posted
fil, quite simply, if it's a place where people are generally allowed to speak out, then ANYONE should be allowed to preach about ANYTHING. Insulting or not, gross or not, blasphemous or not.
For the record, he had a "Pope is anti-christ" spiel as well, so it's not like I supported the guy's content.
quote:I'm curious as to what scripture he was preaching.
Oh, it was definitely more of the "abomination" and less of the "love thy neighbor" sections of the Bible. I found it reprehensible.
The articles in the paper were of the opinion that stating that anyone's "lifestyle" is sinful was inappropriate speech. This is exactly the problem I have with the Swedish law. (We've verified that, just not this guy being in jail).
posted
Colleges do seem to be heavier on the modulated speech side, and this saddens me like you wouldn't believe. This is when our kids should be exposed to as many things as possible, this is when nothing should be wrong to talk about, nothing too edgy or unpopular to discuss.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's funny Dag - I'd actually argue the other way.
Because public institutions have so many different groups to avoid offending, I would think censorship would be more commonplace.
There's no right to not be offended. Freedom of speech starts with the supposition that some speech will offend someone. Otherwise free speech wouldn't be needed.
If someone says something offensive, the correct response is more speech challenging it, not less.
quote:As opposed to private schools that don't have to toe the government line nearly as much and don't tend to have the same diversity in their student body. Generally speaking.
If your concern is offense, then this might be the case. If your concern is freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, it's not. There's no requirement to provide people the means to speak. What there is a requirement for is that government not base the provision of a benefit on the content of someone's speech.
quote:Colleges do seem to be heavier on the modulated speech side, and this saddens me like you wouldn't believe. This is when our kids should be exposed to as many things as possible, this is when nothing should be wrong to talk about, nothing too edgy or unpopular to discuss.
Exactly. That's why even though I think private schools should have more rights to regulate speech, they should seldom exercise that right. I'm really torn on the Georgetown/NAACP feud right now, for example.
Dagonee Gee, can you tell I have strong feelings on this issue?
posted
Dag - you and I are just going to disagree on some fundamental points. I would still have booted the preacher because his speech was inflamatory and denigrating to nearby pedestrians.
I do not hold his right to speak his mind supreme in all circumstances and in all locations.
Although, in the spirit of a University, it would be at least proper to open a specific area that allowed any form of lecture, speech or public discourse. As a former student, I'd rather it not be somewhere I would have to pass through, but still...
Chris - Unfortunately, universities and a large portion of the student bodies get caught between two highly polarized sides of any given debate. Rather than trying to clean up after the fact, the schools are attempting to head off the impending disaster.
posted
Yes, if a college has free speech zones, they should be free speech zones.
My (private) university had an interesting approach. Anyone just standing around yelling at the students would get kicked off, regardless of subject matter.
The student government could give any student group funding to bring in any speaker we would approve -- if the person didn't require an honorarium, we'd foot the other costs and arrange for a space, regardless of speaker. For speakers requiring an honorarium, we'd foot the honorarium and costs if it was within normal limits of an honorarium for anticipated demand (usually 2 to 10 thousand dollars), the speaker had some decent credentials on the subject they would be speaking on, and we had money left allocated for speakers/weren't spending too much money on one subject/side (that is, 5 speakers in a row on one side of an issue was considered way overboard). There was at least a hundred thousand put towards speakers every year, and we got a lot of great people.
In fact, one group that brought in the best speakers was the Conservative Leadership Association (this is a "liberals who are going to be conservatives in the future" campus, mainly).
There was also another option, so long as a student group sponsored them and there were still tables available for that day anybody could have a table talking about whatever they wanted, provided they weren't overly graphic and didn't chase down students (this was a sit at your table and talk about/sell what you have arrangement, not an available space to talk to a larger crowd) on our main thoroughfare through the student center.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trevor, did you really just say that universities should try to prevent debate by students on the controversial issues of the age?
What the hell is a university for, then?
And if you're that worried about people's feelings, would you support anti-blasphemy laws? No more using the name of the man a large percentage of people in this country consider to be their savior as a swear word?
posted
I forget - you were in support of telemarketers and spammers, right?
-Trevor
Edit: Debate? Go for it. Require students to participate by having the interested parties set up shop in major walkways and center courtyards? No.
As for what school is - it's a place to get a piece of paper so you can make more money when you get a job. As sad as that may be, it's entirely too common in American institutions.
As for anti-blasphemy laws - probably not. Offending generally versus insulting specifically is the defining line. Howard Stern offends me to no end. That doesn't mean he should have been taken off the air - I can (and do) refuse to listen to radio stations playing his show.
