Hating Free Speech

[notquiteright]

Do you mean you want to limit discussion of free speech to government alone? There's the crack through which our woes escape. The interpretation of "provocation." This is certainly true.

What I mean is you quote a President addressing Leaders of State, free speech in the private sector gets censored quite a bit- try telling your boss what you really think of their hair brained plans. The right to free speech can be limited in the private sector and can be countered by counter free speech at large.

YOU try and make this some 'progressive' action when the rabid right engages in it as well.

Dunno about your woes but I see Donald egging his faithful on and then shrugging the violence off as not his concern- until one of his minions gets a bit in return.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, you don't get to mandate that someone listen to your speech respectfully. They have a right to respond verbally anyway they please as long as violence is not involved. I have a feeling one may mostly hear laughter though

Well, no, they have the right to respond verbally any way they please.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Well, no, they have the right to respond verbally any way they please.

Do you have an example?

 

[Nap]

His quote is definitely right on the $, though. Freedom of speech means protecting speech that you (general you) don't necessarily like.

This is what I find funny about the situation. We wouldn't need the 1st amendment if it was only there to protect socially accepted speech. The argument that Hate speech should not be protected by the first practically takes away any purpose for even having freedom of speech. This isn't even taking into account that "Hate" speech is entirely subjective and what is considered "Hate" to some is not to others and allows for double standards. We already see this especially in regards to religion in some countries where the slightest perceived criticism of Islam is deemed "Hate Speech" yet it is perfectly acceptable to make any statement in regards to Christianity no matter how offensive it is.

 

[Angel]

What I mean is you quote a President addressing Leaders of State, free speech in the private sector gets censored quite a bit- try telling your boss what you really think of their hair brained plans. The right to free speech can be limited in the private sector and can be countered by counter free speech at large.

YOU try and make this some 'progressive' action when the rabid right engages in it as well.

Dunno about your woes but I see Donald egging his faithful on and then shrugging the violence off as not his concern- until one of his minions gets a bit in return.

This point crops up frequently in discussions of speech.

As if as long as the government is not suppressing or punishing speech, the suppression and punishment of speech is perfectly acceptable.
As if widespread suppression and punishment of speech is perfectly acceptable, as long as the government is not behind it.

A dangerous notion.

 

[notquiteright]

This point crops up frequently in discussions of speech. As if as long as the government is not suppressing or punishing speech, the suppression and punishment of speech is perfectly acceptable. As if widespread suppression and punishment of speech is perfectly acceptable, as long as the government is not behind it. A dangerous notion.

In nations used to dictators perhaps it is dangerous Komrade, here we tend to see passion of expression as free speech. You have a right to speak as do I, there are too many outlets for ideas to claim free speech is being suppressed. What is being suppressed is where and how much public exposure a radical gets. Remember those being 'suppressed' push hate filled attack rhetoric. Million Mom March is ok, so was Beck's ahhh whatever that crap was- OK. But WE THE PEOPLE have as much right to counter protest the KKK, gay bashers, even little old ladies demanding the government stays out of her life BUT give her medicare... :roll:

No blanket covers all butts... eace

 

[apdst]

Do you have an example?

"Shutup, or I'll kill you".

 

[Slyfox696]

Harshaw, Part 1

That isn't "expression."

Sure it is.

You don't get to waltz into a private setting, no.

But that's not what happened.

Agreed, but really it's a distinction without a difference. Berkeley has a right to invite (or disinvite) whomever they wish to their campus.

She decided not to speak in the public areas when Berkeley shirked its basic responsibility of providing a safe campus. You know, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

From what I've read, that's not how it happened. Providing information that they could not adequately provide security is the opposite of shirking responsibility. Berkeley has many other things for which they need campus security. They didn't tell Coulter she couldn't come on campus and speak, they merely said they couldn't guarantee a level of safety they'd feel comfortable with.

It means you have no respect for free speech. That's should be considered thuggish to anyone who cherishes free speech.

Why do you feel expressing your free speech means you have no respect for free speech?

As I said to another earlier, you seem to be suggesting free speech can only go in one direction, that there's a line to free speech. And I don't believe that's a correct outlook on it. Free speech is free speech. Just as Coulter is free to spread inflammatory messages, I'm free to protest her inflammatory message, with inflammatory messages of my own, if I so desire. As long as physical violence is not intimated or exerted, then we're both exercising free speech.

I already said: you can state an opinion. But you cross the line when you purposely, actively take steps to silence someone.

If I gather up a group of like minded people on DP and petition the forum to ban you because I think your opinion on *insert topic here* is disagreeable (in some way to some degree), that is me expressing MY free speech (ignore the private forum aspect for a moment). If DP agrees with us and bans you, their merely expressing their desire to not have you around.

Again, free speech doesn't only go in one direction.

Not in a university setting, it does not.

We'll just have to disagree on that. But I feel the standard you seem to be claiming doesn't exist in most other mediums. For example, when the baseball player the other day used a homosexual slur, had baseball not suspended him, they would be accused of condoning his words and you know it.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I'm fairly certain there are more than enough real life examples to justify my position.

