Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

i kinda love that 'and within' gets its own clause there bc it suggests some readers might've gotten to 'navigate around,' and thought, 'only around? how about other propositional relationships to rap music? are you saying rap fans don't navigate within?' otoh, how about navigating under, over, throughout, or across?

Metallica was chart pop in the 90s

but... they were

xxp

overall good take imo

Chait’s anti-PC jack sesh

http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-golfclap.gif

i kinda love that 'and within' gets its own clause there bc it suggests some readers might've gotten to 'navigate around,' and thought, 'only around? how about other propositional relationships to rap music? are you saying rap fans don't navigate within?' otoh, how about navigating under, over, throughout, or across?

― Mordy, Wednesday, April 29, 2015 2:53 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk makes sense to me, he's talking about outsider/insider dynamic

i'm glad the intended audience understood

you are so much more the intended audience than i am, lol

one of NYT's comment picks argues about the TX shooting:

Another perversion of the right to free speech by ignoramuses.

Even in the 60's they taught us to be responsible in what we said and advocated to prevent what it seems was intended by this event. Free speech is meant to guarantee your right to speak up against the government when you have good reason to believe it is out of line not to protect or create a freedom to abuse groups or people whom you do not approve of.

Apparently free speech is not intended to be totally free, only free to criticize the government. Well, I guess he learnt it in the sixties.

not to protect or create a freedom to abuse groups or people whom you do not approve of

"abuse"

Apparently free speech is not intended to be totally free, only free to criticize the government

but only "when you have good reason to believe it is out of line"

Next big free speech test will be approaching drunks in bars and seeing if they respond to creative free speech with violence. Should provide more talking points once the jaws are unwired.

wonder how many NYT readers hear about a drunk killing a guy for insulting him and respond w/, "the victim was misusing their freedom."

How many think the victim was heroically reaffirming our free speech rights either?

whatever happened to defending to death your right to say things w/ which i disagree? or is that only when it isn't politically inconvenient?

Also, uhm, can we not compare being a muslim with being drunk?

speak for yourself Frederik, "we" aren't doing anything of the sort.

Aren't most rights compromised/ignored when politically inconvenient? Maybe ask the folks at gitmo about their free speech.

Violence provoked by speech is already regarded as criminal so, you know, "free speech" remains as legally safe as ever despite CH and the Texas incident.

What should I ask them? I am not making an argument about the US's government's treatment of free speech. xp

"Because your free speech has been abrogated do you think we should eliminate the principle in general from our society and only defend the speech of people with whom we agree?" And if they say yes, do you think Gitmo prisoners should generally handle all our civic/ethic questions, or only our free speech questions?

I'd be down for a Gitmo prisoners week on Jeopardy

Surely there is room for a more nuanced approach between those two extremes you are picking from.

hypothetical questions for Gitmo prisoners means it's time for me to go free speak elsewhere...

In conclusion: Free speech has not and will never be guaranteed safe. It can be legally protected - in this country, it is legally protected to an extent (only really from government suppression when you get down to it). That's about it. It's like how as a pedestrian you have a right of way that won't keep you from getting killed by the next speeding driver.

didnt know where to put this but file under free speech and creepy radicalism

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/04/jean-marie-le-pen-front-national-disciplinary-hearing

that Marine is pretty smart

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/302689691.html
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/05/u-minnesota-responds-student-complaint-about-posters

poster reproducing the charlie hebdo 'i am charlie' muhammad draws complaints, waffly university admin response

http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2015/04/30/our-identities-matter-core-classrooms

w/ the caveat that for many of you he is an ideological enemy and you should never read anything he has to say

i thought this jeffrey goldberg piece about charlie hebdo was on point:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/charlie-hebdo-trudeau-pen-garland/392255

Palestinian Friendship Org put posters on busses in Copenhagen arguing for boycot of settlement stuff. Bus company, official company, with a board of parliament members, decided it wasn't allowed, because it could be offensive to some people. They still drive around with naked boobs on the side on commercials for plastic surgery.

Always bear in mind Denmark is fanatically pro-free speech whenever it comes to hating on muslims and Islam. That is almost a duty in Denmark.

afaik holocaust denial is legal in denmark which does speak well of its fanatical pro-free speech bonafides

we had a free speech bus ad debate in the US recently re Pamela Geller's anti-Islamic ads. the judge ruled that the ads couldn't be banned bc of free speech so the MTA decided to ban all political advertisements - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/nyregion/mta-board-votes-to-ban-political-ads-on-subways-and-buses.html

We had an exhibition of posters made by a Swedish nazi portraying the lynching of named Swedish-Africans that he has harrassed for years. In the parliamental building. Very important to show our support for that kind of thing. Boycutting settlements? Get out of here!