Telling me I'm going to Hell because I don't attend your church and I should repent and see the error of my ways is another matter entirely.
posted
Oh, and I forgot to mention that to be a student group that can bring in speakers (which all student groups can do) requires only a three or four students.
Now, to be a student group that can get other kinds of funding is significantly more rigorous, but we like our tradition of many varied speakers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds similar to UVA's requirements, although receiving funding isn't that hard.
When the school refused to fund our magazine, we started a group to bring in speakers. The school didn't pay honoraria, but it paid for advertisement for events.
We bought ads in our magazine with those funds. It was perfectly legal - they specifically allowed ads to be purchased in non-funded publications.
Fliers for one of our speakers made the Roanoke head of Planned Parenthood call me and threaten to sue me. They backed down pretty quickly when they realized we had one of the leading first amendment lawyers in the country already working on our case.
posted
Dag - you don't have to pick up the phone or open the email.
I do (or did) have to walk through the hallways and courtyards to get to class.
Which makes me question the university as to why I'm paying money to be besieged by groups I'm not interested in, never mind ones mounting a personal assault on me.
-Trevor
Edit: Troublemaker? You? Naaaah. Wouldn't believe it for a second.
posted
But even ringing the phone uses my resources - I can't receive another call at that time. And unopened email taxes my servers, bandwidth, and computer as much as opened email.
I liken it to being allowed to put a no soliciting sign on my front door.
If you're banning all speakers in oublic walkways, fine. If you're banning based on content, then there's a problem.
Except on public land, where you can't even ban speakers on public walkways (although you can make them keep moving). And if it's a place where people can stand or sit still outside, they don't even have to keep moving.
posted
Heh, by significantly more rigorous, I mean requiring such arcane things as a (short) history of doing things, a plan for doing things in the future, and a budget describing what non-frivolous (generally speaking, no t-shirts) things the money might be spent on. It doesn't even have to be a good budget to get approved as a funded group, but it does have to be a pretty decent budget to actually get the money .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, sounds exactly like our system, then. Ours was student-run, although Student Council generally danced to the Administration's tune on funding issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just who is Michaele8? His profile when I checked this morning was "prof." in "Sweden". I guess I'll go back to ignoring him. I'm getting an OSC-fan vibe: that is, someone who is pretending to be right wing to ultimately discredit the positions of Orson Scott Card.
Umm, yeah. His nauvoo profile says he is a teacher in Oregon. I don't know which is true, but there it is.
TREVOR: I'm just editing my post so it doesn't bump the thread. Most of the regular posters here are just what they seem to be. OSC has some very strong opinions, and I think sometimes they get rereported in left activist media and those types come in here to run interference. There is nothing wrong with being on the left and liberal. Michaele8 may just be a liar, and not necessarily running interference.
posted
The reason I hang out here is because it happens surprisingly seldom. Since I've been here, there's been a couple. One posts fairly regularly and has been around a long time, but only about half his stuff is trollish.
Micheale8 is new, and there's a lot of speculation about him. I think he's less troll and more immature. He doesn't develop his ideas well, just states them. He uses a lot of conservative cliches as well. But the troll people may be right.
posted
Actually, I believe he used to be in Sweden and then came to America. Or vice versa. Or maybe there were multiple movings. But I do recall it occuring. That is to say, he has explained it before.
And I kind of like him because he set up that awesome abortion thread that CT went all post-happy in that made laugh more than I have on Hatrack in a while.
I'm just sayin'.
Edit for clarity.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know Michaele8's approximate age from other conversations, and I'm not willing to write this off as immaturity. I'll just say he is too old for the mid 30's clique and leave it at that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In each case the effort is to preserve peace, not necessarily to censor thought.
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob?
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory?
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed?
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings?
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset?
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
I'd say that someone with clout or popularity has more personal responsibility to what they encourage others to do. I don't know if it's possible or ethical to enforce that.
Edit: I didn't realize this topic had a second page when I wrote this. Forgive me if it's been covered or doesn't apply now.
posted
Our was student run, and we generally liked twitting the administration when we felt they were wrong .
Of course, this is partly because the school charter gave our student body a lot of powers they don't get at other schools. The activity fee goes straight to the student government and is one percent of tuition, for instance, which makes us wealthier (in the sense of having more disposable income, even after taking care of necessary expenses such as student group funding) than most of the departments and divisions of the school, thus making us more powerful (in the sense of having more leverage) than them. Heck, if our tuition growth rate keeps up, in a couple of years the student government will get over $2 million before expenses.
