Hating Free Speech

[Angel]

Uhh, no, assault is against the law. Consult any attorney if you don't believe me.

No...YOU said assault should be against the law.

Those are your words...remember?

If you can't even keep your own argument straight, how do you ever expect people to take your position seriously?

I'm using your own words. If you don't like how they sound, I suggest you consult a mirror.

Ah! Now I see what you meant by the "absurdity" you "exposed" starting with your post #3. You continue to expose it with post #100. The Ionesco style of debate. Nice.

 

[Zyphlin]

The Kathy Griffin saga is actually a great example to use to perhaps better explain myself Sly.

Kathy makes a poor attempt at humor, people get all in an uproar and react in a variety of ways.

Many go online to twitter calling it vile or disgusting, mocking or condemning here. Various journalists penned stories or posts condemning it, such as one that comparing it to the beheading of Daniel Pearl to highlight it's poor taste. Her co-host from CNN noted his disgust at the photos. Various talking heads on news stations roundly criticized her for it. All well within their rights, and all in line with the concept of free speech. Kathy was able to voice (in this case, via art) her thoughts, and the multitude of people across this land were able to voice their opinions of that speech as well. And, by and large, it was roundly negative.

There were other responses as well. You have a right leaning website Borderland Alternative Media actively advocating and calling for wide scale targeted messaging to advertisers until CNN fires Kathy Griffith due to her expression. You had personalities on Fox News echoing said sentiment, encouraging mass messaging to advertisers if Griffith was not punished via a firing for her "speech". You had the head of the MRC, as well, voicing the idea that she actively needs to be punished through being fired due to what she said. Not to mention similar thoughts and feelings being shared by various individuals throughout the online world.

These individuals, as the first batch, were ALSO engaging in free speech by sharing their opinions. However, in my own opinion, they were engaging in speech and calling for action that is antithetical to the concept of free speech. They were not simply offering an alternative opinion, vocalizing their disagreement, condemning and attacking, or even vocalizing their own personal response/reaction. They were actively, and with clear intent, attempting to punish and harm an individual due to "speech" they disapproved of, specifically to silence, hamper, and dissuade that person from engaging in such speech again. Doing such a thing, to me, is the very OPPOSITE of what the concept of free speech stands for.

I find Kathy Griffith's attempt at some kind of political humor to be crass and ridiculous, and understand why many see it as appalling. I already found her to be grating to listen to, so never bothered to partake in anything she was a part of anyways, so there's really no reason for a PERSONAL boycott on my end because I'm pretty much already doing that simply because I don't enjoy her. I agree with the vast majority of folks, ranging from the staunchest of right wing people to the likes of Chelsea Clinton who called it "vile and wrong", in the idea that it was a pretty disgusting and low class attempt at "art". However, do I agree with any kind of orchestrated, purposeful, active effort to PUNISH her via private means (i.e. getting her fired)? Absolutely not.

 

[Harshaw]

The Kathy Griffin saga is actually a great example to use to perhaps better explain myself Sly.

Kathy makes a poor attempt at humor, people get all in an uproar and react in a variety of ways.

Many go online to twitter calling it vile or disgusting, mocking or condemning here. Various journalists penned stories or posts condemning it, such as one that comparing it to the beheading of Daniel Pearl to highlight it's poor taste. Her co-host from CNN noted his disgust at the photos. Various talking heads on news stations roundly criticized her for it. All well within their rights, and all in line with the concept of free speech. Kathy was able to voice (in this case, via art) her thoughts, and the multitude of people across this land were able to voice their opinions of that speech as well. And, by and large, it was roundly negative.

There were other responses as well. You have a right leaning website Borderland Alternative Media actively advocating and calling for wide scale targeted messaging to advertisers until CNN fires Kathy Griffith due to her expression. You had personalities on Fox News echoing said sentiment, encouraging mass messaging to advertisers if Griffith was not punished via a firing for her "speech". You had the head of the MRC, as well, voicing the idea that she actively needs to be punished through being fired due to what she said. Not to mention similar thoughts and feelings being shared by various individuals throughout the online world.

