The Limits of Free Speech

I do believe in free speech. But I believe that inherant in the concept of free speech is the responsponsibility to take responsibility for what you have said/done. This is a semi-public forum, but it's also a community. There are social responsibilities and unspoken rules which exist in any community.

If you walked around to a group of your friends and screamed "Twunt! I hate you!" at them every time you saw them, well, yes, you would be exercising your right to free speech. You would also find that, unless you have very tolerant friends, you would soon be shunned and eventually ostracised.

The unspoken rule of ILM, and indeed, most of the internet if not the common rules of debate, is that you may disagree with a person's opinions, but you may not disrespect the *person*.

"Protecting" people is a different issue. I don't feel the need to be protected from other assholes, but I do like it when my friends stick up for me. That's just my way. Everybody has a right to express their opinion, even if it's that they dislike me. This is not the first forum I've ever come under attack in.

If censorship is necessary to preserve a community, then I guess it's necessary censorship. Because, after all, this community is only a subset of society, if a person does not agree with the social rules of a community, they are free to leave it and find another, unlike societies or countries or things that we do not choose.

I think I should post this before it gets too long, and continue in another chunk.

x0x0

Who's responsible for that anti-robin carmody forum, BTW? That's pretty fucking manky isn't it? What a l@m3r...(sigh) xoxo

Yeah, we need a moderator but not in the traditional sense. Flames are minimal here and that's down to the intelligence of people posting. Also the collective sense of fair play is pretty strong here; nobody lets an insult pass without at least one supportive comment for the target.

I personally would rather know someone has been edited out than not, the latter faintly evokes aura of secret police.

If you have any profile outside a message board, you're fair game for a verbal kicking on it IMO. BUT remember - let him who is without GIRLY SUGAR POP cast the first stone.

Anyhow, I'll rehash what I said: I didn't agree with Kate's self- promotion, but that's why I didn't read the thread. How hard is it to avoid things you already know you aren't going to be pleased with? It strikes me funny that this is being treated like a nation instead of a bar, it's the bloody internet.

This isn't to say that I'm for deletion, because i'm not. But if the moderators, ie the owners of the bar, are, it's their right.

You said yourself that you thought better of doing it, because you knew it would rub certain people the wrong way. Me, personally - I don't give a shit what you post. Post about your band and that other godawful band you used to talk about so much on the mailing list all you want, I can personally ignore it quite well. I mean, I only read the Lollies thread because it was brought up here, to be honest. I don't personally like you using the mailing list or the message board as promotion for your band. Other people don't mind. I have no problem with you doing it, because I just don't read it.

The point is, I agree with Momus in that if you're going to open yourself up for it by posting incessantly about your band and effectively spamming the board - WHETHER I CARE PERSONALLY ABOUT IT OR NOT - then you can't get offended when you get flamed, and neither should anyone else.

However, as mark just said - this is a bar, he is the bouncer, if you don't like this bar, go, and in the end that is my opinion, and being as I find Momus to be the world's most offensive person, I'm glad I don't agree with him in the end result.

Kate, for someone who has been rather smug about how smart she is on several intelligence-related past threads and how stupid everyone else is, you don't really comprehend that well once you take something to be even the vaguest personal insult. And, yes, THAT is a personal insult, unlike the self-promotion comment.

We all talk about our jobs, our social lives, our friends- these things affect our worlds and our worldviews. If I talk about the Lollies a lot (and, as Sterling pointed out, I really don't think that I talk about them half as much as Momus talks about himself) is it because they ARE my job, my social life and my friends.

It *IS* hypocritical of you to have a go at me for my "self promotion", Ally, considering you are unable to post on a single thread without bringing your life, your job, your social life into it. So spare me the childish d**mp*tr*ol-esque rants. Please.

Like I JUST FUCKING SAID, for those of us who can't comprehend simple English, I have no problem with you talking about your little band. It's great, it's fantastic. I don't necessarily agree with someone using a message board as someplace to post their own tour dates, but THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T READ THE BLASTED THREAD. Simple, yes, no, maybe?