A public university is an extension of the government.

But it doesn't matter, as we're only talking about the concept of free speech. The fact it receives government money is irrelevant.

So, indeed, the First Amendment in and of itself is actually an issue.

We're not saying the 1st Amendment isn't an issue, but we're not talking about the 1st Amendment, we're talking about the concept of free speech. You said so yourself:

There are people who think free speech has no existence outside the First Amendment. But there's free speech, and THEN there's the First Amendment. The First Amendment does a specific thing - it prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech (among other things). But that's not the be-all, end all of free speech.

Free speech is a civic virtue. One's respect for free speech doesn't hinge on anything the government does.

You can't have it both ways. You can't discuss the concept of free speech and then when it's convenient re-introduce the government aspect of it. I would agree a public university changes the scope of our discussion if we include 1st Amendment, but when I introduced this example, I clearly was talking about free speech "outside the First Amendment".

So, for the purpose of our discussion, the fact it is a public university is irrelevant.

 

[Slyfox696]

Harshaw, Part 2

But even if it weren't, a university is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas

Yes, that sounds nice but never has it been wholly true. For example, a couple years back, the BYU basketball team was very good. Jimmer Fredette was the superstar, but Brandon Davies was a fine player in his own right, averaging 11 points and 6 rebounds a game as a sophomore. Many people thought BYU had a great chance to make a run in the tournament, but right before conference tournaments began, BYU suspended Davies and put his attendance at the university up for review because he admitted to having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. Granted, that was an action but not an idea, but again we're talking about a distinction without a difference. I would argue that suspension is a far cry from free exchange of ideas.

Ideally universities are about free exchange of ideas, but as with anything, there will be natural (and many times more) limits to such exchange.

No, it isn't.

Sure it is...in both cases we're talking about who we wish to represent us. It doesn't matter if it's a college, a sweater factory or a local restaurant, choosing who we wish to represent us is most definitely expressing our ideals.

Don't be silly. Of course they are.

No, "they" are not. Are there some who are so extreme they would love to silence her forever? Sure, you're always going to have fringe elements. But those protestors at Berkeley have never made the march to Fox News, have they? Ever protested the local bookstore for selling Coulter's book?

No, as a general rule, no one is trying to silence her...they just didn't think it was appropriate for her to speak there. And they are well within their rights to express that opinion (and, again, violence is different).

I can only imagine how little regard you'd have for that argument in a whole host of other contexts.

Try me. My position on this is consistent, regardless of whether I agree with the person being disinvited or not.

See again where I drew the line.

And, as I said earlier, that basically seems to be the fundamental difference. You feel there's a line before physicality and I don't. But I'd argue your position is more "hostile" to free speech than mine, as I support the right for all speech (assuming the speech is true and not a lie)...you only support the right to free speech up until it negatively affects someone else.

 

[Slyfox696]

Zyphlin, Part 1

So by and large we're agreeing with a bunch of things, save for basically the line essentially of when an individual...within the realm of private life...is actually attempting to stifle another persons free speech. And ultimately, it's probably a reasonable thing to differ opinions on.

I would agree with everything there. And I've always been of the opinion reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

Most of your questions seem to come down to two things....

*read but omitted for character count*

No, people are most definitely not entitled to their job, their column, their radio show, their website, their blog, etc. However, the fact that they are not entitled to it does not change the reality that such a thing is being threatened, in these hypothetical, simply because people have an issue with the speech the person is using.

Apparently Bill Maher used an offensive term on his latest episode of Real Time. I agree with you his job is now in greater jeopardy than it was before his interview with Sasse.

And I think attempting to silence, shut down, censor, terminate, or end a persons job, column, radio show, website, etc because you disagree with their speech, regardless of the fact they're not "entitled" to that thing, is against the principles of freedom of speech.

And I disagree. I could accept if you felt it was wrong (and in some cases I'd agree), but I cannot agree it is against the principle of free speech.

For example, let's say Maher had a sterling reputation (which he doesn't, but let's pretend) and his comment was the first time he'd ever said something offensive. My personal opinion would be, "Meh, he shouldn't have said it, but I don't think it's that big of a deal and anyone making it a big deal is just looking to be offended". But let's say millions of people protest HBO and Maher gets canned. I'd say it was wrong...but I wouldn't say it was a stifling of free speech and I would still say those who protested were exercising their free speech and I would say Maher is free to start up his own blog if he wishes (or find another TV station). I can disagree with what the protesters are saying, but it wouldn't make against the principle of free speech. And if Maher was fired, I'd still say his speech wasn't stifled because he can still go around calling himself that same expression all he wants.

It goes back to that old expression, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

 

[Slyfox696]

Zyphlin, Part 2

Simply because they are not entitled to such a thing does not change the fact that you are attempting to in some form stifle the speech they're currently able to employ based singularly off your displeasure with what they're saying. To me, that is a clear transgression against that principle.

