The Limits of Free Speech

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (248 of them)
Josh: Nitsuh raised some good points, but his 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example was a hoary old cliche. You have to structure free speech, just as you have to structure commerce. What worried me in the original actions of Tom and Mark was that they were protecting the commercial speech but not the commentary.

I'm thinking of collecting a lot of the 'censorship is good' slogans that have come up in these threads and sending them to Falung Gong or someone, to show them the sad truth that 90% of people in the west really don't care about their own or anyone else's free speech and can't be depended upon the help them.

I can only assume educators have stopped explaining the first amendment in American schools and colleges. At some point in the 80s or 90s people who called themselves liberals seem to have decided that allowing free speech is the same as allowing hate speech, or that, as Mark puts it, a free speech position is somehow a free market position.

Kate's big sigh of relief on hearing the content of the post, and her express wish that moderators not try to protect her feelings through misguided chivalry, hasn't made many people change their minds about the original decision to suppress a harmless post either, which is odd. It seems to me a perfect vindication of my arguments throughout.

Only DG spoke sanely about respecting intellectual content. Most others were positively cheering meaningless, random censorship, in a kind of scary 'Let's bomb Bagdhad!' way. Why? Can anyone explain this to me?

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I don't think people were advocating random censorship but one particular, very specific instance where censorship was used with good (if possibly ill-advised) intentions.

Random censorship would, perhaps, be quite cool - seeing as how the fact the message was cut has got everyone excited and wondering just what was in it, where as most people would probably have just skimmed over it had it been left in [OK, that's enough. The rest of this silly and abusive post has been deleted. Grow up 'jamesmichaelward']

jamesmichaelward, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Mark's final comment back on the thread at ILM: the question of tone and attitude and sinisterness etc etc is just as chilling for — exactly like you say, Clarke — newcomers, or the quiet and shy of mind (who have equally interesting things to say despite being somewhat herbivorous).

Mark has turned his Superman costume inside out. He's now claiming to be the brave protector of shy newbies and herbivores, rather than of Kate, who can stand up to her own flamers, thank you very much.

Does this mean ILM is going to be the Disney Channel from now on? Are we going to have to stop the play every five minutes for announcements, Midsummer Night's Dream-style, that 'this lion, ladies, is just a man in a skin, fear not'?

Scrabbling around for weak minorities, children, newbies or grandmothers to justify suppression of dissent sucks. Come on, Mark, just admit that you were a little trigger happy and tell us it won't happen again and we can all be charmingly rude to each other again.

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I didn't see that at all - in fact I saw a number of people who agreed that it shouldn't have been deleted - I count myself among them. They're not stating it as *forcefully*, perhaps because it didn't seem like it involved a great deal of deliberation, and so they're being charitable toward Mark. When a group is entrusted to moderators, these seat-of-the-pants judgment calls are to be expected. The real issue here is whether one disagrees with moderation *in general*. I don't find that realistic, so I'd rather take a more democratic approach to it, and ask that the moderators feel accountable to their readership.

I'm not pro-censorship AT ALL - in fact, I consider myself quite radically libertarian in that regard. I certainly don't buy into any notion of "hate speech", unless you're talking about harassing or threatening speech which is *not* protected by the First Amendment. I'd prefer that moderation be done sparingly. I just wish people could discuss the nature of online discourse, as an extension of public and private spheres of discourse, WITHOUT accusations of constitutional ignorance or oppressiveness. That's just not fair. This is a relatively new technology, y'know? It's not quite so simple.

Kerry, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Nitsuh raised some good points, but his 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' example was a hoary old cliche.

Jesus, Momus, I expect better of you! Surely you're aware that (a) it's not a "cliche" but an example drawn U.S. Supreme Court opinion, and more importantly that (b) it's obviousness and uniquity are precisely why I said "Start from 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' and work your way up."

Secondly, you consistently avoid defending precisely the part of your argument that everyone is disagreeing with, which is your apparent belief that this forum should operate based on the same ideals as entire national entities. Based on your previous point, you'd apparently have no problem with Falun Gong "practitioners" doing their excercises in your bedroom. I don't believe that's true, and it's only through sheer dogmatism that you continue to cling to this point without recourse to ever justifying it. I agree with your arguments -- I even agree with you that Mark was a little trigger-happy, even though I don't particularly blame him for it -- but I think you're being particularly stubborn by refusing to even acknowledge that there might be a difference between "free speech" in a public context and "free speech" within an organized "owned" space.