Momus talks about himself ten times more than anyone I can possibly think of ever encountering in my life and every single post of his starts off with some ridiculous tale about people in Japan mobbing him or some awful song of his, and is being completely hypocritical for slamming you, yes, but regardless the point still stands: if you're going to self-promote your music, then you're going to have to put up with childish people getting an attitude about it and flaming you.

Or, what, has it become against ILE/ILM rules to disagree with you, luv? Saying that I don't like you promoting your band and don't read those threads is hardly the same as "having a go at you" and quite frankly I'm tired of every fucking comment that you perceive as negative towards you being taken as "having a go at you". You want to start a PMS war (very mannish of you, btw), here goes: go take a goddamned Midol and call us in the morning.

And that is all I'm going to say on this thread, I'm not reading it anymore because quite frankly it's useless. I basically agree that the post against Kate should've been deleted on the grounds that this isn't a free speech institution but more like a club, and she goes off the handle? Fuck it, I can't be bothered - unlike some people, I know when to stop and just ignore the situation, so feel free to get in the last word, like you always have to (cf. doompatrol).

Mind you this can be a dodgy old boozer at times

Mike has won, and I'm off to get some coffee.

Who's coming?

Er, I'll get me coat...

Isn't Strange Fruit, the label, named after 'Stange Fruit', the song about lynching?

Isn't lynching the most extreme form of censorship known to man?

Don't the white-ass rednecks who lynch sit round in bars drinking Southern Comfort and relying on their faithful barstaff to remove any black people who have the temerity to even think about coming in and ordering a drink?

But that's okay, isn't it, because the owners of those bars call the shots, and there are always black bars where the black folks can go and drink with people who think like them, no?

No. They drink Bud Light or Miller Light.

Do I have to be the Token Black Guy again and point out that this particular line of logic is deeply insulting and trivializing to anyone who has actually had to endure racism?

This analogy strikes me as fatuous. Seems to trivialise race hate and segregation.

We've never had to lynch anyone at Strange Fruit. Not yet, anyway. And the Strange Fruit club, surprisingly, isn't named after the record label. We took the name from a northern soul compilation one of the original founders owned which featured lots of tracks which, although they didn't really fit together very well, sounded really good. Which is kind of what we're about. Other names, which we never used but nearly did, include 'Bitterscene' and 'Pull The Wires...'

But anyway... we're just an organisation who try to put on clubs and gigs and ensure that bands get a fair deal. Unless we don't like them. In which case we lynch them.

Dan, I reckon the redneck posse are on Coors.

As far as I know Billie Holliday was never knowingly bigging up the lynch party. I agree with Hanle y.

Very few people seem to have agreed. Apparently my mistake was in seeing ILM as being a mini-nation, with first amendment-style protection of free speech, when everyone else sees it as a bar. My point about lynching (and apologies if the sarcasm wasn't clearly signalled) was that the model of the bar as ideal civic space is not a very tempting one. Bars are feisty places policed by private security (invariably fascists). Being told that if you don't like it you can drink elsewhere is not a great comfort.

Yes, I am contradicting the point I made in my Freaky Trigger interview about how it would be pompous for Hispanics to 'represent' Chinese in their local radio stations in New York. But actually, the racial pluralism in the US often comes at a price, which is racial separatism. The Chinese and the Hispanics ignore each other completely. In Britain we at least try (less and less successfully, it seems) to get everyone in the same pub. If only on TV.

I still prefer the model of the nation to the model of the pub, because pubs only codify things like 'how to play darts' whereas nations try to codify things like freedom of speech. And I believe that harmony which exists only because you silence unharmonious elements is not worth having. As Milton said in 'Areopagitica', the virtue which is never tested by exposure to corruption is no virtue at all.

What seems to be bothering you is the idea that one person in particular is in a position to decide what constitutes Unacceptable Behaviour, which is a reasonable concern. But this being a fairly democratic place -- as evidenced by one post removal striking up such a lengthy debate -- I get the feeling that as soon as any moderator seems to be overstepping his jurisdiction, he'll be taken to task for it rather quickly. So in that sense, well done for bringing up the issue -- whether or not the removal was justified, I suppose it's useful to have someone playing devil's advocate in such situations.

Maybe kids today take spam for granted and don't hear alarm bells ringing when they see one moderator (Tom) protecting commercial activity while, not three inches downthread, another (Mark) fails to protect free speech.

