posted
Should we have unlimited access to information if that information tells us how to do something illegal. For example, I can walk into my local Barnes & Noble and buy a copy of a magazine called High Times. The magazine deals with the use, growth, and distribution of marijuana. It also features advertisements for products designed to help a person pass a drug test, even when stoned. Here's a list of questions I came up when thinking about this. If anyone thinks of other questions related to this subject, feel free to ask theme here.
1.) Is this type of information protected by the First Amendment?
2.)Once you start banning access to information, where does it stop?
3.) Does the term “speech” apply to print and the internet?
I don’t Know the answer to the first question. Dagonee, what do you think? I’d like to hear what others think, as well. I singled Dagonee out because of his extensive legal knowledge.
Next we have the old slippery slope argument. If you ban High Times and other publicationsl ike it, that makes it easier to ban the next thing. Where does it stop?
For the answer to the third question, I again turn to Dagonee and those with more legal knowledge than I.
I haven’t decided where I stand on this issue. That’s one reason I’m posting this. I want to draw from the well of Hatrack’s collective wisdom. On one hand, I see the need to protect certain information. On the other hand, I believe that people should be free to express ideas, no matter how strongly I may disagree with them.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but not all text. Libraries are allowed to ban books. The government can ban publication of classified documents and other things. Not everything that can be written is covered under the umbrella of free speech, it isn't a magically all inclusive bubble. That's part of why there are libel and slander laws as well. Free speech isn't absolute.
Text is just written words, so free speech applies, it just depends on the content.
Still, things like that marijuana guide have practical applications for law enforcement and people in the education system. I don't know if I think there should be unversal information freedom. On the other hand, if I had to choose between some committee who gets to pick and choose what stays and what goes, and having total access, I'd pick total access. I just don't trust anyone with the job of choosing what is out of bounds and what isn't.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that individual libraries and bookstores have the right to decide what they carry on their shelves. Does the government have the right to ban the production of magazines like High Times ? Why or why not?
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for free speech, and I think, as far as the written word goes, pretty much anything is acceptable(except for death threats and maybe books on how to make bombs and such). I don't really have a problem with things like the High Times, as long as it stays out of the hands of children. But then again, I don't even think marijuana should be illegal(but that's another whole topic).
Posts: 204 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely not. The problem with governments banning books or literature like that (note that making information privilged or classified is different) there is the slippery slope of double standards on determining what can be banned and what can't. Having information on how to grow and produce marijuana is very different from actually doing it, same with books like the Anarchist's Cookbook. Satyagraha
posted
I think the government should be able to ban books that inform people how to break the law, but shouldn't be able to ban the advocating of overturning the law.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...the government should be able to ban books that inform people how to break the law..."
Well, there goes the action/adventure flicks: breaking&entering, burglary, bludgeoning, shooting, stabbing, slicing&dicing, and blowing things up are definite no-nos. And of course, we can't have people jaywalking, doubleparking, or smoking in bars&restaurants.
posted
It is fast becoming irrelevant. Short of putting up a Great Firewall of America, the best places to learn about drugs (or even purchase legal or quasi-legal drugs) are all online. High Times is a product of the period before the Internet.
Besides, everyone knows that the only surefire way to beat a drug test is to abstain for a period of time that depends upon the drug in question. Sure, the beat the test companies offer a full rebate if you fail the test, but anyone who uses drugs regularly is not really worrying about the hundred bucks (or however much it is) for the test.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:3.) Does the term “speech” apply to print and the internet?
I’ll tackle this one first, because it’s the simplest: As MPH, said, yes. Absolutely and unequivocally yes. The medium will have no effect on what types of speech may be regulated, although it may have an effect on the types of regulation that are acceptable. More on that when we discuss compelling state interest below.
There are more borderline situations where deciding “what is speech” is the first question to be dealt with, but words in printed form or on the Internet are comfortably within the boundaries. Flag burning and strip-tease dancing are examples of more borderline cases (which have both been classified as speech in court decisions).
quote:1.) Is this type of information protected by the First Amendment?
Yes, it is. Technically, all speech is covered by the First Amendment. The government generally needs what’s called a compelling state interest in order to regulate speech, and the means it uses to meet those ends must be narrowly tailored.
The classic compelling interest is shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. This can directly lead to deaths and injury, and is justifiably banned.