I say this not out of any sort of antagonism toward you, as I've always enjoyed your posts, threads, and music, and still get an odd thrill about the fact that you've performed a song about my previous employer. But your smarmy provocation and deliberate intellectual dishonesty in this discussion are beginning to resemble that of my country's president.

Nitsuh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Has anyone read the Maya Angelou book (I think it's ???) where Billie Holliday comes to her house? She sings "Strange Fruit" to Maya's son Guy as a bedtime song, and when Guy asks what a certain line meant she gets very angry. That is the only thing I've ever read about Ms. Holliday. Sometimes in FT they would mention Billie, and I thought it was Ms. Holliday, but I guess it was someone else.

I don't like either of these discussions because it reminds me of my high school newspaper class. One spiteful and needless comment would be edited and the writer would become enraged. Then the rest of the hour would be spent discussing censorship the Big Evil and (even though we'd been over it many times) it could have been a mind- stimulating discussion. But no-one wanted to keep their emotions in check. Just like on the two I Loves. There is nothing I hate more than such needless ball-cutting drama. And I hate censorship!

1 1 2 3 5, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Oops, the book was called "Gather Together in My Name". Or no wait, it was "Heart of a Woman" One of the two.

1 1 2 3 5, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Thank you for saving me the trouble of replying with basically the same thing, Nitsuh.

Josh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Nitsuh: your smarmy provocation and deliberate intellectual dishonesty in this discussion are beginning to resemble that of my country's president.

Ouch! That really hurts. (By the way, who was the ex-employer I sang about?)

I think you're being particularly stubborn by refusing to even acknowledge that there might be a difference between "free speech" in a public context and "free speech" within an organized "owned" space.

I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum). It's like saying 'I believe in justice, but not for everyone' or 'Charity is fine, but only at Christmas'.

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Ouch! That really hurts.

Okay, perhaps the Bush thing was uncalled for.

(By the way, who was the ex-employer I sang about?)

Reckless Records. Although your focus on the Broadway store was unappreciated by those of us at the other locations. :)

I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum).

I guess I don't really buy into the idea that you actually believe that! But if you honestly think that's true, then I trust you'd be perfectly amendable to my hacking your website and amending the front page with the most disagreeable material allowed by law.

And when you attempt to point out that the front page of your site does not constitute a "forum," I'll simply ask who you are to draw such distinctions between a public space and one that you "own," "control," or "moderate."

Nitsuh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Actually, fuck your website -- based on your arguments, I hereby demand physical access into your home for the sole purpose of verbally abusing you. No reason my at-large rights to freedom of speech shouldn't be equally applicable to, say, your shower, right?

Nitsuh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

So if I yell 'fire' in a crowded theater and people are injured or killed in the ensuing mass egress, it's ok somehow because I should have unrestricted 'free speech'? If I am in a position of responsibility and I publicly lie in such a way as to knowingly violate that responsibility (say, I falsify reports of the safety of a new car model), should my speech be protected? If my speech is harrassing to another person, should me speech be protected? If I'm rude and offensive, though originally invited to be present, on someone's private property, are they just to put up with it because my speech is protected? You're the one who earlier intimated that people were ignorant of first amendment rights and constitutional law. If you actually know anything about them, shouldn't you be confronting those problems rather than blithely saying that restricted free speech is nonsensical?

Josh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Nick, I'm completely libertarian in my approach to free speech as you well know. Don't ever, ever suggest, even by omission, that I condone censorship, and don't cheapen your argument by dissing the Americans' high school education re. the contents of the Constitution. We learn our rights backwards and forwards in school, then find when we get out that more money = more 'rights' than the average bear. That's one reason why that rich old brilliant exile Gore Vidal can enter a correspondence with McVeigh. A lot of us wind up believing the Bill Of Rights is window dressing for a lot of valid reasons.

