Editing Talk:1357: Free Speech
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship. | Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship. | ||
:The fact that it has to be explained to you that blackmail is illegal... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC) | :The fact that it has to be explained to you that blackmail is illegal... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.24|172.69.34.24]] 19:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| β | |||
| β | |||
:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist. | :Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist. | ||
:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) | :So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC) | In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC) | ||
