4 ms·

> First, this isn't just about government censorship. Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship, and

> First, this isn't just about government censorship. Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship, and that's all it means. Fear of drawing Muhammed because of violence from Muslims while an issue, has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech the constitutional right. You don't have a freedom to offend or a freedom from consequences of pissing off radicals. > And if these groups are powerful enough to over-ride the law and impose their will on everyone else, doesn't that make them somewhat government-like in themselves? No, it doesn't, because they're not overriding laws and their violence is punishable by the law.

talmand 10y ago
If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can threaten another into silence regardless of laws of the land with the state not involving itself, one could argue that the oppressive group has become the arm of an oppressive state.
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that the government should use its military and para-military forces to actively defend freedom of speech? The above comment points out that the government has a responsibility to fight people who break other laws, e.g. Murder, vandalism, harassment, etc. It sounds like your suggesting that these are not enough, that the government should actively pursue those who have not yet committed a crime against someone's body or property, but instead at the point where they are actively threatening (by some definition of that) through speech. Which by this definition, they would be utilizing their freedom of speech to do... which I think your implying the government should actively suppress. This sounds like it could easily be abused to fight any criticism of any group.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Threatening violence is one of those other laws. It is like harassment, which you listed.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I didn't mention military and I think that's a bit overblown on your part. Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially when it's the First freaking Amendment of the Constitution; of which the United States government is based upon. If the state refuses to defend one part of the Constitution from oppressive forces then the whole thing is potentially irrelevant. History shows this is how governments fall to tyranny. I fail to see where I'm stating that the state should oppress one group's speech for the benefit of another. I said no such thing. So, here it is again: What if the state actively ignores one group's illegal activities (that have nothing to do with speech, such as harassment or violence), that are done solely for the purposes of oppressing another group's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? At that point the state is complicit in the oppression and is becoming an oppressive state.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      I must have misunderstood your initial point. I agree that the government (police is para-military) has the responsibility to prosecute everyone equally. If your point was that it could ignore prosecuting some in order to suppress freedom of speech, than I agree, that the government should in some way be required to prosecute all people fairly (though this is easier said than done I fear). I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity. For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.
      - talmand 10y ago
        This is more or less what I'm saying. I don't really see how the government can have a direct and active defense of the First Amendment as it applies only to the government. I'm just speaking of the other laws on the books that the government may choose to not enforce that will lead to a person unable to exercise free expression. I interpret that type of inaction by the government as a form of a First Amendment violation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gnaritas 10y ago
  > If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? I don't know why this is so hard to understand; if non state actors are involved, then you aren't using your first amendment rights anyway. The first amendment applies to state actors only. Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech. Threats from Muslims stopping you from opening your mouth do not violate "Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech". Threats from Muslims about your speech are not first amendment issues, they are not abridging your first amendment rights in any way. > What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence.
  - pigpaws 10y ago
    <not sure if serious>
    - talmand 10y ago
      That's fine, you are welcome to your opinion and I respect that.
  - talmand 10y ago
    I am not saying the oppressive group is violating your First Amendment rights, I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. What's the easiest way for the state to silence a group under free speech protections? Allow a non-state actor to do it instead. In my statement you quoted, I am putting the weight of my accusation on the state itself. I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable. >> They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence. Recent events in Chicago and San Jose come to mind. There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I can likely find you several examples of problems on college campuses where violence and property damage are not addressed. There are numerous examples of unions of the past taking rough measures to get their way. I'm sure I can come up with several examples from history if I need to take the time to research it. I would have to apologize in advance since I'm sure Communists, Fascists, and Nazis would come up. If we go outside the scope of speech then there would be countless examples of the government ignoring assault and violence that supports their needs.
base698 10y ago
The original writings on free speech very much included non government censorship. Where did everyone get that? It wasn't by reading On Liberty.
MustardTiger 10y ago
>Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship No, "the right to free speech" means the right to be free of government censorship. "Freedom of speech" simply means freedom of speech, exactly what it says.
Amezarak 10y ago
Government is just one form of a society's self regulation. If free speech is a "right" is there a qualitative difference between society restricting it via one mechanism but not another? Does it matter that its your neighbors beating you to shut you up instead of the cops? If so, why?
mhuffman 10y ago
Too bad the threats from their religious leaders do not seem to be, right? This is like saying that nuclear weapons for individuals shouldn't be illegal because killing people is already illegal -- the punishment is too late! Stifling people's free speech under threats that a person knows someone will follow through with, is the same as censorship. Allowing that "threat" to hang in the air, is tacit acceptance of censorship by the government.

talmand 10y ago

If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? If a group can threaten another into silence regardless of laws of the land with the state not involving itself, one could argue that the oppressive group has become the arm of an oppressive state.

