5 ms·

I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech

I have to disagree. A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. A black man mouthing off to a police officer for example would be very likely putting himself in a dangerous situation and anything the officer does would end up 'justified' in the court of law. Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident [1] The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. It's a nice platitude, but 'freedom of speech' has always been used as a tool and weapon for those in power to suppress minorities or to bolster their own voices. All you have to do is tie it to some other bogus law or rationale, and you get freedom of speech for me but not for thee. [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressional-hearing_n_590929bbe4b05c39768420ef https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-laugh-congressi...

meowface 8y ago
I do fully agree and understand that freedom of speech by statute is not the same as freedom of speech in practice. But you at least have to start at the level of the laws. If your laws don't provide for freedom of speech, you're certainly not going to get it in practice. A legal framework for freedom of speech is not a sufficient condition for achieving it, but it is a necessary one. And the issues you mention happen in European countries, too, just with much lower risk of being shot, and usually with different minority groups (though I'm sure black people face problems with police in European countries as well). And the Congress laughing incident is certainly ridiculous - but you'll also find many similarly ridiculous stories in Britain, for example. Don't get me wrong; I have many problems with the US, and think most European countries do a lot of things better than we do. I just think the freedom of speech laws are one thing we usually do better than they do. In the US, you aren't going to be arrested for a tweet (unless that tweet threatens violence), regardless of your ethnicity or sexuality. This is something that does actually sometimes happen in other countries. No, that's not necessarily a huge win when you consider real, everyday situations like black men having to be far more cautious with police than other people, often risking their lives, but I think you kind of just have to tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise. We should appreciate where our system works well and vehemently dissent where it fails. The issues you mention are major and do definitely need to be dealt with to achieve a state of real freedom for everyone in the US. But I also think those problems aren't insurmountable, and that practical freedom of speech is an eventually attainable goal. I also think we're slowly getting better over time, even though the problems remain immense. A lot of people in the US are dedicating their lives to ensuring laws and standards are applied fairly.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  It's easy to say we should just 'tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise' if you're not the person getting shot when you express your rights to freedom of speech. You're right in that you can express yourself online, but I think that's bit of a rather sad point when minorities have to censure themselves in order to not enflame the powers that be. And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government. Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.
deogeo 8y ago
By that logic, no-one has any rights anywhere, because you can always find some incident where the law was subverted or abused by the powerful. But I would dearly like to hear how freedom of speech is used to suppress minorities. Note that in my own country (or the region that became my country), censorship was used to suppress the growing independence movement. A movement of a minority of the population. Perhaps if we had had free speech, they would have instead used that to suppress us... somehow?
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  An easy way to examine this issue is how rallies, protests etc are treated differently depending on their racial origins. For example, when a city attempted to block the march of the Unite the Right rally, they were met with a strong resistance under their right to freedom of speech. Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism. Freedom of Speech can be a bludgeon to allow movements filled with hatred to further their own causes, while it's conveniently ignored for minorities or said to be 'at the wrong place'. This is why the ACLU has started to shift their position on an absolutist view of freedom of speech. Because in defending Unite the Right they directly caused harm to minority populations.
  - Sacho 8y ago
    Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city, the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "was treated with far more disdain"(presumably by private actors exercising their own freedom of speech - not government actors?). It sounds like there was plenty of disdain for the "Unite the Right" rally as well - I can't imagine what else would lead a city to break the law in an attempt to block it. I'm not sure what outcome you would have wanted from the situation - the government should have further tried to supress people against BLM? Who's the minority power in your scenario again?
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the police. Which again, is easily proven by the fact that higher government institutions have placed a focus on dealing with Black Identity Extremists rather than White Supremacy. And in this case the city didn't 'break the law', they were attempting to move the rally to another location (rightfully) believing that it would pose a severe security risk. Which led to the challenge by the ACLU on the grounds of the first amendment and an emergency injunction being put in place to allow the rally to occur at the original location. Unless you honestly believe that black identity extremists are somehow more dangerous than white supremacists at this time, it's obvious that one group benefits a lot more from 'freedom of speech' than another.
PixyMisa 8y ago
> A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. That would be illegal. > Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident That didn't happen. > The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. As you can see from the very public arrest of Louise Mensch. Which totally happened in a different universe.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Didn't happen? I provided you a link to the story of someone being arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions. You're going to have to expand on what you mean if you're going to say something didn't happen in the face of evidence that it did.