I mean, really, was there really no-one else who got even the teensiest little bit worried by that particular scissors manoeuvre?

For a start, I object to the assumption that I posted what I originally posted for the sole reason of "using ILM as a place to sell tour tickets". Clearly, Nick, you never actually *read* the original post, chosing instead to simply use it as a springboard for your own agenda.

We keep a press agency for promotion, and we have actually spend a great deal of the past 2 days talking to regional press. If you'd read the post more carefully, you'd have actually realised the intentions were something else:

I quote I thought this might be a good excuse to have regional meet-ups for those posters who don't live in London or Oxford. Here is a list of venues and dates that we will be playing. If anyone can think of pubs or cafes near said venues, please feel free to post suggestions on this thread. How is this more offensive than, say, Ned's request for meet-ups, or Ally's open invite NYC bar crawls, or even the ILE free jazz picnic?

Second, my trepidation at posting said post on ILM was not based on any notion that I should not post "self promotion" but because I realised that to post such a sort of thing was basically akin to painting a target on my back and declaring open season as flamebait for people such as d**mp*tr*l along the lines of whatever I imagine the deleted message to have been.

Imagine my surprise at the fact that two of the people who have most voiciferously expressed their disdain at my audacity at such open self promotion and "spamming" are the two people most commonly guilty of it! Hypocrisy in action!

I stand by my actions. The censorship was not mine, nor was it asked for by me. Although the bar analogy may have its faults, I still maintain the idea of ILM/E as a community, and not a nation at large.

Actions within communities IRL have consequences. Had Denis or whatever his name is actually said something offensive to me in person, I'd have either ignored him or punched him, depending on my blood alcohol content. How Momus gets from a community defending itself against disruptive and personally offensive behaviour to the sweeping statements on censorship that he's made is definitely an Olympic Gold Medal World Record in jumping to conclusions.

uk has some of the strictest defamation laws in the world, you need a very high level of proof for any claim you might make or you are liable to be taken to court and fined all to hell

also many laws have been in place which have curtailed freedom of speech in a manner that would be unconstitutional in the US, e.g. this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988–94_British_broadcasting_voice_restrictions

UK has laws against inciting religious and racial hatred (replacement for blasphemy laws) & people have been successfully prosecuted for 'threatening and abusive words' for (peacefully) protesting a military homecoming parade

Germany has banned certain political parties, has broad hate speech laws, retains defamation as a criminal offence, etc. You can be jailed in the U.K. for social media posts considered supportive of proscribed terrorist groups, almost any speech can be considered a public order offence if deemed intended to shock and alarm.

These are, for the most part, fairly good things but it's not just a question of flying flags.

scotland has a law that means you can be arrested and charged if you say something "a reaonsable person would find offensive" (paraphrasing but the actual wording is similar) at a soccer game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_Behaviour_at_Football_and_Threatening_Communications_(Scotland)_Act_2012

i am a bit conflicted on these sort of issues but it does seem to me that the paradox of liberal democracy - that it basically only functions if the majority agree to certain foundations, but it is unable to force adherence to these without becoming illiberal - is going to be progressively debilitating, and, especially in an armed to the teeth country like the U.S., the fundamentalist view of free speech will allow for a lot of harm to the open society

― -_- (jim in vancouver), Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:54 PM (forty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You basically just described Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance: "The paradox states that if a society is tolerant without limit, their ability to be tolerant will eventually be seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Popper came to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

xpost Thanks for these. So do any of you have a specific example of some egregious miscarriage of justice that would not have transpired in the US thanks to the 1st amendment freedoms?

@Josh, to add another perspective: in Holland you can get arrested and prosecuted for sieg heiling and chants that seem intended to incite violence ("Hamas, hamas, jews on gas" a 'popular' one among the extreme right)

what can we do or say in America that they cannot do or say in Germany

On the 'do'-part: carrying guns. I know you know this, but for nearly every country in the world this is absolutely surreal and insane. All the more because it's directly tied in with the notion that carrying a gun protects citizen's right of free speech.

scotland has a law that means you can be arrested and charged if you say something "a reaonsable person would find offensive" (paraphrasing but the actual wording is similar) at a soccer game

So 10% of the population is arrested every Saturday.