These individuals, as the first batch, were ALSO engaging in free speech by sharing their opinions. However, in my own opinion, they were engaging in speech and calling for action that is antithetical to the concept of free speech. They were not simply offering an alternative opinion, vocalizing their disagreement, condemning and attacking, or even vocalizing their own personal response/reaction. They were actively, and with clear intent, attempting to punish and harm an individual due to "speech" they disapproved of, specifically to silence, hamper, and dissuade that person from engaging in such speech again. Doing such a thing, to me, is the very OPPOSITE of what the concept of free speech stands for.

I find Kathy Griffith's attempt at some kind of political humor to be crass and ridiculous, and understand why many see it as appalling. I already found her to be grating to listen to, so never bothered to partake in anything she was a part of anyways, so there's really no reason for a PERSONAL boycott on my end because I'm pretty much already doing that simply because I don't enjoy her. I agree with the vast majority of folks, ranging from the staunchest of right wing people to the likes of Chelsea Clinton who called it "vile and wrong", in the idea that it was a pretty disgusting and low class attempt at "art". However, do I agree with any kind of orchestrated, purposeful, active effort to PUNISH her via private means (i.e. getting her fired)? Absolutely not.

^^^^

All of this.

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. If YOU, that is, YOU try to shut someone up for what they say (in public, not in your living room), you don't respect or believe in free speech, full stop. Disagree and criticize until you fall over from exhaustion, that's all well and good. But going beyond that to trying to silence anyone - that just makes you a thug.

 

[Zyphlin]

But going beyond that to trying to silence anyone - that just makes you a thug.

Admittedly, it creates this weird chicken and an egg type situation.

Those that try to silence people who's speech they dislike are doing so via...well, SPEECH. They are voicing their opinions and views and thoughts; they're doing so in a way that is aimed at silencing someone elses voice, but it is their speech all the same.

So if one values free speech, you can condemn such a practice, but if you actively attempt to silence THEIR attempts to silence others...you yourself are attempting to abridge their free speech, which makes you similar to them in the sense that you are attempting to silence speech who's content or purpose is that which you disagree with. And thus the dog goes round and round chasing his own tail.

 

[Harshaw]

Admittedly, it creates this weird chicken and an egg type situation.

Those that try to silence people who's speech they dislike are doing so via...well, SPEECH. They are voicing their opinions and views and thoughts; they're doing so in a way that is aimed at silencing someone elses voice, but it is their speech all the same.

So if one values free speech, you can condemn such a practice, but if you actively attempt to silence THEIR attempts to silence others...you yourself are attempting to abridge their free speech, which makes you similar to them in the sense that you are attempting to silence speech who's content or purpose is that which you disagree with. And thus the dog goes round and round chasing his own tail.

Yet, there's also a difference between saying "she shouldn't be on the air," which is a form of criticism, and actually taking steps to get her off the air. The line? Not 100% clear. But there's a difference.

 

[Slyfox696]

Part 1

Especially with how wordy I am.

The next person who accuses me of being verbose certainly won't be the first.

If only the post count limit was higher....

I've never quite understood the kneejerk reaction by many to the idea of political correct that sends them so far in the other extreme, where they seek to reject it to such a ludicrous degree that they seem to abandon the notion of basic conversational tact.

And this goes in every direction. Kneejerk reactions to this topic can be found all over the spectrum. (1) Those who seek to say offensive things will speak in such a way which is more offensive than they otherwise would, just to make the point that they can say it. (2) Those who wish to condemn the offensive speaker can, themselves, be offensive and extreme. (3) Then you have others who are aching to pounce on anything they might consider even the LEAST bit of offensive and (4) others who actively seek out opportunities to condemn those who believe in political correctness.

That may be confusing, allow me some examples. You'll notice I numbered my examples above, so let me use those:

1) Person A wants to make the argument black people make up a disproportionate number of prisoners. But they are so tired of the "PC crowd", instead of making a rational argument using statistics, they'll simply say, "Black people are animals and that's why so many of them are in jail!". That's extreme and kneejerk reaction to political correctness.

