.

While there are certain comments, vocally aired beliefs and speeches that are vile and reprehensible, the best defense against free speech is free speech and more of it. When you say something offensive, you should be shouted down, by several people, who are willing to point out the errors in your views.

>45 RidgewayGirl:

On "following orders". No it doesn't lessen the responsibility of the person following orders, or who was inflamed by vicious rhetoric, but equally it says little about the responsibility of those on the other side of that relationship. Unless you want to argue that Hitler guy was kinda OK because he didn't physically go out and kill people, or round up Jews (and other undesirables) and send them to camps to be gassed, himself.

To my mind speech that directly exhorts a violent assault on someone is an offence. After that there is a spectrum and where to draw the line is down to the society. For me it comes down to is - is there intent to cause the target to reasonably believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person. This means that circumstance can be important - what might be acceptable in some cases might be an offence in other cases.

>44 southernbooklady: The proof of an incitement to violence is the violence itself.

Okay, that seems to be one point where we may disagree. I don't think that a society must wait to sanction certain speech until there are demonstrable victims of violence.

>45 RidgewayGirl: In the case of that final hypothetical, incitement to violence, surely it is the person committing the violent act who is to blame.

Here, I see there being two (or more) separate issues: the individuals in the crowd are responsible for their particular actions; that's a fairly straight-forward matter.

But in the not-so-hypothetical scenario I offered, the crowd would not have acted at all without the incitement of the individual or group that promoted the violence and who, if they're clever, stayed back and followed the riot on Twitter.

>47 librorumamans: I don't think that a society must wait to sanction certain speech until there are demonstrable victims of violence.

And I'm much more comfortable living in a society where we arrest people for the crimes they have committed, not the crimes they might commit.

>49 southernbooklady: As I read your response, it contains a contradiction in logic.

Reverting to my >47 librorumamans:
When I enter into a social contract by agreeing to live under a constitutional and legal system, I surrender my right to a private army and the right to avenge wrongs in my own person by authorizing the state to act on my behalf. The benefit is the social stability that follows where interpersonal feuds and tribal vendettas are avoided.

So in my view, a society's refusal of any limit on speech inciting discrimination, hatred, or violence against individuals and groups significantly undermines civil society by fostering vigilanteism and revenge cycles.

>50 librorumamans: When I enter into a social contract by agreeing to live under a constitutional and legal system, I surrender my right to a private army

In the United States that's up for debate. We actually protect personal militarization in this country, much to my frustration.

So in my view, a society's refusal of any limit on speech inciting discrimination, hatred, or violence against individuals and groups significantly undermines civil society by fostering vigilantism and revenge cycles.


The key phrase there being "in my view" -- that's an opinion, and I'm sure an informed one, but it is not an inevitable result of a logical argument.

It's not that I don't think the motives for instituting hate speech laws are on the side of the angels, mind you. I think they come from a sincere desire to promote social justice. But they are doomed to be ineffective, because they shut down the conversation, they don't let it play out and allow the community to change the minds of its recalcitrant members. We tend to think of hate speech in terms of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia. But consider what would happen if the anti-abortion movement applied its principles to pro-Choice speech?

The truth is, we can't always easily distinguish what constitutes hate. But we can easily tell what constitutes a bomb threat at a women's health clinic. Which is why it makes sense to legislate against the latter, not the former.

>45 RidgewayGirl:
"While there are certain comments, vocally aired beliefs and speeches that are vile and reprehensible, the best defense against free speech is free speech and more of it. When you say something offensive, you should be shouted down, by several people, who are willing to point out the errors in your views. "

Isn't that about where we are at ? In so far as our political arena ? I believe it has always been this way and certainly in the past there were people who crossed a line now and then but our current definition of free speech has less to do with one's opinion and more to do with personal attacking others, either individually or collectively. As I see it, this practice is not conducive to problem solving.

"In the case of that final hypothetical, incitement to violence, surely it is the person committing the violent act who is to blame."

If that were the case then individuals who hired "hit men" to commit a murder would be blameless as well. After all the person who took the money and killed the person did not have to do so.

>50 librorumamans:
"So in my view, a society's refusal of any limit on speech inciting discrimination, hatred, or violence against individuals and groups significantly undermines civil society by fostering vigilanteism and revenge cycles."

Hear ! Hear !

The problem as I see it is that this isn't necessarily something that can be "legislated". Somewhere during the past couple of decades, American society has lost the ability to hold themselves accountable for what they say (or do for that matter). One feels free to say anything about anybody at any time. An entire news network makes big money off of punting garbage constantly and is not held responsible at all.

The average joe has very little power when he spouts lies and slander but those we hire or elect into positions of power can use words to great affect. This is where I feel we've dropped the ball, the idea of "free speech" to me, is the right to state one's opinion with out fear of reprisal but stating an opinion is far different than inciting a hate campaign. The first can be productive and is open to discussion the second is where we are at.....nothing being done and a society that is frustrated and fearful.

To my way of thinking the right to free speech allows one the freedom to stand up and say "I am a Christian and I am proud of it" rather than saying "Death to non believers"

Both are protected but one would expect those in the public eye...those who are paid to "inform" or "legislate" our society to be of the first group. Not so much anymore.

I guess if one wants to defend the right of those in power to "use" their right to blather on about personal biases, hatreds and name calling, then one has to accept that this is the way we are going to live.
Some how it doesn't seem all that productive towards creating a healthy happy place to be. It's like being on a perpetual play ground with a bunch of elementary school kids who haven't learned how to behave yet.

The Limbaughs, Becks, Coulters......Fox News.....they know what they are doing. They are spewing hate, using ugly words, making ugly comparisons and in many cases outright lying. They are whipping people into a frenzy of fear and hate, then laying the guns on the table and leaving the room. And yes......I do hold them responsible for what happens after that.

Kind of stretching the idea of "free speech" to the max. But, it is where we are at. Like the gun issue...crossing a boarder into the insane because we adhere to wording and individual interpretations rather than ideas and actions based on a reality.

Don't get me wrong....one can say what ever they want....push as hard as they want but when someone blows up in their face....don't be throwing one's arms up in the air and cry foul. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

>52 faceinbook: If that were the case then individuals who hired "hit men" to commit a murder would be blameless as well. After all the person who took the money and killed the person did not have to do so.

