Freedom of speech being attacked from the left. [Archive]

View Full Version : Freedom of speech being attacked from the left.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 12:00 PM

Ultra Peanut

02-28-2007, 12:14 PM

"Accuracy in Academia plays an indispensable role in fighting the political distortions and biases that pass for knowledge on today's college campuses. I am looking forward to being part of a campaign to challenge students to think more accurately and broad-mindedly about the fundamental issues that affect their lives." - Dinesh D'Souza, Best-Selling AuthorHeh. That's the guy who got shredded by Colbert in awe-inspiring fashion.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=80900

recxjake

02-28-2007, 12:37 PM

bastards

Logical

02-28-2007, 01:55 PM

Obviously a person should not be able to claim fire when there is none, so absolute free speech should not be allowed. In general freedom of speech is for the best, but there are exceptions.

CrazyCoffey

02-28-2007, 02:20 PM

Obviously a person should not be able to claim fire when there is none, so absolute free speech should not be allowed. In general freedom of speech is for the best, but there are exceptions.

exactly right, I heard it described similiar to this,
freedom of speech ends when it envades another's rights to personal safety from threats, either real or assumed.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 02:29 PM

pikesome

02-28-2007, 02:30 PM

Obviously a person should not be able to claim fire when there is none, so absolute free speech should not be allowed. In general freedom of speech is for the best, but there are exceptions.

Who gets to make the list of exceptions? I agree with your statement but I find myself at odds with who gets the job. Part of what the Bill of Rights is supposed to do is protect us from the government so pardon me if I'm not big on letting the government make that list.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 02:33 PM

Who gets to make the list of exceptions? I agree with your statement but I find myself at odds with who gets the job. Part of what the Bill of Rights is supposed to do is protect us from the government so pardon me if I'm not big on letting the government make that list.

What he has done is basically make it impossible to ask the question. I would reword and repost but I am not exactly sure how you would do it as their are many different interpretations of a threat these days especially with this candy ass PC types who interpret everything they don't agree with as a threat.

CrazyCoffey

02-28-2007, 02:34 PM

Who gets to make the list of exceptions? I agree with your statement but I find myself at odds with who gets the job. Part of what the Bill of Rights is supposed to do is protect us from the government so pardon me if I'm not big on letting the government make that list.

The list will be written and has been written by the court system and judges, rulings that set precedence in certain situations.

BUT if you (generally speaking, not really you - pike, but anyone) really need a list/a judge/me/their mother or anyone else to tell you that yelling Fire (or gas, gun, bomb, whatever) in a crowded public place could cause a panic and hurt people I worry about that persons common sense.

CrazyCoffey

02-28-2007, 02:36 PM

What he has done is basically make it impossible to ask the question. I would reword and repost but I am not exactly sure how you would do it as their are many different interpretations of a threat these days especially with this candy ass PC types who interpret everything they don't agree with as a threat.

I get you, I think. Do you mean more like the "Tim H hates black people" type of freedom of speech?

NewPhin

02-28-2007, 02:46 PM

I don't really think the outright banning of certain kinds of speech is as much of a threat as that of societal pressure. With outright banning of speech, you'll always have a reactionary backlash against it because the restriciton is out in the open to be attacked.

I think much more insidious is the warping of language and meaning through subtle societal pressure. It has become difficult to even discuss some issues in our society in an honesty and straightforward manner because one must constantly dance around an issue and mind what one says, lest one be labeled a racist. This sort of subtle "thought police" is the bane of intellectual discourse because it inhibits a free exchange of ideas.

That being said, if someone throws out a racist idea, they need to be told that the idea is racist. They don't need to just be shouted down and written off as a racist without any effort at dialogue, assuming of course that the original person is also making an attempt at honest discourse.

On the flip side of the coin, I see the label of "PC" being used in the same way. People will say something, someone will disagree, and the person in disagreement will be labeled as PC "thought police" when they might have very real and honest reasons for objecting beyond any notions of PC. Case in point: I didn't even say anything, but I found Big Daddy's attack on UP in the other thread to be mean and poorly reflective on Big Daddy. My objections have nothing to do with any sort of PC agenda, I just thought the post demonstrated unwarranted cruelty. If I'd spoken up, my objections would have just been dismissed as NewChief being "PC."

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 02:48 PM

I get you, I think. Do you mean more like the "Tim H hates black people" type of freedom of speech?

Think about all the words that have been banned here or have other words that replace them. That kind of shit. I revised the poll. For the record I believe we are going to follow our Eurofag brothers and put restrictions in this area. Look at PC Europe now and that is what we are looking at here in another 20-50 years IMO.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 02:50 PM

The list will be written and has been written by the court system and judges, rulings that set precedence in certain situations.

BUT if you (generally speaking, not really you - pike, but anyone) really need a list/a judge/me/their mother or anyone else to tell you that yelling Fire (or gas, gun, bomb, whatever) in a crowded public place could cause a panic and hurt people I worry about that persons common sense.

The Feds have broken (not bent, broken) the First Amendment before, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918) why should we trust them or the courts. The problem is once you allow limits someone gets to decide those limits. I don't trust them, no matter who they are (myself included). I often hear the "Fire" example and my retort would be that it might be a far better course to punish people for the result (panic, injury) than for the actual words. In that way one is not penalized for speaking only for the negative consequences of the words. It's a fine line but an important one in my book, the First Amendment is the most important. It should not be limited unless there is no other way.

On edit:

I would also like to add that while I was in the service Flag burning was a big issue. I've always thought that my service to my country was to allow those pot-smoking, ****nuts the right to burn that flag. They are scum but even scum deserves to enjoy the protection against government limits on speech.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 02:52 PM

Sully

02-28-2007, 04:00 PM

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 04:09 PM

Great post.

Absolutely Spot On.

I see you have come to Sully the thread, nice!!! Saying I would have labeled him as PC for saying I was cruel to peanut is an assumption. When I made an assumption based upon your seagull post you went sideways like a MO.

Sully

02-28-2007, 04:24 PM

I see you have come to Sully the thread, nice!!! Saying I would have labeled him as PC for saying I was cruel to peanut is an assumption. When I made an assumption based upon your seagull post you went sideways like a MO.

It's not always about you, princess.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 04:37 PM

Words, words, words, words :rolleyes:

You just want to be a part of something. Isn't smoke club meeting about now? Maybe you can impress your Vagina Slime home girls.

Sully

02-28-2007, 04:46 PM

:rolleyes:

You just want to be a part of something. Isn't smoke club meeting about now? Maybe you can impress your Vagina Slime home girls.

Be a part of something?
I commended someone else's post, and you had to interject your usual shallow weak stuff. If you had a disagreement with it, then bring that, otherwise STFU. My comment about his post wasn't about you. If it was, I certainly wouldn't be afraid to tell you, I think I've shown that. Hell, the post I was commenting about wasn't even about you, your name was only brought up as an example. You are so worried about "protecting your rep" like you are in some high school gang, and so worried about not taking any shit, that any time your name is even mentioned you fly into some rage. I've seen even your old friends on this site say the same thing to you. Maybe I'm relatively new, but there are too many people on here that say you used to be cool for this to have been the way you've always acted.

