the oblate spheroid has a problem with free speech

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021356961

Oh my.

nadinbrzezinski (108,979 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:56 PM

A problem with Freedom of Speech

per Statue.

One of the problems I have noticed in these discussions is that many folks here do not know what it is.

So let me give you a couple examples and I hope this will clarify some of this.

Well there is this famous case when the Postal Service, a GOVERNMENT AGENCY, refused to deliver a single issue of the Woman Rebel, in 1913.

http://www.gale.cengage.com/free_resources/whm/bio/sanger_m.htm

Then there is the whole sordid history of the Red Scares, both of them. Both included a fair amount of silencing of people by the use of raids and other means by agents of the state, yes that be the FEDS.

And then there is this little thing from the United States Courts.

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “hout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1983).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FirstAmendment/WhatDoesFreeSpeechMean.aspx

We have always had that tension and there are reams upon reams, upon reams of academic and legal papers on this... suffice it to say black and white it is not.

What is also clear... now pay attention, that none of your cherished First Amendment rights extend to any private corp. Yup, I could be PPR, delivered pizza, whatever from this site, right now... and legally there is nothing I could do. Yes, I could potentially talk of contract law, but speech... there is simply no standing.

So no, it does not extend to you tube. The feds can ASK nicely for you tube to remove any offensive material, but they cannot have it removed... as that is PRIVATE PROPERTY, a corporation if you will. Why when people go, good for You Tube... free hint, it was not a legal decision, it was a business decision.

Now if you work for the Feds, or for that matter any state or local government, they can and do cut your access to you tube, amazon and the rest of them... not a violation there, since you, as a citizen, can go enjoy it in your private time.

Now please, throw at me the wikipedia. I mean U.S. Code was met with the Wiki the other day.

But if you still remain convinced that it is absolute, well then.

Oh and the list of cases from the Courts, is not comprehensive either... just the most important cases according to staff as of this moment. It is always a moving target.

^^Vlada Mitty speaking from the Burning Bush, or the Mountaintop, explaining things to we little people.

nadinbrzezinski (108,979 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:09 PM

1. I am not surprised nuance or reality sink where black and white are concerned.

99Forever (1,724 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:24 PM

2. What astounds me even more...

... is that so many absolutists, don't think that we, as a people are capable to balance the clear need for a variety of opinions, with holding those that abuse the freedom to speak, causing irreparable harm to others, accountable.

nadinbrzezinski (108,979 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:35 PM

3. Well it is like the Gungeon fans

no nuance at all, nor is there any understanding that it ONLY applies in my relationship with Uncle Sam... or that even if something goes over social media (it could be a tape over social media leading to a riot in Billings Mt. for all I care), that actually is not protected speech.

The only reason this stops at our physical borders is that this did not happen in the US... and statue is behind social media.

ProgressiveProfessor (17,824 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:03 PM

4. We also have to guard against the Hecklers Veto as in: Since this might cause $PROBLEMS at $LOCATION, we will not allow it. That is not the US law, nor should it become the law.

You are right that except in very few cases, US law stops at the border, as it should. Similarly, other nations laws against blasphemy should stop at their borders.

Earlier this weekend I saw a call to use desensitization techniques to help *sensitive* groups grow accustomed and therefore tolerate the free speech of others here on DU. Any other ideas out there?

[Chris_]

nadinbrzezinski (108,979 posts)  Sun Sep 16, 2012, 03:56 PM

A problem with Freedom of Speech

per Statue

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq8gfaFqFpI[/youtube]

[dane]

One might think a trained historian, reporter, author would know the difference between 'statue' (used several times in the thread), and 'statute' (probably what she meant.)

But one would be wrong.

[miskie]

I like how Nads grabbed a link to Margaret Sanger that totally ignores her racist beliefs, as well as her love of eugenics.

[Wineslob]

What's all this talk about statues?







Oh, I see.   

[FlaGator]

It pretty much reads to me that anything the court decided is protected is protect and any thing they decide in not protected is thus not protected. There is no consistency inherent in the process.

[Airwolf]

For anyone to seek the advice of the Galacticly Stupid and accept it as gospel they do so at their peril. Gnads the bald headed dwarf has nothing credible about her yet talks as if she were everyone from JFK to Prof. Xavier from the X-men comics.