As it relates to question 2....

While we have established we are not talking about the government, and largely agree there, parallels can still be drawn. Just as I'm not a fan of "Free Speech Zones" (putting aside the idea they are established due to security needs as opposed to an attempt to simply place protesters in less obvious and visible locations), the notion that "you can still talk, just in a much more restricted way, so it isn't REALLY stifling" doesn't really fly to me. I do not believe one must remove all ability of a person to speak to be able to infringe upon the ideals of freedom of speech.

By attempting to take away or remove an avenue that they were previously rightfully utilizing for speech, and of which they violated no pre-agreed upon condition to void that avenue, you are attempting to stifle/silence their speech to some degree.

Well, then, as I was sort of asking of Harshaw, do you feel the reverse is also true? If I go to that same radio station that allowed their host to call Warren "Pocahontas" to demand air time to rebut his claims and the radio station tells me no, are they then stifling my freedom of expression? I understand you said "previously rightfully utilizing" and that wouldn't apply to my situation, but why not? If the radio host is allowed to broadcast his message to thousands of listeners, why should I not be allowed to?

My point is I disagree that the medium matters. I am of the opinion we all have the right to speak the words which come out of our mouth, but at no point can we assume we have the ability to project that beyond the sound of our voice, nor are we guaranteed an audience. If the radio host gets taken off the air, if Bill Maher no longer has a show on HBO or if Kathy Griffin never again finds work, all because people tweet their outrage and protest, then I would still argue their right to express their opinion has not been stifled. They still have the right to express that opinion, even if they no longer have the ability to project their opinion beyond the sound of their voice.

My position on "Free Speech Zones" is a little different, but my problem with it is predicated on the fact it is created and enforced by the government, with the implied threat of violence (arrest) behind it.

In totality or permanently? No. However, just like if I have $100 and you steal $10 from me, you have stolen from me, if I am able to voice my opinions over a radio show and you successfully get that taken away from me, you are stifling my speech. You have not taken all of my ability to speak, just like you have not stolen all $100 dollars, but some level of the act still occurred.

But what if it wasn't your $100? It's not the DJ's radio station, it's not the KKK member's diner, it's not Kathy Griffin's CNN...so what if it wasn't your $100? Have I still stolen the money from your bank account, have I taken any part of your ability to purchase goods?

I know that may seem silly, but I feel it's important point.

Now, again, I fully recognize that this entire notion is one that walks a razors edge.

*read but omitted for character count*

And again I'd stress, while I may find such things as being negative in my mind and potentially against the concept and/or spirit of "Freedom of Speech", that does not mean I believe people should be unable to do such things nor that I think we should be trying as a society to force them to stop. It is simply something I do not particular agree in being a participant of, and it's something I have a hard time seeing as anything other than an act that runs counter to free speech principles.

And I appreciate the fact you recognize it as speech, even if I disagree with you that it is speech which stifles other speech. Even if I disagree with the counter speech (protest) and I disagree with any actions which may result from the counter speech, I still do not feel it is stifling speech. It is merely others expressing their speech and if enough people agree to the point it costs the radio host his job, then that's the employer deciding to freely express his opinion that money is more important than the talent.

So, as you said, "So by and large we're agreeing with a bunch of things, save for basically the line essentially of when an individual...within the realm of private life...is actually attempting to stifle another persons free speech. And ultimately, it's probably a reasonable thing to differ opinions on."

 

[Harshaw]

Sure it is.

You need a better argument than "yuh-HUH" here. Cancelling a speech is not expression.

Agreed, but really it's a distinction without a difference. Berkeley has a right to invite (or disinvite) whomever they wish to their campus.

They really don't. They're bound to a content-neutral approach by the First Amendment.

And again -- governments don't have rights. They have powers.

From what I've read, that's not how it happened. Providing information that they could not adequately provide security is the opposite of shirking responsibility. Berkeley has many other things for which they need campus security. They didn't tell Coulter she couldn't come on campus and speak, they merely said they couldn't guarantee a level of safety they'd feel comfortable with.

It is their responsibility to guarantee safety on their campus, and it's the government's responsibility in general -- its very reason for existing -- to secure rights. You may wish to disagree, but that's right in our foundational documentation.

Why do you feel expressing your free speech means you have no respect for free speech?

Why are you having such difficulty grasping the difference between criticizing someone and actively trying to silence them?

It's not even a matter of disagreeing with me; your question implies that you simply do not understand the distinction made.

I know that you CAN grasp the difference. Why are you refusing to?

As I said to another earlier, you seem to be suggesting free speech can only go in one direction

And this, as immediately above, indicates that you simply don't understand the distinction I made.

Why?

Just as Coulter is free to spread inflammatory messages, I'm free to protest her inflammatory message, with inflammatory messages of my own, if I so desire.

I never said you couldn't. See my immediately-previous comments.

As long as physical violence is not intimated or exerted, then we're both exercising free speech.