It's amazing how someone who cries so much about PC and all us sensitive libs actually searches out ways to be offended.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 04:57 PM

Be a part of something?
I commended someone else's post, and you had to interject your usual shallow weak stuff. If you had a disagreement with it, then bring that, otherwise STFU. My comment about his post wasn't about you. If it was, I certainly wouldn't be afraid to tell you, I think I've shown that. Hell, the post I was commenting about wasn't even about you, your name was only brought up as an example. You are so worried about "protecting your rep" like you are in some high school gang, and so worried about not taking any shit, that any time your name is even mentioned you fly into some rage. I've seen even your old friends on this site say the same thing to you. Maybe I'm relatively new, but there are too many people on here that say you used to be cool for this to have been the way you've always acted.

It's amazing how someone who cries so much about PC and all us sensitive libs actually searches out ways to be offended.

You said his comments were spot on, I just showed where there was a huge assumption when the reference to me was made. All the rest of your post was the usual Sully BS.

Sully

02-28-2007, 05:05 PM

You said his comments were spot on, I just showed where there was a huge assumption when the reference to me was made. All the rest of your post was the usual Sully BS.

I apologize for including that one comment in that "spot on" commendation. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I think his assumption was fair, but who knows, you may have suprised him and me.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 05:06 PM

Sully

02-28-2007, 05:08 PM

Sully,

You keep going on and on about how I go into a rage and and am a dick but if you go back and look at the way we addressed each other I have treated you way better than you treated me. Something tells me you are a much nicer when you meet people in person.

Don't be ridiculous. You are at least as guilty in this as I am. Go read that "I hate blacks" thread, and if you honestly think I started the insinuations and demeaning, then you aren't reading it correctly.

But you are right, I am a hell of a guy in person. I rarely go out without making new friends. Drives my wife nuts sometimes.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 05:11 PM

I would also like to add that while I was in the service Flag burning was a big issue. I've always thought that my service to my country was to allow those pot-smoking, ****nuts the right to burn that flag. They are scum but even scum deserves to enjoy the protection against government limits on speech.

I agree with that 100%. Many times there are things people say or type that make me want to spit in their face or wring their neck but I served 11 years so that those people could have the same right to say what they want as I do. Wouldn't have it any other way.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 05:12 PM

I apologize for including that one comment in that "spot on" commendation. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I think his assumption was fair, but who knows, you may have suprised him and me.

It is impossible for you to hurt my feeling bro, don't sweat it.

There you go again trying to be a part of something with the him and me thing. Are you really hurting for a friend that bad?. NewChief and myself have been posting for a very long time to each other. This is the first time I can recall there being an issue. It is what it is.

BIG_DADDY

02-28-2007, 05:14 PM

Don't be ridiculous. You are at least as guilty in this as I am. Go read that "I hate blacks" thread, and if you honestly think I started the insinuations and demeaning, then you aren't reading it correctly.

But you are right, I am a hell of a guy in person. I rarely go out without making new friends. Drives my wife nuts sometimes.

ROFL

Sully

02-28-2007, 05:27 PM

It is impossible for you to hurt my feeling bro, don't sweat it.

There you go again trying to be a part of something with the him and me thing. Are you really hurting for a friend that bad?. NewChief and myself have been posting for a very long time to each other. This is the first time I can recall there being an issue. It is what it is.

You are reading me wrong here. I am not trying to get in between you two, and whatever your friendship is. I am just evaluating his assumption, for myself, as fair. PC is one of your pet issues, very obviously, and I have seen you bring it up when it had no place, that's all I'm saying. It really has nothing to do with the go between between you two, he just happened to type a whole lot of stuff in that post that I agreed with, and that one sentence has gotten blown far out of proportion in relation to the rest of the post.

penchief

02-28-2007, 05:52 PM

http://news.com.com/Democrats+defeat+election-law+aid+for+bloggers/2100-1028_3-5929587.html

Democrats against online freedom of speech

http://www.rense.com/general74/HATEBILL.HTM

Hate Bill

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1999/march_1999_2.html

Some nice liberals on campus

BTW I posted a great artical awhile back on a black guy trying to create a conservative forum on campus at Berkeley that they stopped because they didn't want it there. I can't find it now though. All he did was post flyers and they shut him down.

Man I just did a search and there is tons of this stuff out there. Maybe I should just leave it open for people to post the worst examples. I know it comes from the extreme on both sides. The liberals attack on freedom of speech is all on the PC level though. There is tons of documentation if you care to look.

The first article appears to be nothing more than concerns about how political entities can use the internet for campaign purposes. In the context of whatever campaign finance laws exist, I think that is a legitimate debate. Just like all the new designer prescription drugs being marketed, debating the possible unintended consequences is a logical thing to do, IMO.

It is only natural that democrats would be concerned about the disparity of wealth between the two party's supporters. If that disparity is used to unduly influence the political landscape then that might be a legitimate concern. If it is required that existing campaign finance laws need to be expanded in order to apply to newer technology, then so be it.

The second article seems like nothing more than a reactionary rant by some amateur reverend. Maybe you can tell me what his point is in a way that enlightens me. I would welcome that.

The third articles does concern me when considering the behavior of those who would try to stifle another person's words. However, what also concerns me is how the story is being told by one side and nowhere does it mention what the speaker was saying or what position was taken that might have inspired the disruptions. Only claims and accusations are being made. And as one reads further it appears that an agenda is being pressed. Nowhere is the other side of the story being told.

Did it ever occur to you that if the university wanted to curb freedom of speech that this particular speaker would never have been there to begin with? I don't have a problem criticizing those who behave poorly to stifle or refute someone else's opinion. But let's keep things in perspective. This is just as easily an isolated example of college-age immaturity as it is anything else.

NewPhin

02-28-2007, 06:22 PM

There you go again trying to be a part of something with the him and me thing. Are you really hurting for a friend that bad?. NewChief and myself have been posting for a very long time to each other. This is the first time I can recall there being an issue. It is what it is.

There's no issue here, at least not on my part. I was actually just posting on this to give you my true perception on PC, because I seemed to have mislead you in the past into thinking I'm some kind of upholder of the PC agenda.

Just to spell it out: I don't like political correctness because it gets in the way of honest discussion. Speaking out against political correctness was probably one of my major issues while I was in graduate school and a frequent subject of my creative writing at the time.

I also don't like the reverse-PC thing. The example I used involving you was probably not a good example because it was too recent and too personal. It was just a seemingly handy example of something I do see where people that bitch about the PC-police's tendency to label anything they disagree with as racist, bigoted, etc. are quick to throw the PC label on anyone they disagree with. I'm not saying you would have or even that you ever have, I'm just saying it happens.

Whether it's PC people freely labeling others as bigoted, racist, or ignorant or other people labeling liberals as PC, I dislike both. They're both just mental shortcuts to dismissing the other person's idea without actually addressing it.

Logical

02-28-2007, 06:43 PM

Most of what I was refering to was of the PC variety. Taking your approach would invalidate everything I posted.I think there is even a place for a certain amount of PC control of speech. Speech can incite riots for instance, it is not PC to use the N word and I think this is an example of limiting free speech based on PC that is OK.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 06:52 PM

I think there is even a place for a certain amount of PC control of speech. Speech can incite riots for instance, it is not PC to use the N word and I think this is an example of limiting free speech based on PC that is OK.

So if someone insults a Christian it is OK but if someone insults a Muslim it is a bad thing? Or someone who is gay? I know you didn't specify but I am illustrating the ridiculous hypocrisy of the PC left. People have the freedom of speech in America. If they want to be bigots, let them. They are responsible for the results.

