5 ms·

(I have not read the article) > I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heck

by Beldin 4y ago

(I have not read the article) > I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech? Because I get the idea of absolute free speech, but that'd include shouting over someone to drown out their message. If you start imposing restrictions on some forms of speech, it's not absolute any more and I think you ought to weigh reasons for imposing restrictions on any speech -- since freedom of speech isn't absolute any more.

elicash 4y ago
> Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech? It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.
suby 4y ago
It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. These are organized mobs that filibuster points of view they disagree with from being expressed.
- Beldin 4y ago
  > It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. Why is that unreasonable? I'm asking, not to disagree, but to understand and arrive at a general rule on when to ban what types of speech. For example, I think filibusters are an accepted part of free speech... but perhaps subject to restrictions? If so, what are reasonable restrictions?
karaterobot 4y ago
The linked statement mentions how Stanford's policy is that protest is acceptable at these events, but disruption isn't. This seems reasonable to me, and possible to enforce as well. I think the level of free speech absolutism you're talking about is not actually on the table for any of the parties involved.
torstenvl 4y ago
Freedom of speech has never been absolute. As a general rule, "time, place, and manner" restrictions — such as not disrupting a public event — are perfectly allowable. If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.
LanceH 4y ago
Freedom of speech -- the nature of your speech is unrestricted. That doesn't mean you can go anywhere at any time just because you're speaking.
- taylodl 4y ago
  Exactly. Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property. Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums. I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    Well, no, that isn't freedom of speech. That's the 1st Amendment, acknowledging the existence and inalienable nature of freedom of speech.
    - CaptainNegative 4y ago
      Suppose Martin Shkreli wanted to go on a diatribe in Hillary Clinton's bedroom. Would her excluding him from her domicile be a violaton of his first amendment right? Obviously not. Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no. Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
wrycoder 4y ago
I suggest that you read the pdf linked in the article, which is a letter from the Dean of the Stanford Law School. He covers the topic of freedom of speech and the heckler's veto at length. It's a notable document.
ROTMetro 4y ago
Heckling that is designed to shutdown speech is not free speech but an attempt at weaponizing the concept of free speech into a tool to shut actual free speech down. Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.
- Beldin 4y ago
  Thank you for that comment - it gets to the underlying feeling I didn't express. A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less". An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works. In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection. I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.) To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy... I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)
killdozer 4y ago
"heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech" exactly, this is just the marketplace of ideas deciding that the speaker is either bringing nothing of value to the table or that his reputation for previous speech is too poor. The idea that a Federal Judge is somehow having his free speech rights violated by a bunch of college students is insane, the man has argued before the SCOTUS and has a lifetime appointment which allows him to affect the lives of millions of Americans. It's becoming increasingly clear that "Free Speech" is just the idea that the powerful speak and the commoners listen.

by Beldin 4y ago

elicash 4y ago

> Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech? It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.

suby 4y ago

It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. These are organized mobs that filibuster points of view they disagree with from being expressed.

Beldin 4y ago
> It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. Why is that unreasonable? I'm asking, not to disagree, but to understand and arrive at a general rule on when to ban what types of speech. For example, I think filibusters are an accepted part of free speech... but perhaps subject to restrictions? If so, what are reasonable restrictions?

karaterobot 4y ago

The linked statement mentions how Stanford's policy is that protest is acceptable at these events, but disruption isn't. This seems reasonable to me, and possible to enforce as well. I think the level of free speech absolutism you're talking about is not actually on the table for any of the parties involved.

torstenvl 4y ago

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. As a general rule, "time, place, and manner" restrictions — such as not disrupting a public event — are perfectly allowable. If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.

LanceH 4y ago

Freedom of speech -- the nature of your speech is unrestricted. That doesn't mean you can go anywhere at any time just because you're speaking.

taylodl 4y ago
Exactly. Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property. Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums. I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.
- ameister14 4y ago
  Well, no, that isn't freedom of speech. That's the 1st Amendment, acknowledging the existence and inalienable nature of freedom of speech.
  - CaptainNegative 4y ago
    Suppose Martin Shkreli wanted to go on a diatribe in Hillary Clinton's bedroom. Would her excluding him from her domicile be a violaton of his first amendment right? Obviously not. Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no. Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

wrycoder 4y ago

I suggest that you read the pdf linked in the article, which is a letter from the Dean of the Stanford Law School. He covers the topic of freedom of speech and the heckler's veto at length. It's a notable document.

ROTMetro 4y ago

Heckling that is designed to shutdown speech is not free speech but an attempt at weaponizing the concept of free speech into a tool to shut actual free speech down. Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.

Beldin 4y ago
Thank you for that comment - it gets to the underlying feeling I didn't express. A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less". An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works. In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection. I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.) To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy... I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)

killdozer 4y ago

"heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech" exactly, this is just the marketplace of ideas deciding that the speaker is either bringing nothing of value to the table or that his reputation for previous speech is too poor. The idea that a Federal Judge is somehow having his free speech rights violated by a bunch of college students is insane, the man has argued before the SCOTUS and has a lifetime appointment which allows him to affect the lives of millions of Americans. It's becoming increasingly clear that "Free Speech" is just the idea that the powerful speak and the commoners listen.