2) Person B hears Person A's comments and rather than try to refute the words, instead exclaims, "Person A is a hate-mongering bigot who wants to enslave all black people!". This is also extreme and kneejerk reaction to political correctness.

3) Person C sees the interaction between A & B and says, "Well, it IS true that black people make up this percentage of the general population but a higher percentage of people in the prison population, so it would be an interesting conversation to discover why." Person D reads Person's C's comments and says, "You're just as big of a bigot as person A", even though Person C never came close to making the same argument. This is extreme and kneejerk reaction to political correctness.

4) Person C, after being shouted at by Person D, says, "That PC crowd is out of control and they don't care at all about free speech!". This, too, is an extreme and kneejerk reaction to political correctness (albeit the most understandable), because they are casting aspersions on an entire group of people and concept for the overreaction of one person.


Political correctness makes too many different types of people say dumb/outrageous things. And yet, despite all of that, no matter what position one takes, whether it is one of the four above or something else, it is ALL still free speech. I think we'd likely agree on that and it is the next part where we'll disagree.

 

[Slyfox696]

Part 2

Actively organizing a campaign to demand the station remove the host because you did not like what he had to say is a consequence, and it is also an action I believe that goes against the core concept of free speech. Actively organizing a campaign to get outside entities to help spam complaints to advertisers in an attempt to force the show to be removed from the air because you did not like what he had to say is a consequence, and also an action I believe that goes against the core concept of free speech.

And this is where we disagree. Why? Well...

We agree I have the right to express my feelings on what the radio host said. And you acknowledge you would not seek to stop one from organizing a protest to get the radio host off the air. You just seem to be arguing that my expression of free speech is stifling another's speech. And I disagree with that because we're not preventing him from speaking. Even if the radio host gets fired, he can still call Warren Pocahontas. Perhaps he can no longer do it on the radio, but there's nothing stopping him from doing it on Facebook or to his friends or to anyone else. His speech was never stifled, it was merely that the radio station decided they did not want the host to represent them with those views (at least not when it affects the bottom line).

Take your coffee shop example. If the coffee shop owner adheres to the wishes/demands of those protesting, it's not stopping the local KKK member from spouting about white superiority. He may have to choose a different medium to espouse his views, but no one is preventing him from doing so. Additionally, no one is forcing the coffee shop owner to go along with the protestors...if the owner does, it is the owner's own choice.

Heck, let's use contemporary events, using Ann Coulter and Berkeley (I'm not up on all the details of the event, so if I get something wrong let me know). Let's ignore for a moment any escalation which could/would have led to physical violence. We're both against that and think it crosses the line. But if the protests as Berkeley were strong enough the university decided (again, ignore the violence aspect) they no longer wanted Coulter to speak, then free speech carried the day. Coulter can still post on blogs and websites which agree with her. She can still write her books and Tweet. No one has stopped her from doing that. But Berkeley students (and whomever else was part of it) said they didn't want someone on their campus who spreads a message of hate and they exercised their speech strongly enough the university decided they didn't want Coulter to represent them.

Coulter's ability to engage in free speech wasn't stifled, she has plenty of other outlets in which she can spread her viewpoints. But Berkeley students exercised their right to free speech and there was enough of them which made the university decided to exercise their right to free speech and say who they did not want to represent them.

I'm not saying you wish for there to be no consequence to speech, but many people DO feel that way. Many people want to express their feelings and are then outraged when others express theirs in return. Ann Coulter wants to villainize all those who are not like her, but wants to pretend to be outraged when others villainize her in response (for the record, I suspect Coulter had no problem being disinvited). But we simply will have to disagree on whether there's a line for that free speech which exists before physical conflict which passes beyond what should be considered acceptable/ethical.