And it was. After all, if it wasn't, why would "safety" even be an issue?

If I gather up a group of like minded people on DP and petition the forum to ban you because I think your opinion on *insert topic here* is disagreeable (in some way to some degree), that is me expressing MY free speech (ignore the private forum aspect for a moment).

No, that's you actively attempting to get my viewpoint silenced.

Why exactly would you want to do that? That's not a rhetorical question. That's an actual, relevant question.

If DP agrees with us and bans you, their merely expressing their desire to not have you around.

Which would mean that they're not actually a viewpoint-neutral site, and are hostile to speech that they don't like being expressed.

Again, free speech doesn't only go in one direction.

And again, I didn't say it did. :shrug:

We'll just have to disagree on that. But I feel the standard you seem to be claiming doesn't exist in most other mediums. For example, when the baseball player the other day used a homosexual slur, had baseball not suspended him, they would be accused of condoning his words and you know it.

Bad analogy. A baseball player is actually part of the team. A guest speaker at a college is not part of the college. Why do you not grasp that?

We can agree to disagree on this, but I'm fairly certain there are more than enough real life examples to justify my position.

Well, you didn't give one.

But it doesn't matter, as we're only talking about the concept of free speech. The fact it receives government money is irrelevant.
We're not saying the 1st Amendment isn't an issue, but we're not talking about the 1st Amendment, we're talking about the concept of free speech. You said so yourself:

I said the First Amendment wasn't the be-all, end all. I didn't say it's not part and parcel of the issue.

Berkeley doesn't merely "receive government money." It's actually a part of the state government.

You can't have it both ways. You can't discuss the concept of free speech and then when it's convenient re-introduce the government aspect of it. I would agree a public university changes the scope of our discussion if we include 1st Amendment, but when I introduced this example, I clearly was talking about free speech "outside the First Amendment".

So, for the purpose of our discussion, the fact it is a public university is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. The First Amendment is part of the gamut of free-speech issues. It's not the entire gamut. But it's part of it.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, that sounds nice but never has it been wholly true. For example, a couple years back, the BYU basketball team was very good. Jimmer Fredette was the superstar, but Brandon Davies was a fine player in his own right, averaging 11 points and 6 rebounds a game as a sophomore. Many people thought BYU had a great chance to make a run in the tournament, but right before conference tournaments began, BYU suspended Davies and put his attendance at the university up for review because he admitted to having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. Granted, that was an action but not an idea, but again we're talking about a distinction without a difference. I would argue that suspension is a far cry from free exchange of ideas.

:roll: No. The difference between an action - having pre-marital sex - and an idea is not at ALL a distinction without a difference. This is beyond silly.

Ideally universities are about free exchange of ideas, but as with anything, there will be natural (and many times more) limits to such exchange.

Yeah. This is pretty much saying "it's not perfect, therefore, any exception is valid."

Sure it is...in both cases we're talking about who we wish to represent us. It doesn't matter if it's a college, a sweater factory or a local restaurant, choosing who we wish to represent us is most definitely expressing our ideals.

You know, if you're going to be stuck on this idea that a guest speaker on a campus represents the students of that campus, then I'm just going to leave you to keep repeating that nonsense at your leisure. I have no idea if you actually believe, or are just trying to be contrary, but it's too silly to keep up a back-and-forth on it.

No, "they" are not. Are there some who are so extreme they would love to silence her forever? Sure, you're always going to have fringe elements. But those protestors at Berkeley have never made the march to Fox News, have they? Ever protested the local bookstore for selling Coulter's book?

Oh, good grief. I guess you think you have to be completely, 100% totalitarian, or you're not totalitarian at all. I guess you really do think in ridiculously black and white, all-or-nothing ways, as I pointed out above.

No, as a general rule, no one is trying to silence her...they just didn't think it was appropriate for her to speak there. And they are well within their rights to express that opinion (and, again, violence is different).

:2wave:

Try me. My position on this is consistent, regardless of whether I agree with the person being disinvited or not.

"A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't violating anyone's rights, because there are plenty of bakers who will."

And, as I said earlier, that basically seems to be the fundamental difference. You feel there's a line before physicality and I don't. But I'd argue your position is more "hostile" to free speech than mine, as I support the right for all speech (assuming the speech is true and not a lie)...you only support the right to free speech up until it negatively affects someone else.

No, that isn't what I said. I'm not going to continue repeating what I said, when I know full well you could understand it if you wanted to. You don't want to, so you might as well be talking about blueberries.

 

[Slyfox696]

Harshaw, Part 1

You need a better argument than "yuh-HUH" here. Cancelling a speech is not expression.

No I don't. You've put absolutely no effort into this particular disagreement, so why should I? I stated a position and laid it out clearly and you said, "nuh uh". So I said "uh-huh".

You got out of it what you put into it. If you want more from me, then try something more profound than repeating "nuh uh".

They really don't. They're bound to a content-neutral approach by the First Amendment.

And again -- governments don't have rights. They have powers.