<edit>oh, and the student body is about 6000 people</edit>
Plus, the student government gets to make policy on a number of things, and in fact what things we get to make policy on is just about limited to what we can convince people we can make policy on -- since the student body approves the student government's consitution.
Major academic policy changes must also be passed by the student body, and there are a few other things.
(oh, we also had a seed fund for student groups that really needed some funding to do something when first starting out).
posted
To what extent should we go to preserve peace?
Should a person be censored if they are delibrately causing an angry mob? That person should be urged to be less inflammatory. If that wasn't possible, that person should be urged to move elsewhere, possibly to private property.
What if a couple of sick-os in the crowd get all riled up and hurt someone after a speech that's generally not inflammatory? Then the sickos are the ones being inflammatory and they're the ones that should be addressed.
What if two people get into a fistfight because they disagree on the views expressed? Same as above.
What if someone calls somebody a dirty name and hurts his feelings? Life is hard. They'll have to deal.
What if passers-by don't like what they're hearing and are offended, then are curt to people they meet later because they're upset? See above.
Each is an example of peace being disrupted, but where do you draw the line? When is it okay to ban someone from expressing his views? When do we say that the people causing the violence are responsible for their own actions, regardless of what they may have listened to?
When the person expressing his or her views is urging the audience to violate law, or when the speaker is encouraging violence amongst the audience. Not if violence is occuring regardless, then it's the violent person's fault. I don't care if someone wants to stand up and rail about the evils of tooth decay, even if the audience gets worked up. I do care if someone stands up and demands that the audience go out and beat up Coca Cola salespeople.
The person who commits the act is totally at fault and responsible, no matter what anyone told him to do. This is true. But if a speaker continues to tell people to break the law and they do, even if he holds no legal culpability for their actions, it's still in the public's interest to move his message elsewhere.
Or, to put it a different way, say a teenage kid has convinced every other kid in his neighborhood to steal cigarettes and smoke 'em. The other kids are completely responsible for their actions, but I'd still go have a word with him.
[ July 08, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Chris. I'm just wondering if there's ever a point at which someone should be stopped from speaking in a public place. My gut says "No" but I might personally beat the crap out of someone who's trying to get people I care about hurt. I'd go to jail, but at least I didn't hinder their free speech.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I like about that, Chris, is your philosophy that culpability is not a zero sum game. Saying person X is 100% for their actions does not make the instigator any less culpable. Nor does saying the instigator is at fault make the perpetrators less culpable.
When you talk about not allowing people to advocate breaking the law, do you mean even in non-violent situations? What if the law is fuzzy or outright immoral (I'm thinking of the fugitive slave law, for instance)? Should advocating peaceful civil disobedience be allowed (although I have a problem with people advocating it and not being on the front lines when it goes down)?
Does the advocacy have to be specific and immediate ("Go beat up that person right now") or can it be more general ("People of type X should be beaten")? What about advocacy of illegal, non-criminal acts (such as job discrimination)?
posted
It would seem to depend on if the person encouraged is a child or otherwise not as responsible for their actions.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are social creatures and we have an unfortunate habit of adopting a pack mentality.
Whether or not someone instigated the scenario might mitigate or lessen the responsibility of the actual participants, but it should not absolve them of guilt.
Not that "Just say No" ever really worked, but it's a nice, cherished dream of denial I choose to shroud myself in.
posted
Just wondering if there is anyone here who would like to see the same kinds of laws Sweden has adopted here in the USA.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would never happen Mike - or Michelle? Although as social standards change, such things may become commonplace. Good fences make good neighbors and so on.
The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly.
And such laws, while designed with the best of intentions, do not necessarily serve the public interest.
I'm sure Dag will have a more vocal and reasonable list of the failings inherent, but for my part - a certain amount of regulation is required for an orderly society. Despite what anarchists may choose to believe.
But at the same time, government should be limited in its ability to regulate what people do or say or think or feel.
Hah. Government should maintain the lowest common denominator and let the rest sort itself out? That was the principle of the US government - to maintain the basic functionality without becoming an oppressive, dominating force?
Feh. I don't know. Instinctively, I would not like to see such laws because frankly, I like to know where my enemies are and when they're coming. As for the more intelligent, reasonable answer - I don't know.
-Trevor
Edit: How's that for a rambling rant?
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The concept of free speech is so ingrained in the consciousness of America that such a law, as well-intentioned as it may be, would be brought down very quickly
Maybe Bush should make a new policy.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of Just Say No, Trevor, I've been wondering if maybe the government should just hand out free drugs to those that want them. Maybe unlimited free crack would clear out the peer-following sheep from the gene pool.