EDIT: I just see you posted something else, using Kathy Griffin. I'll get to that in just a moment (haven't read it yet). For what it's worth, this has been an enjoyable discussion for me and I appreciate the more civilized debate. Lord knows I play my part in useless sniping on the forum, but I truly do appreciate quality discussion more than anything.

 

[Harshaw]

Heck, let's use contemporary events, using Ann Coulter and Berkeley (I'm not up on all the details of the event, so if I get something wrong let me know). Let's ignore for a moment any escalation which could/would have led to physical violence. We're both against that and think it crosses the line. But if the protests as Berkeley were strong enough that the university decided (again, ignore the violence aspect) they no longer wanted Coulter to speak, then free speech carried the day. Coulter can still post on blogs and websites which agrees with her. She can still write her books and Tweet. No one has stopped her from doing that. But Berkeley students (and whomever else was part of it) said they didn't want someone on their campus who spreads a message of hate and they exercised their speech strongly enough the university decided they didn't want Coulter to represent them.

Berkeley canceled her speech because they said they couldn't guarantee physical safety.

(Of course, the government exists specifically to secure rights in exactly that way, so they're saying they can't fulfill their most fundamental duty, but that's another conversation.)

 

[Slyfox696]

The Kathy Griffin saga is actually a great example to use to perhaps better explain myself Sly.

*read but omitted for character count*

These individuals, as the first batch, were ALSO engaging in free speech by sharing their opinions. However, in my own opinion, they were engaging in speech and calling for action that is antithetical to the concept of free speech. They were not simply offering an alternative opinion, vocalizing their disagreement, condemning and attacking, or even vocalizing their own personal response/reaction. They were actively, and with clear intent, attempting to punish and harm an individual due to "speech" they disapproved of, specifically to silence, hamper, and dissuade that person from engaging in such speech again. Doing such a thing, to me, is the very OPPOSITE of what the concept of free speech stands for.

Well, let me ask you two questions.

Is Kathy Griffin entitled to a position on CNN? And, absent CNN, can Kathy Griffin no longer create distasteful "art" (and I put art in quotes for good reason)?

The answer to both of those questions is no and I wonder if this may not be where we differ. I'm not saying you feel Griffin is entitled to a medium such as CNN, but your position seems to assume she needs CNN to express her speech. And, if so, we disagree on that. Ignoring for a moment the vast number of mediums which exist in today's technological age for a person to express their opinion, what's stopping Kathy Griffin from stepping out onto her back deck and create all the decapitated President Trump's she wants? There's nothing stopping her, no one is advocating she not be allowed to own paint and a camera.

I don't want to speak for you and or your position, as I'm quite confident you can present your own clearly. But, over and over again, the issue you seem to have is that the medium from which one wants to project their opinion is later denied. But, if that's the case, how does removing a specific medium for speech prevent speech from occurring? If those organizing against CNN are strong enough to get CNN to fire Griffin (which they've done now), does that mean Griffin can no longer speak? Perhaps it means she might be more reluctant to speak in the future, but then we get back to consequences of speech, rather than the stifling of speech.

I find Kathy Griffith's attempt at some kind of political humor to be crass and ridiculous, and understand why many see it as appalling.

I think it was a disgusting display of attention whoring, which put her own selfish desires ahead of anyone else. It's not often I agree or sympathize with President Trump, but his tweet saying, "Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself. My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!" is something I 100% agree with and, unlike some other things he says, can totally believe and sympathize with.

I suppose it's worth mentioning I've always found her to be a waste of space and annoying before this, but I like to think my feelings would be the same otherwise.

I already found her to be grating to listen to, so never bothered to partake in anything she was a part of anyways, so there's really no reason for a PERSONAL boycott on my end because I'm pretty much already doing that simply because I don't enjoy her. I agree with the vast majority of folks, ranging from the staunchest of right wing people to the likes of Chelsea Clinton who called it "vile and wrong", in the idea that it was a pretty disgusting and low class attempt at "art".

Totally agree.

However, do I agree with any kind of orchestrated, purposeful, active effort to PUNISH her via private means (i.e. getting her fired)? Absolutely not.

