Defining free speech

[cbi1972]

This is pretty common among most people. They love to say what they want under the "free speech" banner, regardless of how harsh, disrespectful, or hurtful it is. But when someone else who they fundamentally disagree with does it they want it stopped.

I know it is tempting to want to apply this to politics and a particular group of people, but it is a human nature thing that most people struggle with.

It reveals incongruity between the principles they claim to possess, and those they actually possess. How someone reacts to this incongruity being pointed out reveals a lot about their character.

 

[Tidewater]

I have no disagreement with anything you've said here.

I do disagree with those who espouse free speech and then disparage the kind they don't like and make a ruckus about putting a stop to it, particularly when they are a government official or in general claim the mantle of free speech otherwise.

Wow, the Age of Aquarius.
I'm with you. Yeah, I cannot espouse free speech only when others say things that agree with me. It's easy to defend the speech of those I agree with. That is why I focus on defending the speech of those I disagree with, because that is more difficult and much more important.

When someone crosses the border into violence or destruction, then the free speech moment has to end. There is a dynamic in a large crowd, people will do things in a large crowds they would not do if they were by themselves (see January 6th), so when a member of crowd strays into violence or destruction, the crowd's permission to gather goes away, at least until order is restored.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Wow, the Age of Aquarius.
I'm with you. Yeah, I cannot espouse free speech only when others say things that agree with me. It's easy to defend the speech of those I agree with. That is why I focus on defending the speech of those I disagree with, because that is more difficult and much more important.

When someone crosses the border into violence or destruction, then the free speech moment has to end. There is a dynamic in a large crowd, people will do things in a large crowds they would not do if they were by themselves (see January 6th), so when a member of crowd strays into violence or destruction, the crowd's permission to gather goes away, at least until order is restored.

No disagreement from me.

 

[cbi1972]

Wow, the Age of Aquarius.
I'm with you. Yeah, I cannot espouse free speech only when others say things that agree with me. It's easy to defend the speech of those I agree with. That is why I focus on defending the speech of those I disagree with, because that is more difficult and much more important.

When someone crosses the border into violence or destruction, then the free speech moment has to end. There is a dynamic in a large crowd, people will do things in a large crowds they would not do if they were by themselves (see January 6th), so when a member of crowd strays into violence or destruction, the crowd's permission to gather goes away, at least until order is restored.

While sensible on the surface, this permits easy sabotage of others' protected speech, like zero tolerance policy suspending both students for fighting when one is attacked unprovoked and doesn't fight back.

If right to assemble isn't respected, the M.O. for corrupt law enforcement could see encouragement of fighting as a means to achieve the illegitimate objective of suppressing speech: Make sure a fight happens, disperse the crowd with tear gas, then arrest "resisters"

Somebody threw something? Everyone has to go home, if the police decide they want them to. No thanks

 

[4Q Basket Case]

While sensible on the surface, this permits easy sabotage of others' protected speech, like zero tolerance policy suspending both students for fighting when one is attacked unprovoked and doesn't fight back.

If right to assemble isn't respected, the M.O. for corrupt law enforcement could see encouragement of fighting as a means to achieve the illegitimate objective of suppressing speech: Make sure a fight happens, disperse the crowd with tear gas, then arrest "resisters"

Somebody threw something? Everyone has to go home, if the police decide they want them to. No thanks

So where is the line between (1) peaceful protest and assembly, and (2) impedance of others’ rights….like attending class (or simply drawing breath) without physical threats, including death threats? Like protection of someone else’s property?

Do we sacrifice the security of person and property on the altar of “free speech,” simply because not all police are good guys?

What distinguishes the Klan threatening black students (and carrying out some of those threats) from the threats we‘re seeing against Jews?

What distinguishes a Neo-Nazi advocating extermination of Jews from what we’re seeing today from leftist groups?

If advocating violence against an ethnic group is free speech, where is the line? Or is there one?

 

[NationalTitles18]

So where is the line between (1) peaceful protest and assembly, and (2) impedance of others’ rights….like attending class (or simply drawing breath) without physical threats, including death threats? Like protection of someone else’s property?

Do we sacrifice the security of person and property on the altar of “free speech,” simply because not all police are good guys?

What distinguishes the Klan threatening black students (and carrying out some of those threats) from the threats we‘re seeing against Jews?

What distinguishes a Neo-Nazi advocating extermination of Jews from what we’re seeing today from leftist groups?

If advocating violence against an ethnic group is free speech, where is the line? Or is there one?

Good questions for which there are no easy answers.

But this is a bit of a microcosm of society at large and a mirror of social and other media.

It's also why I believe free speech absolutism is malarkey and those who espouse it are full of it, even before we consider the obvious hypocrisies they display (which also reveal a lot about human nature).