Logical

02-28-2007, 06:57 PM

NewPhin

02-28-2007, 07:00 PM

So if someone insults a Christian it is OK but if someone insults a Muslim it is a bad thing? Or someone who is gay? I know you didn't specify but I am illustrating the ridiculous hypocrisy of the PC left. People have the freedom of speech in America. If they want to be bigots, let them. They are responsible for the results.

I'm going to contradict what I said earlier and say that legislating this sort of thing annoys me and is a bad idea. I agree that the pressure should stay in the cultural realm where people can pay the price for their words as that price comes in.

I think that both your examples are wrong. Insulting someone's religion isn't cool regardless of whether they're Islamic or Christian. I think the PC left's issue has always been that they're trying to take fringe, ostracized, and oppressed groups and protect them while letting the majority fend for themselves. I don't particularly agree with that idea, but I believe that theory informs quite a bit of the thinking you see from the PC left, and left in general.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 07:05 PM

I disagree, if the goal is to avoid violence then limiting free speech is OK.

I suppose that is where you and I part ways. Where do you draw the line? What is the point of free speech if you limit the speech of someone, no matter how bigoted and ignorant? Who is to judge what free speech is? Just throwing that out there.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 07:07 PM

I'm going to contradict what I said earlier and say that legislating this sort of thing annoys me and is a bad idea. I agree that the pressure should stay in the cultural realm where people can pay the price for their words as that price comes in.

I think that both your examples are wrong. Insulting someone's religion isn't cool regardless of whether they're Islamic or Christian. I think the PC left's issue has always been that they're trying to take fringe, ostracized, and oppressed groups and protect them while letting the majority fend for themselves. I don't particularly agree with that idea, but I believe that theory informs quite a bit of the thinking you see from the PC left, and left in general.

Good post. :clap:

Sully

02-28-2007, 07:10 PM

I disagree, if the goal is to avoid violence then limiting free speech is OK.

That's pretty dangerous.

Logical

02-28-2007, 07:15 PM

I suppose that is where you and I part ways. Where do you draw the line? What is the point of free speech if you limit the speech of someone, no matter how bigoted and ignorant? Who is to judge what free speech is? Just throwing that out there.

That is why we have a judicial system.

Logical

02-28-2007, 07:16 PM

That's pretty dangerous.How so?

jAZ

02-28-2007, 07:22 PM

Just for the record, 2 of BD's 3 articles are from 1999 and 2005 respectively. Is there any reason you are just now getting around to posting these as news here today?

Sully

02-28-2007, 07:22 PM

How so?

Because as much as we wish it wasn't so, whoever is making the decision on what constitutes "dangerous" speech is always going to have an opinion. He or she has to balance his or her idea of where the line is drawn for speech to be considered dangerous, and what level of violence is accepted before that threshold is reached.

OR

We could hold those responsible for reacting violently to speech, thereby making that judgment moot. If words incite you to violence, then the problem is yours (obviously not you as in "Logical," but you as in anyone), not the speaker.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 07:25 PM

Just for the record, 2 of BD's 3 articles are from 1999 and 2005 respectively. Is there any reason you are just now getting around to posting these as news here today?
I ask because I'm not entirely sure that there's any "there" there anymore. What's the status on these issues?

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 07:25 PM

That is why we have a judicial system.

So if criticizing the President was made unlawful by the 'Judicial system', you would be OK with that? ANY limitation on free speech and freedom of the press (no matter how much one agrees/disagrees with the viewpoint of the speaker/author) is wrong IMO. Limiting free speech in any way sounds like a lack of freedom to me. Might as well hoist the swastika on every flagpole and force people to give the nazi salute 3 times per day.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 07:28 PM

The liberals attack on freedom of speech is all on the PC level though.
Sorry, I missed that you were building a historic case against liberals here for being PC.

My bad.

I could be wrong, but I'd expect that you'd rightly see the Conservatives attack on "life, liberaty and the persuit of happiness" as equal if not MUCH, MUCH, MUCH greater concern.

Maybe you were unaware of this issue...

http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_content/2007/02/022807ov_hor_pentagon.php

Posting Date
February 28, 2007

By JACON G. HORNBERGER

... Historically, the U.S. military has lacked the power to arrest, incarcerate, or inflict harm on American civilians. If Americans committed a federal crime, they were subject to being indicted by a federal grand jury and then prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused would be accorded certain rights of due process of law, such as the right to defend himself with the assistance of an attorney, to confront the witnesses whose testimony the prosecutors were relying on, to summon witnesses in his behalf, to remain silent, and to have a trial by jury. Everyone was presumed to be innocent and the government had to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those constitutional protections and guarantees were upended on 9/11, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. On 9/11 the president and the Pentagon assumed to themselves the power to take any American into custody and inflict violence on him, without according him any of the protections provided by the Bill of Rights. Today, the Pentagon has the authority, on orders of its commander in chief, to send American soldiers into any neighborhood in the country and take into custody any American citizen and inflict harm on him simply by labeling him an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror." ...

The CIA and the Pentagon assumed the authority to kidnap, capture, arrest, torture, “rendition,” and execute suspected terrorists all over the world. There were a few indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for terrorism in federal court, such as that of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. But for the vast majority of foreigners U.S. officials picked up for terrorism, there was torture, indefinite incarceration, and in some cases extra-judicial executions. Sometimes the torture occurred at the hands of U.S. personnel. Other times, the torture was outsourced (“renditioned”) to police or intelligence forces of brutal, but friendly, foreign regimes ...

So it’s not surprising that they chose someone like Jose Padilla as their test case, rather than some middle-class high-school principal who was a member of Rotary. Federal officials knew that Americans would feel no sympathy for Padilla, especially after the U.S. attorney general went on television and announced that Padilla was planning to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States ...

Ultra Peanut

02-28-2007, 07:29 PM

Case in point: I didn't even say anything, but I found Big Daddy's attack on UP in the other thread to be mean and poorly reflective on Big Daddy. My objections have nothing to do with any sort of PC agenda, I just thought the post demonstrated unwarranted cruelty. Cruelty towards anyone unfortunate enough to read it, in particular. Think how many brain cells could've been saved if he had only refrained from clicking the MAEK POAT button.

Logical

02-28-2007, 07:33 PM

Because as much as we wish it wasn't so, whoever is making the decision on what constitutes "dangerous" speech is always going to have an opinion. He or she has to balance his or her idea of where the line is drawn for speech to be considered dangerous, and what level of violence is accepted before that threshold is reached.

OR

We could hold those responsible for reacting violently to speech, thereby making that judgment moot. If words incite you to violence, then the problem is yours (obviously not you as in "Logical," but you as in anyone), not the speaker.Assaulting someone won't always result in loss of human injury, yet it is always considered a violent crime. We draw the line all the time, I don't see this differently.

Logical

02-28-2007, 07:34 PM

So if criticizing the President was made unlawful by the 'Judicial system', you would be OK with that? ANY limitation on free speech and freedom of the press (no matter how much one agrees/disagrees with the viewpoint of the speaker/author) is wrong IMO. Limiting free speech in any way sounds like a lack of freedom to me. Might as well hoist the swastika on every flagpole and force people to give the nazi salute 3 times per day.
Does criticizing the President result in violence? I think you are looking for an extreme and creating a false strawman.

P.S threatening the President's life is always a crime if prosecuted.

Sully

02-28-2007, 07:39 PM

Assaulting someone won't always result in loss of human injury, yet it is always considered a violent crime. We draw the line all the time, I don't see this differently.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 07:54 PM

Does criticizing the President result in violence?