And, as I've told you, we're not talking about the government in this example.

You interjected yourself into a discussion between Zyphlin and me. And that's fine, I had no problem with it, it's been a good discussion. But when you did decide to jump in, you have to do so under the parameters in which the example was proffered. You cannot change the parameters later to try and argue against something I wasn't saying.

It is their responsibility to guarantee safety on their campus

That's untrue. It's their responsibility to provide the safest environment possible. But no entity can every fully guarantee safety and since Berkeley knew they could not provide an environment in which they felt Coulter could be safe, they informed her of it and Coulter chose not to go. All of which is fine.

Why are you having such difficulty grasping the difference between criticizing someone and actively trying to silence them?

It's not even a matter of disagreeing with me; your question implies that you simply do not understand the distinction made.

I know that you CAN grasp the difference. Why are you refusing to?

I see you did not understand my point. It's not that I didn't grasp your point, it's that I disagree with it, as I've stated repeatedly.

As I have told you several times now, if I'm protesting as a student of Berkeley because of Coulter, it's because I do not wish for Coulter's inflammatory messages to be representative of my university. Coulter is not a student at the university and I don't want her to reflect on me in any way. If I protest the university for giving her a platform that is MY exercise of free speech. Just because you don't like what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm not free to express it.

Again, you seem to want free speech to be a one way street (I know you claim you don't, but it's essentially what you're arguing). You agree Coulter should be allowed to say, "Barone has been assuring us for years that most of these Third World immigrants pouring into the country would go the way of Italian immigrants and become Republicans. They’re hardworking! They have family values! Maybe at first, but not after coming here, having illegitimate children and going on welfare.", but you don't agree I should be allowed to say "I don't want Coulter speaking those words where it represents me, using my tuition money to provide security for her to say offensive things."

I'm sorry, I do not agree with you at all. If Coulter should be free to "claimed the Mexican culture is “deficient” and went on to claim that part of Mexican culture includes “uncles raping their nieces.”", then I should be equally free to say Coulter doesn't deserve to speak at my university. Coulter can speak on Fox News, she can speak on Breitbart, she can speak on any other blog or can write a book, and in doing so, have a much larger audience for her speech than I would have. I'm not stifling her speech if I protest her speaking at the university.

 

[Slyfox696]

Harshaw, Part 2

And this, as immediately above, indicates that you simply don't understand the distinction I made.

Why?

No, I understand it fine.

I never said you couldn't.

You just say it's "hostile" to free speech. And I'm telling you why I disagree.

Why are you having trouble understanding this? Or, for that matter, debating in a civilized fashion as we were previously?

And it was. After all, if it wasn't, why would "safety" even be an issue?

And I already said the violence factor was not okay. But as I said here...

But, since we're talking about how far free speech can go, let's just hypothetically say they canceled for protests sans feared violence.

...parameters to which you acquiesced here...

Then they succumbed to people who wanted to silence Ann Coulter for the content of her speech.

...we're not talking about the violence aspect. I know it was a few days before I replied to your post, so I understand why you may have forgotten. No worries.

No, that's you actively attempting to get my viewpoint silenced.

It is me expressing my opinion regarding your speech, even if my speech suggests your speech is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

Again, free speech goes both ways.

Why exactly would you want to do that?

Why would you want to keep me from doing that?

And yes, my question is an answer to your question. For the same reason you'd want me to not do that, I would do that.

Which would mean that they're not actually a viewpoint-neutral site, and are hostile to speech that they don't like being expressed.

And their free to express that opinion, correct? As such, them expressing their opinion is not at all hostile to free speech, it is engaging in it.

Bad analogy. A baseball player is actually part of the team.

He's contracted to a team, but not to Major League Baseball. So it's not a bad analogy.

A guest speaker at a college is not part of the college. Why do you not grasp that?

Well, you didn't give one.

See above.

I said the First Amendment wasn't the be-all, end all. I didn't say it's not part and parcel of the issue.

But it was not included in the parameters under which I offered the example, parameters you accept the moment you interject yourself into another's conversation.

Again, I don't mind at all that you replied, it's been a good discussion (though, unfortunately, I feel your previously held civility is beginning to wane). But you do need to accept the parameters of the discussion or accept my many times stated position that if we include the government aspect, it changes the entire dynamic. But we're talking ONLY about the concept, not about the government, and, as such, you should limit your responses solely to the principle and not the government actions regarding it.

No, it isn't. The First Amendment is part of the gamut of free-speech issues. It's not the entire gamut. But it's part of it.

See above.

EDIT: I also see you posted again while I was responding to the first one...I won't be able to reply to that one at the moment as it is lunch time. I may get around to it later.

 

[Angel]

You have a right to speak as do I, there are too many outlets for ideas to claim free speech is being suppressed. What is being suppressed is where and how much public exposure a radical gets.

A fair enough point. I don't think we're far apart on this issue. We both value speech. Only our thresholds for when curtailments make us nervous are different.
Peace.