And I guess it comes back to how you answer those questions from before. Is Griffin entitled to a position on CNN? And, without CNN, can Griffin no longer express her speech?

 

[Slyfox696]

Berkeley canceled her speech because they said they couldn't guarantee physical safety.

And I think most people would agree physical violence to suppress speech goes to far and should not be accepted. Well, I think most rational and level-headed people would agree with that. I'm sure there are plenty of people who see no problem with physicality to get their way.

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

 

[Harshaw]

And I think most people would agree physical violence to suppress speech goes to far and should not be accepted. Well, I think most rational and level-headed people would agree with that. I'm sure there are plenty of people who see no problem with physicality to get their way.

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

Then they succumbed to people who wanted to silence Ann Coulter for the content of her speech. This is anti-free speech, especially on the part of an academic institution.

The ONLY reason anyone would want to silence someone else is if they're afraid what they say might catch on. Which is cowardly and totalitarian.

 

[Slyfox696]

Then they succumbed to people who wanted to silence Ann Coulter for the content of her speech. This is anti-free speech, especially on the part of an academic institution.

Do you feel those protestors shouldn't be allowed to express how they felt about Coulter's views and how they did not want her views to represent them? Do you feel the university should not allowed to express who they wish to speak on their campus?

I'm not saying this is your position, but let's play runaway train for a moment. Where does it end then? If Ann Coulter demands to speak at Harvard graduation, and Harvard refuses because they do not wish for her views to represent them, would it still be your position that Harvard is silencing Coulter for the content of her speech?

This is what Zyphlin and I were discussing. Just as Coulter has a right to express her views, so do the protestors and the university. You cannot say the protestors or the university don't have the right to express their desires without being "anti-free speech" by your own definition.

The ONLY reason anyone would want to silence someone else is if they're afraid what they say might catch on. Which is cowardly and totalitarian.

Or they don't want that person's views to represent them. If I owned a business, I would not hire a white supremacist or someone who promotes NAMBLA...not because I'm afraid what they are saying might catch on, but because I don't want their views to represent or reflect on me. I have a right to express my speech, just as much as the NAMBLA member or the university or the protestors or Kathy Griffin or Ann Coulter...but if others decide they don't like my speech, then I have to deal with that consequence.

Free speech does not mean speech without consequences, nor does it entitle you to an audience. I would hope you'd agree with that. If you would agree with that then you and I will essentially be at the same place Zyphlin and I seem to be at, which is whether there's a line for free speech which exists before physical conflict which passes beyond what should be considered acceptable/ethical.

 

[Harshaw]

Do you feel those protestors shouldn't be allowed to express how they felt about Coulter's views and how they did not want her views to represent them?

They can criticize all they like.

Do you feel the university should not allowed to express who they wish to speak on their campus?

Cancelling a speech is not "expression."

I'm not saying this is your position, but let's play runaway train for a moment. Where does it end then? If Ann Coulter demands to speak at Harvard graduation, and Harvard refuses because they do not wish for her views to represent them, would it still be your position that Harvard is silencing Coulter for the content of her speech?

The scenario isn't in play here. Coulter was invited to speak. When that was canceled, she said she'd speak in the public areas of the campus, which are, indeed, public.

This is what Zyphlin and I were discussing. Just as Coulter has a right to express her views, so do the protestors and the university. You cannot say the protestors or the university don't have the right to express their desires without being "anti-free speech" by your own definition.

I didn't say they don't.

This is what I said:

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. If YOU, that is, YOU try to shut someone up for what they say (in public, not in your living room), you don't respect or believe in free speech, full stop. Disagree and criticize until you fall over from exhaustion, that's all well and good. But going beyond that to trying to silence anyone - that just makes you a thug.

Yet, there's also a difference between saying "she shouldn't be on the air," which is a form of criticism, and actually taking steps to get her off the air. The line? Not 100% clear. But there's a difference.

Or they don't want that person's views to represent them.