Depends on who you are doing it in front of. Do it in front of a party zealot and you may be looking for trouble. Insult Mohammed and you may be looking for trouble from a Muslim. Insult Christ in front of an extremist and you may be looking for trouble. Insult a gay in a gay bar and you may be looking for trouble. I think you get the point. You can't guage the right of someone to speak freely based solely on what COULD happen. If the individual making the insult gets his ass whooped, it is his own fault. It just isn't something you can effectively legislate.

P.S threatening the President's life is always a crime if prosecuted.

Threatening ANYONES life is Assault. A crime you can be prosecuted for.

Logical

02-28-2007, 07:57 PM

Depends on who you are doing it in front of. Do it in front of a party zealot and you may be looking for trouble. Insult Mohammed and you may be looking for trouble from a Muslim. Insult Christ in front of an extremist and you may be looking for trouble. Insult a gay in a gay bar and you may be looking for trouble. I think you get the point. You can't guage the right of someone to speak freely based solely on what COULD happen. If the individual making the insult gets his ass whooped, it is his own fault. It just isn't something you can effectively legislate.

Threatening ANYONES life is Assault. A crime you can be prosecuted for.

We are obviously not going to change each others mind. I am just glad the judicial system is moving towards my POV.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 08:04 PM

That is why we have a judicial system.

Did you click on the link I provided? The one where a blatantly un-Consitutional law was passed and upheld by the Highest Court? You can't put the very things that are supposed to protect us from the government in the hands of the government.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 08:05 PM

We are obviously not going to change each others mind. I am just glad the judicial system is moving towards my POV.

I actually hope such a case gets in front of the SC. It will take them about 30 seconds to uphold the 1st Amendment. 28 seconds laughing their asses off over the pettiness of such a thin skinned plaintiff playing the victim card and 2 seconds to rule that the person who insulted them has the right to do so.

Logical

02-28-2007, 08:11 PM

I actually hope such a case gets in front of the SC. It will take them about 30 seconds to uphold the 1st Amendment. 28 seconds laughing their asses off over the pettiness of such a thin skinned plaintiff playing the victim card and 2 seconds to rule that the person who insulted them has the right to do so.

You think so? read about the upholding of sedition act by the Supreme Court as pointed out by pikesome.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0843922.html

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 08:18 PM

You think so? read about the upholding of sedition act by the Supreme Court as pointed out by pikesome.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0843922.html

I already have. Now tell me Jim, do you honestly think that if the very same case were brought before this SC that it wouldn't be reversed so fast the paper it was written on would catch fire? This SC, like it or not, is Constructionist in its makeup and that is a good thing.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 08:22 PM

You think so? read about the upholding of sedition act by the Supreme Court as pointed out by pikesome.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0843922.html

It's been limited a couple times by subsequent cases so the Court hasn't gone completely 1984 yet but the fact that this even has a legal foundation ought to worry people. Far more than that article posted earlier by Jaz. It's far easier to prove "imminent lawless action" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) than a "enemy combatant".

NewPhin

02-28-2007, 08:23 PM

So if someone insults a Christian it is OK but if someone insults a Muslim it is a bad thing? Or someone who is gay? I know you didn't specify but I am illustrating the ridiculous hypocrisy of the PC left. People have the freedom of speech in America. If they want to be bigots, let them. They are responsible for the results.

BTW, I stand by my original post, but I did start thinking. Does the Left protect others over the rights of the mainstream? Is PC all about protecting the fringe religions while going against Christianity. So, I thought to myself... what's a good googleable test case where I might find cases of "PC-police" standing up for Christians? The ACLU of course! So I googled ACLU protecting Christianity and found this interesting site:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

I still think the bias of which we spoke earlier is certainly there, but it does make me feel somewhat better to see that Christian causes aren't entirely abandoned by the "PC police."

pikesome

02-28-2007, 08:25 PM

I already have. Now tell me Jim, do you honestly think that if the very same case were brought before this SC that it wouldn't be reversed so fast the paper it was written on would catch fire? This SC, like it or not, is Constructionist in its makeup and that is a good thing.

The case that "overturned" Schenck v. US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

Still allows the government to label speech as a crime. I'm not happy with the idea of my potential oppressors holding the tools of oppression "for safekeeping".

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 08:33 PM

The case that "overturned" Schenck v. US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

Still allows the government to label speech as a crime. I'm not happy with the idea of my potential oppressors holding the tools of oppression "for safekeeping".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This was the point I was making to Jim all along. If a case goes before our current SC involving someone "offending" someone else............

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 08:38 PM

BTW, I stand by my original post, but I did start thinking. Does the Left protect others over the rights of the mainstream? Is PC all about protecting the fringe religions while going against Christianity. So, I thought to myself... what's a good googleable test case where I might find cases of "PC-police" standing up for Christians? The ACLU of course! So I googled ACLU protecting Christianity and found this interesting site:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

I still think the bias of which we spoke earlier is certainly there, but it does make me feel somewhat better to see that Christian causes aren't entirely abandoned by the "PC police."

I'm not a big fan of the ACLU but once in awhile they get it right.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 08:51 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This was the point I was making to Jim all along. If a case goes before our current SC involving someone "offending" someone else............

I'm not so sure of your faith in the SC. This is the same bunch that widened Eminent Domain. Looking through the related cases I could find without Westlaw, it does look like the Court has been fairly tight with 1st Amendment issues however. The term "slippery slope" gets over-used but I think it accurately describes my worries.

BucEyedPea

02-28-2007, 08:57 PM

Maybe you were unaware of this issue...

http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_content/2007/02/022807ov_hor_pentagon.php

Posting Date
February 28, 2007

By JACON G. HORNBERGER

... Historically, the U.S. military has lacked the power to arrest, incarcerate, or inflict harm on American civilians. If Americans committed a federal crime, they were subject to being indicted by a federal grand jury and then prosecuted in U.S. District Court. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused would be accorded certain rights of due process of law, such as the right to defend himself with the assistance of an attorney, to confront the witnesses whose testimony the prosecutors were relying on, to summon witnesses in his behalf, to remain silent, and to have a trial by jury. Everyone was presumed to be innocent and the government had to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those constitutional protections and guarantees were upended on 9/11, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. On 9/11 the president and the Pentagon assumed to themselves the power to take any American into custody and inflict violence on him, without according him any of the protections provided by the Bill of Rights. Today, the Pentagon has the authority, on orders of its commander in chief, to send American soldiers into any neighborhood in the country and take into custody any American citizen and inflict harm on him simply by labeling him an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror." ...

The CIA and the Pentagon assumed the authority to kidnap, capture, arrest, torture, “rendition,” and execute suspected terrorists all over the world. There were a few indictments, prosecutions, and convictions for terrorism in federal court, such as that of 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. But for the vast majority of foreigners U.S. officials picked up for terrorism, there was torture, indefinite incarceration, and in some cases extra-judicial executions. Sometimes the torture occurred at the hands of U.S. personnel. Other times, the torture was outsourced (“renditioned”) to police or intelligence forces of brutal, but friendly, foreign regimes ...

So it’s not surprising that they chose someone like Jose Padilla as their test case, rather than some middle-class high-school principal who was a member of Rotary. Federal officials knew that Americans would feel no sympathy for Padilla, especially after the U.S. attorney general went on television and announced that Padilla was planning to explode a nuclear bomb in the United States ...