I wish the original impulse behind what a crusty old Spectator reader would call PC (which was really making sure you were able in speech to treat diverse people equally in principle) had not been obscured by neo-paternalistic Thought Police of every possible gender. Mark isn't one of these, and he's no censor. Real censors, after all, are so secure in their oppressive powers that they can ignore dissenters, or persecute them like the Falun Gong.

suzy, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

My shower? Ooh Nitsuh, I love it when you talk dirty!

As for the crowded theatre, I'd say it's the job of the fire inspectors to make enough exits that people can escape whatever bloody nonsense people are shouting. That's what theatres are for, shouting nonsense.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.

'Art is where you can crash the plane and walk away.' (Eno)

Ditto computers and simulations and representations of all kinds. As Kerry said, if someone means to do you physical harm, censoring the threats isn't going to help you much.

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Suzy: the problem with what's now called PC was that it was an attempt to heal the world by healing language. It was a belief that by imposing justice and equality in language you could impose them on the world. In fact, it represented a banishment of liberalism (under Reagan and Bush snr) to the symbolic realm of the universities and media. There they could play at justice-in-language all they liked, without disturbing the actual power structures of the world at all.

But soon even those people realised that they were policing language and limiting its greatest strength: the capacity for modelling other ways of being, for envisioning the world differently. So PC receded, and now we have the more healthy anti-global protests instead. Real political action, back in the realm of political action where it belongs. And language went back to being the free zone it wants and needs to be.

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I hate to turn ILE into the Momus Hot Seat, but...I just find this discussion interesting, and so I continue: I just don't buy into the idea that you can have 'free speech, but not in my back yard' (or bar, or internet forum). It's like saying 'I believe in justice, but not for everyone' or 'Charity is fine, but only at Christmas'.

Well, that's mighty tolerant of you, but that is a philosophy. It's certainly not the U.S. Constitution, which doesn't prevent me from throwing people out of my bar, my backyard, or an internet forum for that matter.

About a year or so ago, there was a fellow preaching with a bullhorn within earshot of my apartment and the apartments and homes of several hundred people. It was Saturday morning, too, and people were still in bed. Were people, and eventually the police, *wrong* in asking him to turn his bullhorn off? Weren't you the one complaining about the intrusion of sounds and music in the public sphere? Isn't that "expression"?

The reason I bring up the bullhorn is this: the man took to bullhorning on a residential street corner because there are so few public spaces where an individual of little means can address his peers. The solution, though, and the one most libertarian in spirit, is to create and/or take back those *public* spaces it's not extending the principles that apply to public discourse to the private sphere. I couldn't give a crap who my neighbor throws out of his backyard - I don't think it necessarily reflects on his views on civil liberties.

Kerry, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Since my attitude towards 'commerce' has been raised here:

ILM started as the discussion board for my Freaky Trigger webzine. If FT has any guiding principle at all, it's the idea that the music listeners experiences as listener *and consumer* are as important as the music being discussed. In other words, you can't shove commerce sniffily off to one side. This isn't the internet of 1995 any more, and more to the point the internet of 1995 wasn't all that good. As I said just now on ILM, we have a category, called "Hype", for these kinds of posts.

I would broadly say that it is OK for regular posters to fill other regular posters in on what they are doing - the definition of 'regular' on ILM should be at the posters discretion. Kate's tour dates fall into the same bracket as DJ Martian's weblog, for me. If you want to post your tour dates, Momus, or Alasdair M or Dave Q or anyone else does, that's fine by me.

Tom, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

My shower? Ooh Nitsuh, I love it when you talk dirty!

Jesus, Nick, I can't believe you're being quite so juvenile about this! If I didn't have some respect and admiration for your actions outside of this thread, I'd suspect you were only doing this for attention.

Look: what's bothering me here is that your level of dogmatism here is approaching that of a twelve year old's, and it's showing in your poor rhetorical choices -- responding to my intentional cliche with "but that's such a cliche" and spouting nonsense about theaters having enough exits to accommodate any level of stupidity. All I want you to admit is this: in private spaces, it is reasonable for the "owner" to set some limits on people's behaviour. This is what allows you to make records without having to let me write arrangements for them; this is what allows me to watch television without having to let you drop by and comment on everything; and this, I'm arguing, is what allows a person to organize a web-based forum in which there are certain ground rules concerning people's contributions.