Someone guest-speaking on campus is NEVER understood to "represent" the campus or the students.

If I owned a business, I would not hire a white supremacist or someone who promotes NAMBLA...not because I'm afraid what they are saying might catch on, but because I don't want their views to represent or reflect on me.

Then don't.

A private business is not a public university.

I have a right to express my speech, just as much as the NAMBLA member or the university or the protestors or Kathy Griffin or Ann Coulter...but if others decide they don't like my speech, then I have to deal with that consequence.

Your not hiring someone to speak at your company isn't the same as you trying to silence a NAMBLA speaker asked to speak by someone else, or trying to silence them speaking in a public place. That's what the students did.

Free speech does not mean speech without consequences, nor does it entitle you to an audience. I would hope you'd agree with that.

Of course I agree with that.

If you would agree with that then you and I will essentially be at the same place Zyphlin and I seem to be at, which is whether there's a line for free speech which exists before physical conflict which passes beyond what should be considered acceptable/ethical.

If you seek to stop someone else from speaking -- as in, you try to make it so they can't say what you don't want them to say -- you are hostile to free speech. That seems like a pretty bright-line rule to me.

 

[Bodi]

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.

Why not treasonous? Why limit speech that is against your ideas?

 

[Angel]

Why not treasonous? Why limit speech that is against your ideas?

Good question. I presume that treasonous speech was excepted from protected speech in the Constitution because it threatens to undermine the protector of free speech, i.e., the federal government, and thus protection in this case seemed too paradoxical for comfort. I don't know. Why do you think treasonous speech was excepted?

 

[Bodi]

Good question. I presume that treasonous speech was excepted from protected speech in the Constitution because it threatens to undermine the protector of free speech, i.e., the federal government, and thus protection in this case seemed too paradoxical for comfort. I don't know. Why do you think treasonous speech was excepted?

Pretty much the same reason although I don't agree with it. What I find ironic is that the King outlawed speech criticizing his system of government and that is one of the very things that the American's despised... so what do they do? Outlaw treasonous speech as well!

 

[Slyfox696]

Cancelling a speech is not "expression."

We disagree here. As I mentioned to Zyphlin, Coulter is not entitled to speak at the university. If she does so, it's by their permission. If they choose to revoke that permission, they are expressing their views they don't want her there (for whatever the reason may be).

The scenario isn't in play here.

Agreed, but I'm curious as to how far you go in your belief on this. If Coulter wants to speak at Harvard and Harvard says no initially, are they then stifling her speech?

Coulter was invited to speak. When that was canceled, she said she'd speak in the public areas of the campus, which are, indeed, public.

As I said earlier, I freely admit I'm not fully up on the story, but having read a few articles, I've not seen anywhere where Coulter was prohibited from stepping onto campus, only that Berkeley would not provide a venue.

I didn't say they don't.

This is what I said:

Understood, but this goes back to the comments I made earlier:

Let's ignore for a moment any escalation which could/would have led to physical violence. We're both against that and think it crosses the line. But if the protests as Berkeley were strong enough the university decided (again, ignore the violence aspect) they no longer wanted Coulter to speak, then free speech carried the day. Coulter can still post on blogs and websites which agree with her. She can still write her books and Tweet. No one has stopped her from doing that. But Berkeley students (and whomever else was part of it) said they didn't want someone on their campus who spreads a message of hate and they exercised their speech strongly enough the university decided they didn't want Coulter to represent them.

Coulter's ability to engage in free speech wasn't stifled, she has plenty of other outlets in which she can spread her viewpoints. But Berkeley students exercised their right to free speech and there was enough of them which made the university decide to exercise their right to free speech and say who they did not want to represent them.

Taking steps (protesting, for example) to pressure the inviting entity to revoke a privilege previously granted does not make one a thug. If those steps entail violence or the threat of violence, then yes, I would agree with you. But merely expressing your opinion does not make one a thug, even if that opinion is that your university (or coffee shop or radio station) should not promote speech you disagree with.

