On free speech, hate speech and threats

[NWRatCon]

The First Amendment is getting a lot of press, of late - and threats. By my signature, one can see it is a civil right that means a lot to me. What this thread is about is where lines should be drawn.

In general, I am for as much free speech, press and freedom of religion as society can handle. These are fundamental civil rights. But, there are limits, and always have been. The key, I think, is civil, as in civilization, society.

Where any right gets circumscribed is when it begins to encroach on others in society - in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" kinda way. In my view, we're losing sight of that fundamental balance. That is most pronounced in the courts, but it permeates society as well.

The Supreme Court's ideologues have a tendency to misapply basic tenets and ignore ones they don't like. This appears most starkly in their new "freedom of my religion" rulings. They are perfectly content to let religion encroach on government processes, but excessively overbroad in applying it to government action. It is being wielded as a sword, instead of precinct like a shield.

Speech is another area where the basic balance is being upset, largely as a result of aggressive efforts by some to confound it. Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, and to excuse the aggression behind observing claims of protection. Normally, I'm not in favor of criminalizing hate speech, loathsome as I find it.

It becomes relevant, however, when it is coupled with action. That may be in the motivation behind a crime; that may be in inciting an insurrection; targeting witnesses (and others) by name; or otherwise encouraging violence. These are criminal actions with a long history in the law, our law. It's a fine line, but a discernable one.

There are a number of cases percolating through the courts on the topic, and I wanted this thread to be a broader discussion of the general topic. Let's get to it.

 

[Mycroft]

The First Amendment is getting a lot of press, of late - and threats. By my signature, one can see it is a civil right that means a lot to me. What this thread is about is where lines should be drawn.

In general, I am for as much free speech, press and freedom of religion as society can handle. These are fundamental civil rights. But, there are limits, and always have been. The key, I think, is civil, as in civilization, society.

Where any right gets circumscribed is when it begins to encroach on others in society - in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" kinda way. In my view, we're losing sight of that fundamental balance. That is most pronounced in the courts, but it permeates society as well.

The Supreme Court's ideologues have a tendency to misapply basic tenets and ignore ones they don't like. This appears most starkly in their new "freedom of my religion" rulings. They are perfectly content to let religion encroach on government processes, but excessively overbroad in applying it to government action. It is being wielded as a sword, instead of precinct like a shield.

Speech is another area where the basic balance is being upset, largely as a result of aggressive efforts by some to confound it. Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, and to excuse the aggression behind observing claims of protection. Normally, I'm not in favor of criminalizing hate speech, loathsome as I find it.

It becomes relevant, however, when it is coupled with action. That may be in the motivation behind a crime; that may be in inciting an insurrection; targeting witnesses (and others) by name; or otherwise encouraging violence. These are criminal actions with a long history in the law, our law. It's a fine line, but a discernable one.

There are a number of cases percolating through the courts on the topic, and I wanted this thread to be a broader discussion of the general topic. Let's get to it.

If nothing else, any limits to the 1st Amendment should apply to everyone. In other words, the media doesn't get special treatment that is denied to individuals.

 

[Luce]

If nothing else, any limits to the 1st Amendment should apply to everyone. In other words, the media doesn't get special treatment that is denied to individuals.

The press does in fact enjoy an enumerated right unto itself.

You might look it up. It's in the 1st amendment.

 

[Mycroft]

The press does in fact enjoy an enumerated right unto itself.

You might look it up. It's in the 1st amendment.

I've read it. Here, you can read it, too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Per the 1st Amendment, the press doesn't get any right that religion, freedom of speech or the right of the people to peaceably assemble do not get. That first phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting", applies to all of them.

 

[Luce]

I've read it. Here, you can read it, too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Per the 1st Amendment, the press doesn't get any right that religion, freedom of speech or the right of the people to peaceably assemble do not get. That first phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting", applies to all of them.

But you just said:

If nothing else, any limits to the 1st Amendment should apply to everyone. In other words, the media doesn't get special treatment that is denied to individuals.

What special treatment?

 

[Mycroft]

But you just said:


What special treatment?

