5 ms·

If we're headed down the 'slippery slope' of taking the microphone away from people like Sam Bassil (or whatever his real name is), then please allow me to grab

If we're headed down the 'slippery slope' of taking the microphone away from people like Sam Bassil (or whatever his real name is), then please allow me to grab some sunscreen and an inner-tube, because I'm coming along for the ride. There's a lot of fallacious thinking going on here. There's probably some sophisticated name for this type of fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Just because the attackers were wrong for killing innocent people, doesn't make this hate video "right". False dichotomy, maybe? Freedom of speech is about serving truth. It is an expression of the idea is that no one should be silenced for speaking about the truth. If someone is saying something demonstratively false, and that speech is endangering the public, then they should be silenced. This is the same reason you can't expect first amendment protection if you walk in to a theater shouting "FIRE". So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video.

uvdiv 14y ago
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  Touché :) However, I will attempt a rebut (despite the fact that I am a card carrying atheist). First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection. Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    I'll evade your difficult idea with a more pragmatic rebuttal: give almost any government in the world some legal speech model like what you describe, and you will be in prison for spreading the "false, dangerous delusion of atheism". The inability of government to determine, and enforce, truth is the only thing protecting your highly unpopular beliefs from censorship. Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.
ppod 14y ago
Lets suppose that a group of atheists (and I am one) get together and make the following announcement: * Much of the content of the Catholic mass is demonstratively false * If any Catholic mass is celebrated, these atheists will attempt to murder the participants By your ridiculous interpretation of the first amendment, the Catholic mass should now be silenced.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  Speaking of ridiculous... You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. Even in that case, it is unlikely that any law enforcement agency would garner enough support to actually silence them until they'd gone out and hurt someone. See also: Westboro Baptist. The day that anyone associated with Westboro acts on their hateful speech is the day that they'll be shut down. The best argument against silencing this ridiculous video isn't the fact that it's full of false claims and nut-job ideology, but that there are serious doubts as to whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks. There are suspicions that the attacks were orchestrated separately, and the video is just a red herring.
  - ppod 14y ago
    >whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.
    - bradleyland 14y ago
      I see the correlation of the actors now, but I still don't agree with this: "You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't." We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2]. The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia...
icebraining 14y ago
Who decides what's the "truth"? Who decides the criteria for qualifying something as demonstratively false? And what about fiction? What if the film just include(d|s) a line saying all the events are fictional? Should it still be silenced? Maybe 1984 influenced me too much, but such arguments make me extremely uneasy.
rada 14y ago
So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: - Is demonstrably untrue - Endangers the public It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video. Your statement is factually wrong on so many levels. One, your understanding of what first amendment covers or doesn't cover is incorrect. Hate speech in particular is protected (which this video may or may not even be - I would call it distasteful but legitimate satire). This has been expressly addressed many, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Two, the words "demonstrably untrue" mean that someone has audiovisual proof of what happened. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the video's interpretation of the history of Islam but fact is, no one has the video of Muhammad getting religion. This is why it's called "faith". Three, inflammatory words = violence equation is no more valid than slutty dress = rape equation. Violence is always squarely on the perpetrators, however provocative the trigger may be. I don't see why Muslims - or people of other faiths - should get special treatment when it comes to their religious feelings being offended.
othermaciej 14y ago
First amendment law is pretty clear that there is no "heckler's veto" - the angry reaction of others does not make speech unprotected (except in the case of "fighting words" that are intended to and likely to cause imminent violence).

uvdiv 14y ago

So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: * Is demonstrably untrue * Endangers the public The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

bradleyland 14y ago
Touché :) However, I will attempt a rebut (despite the fact that I am a card carrying atheist). First, we should be clear that the two conditions above are bound by a logical "AND", not "OR". This means that both must be true in order to circumvent first amendment protection. Also, all expressions of "freedom of religion" do not endanger the public. First amendment protection is about acts, not ideologies. Ironically, it is difficult to prove the second condition until some negative consequence has already occurred. This is the case with many of our laws. Look how hard it is to stop a stalker prior to their actual assault on a victim.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  I'll evade your difficult idea with a more pragmatic rebuttal: give almost any government in the world some legal speech model like what you describe, and you will be in prison for spreading the "false, dangerous delusion of atheism". The inability of government to determine, and enforce, truth is the only thing protecting your highly unpopular beliefs from censorship. Free speech is in principle the right to speak the truth; in practice it's the right to assert falsehoods which enables it.

ppod 14y ago

Lets suppose that a group of atheists (and I am one) get together and make the following announcement: * Much of the content of the Catholic mass is demonstratively false * If any Catholic mass is celebrated, these atheists will attempt to murder the participants By your ridiculous interpretation of the first amendment, the Catholic mass should now be silenced.

bradleyland 14y ago
Speaking of ridiculous... You've got it entirely backwards. In your scenario, the atheists would be risking their first amendment protections because they're the ones threatening to murder someone. Even in that case, it is unlikely that any law enforcement agency would garner enough support to actually silence them until they'd gone out and hurt someone. See also: Westboro Baptist. The day that anyone associated with Westboro acts on their hateful speech is the day that they'll be shut down. The best argument against silencing this ridiculous video isn't the fact that it's full of false claims and nut-job ideology, but that there are serious doubts as to whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks. There are suspicions that the attacks were orchestrated separately, and the video is just a red herring.
- ppod 14y ago
  >whether it is the "true" driving factor behind the attacks Can't you see the analogy between my scenario and this scenario? You make it sound as though if the video was the true motivating factor, then it should be banned. This is analogous with the Catholic mass in my scenario - by following the same logic, if the mass were the true driving factor behind the atheist's violence, then the mass should be banned. You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't.
  - bradleyland 14y ago
    I see the correlation of the actors now, but I still don't agree with this: "You can't let threats (or acts) of violence influence what is protected speech and what isn't." We can, and we do. Look at the suicide of Tyler Clementi and the resulting sentencing of Dharun Ravi [1]. Look at the case of the anti-abortion wanted-posters [2]. The protection of free speech is not black and white. I understand that this makes people uneasy, but you can't have black & white distinctions in a population greater than one. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._Dharun_Ravi [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia...

icebraining 14y ago

Who decides what's the "truth"? Who decides the criteria for qualifying something as demonstratively false? And what about fiction? What if the film just include(d|s) a line saying all the events are fictional? Should it still be silenced? Maybe 1984 influenced me too much, but such arguments make me extremely uneasy.

rada 14y ago

So, to get this straight, speech is not protected by our first amendment ideology when it: - Is demonstrably untrue - Endangers the public It's pretty easy to see that both of these conditions are met with regard to this video. Your statement is factually wrong on so many levels. One, your understanding of what first amendment covers or doesn't cover is incorrect. Hate speech in particular is protected (which this video may or may not even be - I would call it distasteful but legitimate satire). This has been expressly addressed many, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States Two, the words "demonstrably untrue" mean that someone has audiovisual proof of what happened. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the video's interpretation of the history of Islam but fact is, no one has the video of Muhammad getting religion. This is why it's called "faith". Three, inflammatory words = violence equation is no more valid than slutty dress = rape equation. Violence is always squarely on the perpetrators, however provocative the trigger may be. I don't see why Muslims - or people of other faiths - should get special treatment when it comes to their religious feelings being offended.

othermaciej 14y ago

First amendment law is pretty clear that there is no "heckler's veto" - the angry reaction of others does not make speech unprotected (except in the case of "fighting words" that are intended to and likely to cause imminent violence).