While much of your contentions here relate to the boundary of rights as most people can readily recognize them, there's also a recognition in your questions that fear and harassment and intimidation - even without actual physical violence - can have a chilling effect on the rights of others.

And that seems to cross over into hate speech.

And that is intriguing to me because it is such a contentious subject, but one that many on the far right and libertarians have generally been in opposition to and yet now many of them seem less absolute about these days.

I have no problem when protests cross over into riots with order being restored so long as the rights of society at large and the rights of individuals are balanced appropriately.

That's a difficult enough needle to thread at times.

But I am truly intrigued by many out there suddenly wanting to protect certain groups from hate speech while opposing it otherwise in general and especially in relation to other groups (Palestinian and Islamic groups are the obvious examples here).

And that gets back to human nature and biases and the blind spots people have.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Good questions for which there are no easy answers.

But this is a bit of a microcosm of society at large and a mirror of social and other media.

It's also why I believe free speech absolutism is malarkey and those who espouse it are full of it, even before we consider the obvious hypocrisies they display (which also reveal a lot about human nature).

While much of your contentions here relate to the boundary of rights as most people can readily recognize them, there's also a recognition in your questions that fear and harassment and intimidation - even without actual physical violence - can have a chilling effect on the rights of others.

And that seems to cross over into hate speech.

And that is intriguing to me because it is such a contentious subject, but one that many on the far right and libertarians have generally been in opposition to and yet now many of them seem less absolute about these days.

I have no problem when protests cross over into riots with order being restored so long as the rights of society at large and the rights of individuals are balanced appropriately.

That's a difficult enough needle to thread at times.

But I am truly intrigued by many out there suddenly wanting to protect certain groups from hate speech while opposing it otherwise in general and especially in relation to other groups (Palestinian and Islamic groups are the obvious examples here).

And that gets back to human nature and biases and the blind spots people have.

While there's still gray area, I think it's simpler than that.

Your right to free speech ends when you endanger, or threaten to endanger, the physical safety of another person or group of persons.

Hurt feelings don't count except when they're over things the target can't control -- skin color, sexual orientation, physical abnormality, mental deficiency, etc.

You don't get to say that someone's speech triggered you and therefore get to shut down the opposing idea and retreat to some safe space where your own ideas won't be challenged.

 

[NationalTitles18]

While there's still gray area, I think it's simpler than that.

Your right to free speech ends when you endanger, or threaten to endanger, the physical safety of another person or group of persons.

Hurt feelings don't count except when they're over things the target can't control -- skin color, sexual orientation, physical abnormality, mental deficiency, etc.

You don't get to say that someone's speech triggered you and therefore get to shut down the opposing idea and retreat to some safe space where your own ideas won't be challenged.

There's some contradiction between your third and fourth stanzas, which seems to mirror what I said about how some feel about hate speech, until they feel differently about it. There's also some buzzwords like hurt feelings and safe spaces, which many relate to people of color and other minority groups - especially young people in these groups on college campuses. So there seems to be a disconnect between immutable characteristics mattering with hurt feelings and the dismissal of "speech triggering" people. So I think I'm either understanding you poorly or you are contradicting yourself.

But even threatening to endanger gets some free speech protections when the speech is not an imminent threat, for better or worse.

But saying something at a rally is far different than going to someone's home and saying the same, potentially.

I am just saying above how rights have been interpreted, for better or worse.

 

[Tidewater]

If I was the officer in charge of police force covering a large demonstration, and one of my police officer was hit in the head by a bottle of frozen water or set on fire by a molotov cocktail, I'd be inclined to declare the protest a riot and shut it down.
If a group of the protestors brought the perp to me and said, "This is the guy who threw the water bottle/molotov cocktail. We wish to continue protesting, and he does not represent us. Please arrest him and let us continue," I'd be inclined to arrest the perp, take the names and statements of the witnesses, wait and see if the riotous behavior repeated itself. As long as it did not, the protest could continue.
I have a very low tolerance for public disorder and I accept it as a maxim that people will do bad things in crowds they would never do by themselves, so sometimes a large crowd has to be dispersed to protect public property and good order.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

There's some contradiction between your third and fourth stanzas, which seems to mirror what I said about how some feel about hate speech, until they feel differently about it. There's also some buzzwords like hurt feelings and safe spaces, which many relate to people of color and other minority groups - especially young people in these groups on college campuses. So there seems to be a disconnect between immutable characteristics mattering with hurt feelings and the dismissal of "speech triggering" people. So I think I'm either understanding you poorly or you are contradicting yourself.

But even threatening to endanger gets some free speech protections when the speech is not an imminent threat, for better or worse.

But saying something at a rally is far different than going to someone's home and saying the same, potentially.

