Journal Shakrai's Journal: Tonight's Show: The First Amendment 40
John Stossel on the 1st amendment. God bless America.....
This discussion was created by Shakrai (717556) for no Foes, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Tonight's Show: The First Amendment
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
Correction (Score:2)
Not true - the UofO didn't cancel the speech. Some jerk (one of her supporters?) pulled the fire alarm. This was "convenient" because it enabled her to get to her next speaking engagement quicker, as well as generate some needed publicity. In actual fact, the University Provost had only sent her an email reminding her that Canada has hate speech laws, same as many other
Re: (Score:2)
the UofO didn't cancel the speech.
Who did?
Some jerk (one of her supporters?) pulled the fire alarm. This was "convenient" because it enabled her to get to her next speaking engagement quicker, as well as generate some needed publicity.
Please don't try to imply that Ann Coulter or her people were behind that. It's beneath you.
In actual fact, the University Provost had only sent her an email reminding her that Canada has hate speech laws, same as many other countries, so gay-bashing, muslims-are-all-terrorists, etc., are not allowed, and would not be tolerated.
Right, he reminded her that, in actual fact, Canada does not have freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither does the United States. What's your point again? (and have you gotten the kinks out of your "due process" yet? :-)
Also, Coulter was looking for ANY excuse to skip the UofO event, where there was organized opposition, to go to her next event, where there were a lot more Jebusland-people in attendance.
There are always ways to express an idea that don't cross the boundary into hate speech. Anyone with a decent voc
Re: (Score:1)
Look, it's very simple - you're in the country as a guest, you obey the rules.
Nobody said otherwise. In fact I argued the same thing in a different discussion [slashdot.org] the other day regarding Australia. That doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about the wisdom or lack thereof of censorship though.
There are always ways to express an idea that don't cross the boundary into hate speech.
But why should "hate speech" be outlawed? The United States allows the KKK to speak. Free speech is more important than some groups right not to be offended. It also helps to marginalize them when the general public can see how batshit insane they really are.
In the US, exercising that same "free speech" can get you arrested.
It might get you arrested under
Re: (Score:2)
There are always ways to express an idea that don't cross the boundary into hate speech.
But why should "hate speech" be outlawed? The United States allows the KKK to speak. Free speech is more important than some groups right not to be offended. It also helps to marginalize them when the general public can see how batshit insane they really are.
As one example, Germany is terrified that they could end up with another Nazi party, since nearly the entire nation was entranced by the rhetoric last time. Their response included banning the display of Nazi symbols (swastika, eagle, etc) and of hate-speech in general.
It may not be ideal, but that was their reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always ways to express an idea that don't cross the boundary into hate speech.
But why should "hate speech" be outlawed? The United States allows the KKK to speak. Free speech is more important than some groups right not to be offended. It also helps to marginalize them when the general public can see how batshit insane they really are.
As one example, Germany is terrified that they could end up with another Nazi party, since nearly the entire nation was entranced by the rhetoric last time. Their response included banning the display of Nazi symbols (swastika, eagle, etc) and of hate-speech in general.
It may not be ideal, but that was their reasoning.
Fine, if you ever have any legitimate threat of your country ever being taken over by something like the Nazis, then let me know, and we can discuss the reasonableness at that time.
To compare it to what's been in the news lately -- Rand Paul saying it is wrong to force people to not discriminate in their private businesses -- you could argue that provision of the Civil Rights Act was legitimate because of the long history of institutional discrimination in this country. But what if there had never been sig
Re: (Score:2)
So again ... Canada has no such danger Germany faced postwar. It doesn't exist. The fear of it is obviously not a rational excuse.
That wasn't my intended point. I wasn't strictly condoning Germany's censorship laws, either. However, many German authors have written of the 'darkness' in all of their hearts that allows them to be easily led astray. It's the 'nuclear option' for freedom, nuking one (expression and speech) to protect another (equality). I simply wanted to make the point that nations may have significant reasoning behind this kind of limitation on speech.