Haha

(downside to Dutch defamation laws: writing "Away with the monarchy, it's 2017" on a piece of cardboard will also get you in trouble :( )

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-aclu-tensions-20170817-story.html

1934: “We do not choose our clients. Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us."
2017: “We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.”

This is the explanation:
Ahilan Arulanantham, the legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said it was not the organization’s perspective on civil liberties that had changed, but the nature of the far-right groups themselves — a willingness to come to events ready for violence.

“The factual context here is shifting, given the extent to which the particular marches we’re seeing in this historical moment are armed,” said Arulanantham.

Good. Armed marches should be illegal.

Like, open carry? Do your thing. But limiting groups of people with guns should be like convenience stores limiting the number of middle school kids allowed in at a time.

The guns thing OTM, LBI. I watched that Vice doco and was staggered by all the AKs and pistols and knives this guy proudly weilded/pulled from his pants/boots. I mean fucking hell. And he said he had every intent to kill, if that was neccesary! How is that not threatening speech inciting violence???

If a bunch if ISIS supporters had marched thru campus waving ISIS flags and carrying torches and guns, how many milliseconds would it have taken before the troops were shooting/teargassing them to kingdom come? Why are nazis ok?

speaking of being allowed to kick kids out of your 7-11

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/silicon-valleys-anti-nazi-purge-kicks-into-overdrive

I hope they keep this up.

The alternative view:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/can-silicon-valley-disrupt-its-neo-nazi-problem

Whatever. These are private businesses. They are being intolerant of intolerance. That is not the same as refusing service to people because of their ethnicity or their religion.

(or sexual orientation or etc.)

yep I keep seeing the Paradox of Tolerance come up, which is a good thing

"speech inciting violence" has to meet very stringent requirements to be prosecuted - it has to be direct and imminent. afaik you can even say "all the jews must be killed" and that is protected speech in the US

yes - we covered that some last night on Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

xpost And my half argument on the other thread was, how does that freedom benefit society? More to the point, in societies that do not have that freedom, how are they hurt?

Though god knows in our POS country, if they outlawed armed nazi marches then there would be a push to outlaw BLM, and so on. Which goes back to that (new to me, but fascinating) paradox of tolerance. I'm worried we've gone too far down that "all opinions are valid" road to turn back. As we are seeing, there can be no victory if the default inevitably boils down to "both sides do it." It's no wonder we live in a divided country, since no one is allowed or able to be dismissed as wrong anymore.

that doesn't seem to be the case at present.

You mean this current anti-Nazi (as if that needed to be a thing) push? Yeah, dickhead in chief is still getting a sizable minority (no ironic pun intended) of support, there are still "two sides" debates on TV, even if they are getting theatrically shut down. I'm glad to see people coming out anti-Nazi, which along with "anti-rape" shouldn't even have to be a position, but I am not hopeful. I think it's all part and parcel with our stubborn anti-intellectualism as a nation. We're getting dumber and more dangerous. We don't know our history. We don't know the world. We don't know logic, we devalue education and authority. And by "we" I am generalizing, but clearly "we" includes enough voters to destabilize nearly 250 years of democracy.

I do like seeing this:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHehmfOXsAA2uyD.jpg

Sorry, but I must now fisk your hyperbole

We're getting dumber and more dangerous.

demonstrably false, ahistorical statement

We don't know our history.

speak for yourself apparently

We don't know the world.

we are more worldly and well-travelled than any other Americans have ever been

We don't know logic, we devalue education and authority.

we are the most well-educated and scientifically savvy Americans that have ever existed

And by "we" I am generalizing, but clearly "we" includes enough voters to destabilize nearly 250 years of democracy.

only because of a stupid technicality invented 250 years ago by much nastier and more ignorant Americans than the ones we have today.

I realize it is completely gauche and unfashionable to be optimistic in 2017, and I'm not trying to be, I'm just pointing out that those statements are incorrect

that type of "we're the worst!" rhetoric is actually David Brooks' schtick

I appreciate you optimism, and am wary of arguing with anyone fighting that particular good fight. Let's just say I agree with you, but only in the grand historical sense of progress. I think we're the worst because despite all the progress we have made there are still too many pulling us backwards *for no good reason*.