 

[Harshaw]

Harshaw, Part 1
No I don't. You've put absolutely no effort into this particular disagreement, so why should I? I stated a position and laid it out clearly and you said, "nuh uh". So I said "uh-huh".

You got out of it what you put into it. If you want more from me, then try something more profound than repeating "nuh uh".

And, as I've told you, we're not talking about the government in this example.

You interjected yourself into a discussion between Zyphlin and me. And that's fine, I had no problem with it, it's been a good discussion. But when you did decide to jump in, you have to do so under the parameters in which the example was proffered. You cannot change the parameters later to try and argue against something I wasn't saying.

That's untrue. It's their responsibility to provide the safest environment possible. But no entity can every fully guarantee safety and since Berkeley knew they could not provide an environment in which they felt Coulter could be safe, they informed her of it and Coulter chose not to go. All of which is fine.

I see you did not understand my point. It's not that I didn't grasp your point, it's that I disagree with it, as I've stated repeatedly.

As I have told you several times now, if I'm protesting as a student of Berkeley because of Coulter, it's because I do not wish for Coulter's inflammatory messages to be representative of my university. Coulter is not a student at the university and I don't want her to reflect on me in any way. If I protest the university for giving her a platform that is MY exercise of free speech. Just because you don't like what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm not free to express it.

*snipped for space*

Harshaw, Part 2
No, I understand it fine.

You just say it's "hostile" to free speech. And I'm telling you why I disagree.

Why are you having trouble understanding this? Or, for that matter, debating in a civilized fashion as we were previously?

And I already said the violence factor was not okay. But as I said here...


...parameters to which you acquiesced here...


...we're not talking about the violence aspect. I know it was a few days before I replied to your post, so I understand why you may have forgotten. No worries.

It is me expressing my opinion regarding your speech, even if my speech suggests your speech is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

Again, free speech goes both ways.

Why would you want to keep me from doing that?

And yes, my question is an answer to your question. For the same reason you'd want me to not do that, I would do that.

And their free to express that opinion, correct? As such, them expressing their opinion is not at all hostile to free speech, it is engaging in it.

He's contracted to a team, but not to Major League Baseball. So it's not a bad analogy.

See above.

But it was not included in the parameters under which I offered the example, parameters you accept the moment you interject yourself into another's conversation.

Again, I don't mind at all that you replied, it's been a good discussion (though, unfortunately, I feel your previously held civility is beginning to wane). But you do need to accept the parameters of the discussion or accept my many times stated position that if we include the government aspect, it changes the entire dynamic. But we're talking ONLY about the concept, not about the government, and, as such, you should limit your responses solely to the principle and not the government actions regarding it.

See above.

EDIT: I also see you posted again while I was responding to the first one...I won't be able to reply to that one at the moment as it is lunch time. I may get around to it later.

The fundamental problem here is that you seem to think that by saying I find your taking steps to silence people to be hostile to free speech, and thuggish, that I'm somehow trying to keep you from doing anything.

Which could explain a number of other disconnects here; at a basic level, you don't seem to see any difference between criticism and attempting to silence (going both ways, actually). That certainly is consistent with a great deal of what you've said here.

 

[Zyphlin]

But let's say millions of people protest HBO and Maher gets canned.

Condensing down to this, because by and large I think we're seeing where we're agreeing and where we're just agreeing to disagree. This particular part, however, highlights what I FULLY admit is the...problematic?...part of my views on this issue.

If those millions of people protesting HBO are largely, in and of themselves, spontaneous individual choices or decisions formed simply due to hearing negative opinions about Maher's comments that in turned spurred them to protest....I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with that. In such a case, it is simply a natural and organic reaction that was not done with an orchestrated, implicit, purposeful intent to silence but simply to express the disappointment and displeasure (and the resulting action) of each individual person to his employer.

Now I fully recognize, to a lot of people there's probably not a HUGE difference between "I'm informing HBO I'm protesting their channel because I dislike what Bill Maher said because I want them to know I'm upset" and "I'm informing HBO I'm protesting their channel because I dislike what Bill Maher said because I want him to be fired". I also recognize it's extremely tenous to really be able to judge intent (which is why I've said all along, this is all about my personal views in terms of the idea of a concept, and not something I'd ever want to see codified into law, or anything I'd use as the basis to ACT against someone).

It goes back to that old expression, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it".

And this is where, I imagine, we have a very different view of what that means.

"I'll defend to the death your right to say it", to me, doesn't mean "I'll try to make sure your ability to say it is as limited and isolated as feasibly possible since I don't agree with it".

"I don't like what Bill Maher said and I think he's an asshole, but I don't think he should be fired and I don't agree with those who are calling for such a thing" fits the idea behind that phrase to me. "I don't like what Bill Maher said, and so I want him fired!" doesn't in my mind.

 

[Zyphlin]

are they then stifling my freedom of expression?