The comparison, I feel, that relates to the US in this case woul
Re: (Score:2)
I simply wanted to make the point that nations may have significant reasoning behind this kind of limitation on speech.
Of course. I know what the reasons are. Did it seem I didn't? Indeed, what you quoted from me directly implied I understood the reasons behind the laws in Germany ... because I said those same reasons didn't apply to Canada.
The comparison, I feel, that relates to the US in this case would be affirmative action toward African-Americans. As a nation, we feel remorse for systematically collecting people from Africa and enslaving them here. There has been no wide-scale repayment for this transgression, and even after ending the practice of slavery, it was another 5 years before we considered them more than 3/5s of a person, and two more before the men had the right to vote.
That's not true, actually. They were a full person in terms of representation as soon as slavery ended. Three-fifths applied to slaves, not "black people." Although suffrage did take more time, yes.
But affirmative action on its own does not violate anyone's rights. Affirmative act
Re: (Score:2)
Then there's speech that we consider obscene, AND has no societal value. This is an increasingly small category, since we've broadened our view on what could conceivably have societal value: for example, using obscenity to question the legitimacy of anti-obscenity laws is obviously a valid political statement.
So the problem is that banning hate speech is that we are simply banning something because we fear the IDEA that is being spread. Literally, hate speech laws are a form of attempted mind control. There's no rationally getting around that. We hope to attack ideas we fear by preventing people from spreading those ideas. This is one of the vilest things a government can do, next to actually killing people for having certain ideas.
I'm willing to bet that Germans would consider Nazism to have 'no societal value'. Again, I disagree with that conclusion, as an outsider looking in, but I can't bring myself to call it 'illogical'. I wouldn't make the same determination, but I can understand how others would.
And I would agree that the intent of these laws are to control the idea. That's pretty much the point. And, the reasoning is that if they didn't legislate strongly against it now, they would fall into abridging freedoms later.
Of course, it depends on the statute (they can be overreaching)
They necessarily are overreaching, by any reading of the First Amendment.
In t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet that Germans would consider Nazism to have 'no societal value'.
Sure, which demonstrates the problem: government attempting thought control. They REALLY dislike it.
Again, I disagree with that conclusion, as an outsider looking in, but I can't bring myself to call it 'illogical'.
It's very simple: the distinction is arbitrary. If you allow expression of a political viewpoint you REALLY dislike to be restricted, there is no logical reason to disallow restriction of any other political viewpoint that people REALLY dislike. You literally have no freedom of speech if you allow expression of Nazism to be restricted: you only have that speech which government allows you, rather than actu
Re: (Score:1)
since nearly the entire nation was entranced by the rhetoric last time.
Actually, it wasn't the "entire" nation. There was always a portion of German society that was opposed to the Nazi Party. Regardless, I would argue that the Nazi rise to power had less to do with rhetoric and more to do with the economic collapse and humiliation of Versailles. It certainly wasn't because of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
since nearly the entire nation was entranced by the rhetoric last time.
Actually, it wasn't the "entire" nation. There was always a portion of German society that was opposed to the Nazi Party.
I did say 'nearly'. That said, the majority of Germans did dislike the Jews, blaming their financial woes on them, and that was the foothold Hitler was able to take advantage of. That said, it was the silence of that majority who didn't strongly disagree with the Nazi's that allowed them to build up their power relatively uncontested, until it was too late to mount an effective counter-movement. Think of how impossible it was to be anti-McCarthyism (what an awkward phrase) once the movement got going.
Regardless, I would argue that the Nazi rise to power had less to do with rhetoric and more to do with the economic collapse and humiliation of Versailles. It certainly wasn't because of free speech.
I w
Re: (Score:2)
Right, he reminded her that, in actual fact, Canada does not have freedom of speech.
Neither does the United States.
We have a VERY few examples of government restrictions on freedom of speech. Much less than Canada, that has whole categories of free speech that are illegal.
What's your point again?
Except for the extreme leftists, we're trying to get rid of those restrictions, rather than bragging about them.
(and have you gotten the kinks out of your "due process" yet? :-)
Mostly, yes. We have had, for many years.