This means that the medium will affect the types of regulations that are acceptable. One of the compelling interests recognized by SCOTUS is protecting children from exposure to obscene materials. Because of the nature of TV, the FCC may ban the broadcast of obscene materials on public airwaves. The nature of the interest can affect what regulation is allowed. The FCC can only restrict “indecent” material to certain hours of the day, not ban it altogether. Commercial speech may be more heavily regulated, and uses an easier test to see if those regulations are constitutional.
A good case to look at to see the balancing test is Reno v. ACLU, which struck down the Communications Decency Act in 1997. The decision was based on the means being not narrowly tailored enough (meaning people other than children would be blocked by the regulations). The cross burning case is another good example. The decision was drafted by Thomas and is a good example of the limits the court will tolerate.
There are cases where the government is not directly regulating speech, but a government regulation affects speech. These are less heavily scrutinized by the courts. The classic example is the loudspeaker law, banning loudspeakers at midnight in residential neighborhoods. In general, laws which regulate in a way that does not involve the contents of the speech have a much better chance of surviving judicial scrutiny. However, places traditionally open to public speaking may not be closed by the government (pamphleteering in the park, or speaking on the streetcorner).
quote:2.)Once you start banning access to information, where does it stop?
In practicality, it stops where SCOTUS says it stops, which would take a very long post to fully define. But this is really a philosophical question. The slippery slope may be a logical fallacy, but it must be taken into account in law. When creating a legal test, it is important to be sure it has limits. One way to know if a legal test is too broad is if behavior that should obviously not be covered by the test is.
Personally, I’m close to a First Amendment absolutist, although I would define speech a little (very little) more narrowly than SCOTUS.
Why would we allow information that explains how to break the law? Pretty much aspectre sums it up right (I never thought I’d say that! ) The line drawing is nigh impossible, and any regulation that could pass a constitutional test would be easily circumvented.
There is speech that is not really treated as speech, but rather as acts of legal significance. If you say, “I’ll pay you $10,000 to kill person X,” you have committed the act of solicitation. If (Edit: I) say, “Let’s go rob a bank” and you say “OK,” we’ve committed the agreement element of conspiracy. This is the theory used to ban incitement, which requires advocating a specific and imminent commission of a crime. “Let’s go kill the mayor!” is incitement. “The mayor should be killed at some point in the future” is probably not.
To sum up, when deciding if something is covered by the First Amendment, ask the following questions:
1.) Is it speech? Words are almost always speech; pretty much anything intended to convey information or express ideas could be classified as speech, although there are some obvious limits.
2.) Is there a compelling state interest in regulating this speech? Reasons involving physical danger are generally more acceptable than reasons involving emotional harm.
3.) Is the regulation narrowly tailored to meet this interest? If the speech is restricted in excess of what is needed to meet the interest, or in excess of the importance of the interest, the restriction will be struck down.
posted
I see problems with bans on "how to break the law" especially when there are so many stupid laws on the books. For example state laws earlier this century that banned teaching evolution, would that mean a book like "How to teach evolution in the modern politically correct classroom." be banned? Or perhaps an academic paper, newspaper article, or even a novel that explains how to make a gun, or a bomb (Tom Clancy writes a lot of these...pretty good reads, too), should we ban those? I'm still not sure there'd be any way to determine what should be legally banned, and what shouldn't. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the government should be able to ban books that inform people how to break the law, but shouldn't be able to ban the advocating of overturning the law.
I see that as a double standard. Why is it ok to overturn the law? If it is justified, then I would like some books about the process.
I believe in the free exchange of ideas, even dangerous ones. I just believe we should enforce the laws. Anarchy cookbook, Good. Taking a pipebomb to class, bad--need swift punishment and and understanding of why the student/staff did it.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: pretty much anything is acceptable(except for death threats and maybe books on how to make bombs and such). I don't really have a problem with things like the High Times
What's the difference between books on how to make bombs and books on how to raise pot? Is it just your personal feelings on the lasw that they are teaching people to break?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I thought Dagonee was a she when I first read his stuff. Sorry Dagonee
Second, holy crap, Dagonee DOES know a lot about the law. Always nice to be brought down a peg or two by the intelligence of others, keeps us humble.