Interesting. I know Jacob. There's a typo in his name.
He's a pure libertarian and founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 08:59 PM

I'm not so sure of your faith in the SC. This is the same bunch that widened Eminent Domain. Looking through the related cases I could find without Westlaw, it does look like the Court has been fairly tight with 1st Amendment issues however. The term "slippery slope" gets over-used but I think it accurately describes my worries.

My faith in the current SC lies in the appointments of Roberts and Alito by this administration. One of the things they have done right. If the previous SC had to rule on the same case, I would be more than nervous.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:01 PM

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:02 PM

I already have. Now tell me Jim, do you honestly think that if the very same case were brought before this SC that it wouldn't be reversed so fast the paper it was written on would catch fire? This SC, like it or not, is Constructionist in its makeup and that is a good thing.I think that particular instance probably would not be repeated, but I do believe this court would uphold limiting freedom of speech for violence avoidance.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:06 PM

My faith in the current SC lies in the appointments of Roberts and Alito by this administration. One of the things they have done right. If the previous SC had to rule on the same case, I would be more than nervous.

Let me just say constructionists or not Justices always error on public safety's side. Rare, very rare is the exception to that rule.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:07 PM

I think that particular instance probably would not be repeated, but I do believe this court would uphold limiting freedom of speech for violence avoidance.

Perhaps IMMINENT VIOLENCE AVOIDANCE as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio.

Calling someone a ___________(insert racial/ethnic/religious/sex orientation/gender epithet here) is not necessarily causing IMMINENT violence.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:08 PM

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:11 PM

Perhaps IMMINENT VIOLENCE AVOIDANCE as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio.

Calling someone a ___________(insert racial/ethnic/religious/sex orientation/gender epithet here) is not necessarily causing IMMINENT violence.

That seems to support my argument.

It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action).

You are confusing me with this as an argument for your benefit.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 09:14 PM

I just don't understand how the people upset on this thread aren't climbing the walls of the WH with pitchforks and bonfired trying forcibly to kick the Bush Administration out of office.

If labeling a certain form of speech as "hate" and making it a crime stirs up this amount of protest and resentment...

... surely enabling the Military to lock up American citizens for half a decade by just flat out ignoring the Bill of Rights...

... surely that sort of thing would strike some of those on this thread as completely intollerable...

... right?

Because there are two problems with your statements. First, for any of this to apply you have to get labeled an "enemy combatant". It hasn't been applied many times, Padilla being the only one that was a US citizen I can find, so I don't think 99.99% of America are in danger of being locked away under this. And second, read the case history starting with Schenck v US, you'll find that you, right now, could very easily be convicted if the same laws that Wilson forced through were in force today. Seems to me that is a far more likely scenario than the Feds proving you're an "enemy combatant".

I'm not granting that we should use this new law on US citizens but I'm out of rat's asses for foreigners to benefit from our rules while trying to do us harm. If they want to bask in our Constitution, talk to Immigration.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:15 PM

BLAH BLAH BLAH I HATE BUSH BLAH BLAH BUSH CAUSED ALL TROUBLE ON THE EARTH BLAH BLAH BLAH :shake:

He has a point though, I don't recall your position but I do not recall you being with those of us in strong objectiion to the Patriot Act.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:19 PM

That seems to support my argument.

You are confusing me with this as an argument for your benefit.

Inflammatory speech is not necessarily inciting imminent lawless action per the opinion, hence the overturning of the original case.

The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages. Judge Learned Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand) was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masses_Publishing_Co._v._Patten), 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "[i]f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:21 PM

It hasn't been applied many times, Padilla being the only one that was a US citizen I can find, so I don't think 99.99% of America are in danger of being locked away under this.
Well, as long as the Constitution, the founding principles of our nation, the Bill of Rights and what-not apply to MOST Americans... it's not really a concern that they don't apply to ALL Americans. As long as wel leave that decision as to who falls into that .01% up to a single person... I'm sure it's going to be ok.

Seriously, how can anyone with any constructionist/libertarian/conservative streak in them not be literally scaling the walls of the WH trying end this anti-American power-grab right now.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:21 PM

He has a point though, I don't recall your position but I do not recall you being with those of us in strong objectiion to the Patriot Act.

I do have a strong objection to the Patriot Act. I also have a strong objection to blindly partisan nutballs who hijack threads with off topic rubbish to express their irrational hatred for someone.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:26 PM

I do have a strong objection to the Patriot Act. I also have a strong objection to blindly partisan nutballs who hijack threads with off topic rubbish to express their irrational hatred for someone.It may have been a rant, but it was not off topic. In fact the Patriot act and the restriction of freedoms without due process are very much on topic.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 09:27 PM

Well, as long as the Constitution, the founding principles of our nation, the Bill of Rights and what-not apply to MOST Americans... it's not really a concern that they don't apply to ALL Americans. As long as wel leave that decision as to who falls into that .01% up to a single person... I'm sure it's going to be ok.

Seriously, how can anyone with any constructionist/libertarian/conservative streak in them not be literally scaling the walls of the WH trying end this anti-American power-grab right now.

Because I see it as a way to prevent foreigners from using our protections to work the system. It's already something we deal with (Miranda Rights coming to mind) in the criminal justice system today. Nothing in there, to the best of my knowledge, is an attack on US citizen's 1st Amendment rights (the topic of this thread). The only way any of this could be abused is by mislabeling people as "enemy combatants". It's real hard to argue that Padilla hadn't walked away from his US citizenship until it suited him.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:29 PM

Inflammatory speech is not necessarily inciting imminent lawless action per the opinion, hence the overturning of the original case.

The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages. Judge Learned Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand) was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masses_Publishing_Co._v._Patten), 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "[i]f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.

Pretty vague relevance as far as the actual case goes. By the way 1969 would be that court you were so much less confident in.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:30 PM

The only way any of this could be abused is by mislabeling people as "enemy combatants".
ROFL @ "only"...

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:31 PM

Because I see it as a way to prevent foreigners from using our protections to work the system. It's already something we deal with (Miranda Rights coming to mind) in the criminal justice system today. Nothing in there, to the best of my knowledge, is an attack on US citizen's 1st Amendment rights (the topic of this thread). The only way any of this could be abused is by mislabeling people as "enemy combatants". It's real hard to argue that Padilla hadn't walked away from his US citizenship until it suited him.

I think once you are a citizen, you are a citizen regardless. Unless you formally and legally renounce it or take citizenship with another country.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:34 PM

It may have been a rant, but it was not off topic. In fact the Patriot act and the restriction of freedoms without due process are very much on topic.

Not directly on topic and it takes an unfinished debate into a new direction unnecessarily. If he wants to debate the Patriot Act (and how wrong it is) with me, it will be a very short debate. 1 post. I agree, it is completely wrong and, IMO unconstitutional. His motive was transparent and irritating. We are discussing the freedom of speech, not whether or not someone should be incarcerated without due process and the benefit of Habeus Corpus because some paranoid dickweed claims he/she is a terrorist.

So, what is your rebuttal to my bolded portion of the ruling on that case we were talking about?

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:36 PM

I do have a strong objection to the Patriot Act.
The Padilla case isn't an issue of the Patriot Act.

It's the result of a single order of Bush's that declared anyone he chooses to label as "enemy combatant" is subject to almost unlimited authority by the Sec of Defense.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:38 PM

Pretty vague relevance as far as the actual case goes. By the way 1969 would be that court you were so much less confident in.

Not at all. The ruling was that the individual involved wasn't urging others or convincing them it was their duty to break the law by rioting just because he insulted them. The court that scared me was the one during Slick Willies reign.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:41 PM

The Padilla case isn't an issue of the Patriot Act.