Also, Coulter was looking for ANY excuse to skip the UofO event ...
OK, I take it back: it is NOT beneath you. Pity.
There are always ways to express an idea that don't cross the boundary into hate speech.
We also don't look to make excuses for our restrictions on free speech.
unless, of course, their idea is to promote hatred against a specific group ... in which case go somewhere else - we don't allow that
Exactly. You hate free speech. We embrace it.
Or as LBJ said, "don't come into my house and piss on the carpet").
If your laws in question only ap
Re: (Score:1)
New York State defines disorderly conduct as follows:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:
Re: (Score:2)
So, absent some intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, you would not be guilty of disorderly conduct merely for saying "fuck you, pig" to a police officer.
Exactly, and note that it would be blatantly unconstitutional for it to be a crime to say that to a police officer.
In the United States you aren't obligated to give them anything more than your name and address.
Arguably, not even that much. It depends on the circumstances. I believe the 2004 SCOTUS case was about a law that required ID when someone is detained under "reasonable suspicion" of having committed a crime, which most people who encounter police are not under.
Re: (Score:1)
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Hiibel [papersplease.org] case [wikipedia.org]? That case upheld "stop and identify" laws. My State has such a law, it requires that the officer have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor. The officer can then demand his name, address and a explanation of his conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the Hiibel [papersplease.org] case [wikipedia.org]?
Yes, that is what I was referring to: they did not just out of the blue ask him for no reason, they had a reasonable suspicion he might be connected to a crime: "Here there is no question that the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements. ..."
My State has such a law, it requires that the officer have a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor. The officer can then demand his name, address and a explanation of his conduct.
Right. So you don't have to say ANYTHING to the cops, unless they have a reasonable suspicion.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, and even at that all you have to do is give them your name and address. The law doesn't even give them the right to demand ID, though I imagine they would if they thought you were lying to them.
"Officer, my name is Shakrai and I live at 123 Main St. Am I free to go?" <--- One way or another, this will end the encounter. If he says yes, then it's all done. If he says no then you ask for a lawyer and SHUT YOUR MOUTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of cops will charge you with "interfering with a police officer in the course of his lawful duties."
Look at the decisions holding people responsible for saying where a file can be found online (torrents). They're not distributing the file. But they still get whacked for "contributory infringement". So, why isn'
Re: (Score:2)
There's what the law says, and there's how it's applied.
Exactly. As I already said. In the U.S., as in EVERY country, law enforcement sometimes violates the law by arresting, or even prosecuting, people for things that are not crimes.
But as opposed to the U.S., in Canada, it's actually a crime to engage in certain "undesirable" speech that harms no one (unless you count hurt feelings, which is stupid, because then all speech can be banned).
I guess you don't even read your own site http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/03/01/1622208/Man-Defends-His-Right-To-Flip-Off-the-Police [slashdot.org]
This actually proves me right. You falsely said that people in the U.S. don't have the right to do what he did, but the co
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the cops will arrest you and charge you - the prosecutor can dismiss the case, but from the moment you walk out of that police station, even though your file has not yet been seen by a prosecutor, you are charged.
The prosecutor handles the state's case against you. They're free to bring additional charges, but what you see on TV is not the way it works. There's no prosecutor making the decision for every charge, contrary to what you see on Law and Order
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the cops will arrest you and charge you - the prosecutor can dismiss the case, but from the moment you walk out of that police station, even though your file has not yet been seen by a prosecutor, you are charged.
Sigh. You really don't have a clue, do you?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, the cops will arrest you and charge you - the prosecutor can dismiss the case, but from the moment you walk out of that police station, even though your file has not yet been seen by a prosecutor, you are charged.
Actually, no, that's not how it works. I should know -- I got arrested and charged with a felony and several related misdemeanors once upon a time.