Not true. They are guilty of a specific kind of crime: conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, something like that.

>53 faceinbook: Don't get me wrong....one can say what ever they want....push as hard as they want but when someone blows up in their face....don't be throwing one's arms up in the air and cry foul. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "you are responsible." It sounds like you mean "shut up and don't complain when people don't agree with you." It also sounds like you want people to "stop being mean." (Whatever "mean" is).

You want to make a virtue out of civility, fine. It's actually something I reach for myself (with more or less success, depending on the situation). But you can't enforce it on anyone but yourself. Presumably, you can set an example and people who appreciate your restraint will follow your lead. But if you don't want to hear Fox News being nasty then all you need to do is turn off the television set.

And contrary to what you seem to think, there are ways to get people to change their discourse at the society-level. The taboo around the word "nigger" is a classic example. Or consider the ongoing controversy around the Washington Redskins football team. That has kept the dialogue about what does and doesn't constitute racist speech and stereotyping in the public eye for decades. Last year the team lost the trademark on their logo because the guidelines for issuing trademark registrations now disallows racist trademarks.

That was accomplished by a lot of talking, and not a little shouting. I'm all for letting people shout. Sometimes we need to be shouted at.

>53 faceinbook: The solution to people airing offensive views is not to listen to them. Do you think that Limbaugh would continue in the same vein if no one reacted? And while you can't force people not to react, you can control your reaction. Either refute what they are saying or refuse to listen. But making what they say illegal means they can make what you say illegal. Do you really think that if we enact some sort of law regulating the tone of speech that that won't be used against the less powerful, or with the purpose of shutting you up?

>54 southernbooklady:
"Not true. They are guilty of a specific kind of crime: conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, something like that."

And the person who uses words instead of money to accomplish harm is blameless just because there is no law against it ? Of course they are blameless....we have the right to free speech. I don't think that is what is meant by free speech......my opinion only. It is an irresponsible way to use the rights we have. Same dang way it is irresponsible to put a gun in one's purse and set that purse next to a 2yr.old., in a crowded box store. She had the "right" but she paid a price for using that right irresponsibly. Sadly , since we all share this country, we all pay for the bad habits of others.

>55 southernbooklady:
"Sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "you are responsible." It sounds like you mean "shut up and don't complain when people don't agree with you." It also sounds like you want people to "stop being mean." (Whatever "mean" is)."

Not at all....just accept responsibility for your words. There are ways of saying things that others do not want to hear that are not threatening......there are also ways of saying things which have a high percentage of getting some sort of negative reaction. When you get a negative reaction you really are not contributing to the issue at hand. It is over. Done. Guess free speech is the right to say anything anyway you want but when someone reacts it should not be a surprise. The cartoonist KNEW he was pushing the line. He hired a body guard. He has the right to publish what he wants and he exercised it......he is responsible, in part, for the results of his publications.

So what is the purpose of "free speech"? To keep people informed ? Have an open dialogue ? Individual right to an opinion no matter how bizarre that opinion may be ? All of those I would suspect.

If the intent is to shout down the opponent ........ no matter how truthful or reliable the content, well then we are there.
Sadly at the top as well as the bottom.

>56 RidgewayGirl:
"Do you really think that if we enact some sort of law regulating the tone of speech that that won't be used against the less powerful, or with the purpose of shutting you up?"

I said that I do not think that this can be legislated. Again I am only making an observation. The fact that Limbaugh and his likes are making big money, the reality that we have Senators who call the Commander in Chief a liar during a speech, the blatant racism that has hung over this Presidency is an indication of where we are as a society. I find it sad. That is all. Not sure WHY this is the case....lack of critical thinking skills ? failing educational system ? Expanded poverty ? I don't know but, it has changed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Responsibility

Yes !!!! Nothing is free...not even freedoms.

>57 faceinbook: So what is the purpose of "free speech"?

It's a safeguard against tyranny.

>58 southernbooklady:
Ahhhh I see. Not what comes to mind really when I think of some of the ways it is used.

That's why it is so important that speech is free even for the speech you hate. Because trust me, your speech is hated by someone as well, and if you want your speech to be protected, then theirs has to be too.

And that includes speech that promotes hatred, that encourages immoral behavior, that is offensive, that is angry. Because how those things are defined is ALWAYS different depending on whether you are the speaker or the listener.

Unlike, say, bodily harm, which is easily defined. That's why you can tell a guy he's a fag but you can't beat him with a baseball bat.

>60 southernbooklady:
I understand what you are saying 100%.
We expect our lawmakers to actually accomplish something. There are ways to speak to each other so as to get something done without losing the right to free speech. and ways of saying things that shut things down, I am observing that those elected to look after ALL of us have lost the ability to exercise the right to express beliefs with out hate and malice......hence we are not progressing very much....in fact we are slipping in all kinds of ways that are important. But, then it is their right. A right I think they are exercising without much responsibility.

"That's why you can tell a guy he's a fag but you can't beat him with a baseball bat."

Exactly. Or you can keep saying it over and over and over until some guy turns around and beats YOU with a baseball bat. I contend that you probably have it coming to you. Thinking you are protected because of "free speech" is a cop out. At some point your "free speech" turned into someone else's perception of harassment.

President Obama, to my eyes has been harassed. I give the guy all kinds of kudos for his deportment through all of the harassment (excuse me...free speech) directed at him since he took office.

>61 faceinbook: I contend that you probably have it coming to you.

I don't.

>42 librorumamans:

#2 and 4 are examples of direct harm via speech. Either I have caused you monetary damage by my speech/writing, or I have given you false information from a position of authority, thereby impairing your ability to make informed decisions. Therefore, those are not 'free speech', any more than my hitting someone with a sword could be described as 'free expression'. (Exception made for those who voluntarily hit and let themselves be hit with swords, e.g. SCA folk.)

How you react to speech should be under scrutiny; the speech itself should not. If I go up to someone and tell them 'Hey, it would be a great idea to rob that mini-mart'... the person has every right to tell me I'm crazy and walk (or run) off. If they act upon my suggestion, it's on them.

Well calling some one a fag may well earn you a charge of assault in at least a few American states I would guess. especially if you added the battery charge from the baseball bat.

It strikes me that those arguing that unfettered free speech is a bad thing are confused as to the difference between free speech and criminal conspiracy, someone giving orders to someone below them in a work or governmental hierarchy and other similar situations.