It's the result of a single order of Bush's that declared anyone he chooses to label as "enemy combatant" is subject to almost unlimited authority by the Sec of Defense.

And this has to do with the freedom of speech HOW? Dude, just start a "Padilla got screwed by the evil debbil Bush tyrant dictator piece of shit" thread and get it out of your system please. Let us continue with our debate or join in brother, OK?

pikesome

02-28-2007, 09:44 PM

I think once you are a citizen, you are a citizen regardless. Unless you formally and legally renounce it or take citizenship with another country.

I have a problem with that idea, although I don't have a good test in mind. We grant rights in this country most others don't and it would be a grave abuse for Bin Laden-ish figures to get a US citizenship then go back over seas with the Constitution shielding them. But I'm willing to grant that my natural dislike for subjective rules makes a case like this hard to argue. If I allow Padillia's citizenship to be "poofed" away I have to wonder how low the bar can/will get.

None of this real applies to the 1st Amendment by the way.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:45 PM

Not at all. The ruling was that the individual involved wasn't urging others or convincing them it was their duty to break the law by rioting just because he insulted them. The court that scared me was the one during Slick Willies reign.That court was far more conservative than the 1969 version. I have said language that causes violence, not urges breaking the law. I stand by my vague relevance statement.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:47 PM

It's real hard to argue that Padilla hadn't walked away from his US citizenship until it suited him.
If it's not so hard, then he should be stripped of his citizenship legally. That never happpened. He's a US citizen, whether that suits your taste or not. Now, given that fact... you can not in anyway say...
Nothing in there, to the best of my knowledge, is an attack on US citizen's 1st Amendment rights (the topic of this thread).

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:47 PM

...

None of this real applies to the 1st Amendment by the way. We agree on that.

By the way the court has already determined that the bill of rights is not limited to citizens. I once thought that as well, but some of the lawyers on the BB showed me the error or my thought. I believe it was go bo (to give proper credit).

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 09:54 PM

That court was far more conservative than the 1969 version. I have said language that causes violence, not urges breaking the law. I stand by my vague relevance statement.

Jim, that was known as the Brandenburg test - the precedent for overturning the conviction and now read the following:

The Brandenburg test was the Court's last major statement on what government may do about inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action. It resolved the debate between those who urged greater government control of speech for reasons of security and those who favored allowing as much speech as possible and relying on the marketplace of ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas) to reach a favorable result, leaving the law in a state along the lines of that which Justices Louis Brandeis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis), and, post-Schenck, Oliver Wendell Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr.) advocated in several dissents and concurrences during the late 1910s and early 1920s. As of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:54 PM

And this has to do with the freedom of speech HOW? Dude, just start a "Padilla got screwed by the evil debbil Bush tyrant dictator piece of shit" thread and get it out of your system please. Let us continue with our debate or join in brother, OK?

In fairness, did Padilla do anything provable other than misuse his freedom of speech and association?

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:55 PM

None of this real applies to the 1st Amendment by the way.
Actually it does...

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly in spirit though technically it's the President effectlively "making law" by executive decree that he's allowed to summarily declare that those who he chooses to label "enemy combatant" have no right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

jAZ

02-28-2007, 09:58 PM

In fairness, did Padilla do anything provable other than misuse his freedom of speech and association?
ROFL

I didn't expect that, but you raise a hell of a good point.

With that, I could justify the relevance of the topic to this thread directly. That I didn't have that in mind from the beginning means that I'd be cheating to use that as justification to stick around on this thread even with the complaints.

I will apologize for hijacking the thread. It's completely relevant to the topic, but it's a slight tangent, I admit.

Logical

02-28-2007, 09:59 PM

C4E from your own note:

Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.

Not saying there is no relevance, just vague and that statement emphasizes that.

I also think you ignore the Supreme Courts ruling on "Clear and Present Danger"

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:01 PM

In fairness, did Padilla do anything provable other than misuse his freedom of speech and association?

I haven't researched the facts on both sides of the case enough to give my opinion in an informed manner. Sorry. :(

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:02 PM

C4E from your own note:

Not saying there is no relevance, just vague and that statement emphasizes that.

I also think you ignore the Supreme Courts ruling on "Clear and Present Danger"

You mean the ruling or the book? ROFL :p

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:05 PM

Alright Jim, we gotta bring in the heavy artillery to solve this factually. AMNORIX, BANYON, PATTEAU AND GO BO..............FRONT AND CENTER! We need legal intrepretation of this debate.

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:07 PM

ROFL

I didn't expect that, but you raise a hell of a good point.

With that, I could justify the relevance of the topic to this thread directly. That I didn't have that in mind from the beginning means that I'd be cheating to use that as justification to stick around on this thread even with the complaints.

I will apologize for hijacking the thread. It's completely relevant to the topic, but it's a slight tangent, I admit.It is why I was good at debate, I can usually see both sides of an issue and I am almost as good as devils advocate as I am arguing what I believe in. Makes it hard for people to peg my actual beliefs. That is why I think my last couple of years on the BB have so many people confused about my beliefs. They are convinced my health changed them which is not at all the case.

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:08 PM

Alright Jim, we gotta bring in the heavy artillery to solve this factually. AMNORIX, BANYON, PATTEAU AND GO BO..............FRONT AND CENTER! We need legal intrepretation of this debate.

I think they would add some very interesting perspective. I hope they do join in.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:09 PM

It is why I was good at debate, I can usually see both sides of an issue and I am almost as good as devils advocate as I am arguing what I believe in. Makes it hard for people to peg my actual beliefs. That is why I think my last couple of years on the BB have so many people confused about my beliefs. They are convinced my health changed them which is not at all the case.

You didn't have ME fooled. I know you are bipolar. :p

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:11 PM

This is actually a VERY interesting debate. The Bill of Rights is something very near and dear to my heart and I always want to keep up to speed on real or perceived threats to them.

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:15 PM

You didn't have ME fooled. I know you are bipolar. :p:clap:

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:16 PM

This is actually a VERY interesting debate. The Bill of Rights is something very near and dear to my heart and I always want to keep up to speed on real or perceived threats to them.

So what was your reaction to this point I made?

Quote: <HR SIZE=1>Originally Posted by Logical
In fairness, did Padilla do anything provable other than misuse his freedom of speech and association? <HR SIZE=1>

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:21 PM

Anyway Jim, at the risk of posting an overly long post; I will embolden the parts I feel are relevant to our debate.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=444) (1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969)), was a United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case based on the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to the U.S. Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action).

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to come and cover a KKK rally in Hamilton County. Portions of the rally were taped, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "******s," "Jews," and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place July 4. Brandenburg was later convicted of advocating violence under Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio)'s Criminal Syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute proscribed "advocat . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." He was fined $1000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison.
Brandenburg's conviction was affirmed by an Ohio appellate court despite his claim that the statute violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed his appeal without opinion. The rather cursory way in which the Ohio courts dismissed Brandenburg's constitutional arguments is unsurprising in light of the state of First Amendment law in the pre-Brandenburg era. Although Yates v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yates_v._United_States), 354 U.S. 298 (1957), had overturned the convictions of mid-level Communist Party members in language that seemed suggestive of a broader view of freedom of expression rights than had been accorded them in Dennis v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States), 341 U.S. 494 (1951), all Yates purported to do was construe a federal statute, the Smith Act. Thus, Dennis's reading of the First Amendment remained in force: advocacy of law violation, even as an abstract doctrine, could be punished under law consistent with the Free Speech Clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The unanimous majority opinion was [i]per curiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam) (issued from the Court as an institution rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice): it had originally been drafted by Justice Abe Fortas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Fortas) before he was forced to resign in the midst of an ethics scandal, and Justice William J. Brennan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan) made only minor changes to the opinion before it was published. Justices Black and Douglas concurred separately.