Here's an example:

There is a court case. The prosecution makes information available to the public. The media then uses that information to trash the defendant. That is protected by the 1st Amendment. But if the defendant uses that information to trash the prosecution, the defendant is punished by the court.​

The media is being given special treatment that is denied to the individual.

 

[Luce]

Here's an example:

There is a court case. The prosecution makes information available to the public. The media then uses that information to trash the defendant. That is protected by the 1st Amendment. But if the defendant uses that information to trash the prosecution, the defendant is punished by the court.​

The media is being given special treatment that is denied to the individual.

The media gets to report on whatever it pleases, unless a judge tells them not to.

An individual gets to say whatever he wants about the prosecution, unless a judge tells them not to.

You're mad because Trump isn't being allowed to continue harassing the court clerk. Who has **** all to do with the prosecution.

 

[Mycroft]

The media gets to report on whatever it pleases, unless a judge tells them not to.

An individual gets to say whatever he wants about the prosecution, unless a judge tells them not to.

You're mad because Trump isn't being allowed to continue harassing the court clerk. Who has **** all to do with the prosecution.

If the court is going to limit what is said about the parties in a court case, their limits should apply to ALL...including the media. If they can't do that, then there should be no limits to what can be said about the parties in a court case.

The media shouldn't get special treatment.

But hey...you are free to disagree with me.

btw, this isn't about Trump, but since you brought him up, he hasn't only spoken about that court clerk. He has also spoken about the judge and the prosecutor. He is being prevented from exercising his 1st Amendment right to do so.

 

[Luce]

If the court is going to limit what is said about the parties in a court case, their limits should apply to ALL...including the media.

They are under no such obligation.

If one side is enabling death threats against the court clerk, they're going to get jerked up short. This has no bearing on whether the other side, or the press, gets to act.

If they can't do that, then there should be no limits to what can be said about the parties in a court case.

Too bad.

 

[Mycroft]

They are under no such obligation.

If one side is enabling death threats against the court clerk, they're going to get jerked up short. This has no bearing on whether the other side, or the press, gets to act.

Too bad.

Trump hasn't enabled any death threats.

Bye.

 

[Luce]

Trump hasn't enabled any death threats.

Bye.

He absolutely did, when he handed her personal information over to his rabid, scumbag fans.

 

[Luce]

btw, this isn't about Trump, but since you brought him up, he hasn't only spoken about that court clerk. He has also spoken about the judge and the prosecutor. He is being prevented from exercising his 1st Amendment right to do so.

Interesting distinction.

Trump Ramps Up Attacks On NY Court Clerk After Judge Lifts Gag Order

Former President Donald Trump has taken to Truth Social to criticize the judge and law clerk in his New York civil fraud trial, which he has repeatedly slammed as a political witch hunt.

www.forbes.com

Trump has committed so many crimes, it's hard to keep track of which trial people are talking about.

 

[Loulit01]

I say let Trump talk. Gagging him is doing him a favor.

 

[NWRatCon]

The media gets to report on whatever it pleases, unless a judge tells them not to.

An individual gets to say whatever he wants about the prosecution, unless a judge tells them not to.

You're mad because Trump isn't being allowed to continue harassing the court clerk. Who has **** all to do with the prosecution.

Not only that, but he's entirely misstated reality. So shocked. Now, about the actual topic.

 

[NWRatCon]

I say let Trump talk. Gagging him is doing him a favor.

Actually having him gagged would be doing all of us a favor...

 

[NatMorton]

The First Amendment is getting a lot of press, of late - and threats. By my signature, one can see it is a civil right that means a lot to me. What this thread is about is where lines should be drawn.

In general, I am for as much free speech, press and freedom of religion as society can handle. These are fundamental civil rights. But, there are limits, and always have been. The key, I think, is civil, as in civilization, society.

Where any right gets circumscribed is when it begins to encroach on others in society - in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" kinda way. In my view, we're losing sight of that fundamental balance. That is most pronounced in the courts, but it permeates society as well.

The Supreme Court's ideologues have a tendency to misapply basic tenets and ignore ones they don't like. This appears most starkly in their new "freedom of my religion" rulings. They are perfectly content to let religion encroach on government processes, but excessively overbroad in applying it to government action. It is being wielded as a sword, instead of precinct like a shield.