A mob boss ordering a hit is not a guy yelling on a street corner. If you offer money or other compensation for an act, it is no longer just words. If you are a leader of a country (Hitler was invoked as just a guy speaking speaking his mind) and enact legislation or give orders to people working for you, that's not just words.

Now there are some tricky examples that really make the idea that speech should not be legislated an uncomfortable one, but the objections so far have remained as either not examples of free speech or as just a personal preference for people to be nice and calm and to not get excited about stuff.

>65 RidgewayGirl:
"not examples of free speech or as just a personal preference for people to be nice and calm and to not get excited about stuff."

One can get excited and as irritating as they want but there is a law of the universe that is older than the right to "free speech" and that is ying and yang.
What you put out you get back. And when we try to say that the yang is wrong we are on a fools mission. one could flip your statement around and say that those on the receiving end of verbal bullying should stay calm and nice. Remain cool and not get excited, pretend not to hear it.......keep in mind the guys "rights". Never going to happen.

And I do believe in two types of responsibility....legal and personal. If one would pay more attention to one's personal responsibilities, there would be less need for the legal.......enforcing and expanding legal responsibilities makes for a big government.

>66 faceinbook: one could flip your statement around and say that those on the receiving end of verbal bullying should stay calm and nice.

In Christian religions they call this "turning the other cheek" and it is generally considered an admirable act.

What you put out you get back.

Or you reap what you sow? So in general you ascribe to "the eye for an eye" approach to human interaction. You might find the consequences a little harsh.

If one would pay more attention to one's personal responsibilities, there would be less need for the legal

Which is what people have been saying in this thread. Look to your own behavior, because that is what you are responsible for and that is the only thing you have any control over.

>67 southernbooklady:

I am not advocating an eye for an eye OR turning the other cheek I am merely stating the obvious. I do not ascribe to an eye for an eye but I am realistic enough to see that it happens and that often individuals push others repeatedly until it does. I am not judging whether this is right or wrong, it merely is.

There is a reason that the older spiritual believes contain the idea of ying and yang or karma and dharma. The ONLY point I am making is that it exists and we should not be surprised.

"Which is what people have been saying in this thread. Look to your own behavior, because that is what you are responsible for and that is the only thing you have any control over."

Yep......but there is nothing wrong with wishing for a more civil society. Nothing wrong with wanting to see the best of people rather than the worst. Neither is there anything wrong wanting standards raised rather than lowered. Not sure why you think I would try to legislate this, I am not ignorant.

The cartoonist was killed because he pushed the envelope too far. Should he have been killed. No he should not but his chances ran out.
The next one will meet the same fate. Just as I can't change the behavior of individuals neither can anyone else. Not even a law against murder can stop someone who has been pushed far enough. My personal belief system dictates that I don't push people past the point of civility. The times I have, I feel responsible. Not worth it......not productive.....not respectful. You are right.....it is all I can do.

>67 southernbooklady:
"Or you reap what you sow? So in general you ascribe to "the eye for an eye" approach to human interaction. You might find the consequences a little harsh."

How did you get that impression ? Just curious. What I was saying was that during my life time, I've observed that it is most often the case that the ying and yang exist. Karma is real. Observation and ascribing are two different things. I've seen people pay for their past actions is ways too horrible to contemplate.....I wish it wasn't so sometimes, often wished I could change things to make it better for them, but it happens. Sometimes we see it clear as day , often we don't. It has been a reality I've observed not something I ascribe to. One does not make karma happen.....nor the yang to the ying. It just does.

>69 faceinbook: How did you get that impression ? Just curious.

I think that comments along the lines of "The cartoonist was killed because he pushed the envelope too far," "you can keep saying it over and over and over until some guy turns around and beats YOU with a baseball bat. I contend that you probably have it coming to you," and other similar statements give that impression.

>70 RidgewayGirl: What she said. The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdoe weren't killed "because they pushed the envelope too far" -- they were killed because somebody shot them. Drawing cartoons is not a capital offense. At least, not in the USA, and not in France.

I'm overly sensitive to such arguments because they have been used against women for all eternity -- "she was raped because of the way she was dressed, she had it coming." Believe it or not, but even getting falling down drunk in a bar while wearing a sexy skirt is NOT a rape-able offense. No one "has rape coming."

>71 southernbooklady:

Very true. However, comma, people have a right to walk in a bad neighborhood with money coming out of their pocket, and don't have 'mugging coming' either. But most people might consider such an action to be highly risky. This in no way justifies a criminal action; it's simply an (ugly) fact of life that if you are in a vulnerable position, there are predators who will take advantage of that fact. (Note that this applies to both sexes and all social classes.)

>72 BruceCoulson: But most people might consider such an action to be highly risky. This in no way justifies a criminal action; it's simply an (ugly) fact of life that if you are in a vulnerable position, there are predators who will take advantage of that fact.

Sure. But unless you are in the insurance industry and in the business of evaluating risk, the victim of a crime is in no way to blame. It's all on the criminal.

>70 RidgewayGirl:
"you can keep saying it over and over and over until some guy turns around and beats YOU with a baseball bat. I contend that you probably have it coming to you,"

I should amend this.......you probably shouldn't be surprised by what happens
to you.

I do not like seeing people beat or killed or harmed......that is not the point behind what I am trying to say and it keeps coming back to my desire to see this happen. There are ways to speak with people that are productive and ways to speak at people that will present circumstances that may not be pleasant......one is free to do as one chooses but shouldn't be surprised when the push back is similar to the out go.
I don't believe there is anything can change that fact.....no kind of "rights" or "laws".
If society wants to progress it would be much wiser to express our differences in ways that are productive than those that are inflammatory. My opinion only.
The past Congressional body has been pretty ugly and we can not seem to move forward. I contend this has a lot to do with our discourse and how we use the rights we are given in this country.
Again this is only an opinion....there are no laws that say one has to be productive.....or pleasant or anything of that nature......I don't propose any laws that would try to do so. Just saying.........

Not sure how I come across as a violent person either......I hate violence...but I do think that the way a person acts towards others has consequences and when shielded from those consequences the actions tend to escalate. Holding people responsible for their own choices is high on my list. Has little to do with agreeing with violence or vengeance and everything to do with thinking that one needs to own what one does. This includes free speech and how one exercises that right.