I am just saying above how rights have been interpreted, for better or worse.

Unfortunately, it isn't black and white. You've identified where the gray area lies. I just see less gray than you do.

I've read where some people have asserted that a public threat to endanger someone who isn't present is free speech. Which implies that the same speech isn't protected if the person or group is present. But I haven't seen where courts have affirmed that interpretation. Regardless, that idea is ridiculous.

You do raise an interesting question: Is the use of a racial or sexual epithet, without the threat of physical harm, free speech? What about a denigrating term for someone who has a low IQ? Or a physical disability? Again, assuming no threat of physical harm.

No doubt it's wrong, shouldn't be done, and says more about the speaker than the target. But should it be illegal?

I'll have to ponder on that one.

Leveling threats at a rally is pretty much the definition of inciting a riot, which is well-established as not protected. Going to someone's private home, or saying the same thing in one's own home? In a close call, I'd say it depends on whether the threat is credible.

"I'm gonna kill all the [insert epithet here]!" Suppose it's an angry person, upset at an individual member of the group and painting the whole group with a broad brush. They're in a private setting, without the means to actually do that. In a close call, as distasteful as it may be, I'd call that free speech.

If the person isn't obviously emotional and has the ability to carry out the threat, that's not protected. Think Timothy McVeigh going to Terry Nichols' house with a plan to bomb the Murrah Building.

Again, we agree that there is gray. We just see different amounts of it.

 

[Go Bama]

There are a lot of well written posts here. As divided as we are on some issues, we seem to have some common ground here on what constitutes free speech.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

There are a lot of well written posts here. As divided as we are on some issues, we seem to have some common ground here on what constitutes free speech.

I think consistency is what a lot of us want. I know when dealing with humans that is a tough line to find because we are all biased in some form both consciously and subconsciously. But yeah, I agree, there is a lot of common ground in this thread from people who do not share the same political leanings.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Unfortunately, it isn't black and white. You've identified where the gray area lies. I just see less gray than you do.

I've read where some people have asserted that a public threat to endanger someone who isn't present is free speech. Which implies that the same speech isn't protected if the person or group is present. But I haven't seen where courts have affirmed that interpretation. Regardless, that idea is ridiculous.

You do raise an interesting question: Is the use of a racial or sexual epithet, without the threat of physical harm, free speech? What about a denigrating term for someone who has a low IQ? Or a physical disability? Again, assuming no threat of physical harm.

No doubt it's wrong, shouldn't be done, and says more about the speaker than the target. But should it be illegal?

I'll have to ponder on that one.

Leveling threats at a rally is pretty much the definition of inciting a riot, which is well-established as not protected. Going to someone's private home, or saying the same thing in one's own home? In a close call, I'd say it depends on whether the threat is credible.

"I'm gonna kill all the [insert epithet here]!" Suppose it's an angry person, upset at an individual member of the group and painting the whole group with a broad brush. They're in a private setting, without the means to actually do that. In a close call, as distasteful as it may be, I'd call that free speech.

If the person isn't obviously emotional and has the ability to carry out the threat, that's not protected. Think Timothy McVeigh going to Terry Nichols' house with a plan to bomb the Murrah Building.

Again, we agree that there is gray. We just see different amounts of it.

I think we're closer than you think.

There's always the ever present question of should I say something just because I can.

Points of agreement include:

Physical threat and disruption of freedom of movement are not lawful free speech.

Intimidation, threatening, and harassment of individuals or specific groups is, depending on the totality of the circumstances, not lawful free speech.

General calls for violence are unwise and uncool, but probably lawful free speech up to a point, until they cross the line into what the court would deem a "true threat".

We aren't far apart at all.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Judge throws out charges against Arizona mom arrested for criticizing officials at a city council meeting

Rebekah Massie's removal and arrest from a city council meeting was "objectively outrageous," the judge ruled.

reason.com

A judge on Wednesday threw out a criminal charge against an Arizona mother who was arrested at a city council meeting for criticizing a public official, calling her arrest "objectively outrageous."

Maricopa County Judge Gerald Williams dismissed with prejudice the trespassing charge against Rebekah Massie. On August 20, the mayor of Surprise, Arizona, ordered a police officer to arrest Massie during the public comment section of a city council meeting after Massie criticized a proposed pay raise for the city attorney. The mayor claimed she was violating a rule prohibiting complaints against city officials during public comment, and when she refused to stop speaking, he had her forcibly removed and arrested.

The judge's decision to dismiss the charge against Massie with prejudice means prosecutors cannot ever refile it. State prosecutors argued unsuccessfully that Williams should not watch the video of Massie's arrest, which shows her repeatedly and correctly asserting that the city's policy is unconstitutional.

