The Limits of Free Speech

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.