>73 southernbooklady:

Again, it's not a question of blame; it's a question of (un)common sense. You wouldn't walk into a lion cage with fresh steaks strapped to your clothing. Making yourself vulnerable when (as a functional adult) you KNOW that there are predators who will take advantage of your weakness doesn't make the criminals less reprehensible; but it does make their actions far easier. You lock your doors (both residence and car) when you leave, not because leaving them unlocked makes theft okay, but because it makes robbery more likely.

Crime, and criminals, are one of those unpleasant facts of life. We're not going to eliminate either (barring some radical breakthroughs). Failing to take appropriate precautions in light of this fact doesn't make a person guilty, or responsible per se; but it does raise the question of 'What on earth were you thinking?'

>75 BruceCoulson: but it does raise the question of 'What on earth were you thinking?'

which does raise the question of blame. :)

I'm obviously not suggesting that people ignore common sense, or take risks they don't have to, as if criminals are not "an unpleasant fact of life."

But I think we should leave the judgments in the hands of the jury and the judge, and that the only person that deserves to be prosecuted (in the court of law or the court of public opinion) is the one who commits the crime.

"What were you thinking?" is a useless thing to ask the victim of a crime.

>72 BruceCoulson: & >75 BruceCoulson:

Your two posts read to me as though your focus has shifted from political expression (the OP) to unspecified forms of sexual abuse and assault. If my reading is incorrect, then my response will be off-topic and I invite you to make your comments less ambiguous.

Your examples of walking in a rough neighbourhood with cash falling from one's pockets and of walking into a lion's cage with strap-on steaks are absurd exaggerations that trivialize the issue of integrity of the person and, additionally, place your argument outside the bounds reasonable probability. Neither is helpful to the discussion.

>77 librorumamans:
"Your examples of walking in a rough neighbourhood with cash falling from one's pockets and of walking into a lion's cage with strap-on steaks are absurd exaggerations that trivialize the issue of integrity of the person and, additionally, place your argument outside the bounds reasonable probability. Neither is helpful to the discussion

I don't think this is so far fetched.....Change it up then. Standing outside the funeral of a dead soldier and holding a sign that says the soldier deserved to die because God hates fags may bring the wrath of someone down on your head. Don't you think ? Brings it back into the political. Why do you think this is so different ? And what integrity are you referring to ? The one with the sign or the soldier who died ? Or the person who potentially could snap because of such a perceived disrespect ?

>76 southernbooklady:
"But I think we should leave the judgments in the hands of the jury and the judge, and that the only person that deserves to be prosecuted (in the court of law or the court of public opinion) is the one who commits the crime."

I am NOT judging any one side...one could turn this around and make it all to the good. Example : Jehovah Witness spreading the good news is physically assaulted in Born Again neighborhood or some such. I am judging the situation. I don't enjoy my doorbell ringing and finding a bunch of pamphlet holders on my doorstep but I don't wish them any harm. There are on the other hand people who may have a shorter fuse. It would be the chance one takes when performing such a task,

I campaigned for Obama.....in some neighborhoods people got rather nasty. I knew this going in. We were told not to push it.....back off. We were told that for a reason. Had we approached in a more forceful manner, we may have met with some type of pushing or shoving. (or worse depending on how racist the home owner) I thought I was fighting the good fight ...... but it is important to know one's boundaries and accept the fact that if or when one feels justified in pushing those boundaries....there will often be unexpected and unwanted results. THAT is what I am saying.....

I will say this again.....the cartoonist hired body guards because he was pushing boundaries......he was killed as a result of what he felt justified in doing. THAT is a situation and in my judgment it isn't a surprising out come. I believe that one should conduct themselves with a respect for other people's boundaries but that is a personally held belief that could fall on either side.....the killer or the cartoonist depending on a personal belief system.

"commits the crime"

So a crime must be committed before one decides to evaluate and/or judge a situation ?

The young mother who was shot by her 2yr old did not commit a crime..... if a crime was committed, the child was engaging in reckless use of a firearm. Mom had a license to conceal and carry.....her purse is an acceptable place to carry a gun. Walmart is not a gun free zone. Yet it is very very difficult not to find some sort of fault in placing a gun near the hands of a two year old....crime or no crime. There will be no judge or jury but one would hope that a few gun owners would come to some sort of conclusion when evaluating or judging the situation.

>78 faceinbook:
"or the court of public opinion"

Isn't this what a civilized society is based upon ? Supposedly how we elect officials ? Form our laws and bylaws ? Learn as a child how to conduct oneself when put into different situations ?

Isn't this the premise that would induce a cartoonist to hire a body guard in the first place ?

>78 faceinbook: I thought I was fighting the good fight ...... but it is important to know one's boundaries and accept the fact that if or when one feels justified in pushing those boundaries....there will often be unexpected and unwanted results. THAT is what I am saying.....

There is a big difference between pushing boundaries and "getting what's coming to you," as well you know. Civil rights activists "pushed boundaries" but that's no reason to shrug off the violence they endured on the grounds they should have expected it.

And just to be even-handed, the people of the Westboro Baptist Church out there picketing military funerals are within their rights to do so (within the bounds of the laws governing public demonstrations). They should NOT expect to be physically attacked. They should, instead, expect counter-demonstrations, like the wholly peaceable ones that often do occur that render anything the Westboro Baptist Church does irrelevant.

So frankly, I'm glad we live in a society where we can push boundaries. If we didn't, women wouldn't have the vote, slavery would still exist, and homosexual people would be criminalized and/or institutionalized. So I respect our willingness to test and even break boundaries at least as much as I respect people's desire to erect them.

So a crime must be committed before one decides to evaluate and/or judge a situation

Legally, yes. You can't go around sentencing people for committing not-crimes. How judgmental you want to be as an individual is, of course, up to you. Compassion is optional, of course.

Yet it is very very difficult not to find some sort of fault in placing a gun near the hands of a two year old....crime or no crime.

It is very very tragic. But the "fault" for America's runaway gun culture is not limited to any one WalMart, or mother, or two-year child. And I suggest that if you want to address the larger issue, pointing fingers at the woman who was shot by her own child is the least effective way possible to go about it.