Speech is another area where the basic balance is being upset, largely as a result of aggressive efforts by some to confound it. Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, and to excuse the aggression behind observing claims of protection. Normally, I'm not in favor of criminalizing hate speech, loathsome as I find it.

It becomes relevant, however, when it is coupled with action. That may be in the motivation behind a crime; that may be in inciting an insurrection; targeting witnesses (and others) by name; or otherwise encouraging violence. These are criminal actions with a long history in the law, our law. It's a fine line, but a discernable one.

There are a number of cases percolating through the courts on the topic, and I wanted this thread to be a broader discussion of the general topic. Let's get to it.

Notice the subtle shift with this passage:

Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, …​

Here we’ve moved from hate speech to an assessment of what kind of speech you, a member of the general public, can and cannot withstand due to your “vulnerabilities.”

In other words, government officials (some might call them political “ideologues”) will decide whether you’re “ready” for certain kinds of speech. Is that helpful? And, being so vulnerable, don’t you feel safer with them making the decisions?

 

[Peter]

Trump hasn't enabled any death threats.

Bye.

Then where are all the threats against the people involved in his trial comming from?

 

[NWRatCon]

Then where are all the threats against the people involved in his trial comming from?

He said "bye." Let's take him at his word.

 

[zincwarrior]

They are under no such obligation.

If one side is enabling death threats against the court clerk, they're going to get jerked up short. This has no bearing on whether the other side, or the press, gets to act.

Too bad.

Unless they are rich of course.

 

[NWRatCon]

I expected some degree of trolling, but I didn't anticipate it would be so aggressive.

I was genuinely interested in discussing some of the concepts, hence the thread title. As a civil libertarian I am disturbed by the level of rancor and downright dangerous rhetoric. There is a distinction between hateful speech, based upon various prejudices and such, and then there is volatile speech that encourages hateful actions.

For example, the speech around Nancy Pelosi went from disliking her policy choices to attacking her personally, which eventually left to the attack on her husband. This sequence of events is not only predictable, it is almost inevitable, and keeps happening.

Law enforcement refers to this as "stochastic" - randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

 

[Mycroft]

Then where are all the threats against the people involved in his trial comming from?

Not from Trump.

 

[Peter]

Not from Trump.

Are you blind?
Trump has done nothing but attack the judge and people of the court.

His lawyer has also done the same right outside the courtroom.
At least try and accept reality.

 

[Mycroft]

Are you blind?
Trump has done nothing but attack the judge and people of the court.

His lawyer has also done the same right outside the courtroom.
At least try and accept reality.

We aren't talking about attacks. We are talking about threats.

Try to focus, eh?

Bye.

 

[NWRatCon]

Are you blind?
Trump has done nothing but attack the judge and people of the court.

His lawyer has also done the same right outside the courtroom.
At least try and accept reality.

Oh, definitely not.

 

[NWRatCon]

In economics, there is the concept of the Laffer curve. It is a concept (often misapplied) that there is a bell curve of "most efficient" taxation. I think, conceptually, the concept can apply to social activities. The extremes we know - from anarchy to repression of speech and criminality, like in Russia. Neither is conducive to a functional society. The middle is pretty broad - and functional.



As I have mentioned, I tend toward as much freedom as possible. For religion, that means one can worship as one wishes with neither the opprobrium nor appropriations of the public. As Jefferson put it in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Most often elided from reference to his sentiments is why he was so adamant in those beliefs - "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience". Thus, when one is allowed to impose their religious beliefs on others - particularly through the legislature or the judiciary - that does violence to both the principle and the letter of the Constitution - "this expression of the supreme will of the nation".

Too often, of late, there has been a lack of adherence - by the legislature in creating laws to implement religious doctrine or give deference to religious institutions, the executive (e.g., George Bush's "White House Faith-Based & Community Initiative), and by courts in allowing entanglements never contemplated for centuries. It is too often one-sided - thus Jewish couples can be denied services, and Muslim death-row prisoners treated less favorably than their Christian counterparts; and only Evangelical fundamentalist sensibilities given deference in public policy.

On the Laffer bell curve, we have migrated to the far right of the diagram, both literally and figuratively.