Someone guest-speaking on campus is NEVER understood to "represent" the campus or the students.

I disagree. Granting access to speech suggests condoning speech, regardless of agreement. Granted, one can argue there's a difference between condoning and representing, but it can become a very fine line, so fine it may become indistinguishable.

Then don't.

A private business is not a public university.

Irrelevant, as we're not talking about any government understood expression of free speech, but rather the concept itself. As you said, there's free speech and then there's the First Amendment...the fact it's a public university not only does not deprive the university of freedom of its own expression, but it essentially has no value in a discussion about the concept of free speech.

Your not hiring someone to speak at your company isn't the same as you trying to silence a NAMBLA speaker asked to speak by someone else

Agreed. But the university not wanting Coulter to speak is MUCH closer to me not hiring a NAMBLA proponent.

Which is what happened here.

If you seek to stop someone else from speaking -- as in, you try to make it so they can't say what you don't want them to say -- you are hostile to free speech. That seems like a pretty bright-line rule to me.

But no one is trying to stop her from speaking. Coulter has many outlets which she can express her views. She can walk out on her front porch and speak her views. She can get on Facebook/Twitter and express her views. There are plenty of websites/blogs which will host her. Those students who protest and say the university shouldn't provide a medium for her to express her views are merely engaging in their free speech.

 

[Grand Mal]

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.

Protected from what?
What I understand is that the principle of 'free speech' protects you from government persecution but also allows me to shout you down, protest with a bullhorn, agitate to get your platform removed, berate anyone who listens to, approves of or quotes you and try to make sure nobody hears your voice again. It's all 'free speech', just so long as the government isn't involved.

 

[Harshaw]

We disagree here. As I mentioned to Zyphlin, Coulter is not entitled to speak at the university. If she does so, it's by their permission. If they choose to revoke that permission, they are expressing their views they don't want her there (for whatever the reason may be).

That isn't "expression."

Agreed, but I'm curious as to how far you go in your belief on this. If Coulter wants to speak at Harvard and Harvard says no initially, are they then stifling her speech?

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

But that's not what happened.

As I said earlier, I freely admit I'm not fully up on the story, but having read a few articles, I've not seen anywhere where Coulter was prohibited from stepping onto campus, only that Berkeley would not provide a venue.

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."

Understood, but this goes back to the comments I made earlier:

Taking steps (protesting, for example) to pressure the inviting entity to revoke a privilege previously granted does not make one a thug.

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

If those steps entail violence or the threat of violence, then yes, I would agree with you. But merely expressing your opinion does not make one a thug, even if that opinion is that your university (or coffee shop or radio station) should not promote speech you disagree with.

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

I disagree. Granting access to speech suggests condoning speech, regardless of agreement.

Not in a university setting, it does not.

Irrelevant, as we're not talking about any government understood expression of free speech, but rather the concept itself. As you said, there's free speech and then there's the First Amendment...the fact it's a public university not only does not deprive the university of freedom of its own expression, but it essentially has no value in a discussion about the concept of free speech.

A public university is an extension of the government. Government does not have rights or freedoms. It only has power. So, indeed, the First Amendment in and of itself is actually an issue.

But even if it weren't, a university is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas, not just ideas a few people approve of. Academic freedom is a whole other layer.

Agreed. But the university not wanting Coulter to speak is MUCH closer to me not hiring a NAMBLA proponent.

No, it isn't. A university isn't your sweater factory or living room. It's a place for ideas.

But no one is trying to stop her from speaking.

Don't be silly. Of course they are.

Coulter has many outlets which she can express her views. She can walk out on her front porch and speak her views. She can get on Facebook/Twitter and express her views. There are plenty of websites/blogs which will host her.

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

Those students who protest and say the university shouldn't provide a medium for her to express her views are merely engaging in their free speech.

See again where I drew the line.