"or the court of public opinion"

Isn't this what a civilized society is based upon ? Supposedly how we elect officials ? Form our laws and bylaws ? Learn as a child how to conduct oneself when put into different situations ?

Actually, I think "civilized" society is based on a series of principles that don't always run in line with the court of public opinion. In fact, they are a safeguard against that court--which unchecked becomes mob rule and the tyranny of the majority.

We all develop ideas of what we think is right or wrong. But if our notion of "right" runs counter to public opinion, that's hardly a good reason to change it.

And if one of the principles our civilized society is fundamental is freedom of speech, then yes, unpopular, boundary-pushing speech must be protected. No one who draws a cartoon should expect to get shot for it.

>79 faceinbook: the court of public opinion

This phrase is being used with two subtly different meanings, I believe.

Civil society is not based on public opinion but on a constitution, a system of laws deriving from it, and codified procedures for interpreting and administering those laws. An important goal of this structure is to insulate civil order as much as possible from public opinion. Those US states that hold elections for members of the judiciary are bizarre (in my opinion) exceptions.

The political process of open elections, legislatures, and a free press is only a law court by a loose and imprecise analogy. And historically, framers of constitutions in several countries limited voting rights and created bicameral legislatures in an attempt to insulate the political process from public opinion.

Cross-posted with >80 southernbooklady:

>80 southernbooklady:
"getting what's coming to you,"
I amended this statement as it isn't what I meant.....I meant that certain reactions can result and perhaps expected.

I believe my entire point is being missed....don't know if this is intentional or not.

"pointing fingers at the woman who was shot by her own child is the least effective way possible to go about it."

it is the ONLY way things are going to change. And I wouldn't call it "pointing the finger" at one certain person. I call it an example of a responsible gun owner and how they are behaving today.

I am NOT pointing the finger at "the woman" who died in WalMart. She is just one of hundreds of law abiding "responsible" gun owners. But, her actions can be used as a learning experience. How else would things change ?

When I was campaigning I could have said pretty much anything I wanted to the people I spoke with.....I have the right. I could have posted signs or what ever as long as I was properly distanced. I have the right to tell someone I think that they are a racist Ahole......in fact I don't even have to say that I "think" this, I can call them a racist Ahole....my free speech "right". I had the right as a citizen to push all kinds of buttons if I chose to. But, that wasn't the point....the point was information gathering and accomplishing something. Changing peoples minds and/or actions come more from example than from shouting them down or trying to tear them down. THAT is all I am saying. Along with the fact that once you start yelling from both sides, the end of accomplishing anything is a reality.

"We all develop ideas of what we think is right or wrong. But if our notion of "right" runs counter to public opinion, that's hardly a good reason to change it"

No need to change it at all......and one has the right to voice your opinion in any way you choose. How you do
so will determine whether you are effective or not. My point in a nutshell.

"Civil rights activists "pushed boundaries" but that's no reason to shrug off the violence they endured on the grounds they should have expected it. "

I am quite certain they expected it.

I do not "shrug" off the violence......I deplore violence. However, there are some people who would contend that without violence some things would never change. All I am saying is that they knew the risk........they had to. Being aware does not justify....not sure when that became a reality.
The civil rights protesters were also led by an individual who knew that violence and violating the integrity of the opposition were not beneficial to his goal.

>81 librorumamans:
Not sure what you mean. We elect our lawmakers and we expect them to make laws that suit our society. It may be a back door "public opinion" but it is none the less. Who we vote for is an expression of our beliefs and opinions.

>78 faceinbook: Standing outside the funeral of a dead soldier and holding a sign that says the soldier deserved to die because God hates fags may bring the wrath of someone down on your head. Don't you think ?

No, I don't think. If the someone you allude to whose wrath descends is a deity, then, no, I don't think that happens.

If the someone is a bystander — perhaps a mourner of the soldier — then no, I doubt that would happen generally. For the most part we've been discussing generalities in this discussion, not specific incidents. Mature adults in the scenario you suggest are likely to dismiss the provocation in order to respect the funeral ritual, understanding that the picketers are revealing nothing more than their own failings.

>84 librorumamans:
"Mature adults in the scenario you suggest are likely to dismiss the provocation in order to respect the funeral ritual, understanding that the picketers are revealing nothing more than their own failings."

You have a lot more faith in mankind than I do. Mature adults realize that cartoons can not hurt them or their religion. Mature adults would realize that bombing an abortion clinic won't stop abortions. Mature adults realize that taunting the police is not a good idea and most likely refrain from doing so.

If we had mature adults in Congress we would be the highest country in the world in so far as our health care, our education and our infrastructure. We have the wealth but not the maturity is seems.

"If the someone you allude to whose wrath descends is a deity"

Nope no deity....just a belief in Karma. And the principle that one does usually reap what one sows. That actions and words have consequences no matter what "right" we have to expressing ourselves any way we see fit. Not saying whether this is right OR wrong....it just is.

>85 faceinbook: There is a line that separates us; I live north of it and you south. We have different experiences evidently.

>85 faceinbook: You have a lot more faith in mankind than I do.

Laws should be built as much on our faith in mankind as in our lack of it.

What is the intention of a law ? Why do we have laws ?

I believe that, for the most part laws come into being because people do not govern themselves and must be forced to do the right thing. If nobody would do things that infringe on the rights of others.....there would be no need for a law.
That would mean that laws are made because we can not have faith in mankind or that enough individuals have broken the faith we should have in mankind. Unless there is a fear of society leveling a retribution for certain behaviors many individuals would totally disregard the fact that they share a space within society with other people.
Even with laws we have problems with this.....drive 55 though a construction area on the freeway, you will be left in the dust......count how many people text and drive. People don't THINK. I don't know why.

If we all adhered to one rule "Treat others the way we would want to be treated" There would be no need for protests or shouting matches or anything of the sort. It seems we are incapable of doing this so we have government to sort it all out. (who is going to sort out our government I don't know) Actually, there would be little need for a government. Those who complain about the size and scope of government have only to look at the actions of their fellow citizens to figure out why this is the case.

Gun advocates seem have a lot of faith in people being responsible with their weapons. There are many many incidents lately that have shown this is not entirely true. We shall see, maybe they will all take a step back and reevaluate what they do with their right to carry a gun. OR eventually the laws will change to govern the lack of self governing. I don't know. You may feel that the first instance will take place ? I don't think so.