The per curiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam) majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California), 274 U.S. 357 (1927), and articulated a new test—the "imminent lawless action" test—for judging so-called seditious speech under the First Amendment:
"[our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The three distinct elements of this test (intent, imminence, and likelihood) have distinct precedential lineages. Judge Learned Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand) was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masses_Publishing_Co._v._Patten), 244 F. 535 (S.D.N.Y. 1917), reasoning that "f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation." The Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element.
The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. In [i]Schenck v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States), 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the Court had adopted a "clear and present danger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger)" test that Whitney v. California had expanded to a bad tendency test: if speech has a "tendency" to cause sedition or lawlessness, it may constitutionally be prohibited. Dennis v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States), a case dealing with prosecution of alleged Communists under the Smith Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act) for advocating the overthrow of the government, used the clear and present danger test while still upholding the defendants' convictions for acts that could not possibly have led to a speedy overthrow of the government. Brandenburg explicitly overruled the bad tendency test and made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.
Interestingly, the per curiam opinion cited to Dennis v. United States as though it were good law and amenable to the result reached in Brandenburg. In point of fact, Brandenburg essentially eviscerated Dennis's central holding and held that "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, was per se protected speech. It may be that principles of stare decisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) figured in the Court's decision to avoid overruling the relatively recent Dennis, but the distance between the two cases' approach is obvious and irreconcilable.

Justice Hugo Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black), renowned civil libertarian and First Amendment absolutist, filed a short concurrence indicating his agreement with Justice William O. Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas)'s longer opinion and pointing out that the per curiam's reliance on Dennis was more symbolic than actual.
Justice Douglas's concurrence reflected the absolutist position that only he and Black ever fully subscribed to, namely that the phrase "no law" in the First Amendment ought to be interpreted very literally, and that all speech is immune from prosecution, regardless of the governmental interests advanced in suppressing some particular instance of speech. He briefly traced the history of the clear and present danger test, illustrating how it had been used over the years since its debut in Schenck to dismiss dozens of what Douglas viewed as legitimate First Amendment claims.
A short but interesting section of Douglas's opinion indicated that he might be open to allowing the government greater latitude in controlling speech during time of "declared war" (making clear that he was not referring to the then-current Vietnam conflict), although he only phrased that possibility in terms of doubt (as opposed to his certainty that the clear and present danger test was irreconcilable with the First Amendment during time of peace).
Douglas also pointed out the legitimate role of symbolic speech in First Amendment doctrine, using examples of a person ripping up a Bible to celebrate the abandonment of his faith or tearing a copy of the Constitution in order to protest a Supreme Court decision, and assailed the previous term's United States v. O'Brien (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien), 391 U.S. 367 (1968), which had allowed for the prosecution of a man for burning his draft card. In all these situations, Douglas argued, an action was a vital way of conveying a certain message, and thus the action itself deserved First Amendment protection.
Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action." In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

The Brandenburg test was the Court's last major statement on what government may do about inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action. It resolved the debate between those who urged greater government control of speech for reasons of security and those who favored allowing as much speech as possible and relying on the marketplace of ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas) to reach a favorable result, leaving the law in a state along the lines of that which Justices Louis Brandeis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis), and, post-Schenck, Oliver Wendell Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes%2C_Jr.) advocated in several dissents and concurrences during the late 1910s and early 1920s. As of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:23 PM

So what was your reaction to this point I made?

I haven't researched the facts on both sides of the case enough to give my opinion in an informed manner. Sorry. :(

pikesome

02-28-2007, 10:27 PM

Actually it does...

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Certainly in spirit though technically it's the President effectlively "making law" by executive decree that he's allowed to summarily declare that those who he chooses to label "enemy combatant" have no right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Let's go back to the "Bush is going to throw every American in jail forever" article posted. It's not really in the same line as the rest of the thread. It was an attempt to beat the "Bush is the Debil" drum. Hence my not 1st Amendment statement.

On the other hand discussions of the limits of the Constitution are always a good idea. I have a tough time reconciling my distrust of the government (in general, it's not always about Bush) with my willingness to let the Feds protect me effectively. This is a horse that never dies.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 10:30 PM

By the way the court has already determined that the bill of rights is not limited to citizens. I once thought that as well, but some of the lawyers on the BB showed me the error or my thought. I believe it was go bo (to give proper credit).

I'm aware of this, I just don't like it. It's hard for me to extend all of the rights we enjoy here when I can be thrown in jail for eating in public during Ramadan in the Persian Gulf. It would make me happy if there was a finer level of distinction.

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:34 PM

pikesome

02-28-2007, 10:39 PM

Let me just say that I am very much protective of our right to say unpopular things even ones that might be consider sedition by some. On the other hand screaming FU N*****rs at Madison Square Garden should not be protected.

It should be. But when you see the bull's horns aimed at your sack and not one person saw anything the wisdom of expressing yourself should be in doubt.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:39 PM

Let me just say that I am very much protective of our right to say unpopular things even ones that might be consider sedition by some. On the other hand screaming FU N*****rs at Madison Square Garden should not be protected.

Like New Chief and I both said, should saying such an ignorant bigoted thing be legislated? No. Should the moron saying something like that get his ass beat like there's no tomorrow by someone of the appropriate persuasion? YOU BET. I would buy an extra bag of popcorn and watch.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 10:48 PM

Like New Chief and I both said, should saying such an ignorant bigoted thing be legislated? No. Should the moron saying something like that get his ass beat like there's no tomorrow by someone of the appropriate persuasion? YOU BET. I would buy an extra bag of popcorn and watch.
Wow!

How the hell can you justify your belief that physical assault is reasonable acceptable but legal punishment is not?!?

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:49 PM

I'm aware of this, I just don't like it. It's hard for me to extend all of the rights we enjoy here when I can be thrown in jail for eating in public during Ramadan in the Persian Gulf. It would make me happy if there was a finer level of distinction.I actually agree with your point, but it is not the way it is in our country.

Logical

02-28-2007, 10:53 PM

Like New Chief and I both said, should saying such an ignorant bigoted thing be legislated? No. Should the moron saying something like that get his ass beat like there's no tomorrow by someone of the appropriate persuasion? YOU BET. I would buy an extra bag of popcorn and watch.The problem is that not only will that one person get beat but probably dozens of others in the ensuing riot.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 10:54 PM

Wow!

How the hell can you justify your belief that physical assault is reasonable acceptable but legal punishment is not?!?

I'm not speaking for CHIEF4EVER but since he and I laid down the same opinion I'll throw my thoughts out. There is a difference between Justice and the law. The beating that would result would be no more legal than if it's recipient got jumped for no reason. Having said that, if people involved thought that the case should be treated different, well, that's why we have prosecutors who make those decisions. It could also be up to the jury if they felt that no real crime had been committed.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:56 PM

Wow!

How the hell can you justify your belief that physical assault is reasonable acceptable but legal punishment is not?!?