Absolutely not. They are not required to provide you anything. However, the two things are not comparable. While in both cases, the radio station is not required to provide EITHER individual something, in one case they WOULD be taking something AWAY. They would be lessening, reducing, minimizing, limiting, etc the manner in which the person was able to speak literally up to the point that they uttered speech that people disagreed with. In the other case, nothing is being taken away, because that avenue of speech was never there to begin with. In your hypothetical, your speech isn't being "stifled" or limited or reduced, because your capability for speech before the request and after the request is no different.

Now, let's say they had a Sunday morning show where ANYONE could apply to have a 15 minute time slot, and you applied, and they denied you for no other reason other than the fact that they didn't like the fact you'd be negative about their radio show host. Then I'd say they'd be acting outside the concept of free speech, because in that case there is an avenue for speech that was clearly and blatantly open to you that is being closed to you simply because they disagree with what you're going to say.

But what if it wasn't your $100?

I don't think it's necessarily silly, but rather I think it's too literalistic of a take. Or more specifically, it's implying the actual point the analogy was trying to make appears to have been made poorly, which was less equating the money specifically to speech in a literal fashion, but rather demonstrating my thinking as it relates to how a little part of something being removed is still that a removal.

Good discussing.

 

[PirateMk1]

Save insofar as speech is treasonous or incites to physical harm, it ought to be protected and, beyond cases of slander or libel, ought not to be actionable at all.
That's it.
All the rest we find ourselves mooting today under the rubric of freedom of speech is the upshot of Progressive distortion and must be exposed for the political rubbish it is.

ALL speech should be protected from government prosecution.

 

[Slyfox696]

:roll: No. The difference between an action - having pre-marital sex - and an idea is not at ALL a distinction without a difference. This is beyond silly.

You're somewhat intelligent, so I assumed you would understand the point I was making, even though I didn't expand on it for character count reasons. I apologize for not doing so.

The point I was making is that BYU's policy does not encourage free exchange of ideas, they force their students to abide by their rather strict (and somewhat antiquated) definition of how to love one another. There was no free exchange of ideas, BYU wasn't interested in hearing why Davies had sex with his girlfriend...it was "adhere to our strict belief system or else".

Again, I apologize for not making that more clear from before, but I honestly thought you'd understand the point I was making. Sorry about that.

Yeah. This is pretty much saying "it's not perfect, therefore, any exception is valid."

It's not even close to what it's saying.

You know, if you're going to be stuck on this idea that a guest speaker on a campus represents the students of that campus

Yes, I'm stuck on how most people view the world.

Oh, good grief. I guess you think you have to be completely, 100% totalitarian, or you're not totalitarian at all. I guess you really do think in ridiculously black and white, all-or-nothing ways, as I pointed out above.

This doesn't even make sense in response to what I said.

"A baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't violating anyone's rights, because there are plenty of bakers who will."

Ignoring for a moment you introduced an example where the government is/can be a key player, you can find my position on this topic in numerous other threads, a position which defeats the point you're trying to make. In short, absent the governmental aspect, a baker can believe in and bake for whomever they wish. However, once city/state/federal laws/ordinances are involved, the situation becomes more convoluted.

I find it interesting you would assume a person is hypocritical for no reason better than because they don't conform with your personal political beliefs. Why do you think that is?

No, that isn't what I said.

But it's what you're arguing.

The fundamental problem here is that you seem to think that by saying I find your taking steps to silence people to be hostile to free speech, and thuggish, that I'm somehow trying to keep you from doing anything.

No, the fundamental problem here seems to be your inability to think beyond the immediate situation and your personal preferences and to see and understand the larger picture. This has been demonstrated multiple times by you consistently arguing against things I've never said, assuming hypocrisy from me where it doesn't exist and your constant claim that those who express their opinion are thuggish and hostile to free speech for doing so.

I realize that likely sounded incredibly antagonistic, and given your last few posts it appears you wish our discussion to be adversarial, but I really am not stating that to antagonize, but rather to simply state a fact. You keep talking about the government in a discussion where the government was explicitly removed, you clearly insinuated my position would be different in a different situation (and then proceed to offer a situation in which the government was a key factor in the discussion) and you refuse to understand why exercising free speech is not hostile to free speech. Furthermore, and I fully acknowledge this is jumping to a conclusion based on evidence you've not proffered, you seem to think Ann Coulter, whose speech has repeatedly worked to denigrate and stifle the expression of others in this country, should be allowed to speak at a university but condemn those who exercise their free speech to argue why she shouldn't. Now, perhaps, you are not hypocritical in your position and you believe Ann Coulter is equally "hostile" to free speech as you claim the protestors are, but I haven't seen that argument. If you wish to make that argument, I'll happily retract my statement.

Do you feel Coulter is "hostile" to free speech as well?

at a basic level, you don't seem to see any difference between criticism and attempting to silence (going both ways, actually).

Of course there's a difference...what you don't seem to understand is that free speech is free speech, regardless of the intent. If you calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" on Twitter is free speech, then so is me calling for your removal from Twitter. Absent the physical aspect, there's no difference in the speech, only the content. So for you claim one is hostile and one is not, when both are equally exercising it, seems rather...well, arbitrary.