We can not pretend that certain things do not exist just because they shouldn't. I don't like seeing people hurt, not physically nor verbally. But I can not tell myself that it won't happen.....cause then I would be lying to myself. People make choices and engage in behaviors that have consequences. Kind of is a fact of life.


Perhaps >86 librorumamans: said it best. We have different experiences.

>88 faceinbook: I believe that, for the most part laws come into being because people do not govern themselves and must be forced to do the right thing. If nobody would do things that infringe on the rights of others.....there would be no need for a law.

If that were true then we'd need a law against every undesirable action, and people would go about raping and murdering if there were no laws against it. You say don't pretend that people don't do bad things? I say don't pretend they don't do good things.

Laws aren't about "forcing" people to do something. They are for holding people accountable when they act against the common good. And in fact, the so-called "golden rule" of reciprocity predates most laws and lies at the foundation of most moral systems. Interestingly, it has even been shown to be a successful strategy in game theory ("tit for tat") and a workable survival strategy from an evolutionary perspective: not so much "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the most cooperative and adaptable."

But in any case, that's somewhat beside the point of the nature of free speech and whether hate speech should be protected. Although under your view there shouldn't be such a thing. There should be enforced respectful speech.

No thanks.

We have different experiences.

Everyone has different experiences. It should keep us humble.

>89 southernbooklady:
("tit for tat")
I do not believe that to be the principle behind the golden rule. But ..... what ever.

"If that were true then we'd need a law against every undesirable action, and people would go about raping and murdering if there were no laws against it."
Well ? Drive in a work zone on the freeway........count people texting in their cars. Take note of how many are speeding. We still have a problem with drunk drivers, rapists and murders and we have laws.

"But in any case, that's somewhat beside the point of the nature of free speech and whether hate speech should be protected. Although under your view there shouldn't be such a thing. There should be enforced respectful speech."

I never said that....not in all of these posts. Not once ..... I've said that one can say what they want any way they want to say it but then be prepared for the consequences. There is no way to protect people when they push the wrong buttons. We can hold people responsible for crimes committed against others but usually it is too late.

Please point out where I said that respectful speech should be enforced ??? I did say that respectful speech was more productive but that has absolutely nothing to do with enforcement.

>90 faceinbook: We still have a problem with drunk drivers, rapists and murders and we have laws.

Which proves my point. Laws are about holding people accountable when they do bad things, not forcing them not to do them.

Although under your view there shouldn't be such a thing. There should be enforced respectful speech."

I never said that....not in all of these posts.

No, but it is the logical consequence of your position. You don't want people to drive in work zones? Create a law against it, because otherwise people will drive all over the damn place.* And we'd better make a law against homicide, because otherwise it will be a blood bath. So therefore, if you don't want people to say hateful things you better be thinking about legal options because by your own account people have no sense of responsibility for what they say. So they'll need a law to keep them in line.

Personally, I think it is better to counter hate speech that to legislate against it. What's spoken can be confronted. What's censored....festers.

*my driving instructor used to say that we should get rid of traffic lights because after some accidents, people would start paying more attention to the road!

>91 southernbooklady: my driving instructor used to say that we should get rid of traffic lights because after some accidents, people would start paying more attention to the road!

And, as an aside, that's just what happens in those European towns that have tried this after adopting the thinking of Dutch engineer Hans Monderman.

>91 southernbooklady:

The 5/90/5 rule is highly applicable here. 5% of the population will ALWAYS behave morally, be honest, and respect others. 5% of the population are simply criminals, who will always seek to use other people (and systems) in a manner that benefits them, regardless of how other people (or even society) is affected. The remaining 90% base a lot of their actions on what seems appropriate, what is rewarded, what is punished, by the society they live in. If there were no laws against homicide, we wouldn't have a bloodbath per se; but I suspect the number of murders would increase significantly over time. If lynching minorities for infractions against the social order is treated as acceptable and praiseworthy, then you get photographs of the 'festivities'. That doesn't mean that everyone does these things, or even approves of them; some may even take action against popular opinion. But a lot of things become easier to do as part of a group.

The cure for bad speech is more speech, since unlike Gresham's Law, good speech drives out bad speech...eventually.

>91 southernbooklady:
"You don't want people to drive in work zones? Create a law against it, because otherwise people will drive all over the damn place.*"

There is a law in work zones.....a speed law. It is seldom followed. The law came to be because it is unsafe for the workers, several were killed, when people continue to go 65...or 75 or however fast they are going if they think they are not being watched.

Laws are a response to a set of circumstances. No unusual or harmful circumstances no law........more potentially harmful circumstances......more laws.

You are assuming that I want things I've not stated that I want. I don't give a RIP if people say hateful things. I don't care what sign they carry or what flag they fly. If they want to appear to be hate filled....THAT is their problem. All I said was that we shouldn't be surprised at what happens when they do. I ALSO said that I made no judgment as to whether this was right or wrong it just IS. It always has been and it always will be. It is obvious that I don't much care for bully tactics nor do I see the need for hateful speech but my likes and dislikes do not mean that I want any thing legislated at all.

Obviously I can not discuss this with you. It is not so much a discussion about what I am saying as what you think I am saying and I can't participate in that debate since I am arguing against a point I haven't made. I can not repeat myself any more. I did not use the word legislate or law or out law or any such thing. This discussion was about what happens when people exercise free speech to the limit. There is no legislating THAT either.

>94 faceinbook: Is this what you're trying to say -- speech should be free and unrestricted, but if someone says something controversial and then gets attacked or murdered, they have only gotten what they deserved?

>95 RidgewayGirl: speech should be free and unrestricted, but if someone says something controversial and then gets attacked or murdered, they have only gotten what they deserved?

"gotten what they deserved," "had it coming," "should have expected it," "shouldn't be surprised" -- these are all ways of saying (callously) that actions have consequences.

And I do agree with that, by the way. Actions have consequences. The right to free speech is not a right to speak without consequences. It's not a freedom from others reacting to or disagreeing with what you say.

Where I seem to break with @faceinbook -- and have managed to make her angry in the process, (which I'm sorry about, I'm trying to debate her position, not piss her off) -- is in what constitutes acceptable consequences, and how we should react when someone crosses the line into the unacceptable.