meowface 8y ago

I do fully agree and understand that freedom of speech by statute is not the same as freedom of speech in practice. But you at least have to start at the level of the laws. If your laws don't provide for freedom of speech, you're certainly not going to get it in practice. A legal framework for freedom of speech is not a sufficient condition for achieving it, but it is a necessary one. And the issues you mention happen in European countries, too, just with much lower risk of being shot, and usually with different minority groups (though I'm sure black people face problems with police in European countries as well). And the Congress laughing incident is certainly ridiculous - but you'll also find many similarly ridiculous stories in Britain, for example. Don't get me wrong; I have many problems with the US, and think most European countries do a lot of things better than we do. I just think the freedom of speech laws are one thing we usually do better than they do. In the US, you aren't going to be arrested for a tweet (unless that tweet threatens violence), regardless of your ethnicity or sexuality. This is something that does actually sometimes happen in other countries. No, that's not necessarily a huge win when you consider real, everyday situations like black men having to be far more cautious with police than other people, often risking their lives, but I think you kind of just have to tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise. We should appreciate where our system works well and vehemently dissent where it fails. The issues you mention are major and do definitely need to be dealt with to achieve a state of real freedom for everyone in the US. But I also think those problems aren't insurmountable, and that practical freedom of speech is an eventually attainable goal. I also think we're slowly getting better over time, even though the problems remain immense. A lot of people in the US are dedicating their lives to ensuring laws and standards are applied fairly.

fzeroracer 8y ago
It's easy to say we should just 'tackle freedom and liberty issues as they arise' if you're not the person getting shot when you express your rights to freedom of speech. You're right in that you can express yourself online, but I think that's bit of a rather sad point when minorities have to censure themselves in order to not enflame the powers that be. And even that's not particularly true either, considering how the US has placed an uneven focus on Black Identity Extremists over the group actually causing real and daily harm to individuals. Which goes back to my point of freedom of speech not really existing in the US: It's more acceptable to be a white supremacist (and in turn, your rights to 'freedom of speech' strongly defended) and express extremely violent views under the protection of the police and government. Which is why you see an increasingly strong reaction to any form of white supremacy.

deogeo 8y ago

By that logic, no-one has any rights anywhere, because you can always find some incident where the law was subverted or abused by the powerful. But I would dearly like to hear how freedom of speech is used to suppress minorities. Note that in my own country (or the region that became my country), censorship was used to suppress the growing independence movement. A movement of a minority of the population. Perhaps if we had had free speech, they would have instead used that to suppress us... somehow?

fzeroracer 8y ago
An easy way to examine this issue is how rallies, protests etc are treated differently depending on their racial origins. For example, when a city attempted to block the march of the Unite the Right rally, they were met with a strong resistance under their right to freedom of speech. Yet Black Lives Matter was treated with far more disdain and had a considerably stronger and disproportionate response to their activism. Freedom of Speech can be a bludgeon to allow movements filled with hatred to further their own causes, while it's conveniently ignored for minorities or said to be 'at the wrong place'. This is why the ACLU has started to shift their position on an absolutist view of freedom of speech. Because in defending Unite the Right they directly caused harm to minority populations.
- Sacho 8y ago
  Your facts argue against your point. In your words, a city, the government itself, tried to block the "Unite the Right" rally. Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter "was treated with far more disdain"(presumably by private actors exercising their own freedom of speech - not government actors?). It sounds like there was plenty of disdain for the "Unite the Right" rally as well - I can't imagine what else would lead a city to break the law in an attempt to block it. I'm not sure what outcome you would have wanted from the situation - the government should have further tried to supress people against BLM? Who's the minority power in your scenario again?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    No, my facts argue in favor of my point. Which is that the policing apparatus in America functions to serve those that are already in power. That was the point of my comparison, because white supremacist rallies tend to be treated very well by the police with violence committed by the rally members allowed to go unchecked, while others are met with immediate violence by the state and a zealous show of force from the police. Which again, is easily proven by the fact that higher government institutions have placed a focus on dealing with Black Identity Extremists rather than White Supremacy. And in this case the city didn't 'break the law', they were attempting to move the rally to another location (rightfully) believing that it would pose a severe security risk. Which led to the challenge by the ACLU on the grounds of the first amendment and an emergency injunction being put in place to allow the rally to occur at the original location. Unless you honestly believe that black identity extremists are somehow more dangerous than white supremacists at this time, it's obvious that one group benefits a lot more from 'freedom of speech' than another.

PixyMisa 8y ago

> A lot of the time in America we tend to believe we have an absolute right to freedom of speech, but the reality is that our rights to speech are already tied to our race, sexuality, etc. That would be illegal. > Or you'll be arrested if you laugh at someone powerful, like what happened with the Jeff Sessions incident That didn't happen. > The great irony of our rabid belief in freedom of speech is that it simply doesn't exist in America. As you can see from the very public arrest of Louise Mensch. Which totally happened in a different universe.

fzeroracer 8y ago
Didn't happen? I provided you a link to the story of someone being arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions. You're going to have to expand on what you mean if you're going to say something didn't happen in the face of evidence that it did.