 

[Harshaw]

Protected from what?
What I understand is that the principle of 'free speech' protects you from government persecution but also allows me to shout you down, protest with a bullhorn, agitate to get your platform removed, berate anyone who listens to, approves of or quotes you and try to make sure nobody hears your voice again. It's all 'free speech', just so long as the government isn't involved.

That's the most illiberal thing I've seen you say.

 

[Zyphlin]

Well, let me ask you two questions.

Is Kathy Griffin entitled to a position on CNN? And, absent CNN, can Kathy Griffin no longer create distasteful "art" (and I put art in quotes for good reason)?

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.

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

1. Are people "entitled" to whatever means they are currently using to engage in their speech?
2. If they are able to still speak in SOME fashion, is their freedom of speech actually being stifled/stopped?

First, before we get to either of them, I think we need to hit on the main thrust of my issue.

I think there is a difference between naturally occurring consequences and actively sought punishment. I think there's a difference between a response and retribution. I also understand that in many instances, and for many people, that can be a very thin line between these things.

You being upset by a radio hosts speech and resolving to no longer listen or partake in that stations advertisers is a natural occurring consequence. You actively engaging online activists to bombard advertisers in an orchestrated effort to get the specifically get the host fired is actively sought punishment.

A citizen writing an op-ed excoriating the DJ and his listeners and explaining why such thinking is harmful to society is a response; a citizen making demands and actively protesting outside the station until the person is fired is seeking retribution.

I believe that actively seeking to punish in extremely impactful ways (and I believe loss of employment is one of those things that absolutely would qualify) an individual for speech, specifically in which it's only transgressions is that you disagree with it, is antithetical to the concept of "free speech".

Now, as it relates to entitlement.

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. 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. 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. 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.

 

[Zyphlin]

Now, again, I fully recognize that this entire notion is one that walks a razors edge. It is that very fact that contributes to my belief that despite me having these views, I do not generally take a strong stance against those who are acting in this particular way...because I recognize it IS a fine line, and I recognize that they themselves are simply engaging in their own speech, despite it's goals being such that I find at times sad if not actually unethical.

Is there a difference between an employer who has full rights and ability within the hiring agreement to simply find a moral issue with working with someone due to something they've said, and terminating them and some of the "punishment" style actions I mentioned up thread? Strangely enough, I do. Perhaps it's the difference of an individual compared to a group that helps sway that; perhaps it's more to do with the fact that as the employer, that feeling and that interaction is somewhat ingrained as an expectation of that employment and as such it's not so much punishment for speech as it is simply an aspect of the worker/employer social contract playing out. Do I think multiple peoples organic reactions and disgust can manifest itself into a natural uproar that leads to a silencing of some sort, as opposed to an orchestrated and purposeful attempt to initiate such a thing? Absolutely, and I admit it's a tenuous thing to basically suggest that the difference largely comes down to something as unclear at times as the idea of "intent". However, I again go back to the fact we're talking about a "concept" or "idea", and as such I am not quite as bothered going with somewhat more nebulous means of defining my views.

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.

 

[Grand Mal]

That's the most illiberal thing I've seen you say.

What part of it is wrong? Freedom of speech is only about freedom from government interference, not freedom from anyone else's interference. Right or wrong?

 

[Harshaw]

What part of it is wrong? Freedom of speech is only about freedom from government interference, not freedom from anyone else's interference. Right or wrong?

You should brush up on your Voltaire.

 

[Angel]

Protected from what?

From suppression, reprisal, persecution.

What I understand is that the principle of 'free speech' protects you from government persecution but also allows me to shout you down, protest with a bullhorn, agitate to get your platform removed, berate anyone who listens to, approves of or quotes you and try to make sure nobody hears your voice again. It's all 'free speech', just so long as the government isn't involved.

The concept of freedom of speech or freedom of expression is prior to the U.S. Constitution. It was not invented by the Founders. The protections guaranteed by the Constitution carve out a corner of the discursive territory of freedom of speech, but the territory stretches far in every direction and the concept is in question wherever human discourse in society exists. Wherever one jackass is telling another jackass to "Shut up" the question of freedom of speech is present.