And here we seem divided, because I can't bring myself to ever say about someone who suffers violence for speaking out that "they should have expected it." It may be pragmatic to take precautions, to hire body guards after drawing controversial cartoons and to be aware of strategies for surviving the dangerous situations you find yourself in for speaking your mind. But as a member of the society you've been speaking to, who also values being able to speak, I think a phrase like "they should have expected it" denotes a level of acceptance of the unacceptable in the situation. It's a passive response to injustice.

I suppose that's why, from my perspective, it doesn't matter to me whether it is Martin Luther King speaking on the Mall, or the KKK marching in a parade, Lady Gaga singing at the Oscars or the Westboro Baptist Church chanting "God hates fags" -- none of these things are crimes punishable by violence. (and this is why a charge like "incitement to violence" makes no sense to me in an American context) And anyone who visits violence upon people who say things they don't want to hear deserves the full weight of the law coming down on upon them like ten tons of bricks.

What no one deserves is for crimes not to be taken seriously because "they should have expected it."

>96 southernbooklady:
"What no one deserves is for crimes not to be taken seriously because "they should have expected it."

This is something I've not said either....in fact just the opposite. All I said was that certain actions or words have a tendency to incite a reaction. No one has any control over those who would react and nothing can be done about it usually until it is too late.

I had a Native teacher for a period of time. One of the most important lessons he "tried" to teach me was the importance of words and how one uses them. I have a problem expressing myself sometimes and his lessons regarding this stuck with me, though it doesn't always come easy for me. One thing I did learn was that in order to be productive in a debate or discussion is to listen carefully and take time to come up with a response. I run into problems taking time to respond. Which leads to improper wording.

It would seem that you got the idea that I sanction physical violence. I do NOT believe I said that. If it sounded that way I repeatedly tried to correct that notion. Nobody deserves to be the target of physical violence but it HAPPENS.

One of the principles I was taught by my mentor was that often times words were just as powerful when used as weapons as a physical item, such as a fist. When we hammer away at someone verbally it can be just as harmful as physically hitting them, sometimes more so. The physical will heal....words do not go away.

Please try to understand.......I believe in free speech.....I believe that when one does physical harm to another, no matter what their reasons, they should be punished by what ever laws govern such things. Totally.
But I was also raised to be aware of the fact that my actions have consequences. I am aware that when I participate in certain activities I am not only putting others at risk, I am also putting myself at risk. My actions may be protected by the rights of our constitution or within legal boundaries but there is a line that one crosses where there is no protection for the consequences. There are and should be consequences to those who would harm me but by then it is too late. It is my opinion that it is unrealistic to think that the fact that I have a right to speak as I please will protect me from consequences. Not sure how this would work ? I would expect that those who harm me be punished but then, I am already hurt.
Couple that with the lessons from my mentor whose focus was on the power of our words and how we use them......I have a strong desire (but not always the ability) to express myself with out causing harm. Once harm in inflicted, I may as well stop with the words because I am going nowhere. My point is lost and rather than cooperation I will be met with an equal and opposite pushback.

I guess one must ask themselves why they would engage in their right to "free speech" ? If the goal is to just let others know what you are thinking, how you feel or what your stand may be....it doesn't matter how you say it or what your words may be. If one is engaging in free speech so as to change hearts and minds, that is a totally different picture. Both are covered under our right to free speech......neither should come to harm but one method has far more potential to incite a reaction than the other. I find that people are surprised by this and it surprises me that this is the case. I also believe that we are losing the technique of using our right to express ourselves in ways that are productive. I look to our present government , our media and many posters online and see that there is more interest in verbalizing our issues than in solving our issues.
I may be wrong in this.......this is a personal observation only.

Robert....he was my mentor.....his mantra was "Words are the most powerful weapon we have" and he went on to say how words can be used to harm, hurt and cause problems or to enlighten, educate and solve issues.

In the U.S. we can use them however we want......which is in many ways a good thing. But, we should remember that we are ultimately responsible for what we say......and how we say it. We can only be physically protected so much and after some point.....we are on our own. In my opinion this is a reality of life and has nothing to do with laws or legislative actions.

>97 faceinbook: I guess one must ask themselves why they would engage in their right to "free speech" ?

Now that is an excellent question that I think everyone should ask themselves constantly. The principle of freedom of speech protects us when we have something to say. It does not, however, tell us anything about whether what we want to say is worth saying. And all too often, I think people talk talk talk without really having anything to say.

>96 southernbooklady: I think there's a wide, wide gulf between "They got what they deserved" and "They should have expected it".

Moving outside a narrowly American context, I think that Benazir Bhutto and Boris Nemtsov probably did expect it; they certainly ought to have foreseen the risks. But they did not deserve assassination. Closer to my life, the senior pastor of my church owns a bullet-proof vest and has worn it on several occasions.

I hope we can all agree that working publicly for structural change and speaking truth to power are highly risky and, often, heroic activities. I trust, also, that we can all earnestly hope that we continue to get individuals of such vision and courage.

This seemed an appropriate place to put this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uqe0scyqQY

Sit down! You're rocking the boat!

God, I wish all liberals and conservatives were like (most of) the people in this thread! We could solve most of our problems -- or reach a suitable negotiated compromise --in a week.

Reproduce yourselves! (Meant respectfully, not in the usual sense.)

>83 faceinbook: We vote for those that we expect to make better laws than we could ourselves. We elect people that we expect to have better ethics better understanding and to spend more time deliberating on the consequences of those laws than we do. We choose them not to echo the Hoi polloi like lamb following its mother but to lead like shepherd leads his flock.

Lawmakers are not your bitch.

I'd like to make one point here, regarding 'free speech'. In a settled liberal democracy, where we are talking about tiny groups of 'haters', the default position should be free speech.

But that is not always the situation.

In Germany in early 1933, after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor, all the democratic and/or anti-Nazi forces in Germany should have ignored the legalities of their constitution, put aside the lovely ideas of 'free speech', and mounted an all-out ruthless assault to destroy the NSDAP, which was actually outnumbered by two to one on the ground.

The tactical details of how to do this are issues for a different thread -- it should have begun with a General Strike -- but the outcome, if successful, would have been an emergency government composed of all the anti-Nazi parties, and a situation in which the Nazi minority were deprived of all political rights, and all the surviving Nazi cadres, if any, were imprisoned indefinitely.