The premise isn't that I think that physical assault is better than legal punishment. The premise is that it is better for society to handle disputes about petty things like insults among themselves rather than have an intrusive and overly controlling government legislate them. I don't need big brother to hold my hand and tell me not to say something. I think I would rather have my freedom and rely on my own common sense and sense of decency to regulate my behavior.

pikesome

02-28-2007, 10:57 PM

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 10:59 PM

The problem is that not only will that one person get beat but probably dozens of others in the ensuing riot.

Probably or possibly?

Logical

02-28-2007, 11:09 PM

Probably or possibly?Probably

It is really no different than yelling fire in a packed theatre, when there is none.

CHIEF4EVER

02-28-2007, 11:14 PM

Probably

It is really no different than yelling fire in a packed theatre, when there is none.

How so? I don't think your example effectively communicates your logical intent. No pun intended.

Jenson71

02-28-2007, 11:17 PM

I have a liberal professor that seems to hate freedom of speech. He tried to get a grad student in trouble with his advisors after they got into a debate on a blog about abortion. He contacted the grad student's advisors! I hope he comes into class some day and trips in front of everybody.

jAZ

02-28-2007, 11:37 PM

The premise isn't that I think that physical assault is better than legal punishment. The premise is that it is better for society to handle disputes about petty things like insults among themselves rather than have an intrusive and overly controlling government legislate them. I don't need big brother to hold my hand and tell me not to say something. I think I would rather have my freedom and rely on my own common sense and sense of decency to regulate my behavior.
The role of government in a democracy is to provide a non-violent way to enforce social agreements on norms of acceptable behavior for the purpose of creating a stable cultural structure. Physical violence in response to verbal insults is completely against the purpose of our entire democracy.

I'm not disagreeing with your instincts to minimize big-brother.

I just think that you (and a number of people on the right) often have a massively skewed sense of priorities. This comments seems to me to be evidence of that fact. They apply their libertarian/small-government ideology in situations that are familiar and objectionable to you, but not in all situations that your ideology would demand it.

The line between when to apply it, and when not to... seems almost universally to be... "do I think I might be hindered from doing whatever I want to do?"

If it's someone else that's hindered... or you don't think you'll ever want to do the think that someone else can't do... then it doesn't matter.

It's all too often not really about the principle of the matter, but the selfishness of the matter.

I can't honestly say where you personally fall in this respect, but your comment leads me to think you don't hold true to the princple (physical assualt in response verbal assault), so it makes me I wonder.

Logical

02-28-2007, 11:54 PM

How so? I don't think your example effectively communicates your logical intent. No pun intended.Speech that endangers others is not protected.

CHIEF4EVER

03-01-2007, 12:05 AM

The role of government in a democracy is to provide a non-violent way to enforce social agreements on norms of acceptable behavior for the purpose of creating a stable cultural structure. Physical violence in response to verbal insults is completely against the purpose of our entire democracy.

I'm not disagreeing with your instincts to minimize big-brother.

I just think that you (and a number of people on the right) often have a massively skewed sense of priorities. This comments seems to me to be evidence of that fact. They apply their libertarian/small-government ideology in situations that are familiar and objectionable to you, but not in all situations that your ideology would demand it.

The line between when to apply it, and when not to... seems almost universally to be... "do I think I might be hindered from doing whatever I want to do?"

If it's someone else that's hindered... or you don't think you'll ever want to do the think that someone else can't do... then it doesn't matter.

It's all too often not really about the principle of the matter, but the selfishness of the matter.

I can't honestly say where you personally fall in this respect, but your comment leads me to think you don't hold true to the princple (physical assualt in response verbal assault), so it makes me I wonder.

First of all, the premise that the government is there to provide a nonviolent way to to enforce social agreements on norms of acceptable behavior for the purpose of creating a stable cultural structure is a flawed one. Lets look at the Preamble of the Constitution to decipher the intent................

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The language "We, the People of the United States of America" is of singular importance in that it provides that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States of America does not come from the States, or even the people of several states, but from an entity identified as the People of the United States of America, with the Constitution serving as a compact or contract between the People of the United State of America, the States, and the Federal government of United States of America. The importance of this language lies in that it places the Federal government of the United States of America as not derivative of its power solely from the States.

Therefore, it is the people who have the final responsibility for the tenets of the Preamble, the reason our Constitution exists. Not the States, not the Federal government. The responsibility for maintaining the rights guaranteed in the Constitution is likewise the sole responsibility of the people. You know about checks and balances within the goverment but the biggest check and balance lies with the people of this country. We have to ensure the government doesn't get too large or intrusive. If we fail to do that, we have failed to fulfill our responsibilities as outlined in the first words of the very Constitution we claim to cherish and uphold. People in this country think they are subject to the government but that is not the case. The people elect their leaders and can remove them. The people also have the responsibility to effect change if the government becomes too intrusive or despotic. This is generally done through the ballot box. I firmly believe in small government that is beholden to the people it represents. Our government isn't responsible for feeding us, providing housing or telling us how to speak or think. WE ARE. The government is there to protect our borders and the nation, collect taxes for the maintenance of the government and the military and to legislate the will of the people within the boundaries set by the Bill of Rights. We are responsible for all else. Do I believe that people should resolve all disputes by physical force? No. Do I believe it is justified and acceptable in some cases? Yes.

Sorry I was so long winded but I hope that clears up what my belief system is in the matter of government and my political stance.

jAZ

03-01-2007, 12:43 AM

First of all, the premise that the government is there to provide a nonviolent way to to enforce social agreements on norms of acceptable behavior for the purpose of creating a stable cultural structure is a flawed one. Lets look at the Preamble of the Constitution to decipher the intent................

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The language "We, the People of the United States of America" is of singular importance in that it provides that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States of America does not come from the States, or even the people of several states, but from an entity identified as the People of the United States of America, with the Constitution serving as a compact or contract between the People of the United State of America, the States, and the Federal government of United States of America. The importance of this language lies in that it places the Federal government of the United States of America as not derivative of its power solely from the States.

Therefore, it is the people who have the final responsibility for the tenets of the Preamble, the reason our Constitution exists. Not the States, not the Federal government. The responsibility for maintaining the rights guaranteed in the Constitution is likewise the sole responsibility of the people. You know about checks and balances within the goverment but the biggest check and balance lies with the people of this country. We have to ensure the government doesn't get too large or intrusive. If we fail to do that, we have failed to fulfill our responsibilities as outlined in the first words of the very Constitution we claim to cherish and uphold. People in this country think they are subject to the government but that is not the case. The people elect their leaders and can remove them. The people also have the responsibility to effect change if the government becomes too intrusive or despotic. This is generally done through the ballot box. I firmly believe in small government that is beholden to the people it represents. Our government isn't responsible for feeding us, providing housing or telling us how to speak or think. WE ARE. The government is there to protect our borders and the nation, collect taxes for the maintenance of the government and the military and to legislate the will of the people within the boundaries set by the Bill of Rights. We are responsible for all else. Do I believe that people should resolve all disputes by physical force? No. Do I believe it is justified and acceptable in some cases? Yes.

Sorry I was so long winded but I hope that clears up what my belief system is in the matter of government and my political stance.
I completely agree that the authority of the Government is derived first and only from the people. That's the beauty of democracy.

However, that fact doesn't change the role of the government as we have democratically assigned it (explicitly via the Preamble itself oddly enough)...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As you say, the power of the government comes from the people. But that power has a role, and we've chosen that role to be as I described accurately. That the authority to define that role comes from the people is not disputed nor is it relevant to the nature of the role.