I only ask that you admit this. You're free to argue that in this instance, censorship was unnecessary; you're free to argue that this forum as whole doesn't need moderation of any sort -- in both instanced, I might be tempted to agree with you. But your evasion and your refusal to admit this basic point -- which is already codified in international law -- is currently striking me as positively infantile.

Nitsuh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I'm all for people being considerate and polite, especially when visiting other people's private spaces on invitation. I just don't like the idea of that being codified in law and policed. I think people are capable of working these things out between themselves. I suppose this is what people meant by the 'pub' metaphor, which I might have agreed with if they'd chosen 'cafe' instead, and not elected Mark (to his horror) as bouncing bar staff.

I re-iterate what Milton said about freedom of the press, back when Cromwell was trying to get all books and plays approved by the government: vitue which is untested by exposure to malice, sedition and simply *other ways of thinking about the problem* is no virtue at all.

Serge Gainsbourg: 'Provoke, always provoke. But remember, stay human.'

Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I detect futility. I think the internet is like a Hydra: cut off on e head and another grows in it's place. You can't censor the internet , and you can't regulate or control it. SOmeone could just email Kate that her bands blows, or email her freinds or make an "I Hate the Lollies " website. ITs already out of control. Take away napster, and a thousand more spring up in it's place.

Mike Hanley, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

i aasked for an ilm post to be deleted because it had nothing to do with music, but was also an abusive post that wouldn't even get the time of day here on ile - i don't like censorship, but my thoughts are iI wasn't stopping this guy's voice from being heard - he'd said his shit, enough ppl had read it, he could repost it elsewhere, or probably repost it here, but i don't lose sleep over it...

Geoff, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Well, then. I officially give up on getting Nick to actually reply to my argument or admit what is, in the end, a pretty universally recognized reality.

I'm going to go listen to Ping Pong and remind myself why I generally like this person.

Nitsuh, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Is being an ass an 'other way of looking at the problem'?

Josh, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Re shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater - interesting way to see who panics and starts a stampede, and who doesn't

dave q, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Nick's not really being an ass, he's just a little out of his depth when unable to don some kind of mask (being 'Momus' matters more on ILM). Silly boy thinks I need a history lesson but I was actually THERE in PC World etc. worrying about these issues a decade ago (and proposing solutions) so we have no need of your coal in Newcastle, sir.

Yes, PC started in academia and the media and kept the denizens of those zones busy bickering while the politicians and corporations carried on business as usual with their same-old New World Order. And of course people were bound to realise mere lip service was being paid to the notion of equality. But I see the anti-globalism impulse as an evolution of these ideas, not a repudiation of same.

Anyway, this thread is rather Miltonesque: testing the virtues of a virtual Paradise could hardly be called anything else.

suzy, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Milton was an english protestant. the last thing paradise was to him was virtual.

anthony, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Seeing as said censoree — or someone pretending to be him same diff — has gone set up a hate-thread dedicated to ME hurrah!! on a forum NONE OF US HAVE POWER OVER, I unilaterally declare myself entirely vindicated and Momus entirely defeated by History Herself, Clio of Dread Mien. (ps Momus is being charming and friendly to me by email and since I am a Whore for Niceness this makes an Impression: of course his "position" above is retarded, not that I have read very much of it...)

("Retarded" in the kindly American sense, of course...)

mark s, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

i think i have realised that my views on this make me a moral relativist. well, i can live with that. i don't like the universalising dogmatism that momus (or perhaps his pervert doppelganger) has propogated on this thread (support his view to say it of course). what happens in a particular space is more important to me. the pub analogy may have been bad, how about a Stockholm cafe then, abusive behaviour tolerated?

i am anti-censorship, broadly speaking, but i don't apply this general view everywhere, yes this is contradictory, yes this is contextual, yes this is relativist, i agree, but there you have it.

out of interest,

btw, would people be quite happy if i published the phone numbers and addresses of people on this board, against their wishes?

gareth, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

No way Gareth! I'd call the cops if you did that! :)...this is turning into one of those *gulp* it's so long I don't have an hour to read this, I'll just read the last few responses threads!

jel, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

ILM, as some may recall *has guidelines*. They are on the About and the New Threads pages. They are explicit. They guide when and how often to post threads, and what the discussion on the boards should center around. They ask posters to refrain from personal attacks. These guidelines exist and moderators are there to enforce them. And categorize threads. Period.