This would NOT have addressed the 'root causes' of Nazism -- the great depression -- but was the only good alternative to what actually happened.

Democratic liberties are a precious thing, but we must not make them a fetish.

>103 SimonW11:
"Lawmakers are not your bitch."

What world do you live in ?

I hope you mean this as a bit of humor ? Lawmakers are not my "bitch" indeed. A lawmakers should be nobody's bitch.....including big business, religion and or just plain backwards stupidity. But they are. They often pander to the lowest common denominator if it suits their own advancement.

We elect them with high hopes, most often to be sorely disappointed when we find that they are indeed somebodies "bitch".

Sadly we often have no clue whose "bitch" they are until it is too late.

"We vote for those that we expect to make better laws than we could ourselves. We elect people that we expect to have better ethics better understanding and to spend more time deliberating on the consequences of those laws than we do. We choose them not to echo the Hoi polloi like lamb following its mother but to lead like shepherd leads his flock."

Are you JOKING ?

We have the right to expect something from out lawmakers. First and foremost "honesty". Hahahahahaha !!!

I don't need leading....I have a brain and I know how to use it. I have a good dose of empathy and am not above applying it to any given situation.

lawmakers are not shepherds they are representatives. Which to me means that they should do the best possible job representing the interest of their constituents , not pandering to the lowest ideas but do their best to advance progress by recognizing the highest and most progressive ideas. They do have the availability of seeing a bigger picture than the average voter.....yet most often seem to be sorely lacking in a moral compass that keeps them above becoming someone's "bitch".

A lawmakers should be nobody's "bitch".....including big business, religion and or just plain backwards stupidity. But they are.

No not my "bitch". I don't want a "bitch", never did, never will. Not my nature to want a "bitch" for any reason what so ever.

WTF......if that wasn't meant to be funny it was pretty sad.......as you obviously haven't been paying much attention to our current body of lawmakers.

>104 Doug1943: Democratic liberties are a precious thing, but we must not make them a fetish.

I dare you to say that to the American NRA

>104 Doug1943:
"Democratic liberties are a precious thing, but we must not make them a fetish."

Too late.......justice system.....medical system......cooperate system......can't think of one established system that doesn't use their liberties to the point where they may be considered a "fetish". It is human nature to do this....... "individual liberties" need to be tampered by the whole....which is socialism. Which we HATE to consider as anything other than bad for the "me" "myself" and "I". In truth....there needs to be a balance. Sadly we've tipped the scales in all kinds of ways.

>105 faceinbook: lawmakers are not shepherds they are representatives.

I agree.

Which to me means that they should do the best possible job representing the interest of their constituents , not pandering to the lowest ideas but do their best to advance progress by recognizing the highest and most progressive ideas.

Alas, it is precisely because they are representing the (perceived) interests of their constituents that they all too frequently embrace all those "lowest ideas." Otherwise why would you bring a snowball to the legislative session and start quoting Genesis on the topic of climate change?

>103 SimonW11:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/23/wisconsin-right-to-work-bill-scot...

Whose "bitch" is Walker ?

>180 But that transcendent piece of ignorance did fuel the following:

>108 southernbooklady:
"Alas, it is precisely because they are representing the (perceived) interests of their constituents that they all too frequently embrace all those "lowest ideas."

Sadly tis true.

Don't have an answer other than education and many of our lawmakers seem to be the "bitch" of those who want to cut public education to the bone.
I guess what one needs to keep in mind is that those lawmakers who bring snowballs to Congress are someone's "bitch" and it might behoove us to figure out whose, as they probably have no idea themselves how well they are being played. Follow the money.

I don't know....sometimes I just despair at the number of people who are "afraid". I may be wrong at times (or often) or speak out of turn but I am not fear based.
Something like "climate change" is so simple to look at. So what if we are wrong....if the climate isn't changing but merely cycling ? What on earth can be bad about cleaning up the planet ? Right or wrong about our weather, a cleaner earth is a better earth. How can this not be just plain elemental ?

Human's never fail to amaze me......my husband watches all of those "Alaska" shows on television. The Alaskan outlaws the frontier's men of Alaska....all those "reality" shows. Most people in those shows claim to go to Alaska to "get away" from law and order and rules and regulations, so as to enjoy the wonder and beauty of nature. When they do an aerial shot of their homesteads it is most often disgraceful. They create a total disaster area around where they live. They don't go for the beauty and simplicity, they go cause they can make a mess without anyone saying anything. What if everyone did that ?
What of Mt. Everest ? So much human crap that it is becoming a health hazard. Will it continue till we can't see the mountain for the crap ?

Sorry...off the rails. Just wish society would aspire to raise to the top rather than sinking to the bottom. Wish our "hero's" were the intelligent thinkers rather than the wealthy loud mouths.

Maybe we will advance....life is surprising sometimes. Obama made it TWICE. but then, so did Bush. (Ha...my own words...the ying and yang)

>110 RidgewayGirl:

One of my shepherds !!!!

"What can be wrong with cleaning up the planet?" I don't think you'd find many people who would disagree with that. The Global Warming issue has to do with whether, or how much, to restrict fossil fuel use, for which we will pay a price ... and the issue connected to that is, if WE pay the price, will the Indians and Chinese etc pay it too? If we don't buy all that oil, will it just stay in the ground, or will it be bought and burned by others?

There is a way out of this dilemma, and that is to push forward with all the ways in which we might generate clean energy as cheaply as energy generated from fossil fuels, something which is desirable whether or not Global Warming is as dangerous as some think it is.

Thus we should be investing big-time in fusion power research, and also in ways to utilize more efficiently solar energy.

Now the trick here is find methods of doing this which are in the immediate interest of significant and powerful groups, so that you get self-interest on the side of doing what is smart.

So start this rumour: "a large number of scientists believe that a side effect of advances in fusion and solar power will allow us to build a space-platform-mounted death ray, which can incinerate whole countries at a time. These unpatriotic scientists are liberals, so they are lobbying hard to shut down all such research. Patriots must rally and demand massive government support for it."

As Nelson Rockefeller once (supposedly) said:

"Take the average guy who makes $100,000 a year --"...

>109 faceinbook:.Who give him money?

>115 SimonW11:
"Who give him money?"

Wasn't me.....not my "bitch"