Anyway, David Brooks is really the worst, we can agree on that.

JiC burnin' for that constitutional convention to repeal #1

No, I get that it serves an important purpose. But clearly it already has limits, or is not unlimited, the question is where we as a society want to set those limits. Which, yeah, slippery slope, but again, we already have *some* set limits on expression. So just as gun ownership in and of itself may not seem such a bad thing but carrying around an assault weapon does, free speech that does not allow Nazi flags (not to mention Nazi flags plus assault weapons) ... I don't know, what seems lost by allowing it seems worse than what would be lost by banning it, though I get how in the academic sense it opens us up to further erosion of liberties. To which I'd counter (mostly to myself), what is the value of liberty if armed mobs of intimidating hate groups are allowed to roam at will? That slippery slope slides both ways.

Plus, Morbs, you of all people know that that our rights are rippling illusions.

And man, if it was as simple as what I wanted or was "burnin' for," almost any limit on free speech would be way down the list of a million things that would supersede any such debate in the first place. Nazis marching in the fucking street, fuck that and fuck them.

I am firmly against the freedom of Nazis to express themselves.

On ACLU changing it's policy: https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167

But clearly it already has limits, or is not unlimited, the question is where we as a society want to set those limits.

Given that Citizens United and a host of other corporation friendly rulings are decided on Free Speech grounds these days, I don't know if "we as a society" even have a say in what's considered Constitutional.

I think mark s was right to delete that post btw.

lol

On ACLU changing it's policy: https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167

― Frederik B, Friday, August 18, 2017 2:05 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm not clear what this means in practice, would the ACLU refuse to offer practical support in getting permission for events going ahead if attendees are likely to be armed? or would they support events taking place, but rhetorically condemn them if attendees are armed, in which case is that a significant change from their current practice?

There's an interesting paragraph in this vox-explainer on the ACLU: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville

But the ACLU has built its reputation, for decades, on the idea that there is no ideology so dangerous it doesn’t deserve vigorous First Amendment protections. “Going back to the organization’s founding in 1920,” says Strossen, “it was defending freedom of speech for anti-civil-libertarians, everybody from fascists to communists.” (This is something of a whitewash of the ACLU’s institutional history — like a lot of other establishment liberal organizations in the 1950s, it was too afraid of McCarthyism to defend Communists and even required members to abjure Communism in an oath — but it’s a decent account of its impact on the current state of free-speech law.)

Worth remembering when people say we need to defend principle even when they're benefiting nazis, so that they'll defend us when the tables are turned. When the table was turned, they were too cowardly to defend leftists.

all those ppl are dead i think

who else wants to water down the USA's free speech to Europe's level, besides Frederik and JiC?

Free speech but with irl sban system

that they'll defend us when the tables are turned. When the table was turned, they were too cowardly to defend leftists.

who is "they" -- the ACLU?

'establishment liberal organizations'

Hey there ACLU

So Fred, you believe that the ACLU et al. can only be trusted to defend right-wing causes, because they were complicit during the Second Red Scare, so to hell with everything?

no

To address the thread's OP: as a principle, I am against prior restraint of political speech, unless there is a clear prior demonstration of an intent to commit or incite civil violence.

In the case of groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis, they have sufficiently demonstrated such intent through almost all their prior actions and statements. When the very core of your political views embraces violence against minorities, subjection of minorities, exclusion of minorities and social rejection of minorities, then there's no reason to believe such speech is protected by the First Amendment. These groups should never be granted permits to hold rallies in support of these violent and abusive political positions.

Fight for the ACLU to stay on your side, specifically to adjust to a post DC vs Heller reality. Don't sit back and think 'principles' without power will save anyone.

have you read the original ACLU statement? it brought up some very interesting points. their main point was that in supporting the freedom to march, it supports the bad and the good, that it is as much a nod of support towards the good guys as the bad guys, that it also protects the left's ability to counter protest by making these statements. another really good point they made was that a potential legal solution of giving the gov't the ability to declare what protests are violent in nature could really backfire when used in the wrong hands. look at who is currently in charge, do you really want to give Trump that power? anti-hate laws could be (and would be) abused to completely silence opposition.