Third, limitations on free speech. I was going to make a separate thread for this but I guess I'll start it here. I was reading my Time magazine last night and came across a rather large article about American troop levels. The gist of the story is that America's army will fall apart if it's stuck in Iraq much longer. Running out of National Guard troops, the SecDef refuses to expand the active duty army, using huge cash bonuses to get people to stay on, and recruitment being down. Now, do you really think something like this should be published? I'm not usually one to clamp down on speech and publications for this reason, but in this instance...
Wouldn't terrorists who have perhaps low morale be bolstered by the news that they are in effect winning? Why sound the trumpets in such a public way, and give them any hope at all? It seems America is totally incapable of keeping a secret, or of guile. I like freedom of information, but goodness sake, be prudent about it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag's just a law student, not a lawyer. 3 semesters to go.
And Lyrhawn, no worries. It's a long-standing thing since I joined, although I think a couple people get mistaken for the opposite sex even more (vwiggen/Beren and Da_Goat, for two).
Out of curiosity, though, what of my stuff made you think I was a she? I'm collecting reasons.
posted
I don't know. Dagonee is a male name, you'd think that'd give it away. But you can't use me as an example, I have REALLY poor judgement when it comes to guessing ages and things like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: What's the difference between books on how to make bombs and books on how to raise pot? Is it just your personal feelings on the lasw that they are teaching people to break?
MPH - Bombs are meant to harm things other than the person making the bomb(usually), but pot is only harmful to the user(usually).
Maybe some of my personal feelings of the laws that they break do have something to do with it, but I think they should treat books about making bombs like firearms or something. Make it so you have to get a background check(or whatever they need to do) to obtain them.
quote:What's the difference between books on how to make bombs and books on how to raise pot? Is it just your personal feelings on the lasw that they are teaching people to break?
This question is why I think it's problematic to define what laws someone can teach circumvention methods for. There is no good test. Pot is illegal because enough people think it hurts other people to justify banning it. Our legal system is moving more and more to requiring harm of or danger to another before something can be made illegal, although we're not really close to that yet.
Given the difficulty in line-drawing, I'd just as soon punish actions and let speech stay as free as possible.
quote:Also, you would look really good in one of my blue chiffon numbers.
posted
Dag: I rounded up 3 semesters out of how many years?
While I haven't read the Times article (by any chance would it be online? I'm not so sure the Army will "Fall apart," though any long term occupation has a way of withering down moral, especially one has dangerous as the one in Iraq. However, I think it is crucial that such information is presented to the public. The army is comprised of our brothers, sisters, and neighbors; we have a right...no the press has an obligation to tell us what is happening. Whether this is playing into the hands of the terrorists depends upon what the terrorists; ultimate goal ism if it's just getting America out of Iraq, ya it would. However, that is very short term thinking, it makes me very angry whenever Kerry and Bush said that the terrorists hate freedom, because they don't...quite on the contrary, they want freedom from what is seens as Western oppression of their culture, and I see their point...not everybody wants a McDonalds and Starbucks on every street corner, they're not fighting America, Democracy, or Freedom, they're fighting McWorld (as Benjamin Barber so wonderfully put it). They hate this huge imperial monoculture of consumerism and the religion of capitalism. If you look at it that way it doesn't matter whether or not American troops are in Iraq, what matters is keeping MTV and McDonald's out, and stop US's blind economic support of the Saudi oil kings.
However, that doesn't mean all the "terrorists" are thinking that, the militants in Iraq most definantly want the US out, and do you blame them? After all, would you like it if say...the French (or Spanish, or anyone else) was occupying the United States and bombing homes and distroying businesses in firefights? Probably not. But I digress. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
(I invited you to the prom in another thread and received no response. I assume that's a yes, so pick you up at seven? And if we go to a good restaurant, you better put out.)
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should we have unlimited access to information if that information tells us how to do something illegal
I think there's a limit to how much information the government should give out about bombs, or biochemical weapons. Some very deadly WMD are very easy to make and I would not like to see widespread dissemination of this material. There are too may unbalanced, slightly mentally ill people out there who might decide to set one of these things off in a paranoid fit.
But this is different from the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment says we're not to squash anyone else's speech, not that we have to tell someone anything they want to know if they ask. So the first sentence of this topic is a little misleading.
But let's take an imaginary scenario. If there was a book telling everyone how they could hack into the CIA's commputers and get the list of all their agents, should it be sold? Somehow I don't think so. It would endanger lives and national security. So the question seems a little bit too broad. There are too many situations I can think of where unlimited access could cause too much damage.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
3 semesters out of how many years?