"The Defendant should not have faced criminal prosecution once for expressing her political views," Williams wrote. "The Court agrees that she should never face criminal prosecution, for expressing her political views on that date at that time, again."

 

[Tidewater]

Hillary Clinton said something remarkable recently about the nature of free speech. (0:47 mark)

If we grant immunity to social media platforms then we "lose total control."
Tim Walz also said something about the limits of free speech. (4:07 mark)

The context of Walz's comments was people suggesting voters vote the day after the election. I do not like that kind of speech, but I believe it is protected.
The difficulty lies in determining what is hate speech and what is misinformation.
If the Republicans win the White House (and Trumps gets to nominate the heads of the relevant regulatory agencies) and the Republicans win a majority of the House and Senate then they will have the power to determine what constitutes hate speech and misinformation. If they will be able to modify existing federal law, this is what I fear may happen.
Any speech that advocates abortion will be deemed "hate speech" (hate directed towards the unborn child/fetus) and therefore can be suppressed. Any political ad for a prochoice candidate can be banned on the grounds that it supports "hate speech."
Any political commentator suggesting that Trump will sign an national abortion ban (something he has expressly denied) is misinformation and can be suppressed.
I am sure Clinton and Walz do not intend such but the powers advocated for, in the hands of Republicans, might well be turned in those directions.

"By small degrees has liberty, in all nations, been wrested from the hands of the people." (Charles Turner of Scituate, Massachusetts, January 17, 1788)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." (Thomas Jefferson, December 23, 1791

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Hillary Clinton said something remarkable recently about the nature of free speech. (0:47 mark)

If we grant immunity to social media platforms then we "lose total control."
Tim Walz also said something about the limits of free speech. (4:07 mark)

The context of Walz's comments was people suggesting voters vote the day after the election. I do not like that kind of speech, but I believe it is protected.
The difficulty lies in determining what is hate speech and what is misinformation.
If the Republicans win the White House (and Trumps gets to nominate the heads of the relevant regulatory agencies) and the Republicans win a majority of the House and Senate then they will have the power to determine what constitutes hate speech and misinformation. If they will be able to modify existing federal law, this is what I fear may happen.
Any speech that advocates abortion will be deemed "hate speech" (hate directed towards the unborn child/fetus) and therefore can be suppressed. Any political ad for a prochoice candidate can be banned on the grounds that it supports "hate speech."
Any political commentator suggesting that Trump will sign an national abortion ban (something he has expressly denied) is misinformation and can be suppressed.
I am sure Clinton and Walz do not intend such but the powers advocated for, in the hands of Republicans, might well be turned in those directions.

"By small degrees has liberty, in all nations, been wrested from the hands of the people." (Charles Turner of Scituate, Massachusetts, January 17, 1788)

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." (Thomas Jefferson, December 23, 1791

I saw these videos, too and while it would be easy to write them both off as morons, I think we all know that is simply not the case. The know damn well what they are doing. If anything, maybe they are guilty of not understanding what would happen if the power they want is instead granted to the other side of the aisle. (This applies double to voters who really don't understand this.)

And good luck convincing people that if the office of the president is so powerful that you live in mortal fear of "those other guys" controlling it, then the office has entirely too much power.

 

[Tidewater]

I think this kind of censorship is like the Ring in LOTR. "I think if my side wields it, we can finally defeat out opponents and there will be no bad consequences."
That thinking is a trap.

 

[Tidewater]

This is why I value the 1st Amendment so highly.
Germany passed a law criminalizing criticism of politicians.
So cops raid a 60-year old man's house in a crack-down over "internet crime."
German police raid man’s home over tweet mocking Greens’ politician
Schwachkopf literally translated means "weak-head" or "moron."
For the record, I believe Habeck is a schwachkopf.
This, however, is why you never want to give a government control over what you say.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

This is why I value the 1st Amendment so highly.
Germany passed a law criminalizing criticism of politicians.
So cops raid a 60-year old man's house in a crack-down over "internet crime."
German police raid man’s home over tweet mocking Greens’ politician
Schwachkopf literally translated means "weak-head" or "moron."
For the record, I believe Habeck is a schwachkopf.
This, however, is why you never want to give a government control over what you say.

Agree 100%! I just wish more people in this country agreed with you.

 

[Tidewater]

Agree 100%! I just wish more people in this country agreed with you.

I think if politicians get to define what speech falls into the category of "misinformation" or "hate speech," then they will define whatever is inconvenient as "misinformation" or "hate speech" just to shut up their opposition.
The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press." The exceptions would be libel/slander, copyright infringement, false advertisement ("take this pill. It will cure cancer."), and incitement to violence, but these must pass strict scrutiny.
Calling a politician a moron is none of those but Germany has no 1st amendment, much to her shame.