bluejekyll 10y ago
Are you suggesting that the government should use its military and para-military forces to actively defend freedom of speech? The above comment points out that the government has a responsibility to fight people who break other laws, e.g. Murder, vandalism, harassment, etc. It sounds like your suggesting that these are not enough, that the government should actively pursue those who have not yet committed a crime against someone's body or property, but instead at the point where they are actively threatening (by some definition of that) through speech. Which by this definition, they would be utilizing their freedom of speech to do... which I think your implying the government should actively suppress. This sounds like it could easily be abused to fight any criticism of any group.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Threatening violence is one of those other laws. It is like harassment, which you listed.
- talmand 10y ago
  I didn't mention military and I think that's a bit overblown on your part. Think a bit lower on the hierarchy, such as police and federal agents. But you are damn right the government should actively defend free speech, especially when it's the First freaking Amendment of the Constitution; of which the United States government is based upon. If the state refuses to defend one part of the Constitution from oppressive forces then the whole thing is potentially irrelevant. History shows this is how governments fall to tyranny. I fail to see where I'm stating that the state should oppress one group's speech for the benefit of another. I said no such thing. So, here it is again: What if the state actively ignores one group's illegal activities (that have nothing to do with speech, such as harassment or violence), that are done solely for the purposes of oppressing another group's ability to exercise their First Amendment rights? At that point the state is complicit in the oppression and is becoming an oppressive state.
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    I must have misunderstood your initial point. I agree that the government (police is para-military) has the responsibility to prosecute everyone equally. If your point was that it could ignore prosecuting some in order to suppress freedom of speech, than I agree, that the government should in some way be required to prosecute all people fairly (though this is easier said than done I fear). I guess for me it's the "active" defense of the First Amendment that concerns me, because depending on what that means it could easily be actively abused in exactly the ways that we're discussing through inactivity. For this, I think other laws, assuming they're fairly applied, are sufficient and less open to interpretation.
    - talmand 10y ago
      This is more or less what I'm saying. I don't really see how the government can have a direct and active defense of the First Amendment as it applies only to the government. I'm just speaking of the other laws on the books that the government may choose to not enforce that will lead to a person unable to exercise free expression. I interpret that type of inaction by the government as a form of a First Amendment violation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gnaritas 10y ago
> If one is too afraid to use First Amendment rights because of non-state actors that the state does not stop, do we really have First Amendment rights? I don't know why this is so hard to understand; if non state actors are involved, then you aren't using your first amendment rights anyway. The first amendment applies to state actors only. Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech. Threats from Muslims stopping you from opening your mouth do not violate "Congress shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech". Threats from Muslims about your speech are not first amendment issues, they are not abridging your first amendment rights in any way. > What if the laws are being ignored and violence permitted by the state? They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence.
- pigpaws 10y ago
  <not sure if serious>
  - talmand 10y ago
    That's fine, you are welcome to your opinion and I respect that.
- talmand 10y ago
  I am not saying the oppressive group is violating your First Amendment rights, I am saying they are actively suppressing you from exercising your rights. What's the easiest way for the state to silence a group under free speech protections? Allow a non-state actor to do it instead. In my statement you quoted, I am putting the weight of my accusation on the state itself. I am shocked at how many people seem to think that if the government is not involved, then suppression of free expression is somehow tolerable. >> They aren't. No where is the state not enforcing laws against assault and violence. Recent events in Chicago and San Jose come to mind. There are several examples from some subsets of the Black Lives Matter movement that get out of hand and it is actively ignored. I can likely find you several examples of problems on college campuses where violence and property damage are not addressed. There are numerous examples of unions of the past taking rough measures to get their way. I'm sure I can come up with several examples from history if I need to take the time to research it. I would have to apologize in advance since I'm sure Communists, Fascists, and Nazis would come up. If we go outside the scope of speech then there would be countless examples of the government ignoring assault and violence that supports their needs.

base698 10y ago

The original writings on free speech very much included non government censorship. Where did everyone get that? It wasn't by reading On Liberty.

MustardTiger 10y ago

>Then it isn't about "freedom of speech" which is a right that means free from government censorship No, "the right to free speech" means the right to be free of government censorship. "Freedom of speech" simply means freedom of speech, exactly what it says.

Amezarak 10y ago

Government is just one form of a society's self regulation. If free speech is a "right" is there a qualitative difference between society restricting it via one mechanism but not another? Does it matter that its your neighbors beating you to shut you up instead of the cops? If so, why?

mhuffman 10y ago

Too bad the threats from their religious leaders do not seem to be, right? This is like saying that nuclear weapons for individuals shouldn't be illegal because killing people is already illegal -- the punishment is too late! Stifling people's free speech under threats that a person knows someone will follow through with, is the same as censorship. Allowing that "threat" to hang in the air, is tacit acceptance of censorship by the government.