After the police arrested me (I was never cuffed or thrown behind bars, but they made it clear that I wasn't free to go, hence I was under arrest) they took down all of my information, fingerprinted/photographed me and finally gave me an appearance ticket. That ticket directed me to appear in court at a specific date and time. The police then filed an "accusa
Re: (Score:2)
http://mdcourts.gov/district/forms/criminal/dccr001br.html [mdcourts.gov]
So, who files the charges? According to the government, it's the cops. As I said, it's not like on TV. How many times have you been arrested and charged, as compared to "I saw it on Law and Order so i
Re: (Score:2)
So the statement that "police can not charge you with a crime" is BS. They can, and they do.
Here's another example: [las-cruces.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's the police who charge you. First page of hits ...
http://mdcourts.gov/district/forms/criminal/dccr001br.html [mdcourts.gov]
First off, "filing charges" is not the same as actually charging someone. Second, the Constitution says that in any felony, a grand jury must be convened to charge someone. Some states ignore that, but not for long, hopefully (this summer).
As I said, it's not like on TV.
I never mentioned TV, but since on TV it's usually about felonies, where the Constitution requires a grand jury, and most states do that, or something similar ... it actually usually is like TV in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
So again, saying that the police can't charge you with a crime is BS.
http://peacesecurity.suite101.com/article.cfm/illinois_misdemeanor_law [suite101.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When the charges are filed and notice served on you, you are in fact charged.
Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
You can also end up with a criminal record for misdemeanors, and the cops are the ones who do the charging.
Actually the DA still does the charging, in this case by filing a Prosecutor's Information with the relevant court.
and with a criminal record.
You left out the part where you get convicted by a jury of your peers. The police can not "give" you a criminal record.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The charge is filed by the police, not the DA. The police can do it simply by issuing you a citation on the spot.
For example, in some jurisdictions, it's a misdemeanor criminal offense to drive a car with no license plates (that's a real WTF!!! - that shouldn't result in a criminal record). You're issued the ticket by the cop, and you're now charged, since the ticket constitutes notice.
And no, you have no right to a jury trial for misdemeanor criminal offenses in most jurisdictions. It's strictly betwe
Re: (Score:2)
Try again.
I won't spell it out for you any more than I already have.
Re: (Score:1)
And no, you have no right to a jury trial for misdemeanor criminal offenses in most jurisdictions.
Actually, the standard in the United States is that you have the right to a jury trial for any crime that's punishable by more than six months imprisonment. This includes many (most?) misdemeanors. I had the right to a jury trial for my misdemeanor charge, though thankfully the DA dropped it before it went that far.
Re: (Score:1)
You realize that all of this focus on who files the charges is rather moot. The original point was that the United States does not restrict free speech, even of the "go fuck yourself, pig" variety. The fact that an individual law enforcement officer or district attorney oversteps their authority does not change this fact.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fuck you pig" could get you arrested, but it could also make you lots of money for wrongful arrest. The SCOTUS has ruled that offensive (but not obscene) speech like that is protected.
Are you FOR speech, or AGAINST muslims? (Score:2)
Simple test - :-)
Do you have the same enthusiasm for a "Draw Jesus Shitting on the American Flag" contest?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have "enthusiasm" for any of it, but such a display would be protected speech under the 1st amendment. I would not condone a policy that would prohibit such speech.
Re: (Score:2)
If large numbers of people were threatening others for doing so, I would.
If it were a credible threat that discussing such things might get you killed I would.
I think one of the best things about the US is that I can take a dump on the Constitution, wipe my ass with the flag, video the whole thing and post it to my website, and it's perfectly legal.
Re: (Score:2)
More people kill sharks, than sharks people. Yet sharks are perceived of as dangerous, and carry an unjustified reputation.
More people are threatened by the United States, than by any other grouping of people in the world.
Tangentially, ... (Score:1)
...I don't get the whole "the prophet Mohammad" thing. He wasn't a prophet to me. So why do non-Muslims say that. Non-Christians don't say "the savior Jesus". If that cartoonist had really been for not bending over to Islamic extremists, she would've wrote "the Muslim prophet Mo...oh-whatever" (I bet she went and looked up how to spell the name). Just like if tons and tons of Christians renamed themselves Jesus, non-Christians would refer to the main one as "the Christian savior Jesus".