One of the fondest memories of my life in regulated group situations was in my co-op. We go by roberts rules and thus can "move the question" at which point a vote is taken on if we are to end the discussion and vote on the motion. Think fillibusters and how to beat them in Congress. Anyway, some hippie assholes decide this is "undemocratic" and bring up a motion against this procedure. We move the question. The next week, the same thing happens. My point, as it relates to this discussion? Fuck hippies.

Also, lynching was not about speech but organized and institutionalized racial terror and oppression for the purpose of maintaining a particular political economy with black ppl. on the bottom. Also, Momus should take a good look at who Falun Gong are before he starts praising them. Irony time: momus cries fascist at innocent moderation and the FG are racial purists. Who also encouraged a twelve year old girl to self immolate.

Sterling Clover, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Encouraging 12-yr-olds to self-immolate? But what are Falun Gong's BAD points?

dave q, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

is this thread all about me wanting to lick kate's love shaft? I'm confused...

Geoff, Friday, 10 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

four years pass...
Hello.

I, Monday, 31 October 2005 14:58 (nineteen years ago) link

hi!

jdubz (ex machina), Monday, 31 October 2005 15:06 (nineteen years ago) link

one year passes...

What a retarded thread. and what, why the revive?

kingkongvsgodzilla, Saturday, 23 June 2007 18:28 (seventeen years ago) link

You see where moderation transparency gets you?

onimo, Saturday, 23 June 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

It doesn't read like mark s's usual style of writing.

Bob Six, Saturday, 23 June 2007 19:42 (seventeen years ago) link

two years pass...

Interesting

Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Wednesday, 17 March 2010 18:17 (fourteen years ago) link

sfgate seems like a good place for that news

iatee, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 18:25 (fourteen years ago) link

eight months pass...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/12/ban-pastor-jones-extremists-violence

"What about principle. The right to free speech." We have laws that protect our right to free speech. We also have laws that prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred. Occasionally, a difficult balance has to be struck.

the takeaway: "It's a no-brainer."

"let's have a heated debate"

Breakin': Based on the Novel "Two" by Electric Boogaloo (history mayne), Monday, 13 December 2010 09:30 (fourteen years ago) link

And I wonder where this debate would be if it was a Muslim cleric planning to come to the UK and start burning Bibles.

actually this might be the hilarious takeaway. yes, what if there were preachers in britain inciting racial and religious hatred, what a crazy parallel world that would be.

Breakin': Based on the Novel "Two" by Electric Boogaloo (history mayne), Monday, 13 December 2010 09:32 (fourteen years ago) link

eight months pass...

Greenwald on the DOJ prosecuting unpopular speech:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/04/speech/index.html

incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 4 September 2011 17:08 (thirteen years ago) link

David Frum's "b-b-b-but Lincoln did it" response on twitter is pathetic.

Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Sunday, 4 September 2011 17:12 (thirteen years ago) link

Greenwald has the full weight of the US Constitution and unanimous Supreme Court rulings on his side. On the opposing side there is nothing but fear or subservience to power. Not hard to choose between these two, imo.

Aimless, Sunday, 4 September 2011 17:30 (thirteen years ago) link

greenwald accusing lincoln of 'extremism and lawlessness' on twitter hardly less ridiculous, and hurts his argument. though this was one of the better greenwald posts in a while.

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 4 September 2011 19:27 (thirteen years ago) link

but it was lawless, Blanche.

incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 4 September 2011 19:49 (thirteen years ago) link

That riposte was weak even for Frum.

Anakin Ska Walker (AKA Skarth Vader) (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 4 September 2011 20:06 (thirteen years ago) link

one year passes...

Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law.

don't be evil lol

paradiastole, or the currifauel, otherwise called (thomp), Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:49 (twelve years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.