I was pretty alarmed by those Gellar ads when I saw them on buses in SF. I'm ok with the NY MTA's decision, dunno if SF's made a similar decision (and if so I didn't hear about it)

i don't get the impression they bus company didn't take the ad bc they were personally offended by its content but bc it was creating controversy that they wanted to avoid. MTA said similar things - that the controversy around the Geller ads were distracting them from their main mission of transport, and that political ads made up so little of their budget that it wasn't worth the trouble. also, i think it should be pointed out that ppl protesting the ads were primarily concerned not w/ the settlement boycott but w/ the map on the bus that suggested that all of israel was occupied territory and the organizations other comments (on their website and elsewhere) that implied that they favored a total boycott. nb i think they should have been allowed to run the ad and i think geller should have been able to run her ad.

that the controversy around the Geller ads were distracting them from their main mission of transport, and that political ads made up so little of their budget that it wasn't worth the trouble

I agree it was Geller's right to run those ads, but I also agree w the MTA and find their reasoning sound. It's kind of an evenly applied all-or-nothing approach.

i'm conflicted a little bc the nature of what makes an ad "political" is open to interpretation. for example the ad fred mentioned for the plastic surgeon - many feminists protested it bc they felt it was degrading to women (i hope i'm representing their argument accurately here). surely they're right to claim that there is a political dimension to the ad. so should any ad that anyone thinks is political be disallowed? who makes these decisions?

surely they're right to claim that there is a political dimension to the ad.

it's not about publicly held office or public policy so idk how you could make that argument in court

tbf I don't think this constitutes a political ad, that does seem like a dicey definition:

The rejected ad showed a man with a scarf across his face and said, “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah. That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”

is a personal boycott on settlements a public policy issue? or geller's ads about islam's opinions on jew murder? i guess you could do a potter stewart thing but it seems open to abuse

lol look at this url
http://www.ibtimes.com/mta-ban-all-political-advertising-nyc-subways-buses-after-court-allows-killing-jews-1900977

Apparently free speech is not intended to be totally free, only free to criticize the government.

iirc, the Supreme Court has ruled that first amendment privilege is extended to cover political speech more completely than any other type of speech. This is the primary reason the first amendment was written - to protect a citizen's right to redress grievances against government abuses of power without being thrown in jail to silence them. It wasn't put there so your neighbor could verbally harass you with impunity.

So, yes, free speech is not intended to be totally free. For example, you can't claim a first amendment privilege to send people you hate daily anonymous death threats against their children, giving details of how you'll mkidnap them and make them suffer.

This is basic stuff, but people constantly get confused about it anyway.

you can't claim 1st amendment for sending death threats bc they're not protected speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Threats

Threats of violence that are directed at a person or group of persons that has the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[35] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[36][37] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[38] However, sometimes even political speech can be a threat, and thus becomes unprotected.[39]

Oh, you already knew about the subject, Mordy? I think it should also be pointed out that the complaints were 'primarily' in English rather than Danish. Also, saying that they suggest all of Israel is occupied territory is flat out wrong, the pictures very clearly don't do that. Could you perhaps link to where you've heard about it, I'm pretty interested in figuring out how it's presented outside of the Danish context?

And we pretty clearly allow political ads on busses. All parties are campaigning on busses or busstops or trainstations at the moment. We don't allow political tv-spots, so the public space is the main combat area for political ads. The busstops had the 'Stop Naziislamism' ad as well.

unless there's an exception tho, all speech is protected. not just speech against governmental abuses of power. it so happens that generally the government has a monopoly on violence and so they're who you have to be particularly worried about re speech repercussions. you might ask why this matters - ie, why does drawing mohammed need to be protected? after all, the shooters in TX were breaking the law by killing ppl. but this shows up in issues like the state trying to prevent a speaker from talking bc it creates unsafe conditions (like it might rile protestors up to violence). it is illegal to stop someone from speaking bc of concerns about preserving the peace. xp

i vaguely heard about it. nothing happens re israel in the world w/out it popping up in one of my rss feeds. i'll have to hunt around for the article that i saw particularly about it. iirc jpost for sure covered it and i'm sure times of israel ran something on it as well. not sure what kind of coverage it got in mainstream US media (NYT, WaPost, etc).

I'm pretty sure it wasn't in NYT or WaPost, at least not on their twitter feeds.

Also, just to be clear, I'm pretty sure DANPAL (Danish-Palestinian Friendship Org) are a very problematic org, and there's more than a whiff of anti-semitism to a lot of what members have said before. But that doesn't mean politicians can just censor everything they do.

definitely, i agree with you. we don't need to protect the speech of people whose opinions are accepted and supported in society - their speech isn't in danger. we need to protect the speech of people we disagree w/, and even find repulsive and disgusting.

at the same time obv it's the right of anyone to complain about anything - that's speech too. even if they're complaining primarily in english ;)