Yeah, I'm being sarcastic, but not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm at a loss as to what kind of campaign would do any good at all in reducing drug use. It seems those of us who listen to ads aren't interested in drugs anyway.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It is difficult to go against the grain and defy your peer group.
Most adults find it difficult to do, never mind teens.
That being said, how many parents bother to take their kids aside and explain the ramifications of drugs?
"Because I said so" doesn't really hold water with teens, especially ones who question authority and want to be radical. However, explaining the concept of addiction and what people say versus the reality, etc. How many people believed notions like, "you can never get pregnant the first time?"
Just because you think you can fly doesn't mean gravity won't yank your rump back down.
-Trevor
Edited for word choice and mindful that this is a family forum. Of sorts.
Edit 2: While government should take steps to provide information, it cannot take the place of good parenting. What is "government" to a teenager? "Da Man?"
Government can and does enact social sanctions against people who decide to break the law, but few people approve of government becoming more proactive in regulating lives in an Orwellian fashion. We can dictate what is bad in raising a child, for example, but we cannot dictate what is good.
posted
The prime importance of free speech stems from the representational reinforcement theory of rights. Our governments have general police power which was historically unlimited. However, since our government is mostly responsible to the political process, it must be prevented from interfering with the political process. Otherwise the current government can lock itself in. We see this now with redistricting, which is one of the biggest threats to representational government around.
If speech could be limited based on the whims of the political branches, then those branches could turn our representational system into a self-perpetuating government accountable to no one.
Sure, not all speech is political. But how on earth do you decide. Almost everything can be the subject of legislation, so almost everything needs to be in the realm of protected speech.
Dagonee P.S., your idea of wanting to know who the enemy is is a very good reason to support free speech.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, my answer to those and, frankly, just about any question involving humans is: it depends. I can't offer a hard-and-fast rule because the dynamic changes in every situation. A person calmly telling a laughing audience that someone oughtta burn down the local stadium is not the same as a person shouting "let's go get them [racial slur of your choice]s!" and neither is the same as a quiet, impassioned plea for civil disobedience that results in massive social change. It depends.
On the speaker. On the subject, and how it's presented. On the audience and their reactions. On the environment and timing and significance of the event. On the atmosphere -- political, religious, social, emotional, or whatever -- of the times.
I am against most limitations of free speech. I am also against someone being a damn idiot and talking a lot of other damn idiots into doing something stupid.
[ July 08, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. Those are the types nitty-gritty questions that made me want to go to law school. Every single free speech case requires answering them, even if to say, "We're not sure where the line is, but this case is well past it (or doesn't approach it)." That's how the majority of law gets made in this country.
I could bat around hypotheticals on this subject all night, but I realize many don't share my enthusiasm for it.
posted
Yep - but since that statement's been made, there have been a lot of cases that have refined the definition. Adn those areas that still have lines so fuzzy as to be clouds are the areas where we're practically guaranteed more litigation on fundamental issues.
I know people know about judicial review and how that makes judges powerful, but I don't think most people appreciate how truly sweeping their interpretive power is.
posted
And it's worth noting that since that statement, the definition of obscenity has been changed to acknowledge the different factors that help define it, "obscenity" and "pornography" both being relative.
See? "It depends." I want it on my statue.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm so glad I live in a country where every word's meaning is different for every person and no one can be tagged by what they say or do because everything is relative and based on semantics.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, if you're trying to bug me it takes a lot more than that.
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail?
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Does it matter if I was defending myself? Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed?
Definitions are relative in law. They damn well better stay that way. The meanings aren't based on semantics, they're based on conditions that can affect how that action should be judged.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to bug you Chris, and it's not aimed at you. It's aimed at the world in general. I guess I should have put /rant afterwards.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, thanks. You just came too close to triggering my own rant on mandatory sentencing and similar "conditions make no difference" restrictions.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I shoot and kill someone. Should I go to jail? It depends.
Does it matter if I did on purpose or by accident? Yes - although doing it on accident can still result in significant jail time, even in a murder 2 conviction under the MPC. Does it matter if I was defending myself? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was defending someone else? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I was clear-headed or not? Yes - mitigation and can reduce the charge to manslaughter. Does it matter if I did it as part of a military mission? Yes - justification. Does it matter if I meant to wound and missed? No - presumed intent to kill when deadly force is intentionally applied. Incidentally, it also doesn't matter if you were trying to shoot someone else and killed the wrong person.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It was perfectly legal - they specifically allowed ads to be purchased in non-funded publications.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