 

[Slyfox696]

And this is where, I imagine, we have a very different view of what that means.

"I'll defend to the death your right to say it", to me, doesn't mean "I'll try to make sure your ability to say it is as limited and isolated as feasibly possible since I don't agree with it".

"I don't like what Bill Maher said and I think he's an asshole, but I don't think he should be fired and I don't agree with those who are calling for such a thing" fits the idea behind that phrase to me. "I don't like what Bill Maher said, and so I want him fired!" doesn't in my mind.

And I think we've simply come to the point where reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Because when I hear that expression, I think:

"I may not like what Bill Maher or the protestors have said and I may think they are all assholes, but I'll defend the right of each to say what they each said."

Again, I think it simply comes down to whether or not we think there is a line before physicality.

Absolutely not. They are not required to provide you anything. However, the two things are not comparable. While in both cases, the radio station is not required to provide EITHER individual something, in one case they WOULD be taking something AWAY.

I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree that taking away a specific medium is stifling or antithetical to free speech. Again, likely just a case where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Good discussing.

The same to you. It's been greatly appreciated.

 

[Harshaw]

You're somewhat intelligent, so I assumed you would understand the point I was making, even though I didn't expand on it for character count reasons. I apologize for not doing so.

The point I was making is that BYU's policy does not encourage free exchange of ideas, they force their students to abide by their rather strict (and somewhat antiquated) definition of how to love one another. There was no free exchange of ideas, BYU wasn't interested in hearing why Davies had sex with his girlfriend...it was "adhere to our strict belief system or else".

Again, I apologize for not making that more clear from before, but I honestly thought you'd understand the point I was making. Sorry about that.

It's not even close to what it's saying.

Yes, I'm stuck on how most people view the world.

This doesn't even make sense in response to what I said.

Ignoring for a moment you introduced an example where the government is/can be a key player, you can find my position on this topic in numerous other threads, a position which defeats the point you're trying to make. In short, absent the governmental aspect, a baker can believe in and bake for whomever they wish. However, once city/state/federal laws/ordinances are involved, the situation becomes more convoluted.

I find it interesting you would assume a person is hypocritical for no reason better than because they don't conform with your personal political beliefs. Why do you think that is?

But it's what you're arguing.
No, the fundamental problem here seems to be your inability to think beyond the immediate situation and your personal preferences and to see and understand the larger picture. This has been demonstrated multiple times by you consistently arguing against things I've never said, assuming hypocrisy from me where it doesn't exist and your constant claim that those who express their opinion are thuggish and hostile to free speech for doing so.

I realize that likely sounded incredibly antagonistic, and given your last few posts it appears you wish our discussion to be adversarial, but I really am not stating that to antagonize, but rather to simply state a fact. You keep talking about the government in a discussion where the government was explicitly removed, you clearly insinuated my position would be different in a different situation (and then proceed to offer a situation in which the government was a key factor in the discussion) and you refuse to understand why exercising free speech is not hostile to free speech. Furthermore, and I fully acknowledge this is jumping to a conclusion based on evidence you've not proffered, you seem to think Ann Coulter, whose speech has repeatedly worked to denigrate and stifle the expression of others in this country, should be allowed to speak at a university but condemn those who exercise their free speech to argue why she shouldn't. Now, perhaps, you are not hypocritical in your position and you believe Ann Coulter is equally "hostile" to free speech as you claim the protestors are, but I haven't seen that argument. If you wish to make that argument, I'll happily retract my statement.

Do you feel Coulter is "hostile" to free speech as well?

Of course there's a difference...what you don't seem to understand is that free speech is free speech, regardless of the intent. If you calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" on Twitter is free speech, then so is me calling for your removal from Twitter. Absent the physical aspect, there's no difference in the speech, only the content. So for you claim one is hostile and one is not, when both are equally exercising it, seems rather...well, arbitrary.

You know, you say I'm continually claiming you said things you didn't, yet here you are STILL saying I somehow think your calls to get me banned aren't free speech. I explained it to you several times - your words may well be free speech, but your intent to silence me is hostile to free speech. This doesn't mean you're not protected by free speech even though you're hostile to it.

I made that distinction I don't know how many times, but here you are still making the same fundamental mistake. At this point, it must be intentional.

You say you want an honest, non-hostile discussion, but you're refusing to engage in one.

Suit yourself.

(And as far as I know, Ann Coulter has never tried to silence anyone. But if she has, then she, too, is hostile to free speech.)

 

[reinoe]

Amen to that, citizen.

Only one side is actively attempting to silence the other.

 

[stevecanuck]

But when somebody says something which would lead to violence down the road, or supports such violence, or tried to ruin somebody else's life by lying.....there's no reason why **** like that should be protected, you know?

So, all the hateful things being said about Trump should immediately be stopped lest someone gets so worked up he makes an assassination attempt.