From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Keywords: aieeee
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:28:34 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.232508.9821@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul16.021218.25904@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>"Partial free speech"?  You mean as in, "you're free to say whatever I
>>approve of"?  I fight against those who would eliminate freedome of
>>speech.  I do not wish to become one of them.

>(Sigh.)  We've already established that freedom of speech as an absolute
>does not exist.  It's already been established that there can be
>restrictions of free speech.  You've conceded as much.  Content-based?
>But acts, including my waking you up to give you my message, or burning
>a cross on your lawn, don't HAVE content; in acts, the medium is the
>message.  Otherwise, the Klan would be perfectly content to desk top
>publish their message of racism.  Same content, different (and
>significantly less threatening) ACT.

	I must admit, coming in late, I don't know what the Supreme Court
decision was.  If the decision was that people have the right to burn crosses
on other folk's lawns, then I'd certainly agree that that is a wrong decision.
It's an invasion of our right of privacy; we can't be permitting trespass in
order to enable folks to exercise their freedom of speech anywhere they want
to.
	But I'd be willing to bet that the Supreme Court decision did not free
the perpetrators of trespass, but centered on whether the burning itself was
a form of speech that could be governmentally censored (special charges brought
because of the type of speech practiced on someone else's lawn, rather than
the act of trespass).
	Freedom of speech doesn't mean getting to say whatever you want
whenever you want; it means that the government may not act to prevent someone
from saying whatever they want to in a public forum.  It's not "partial free
speech"; it's that the speech component is irrelevant in some forums.  It
doesn't matter whether the perps burned crosses or white gowns on someone
else's lawn; the content doesn't matter.  The trespass still occurred.

>>
>>And I don't "give my opponent...partial free speech".  You make it
>>sound like I control all speech, and am doing him a favor.  Everybody
>>has full free speech.  If I cause someone to have only "partial free
>>speech" I'm taking something away, not granting something.

>I am not free to shout fire in a crowded theater, nor to use "fighting
>words" face to face.  If I had been a journalist in the Gulf War, I
>would not have been permitted to file certain stories or enter certain
>zones.  ALL free speech is partial.                      

	You are, however, free to shout "fire" in enough public forums that
your message can be heard.  The government would not stop you from "shouting" 
fire in a newspaper column, for instance.  You are free to use "fighting words"
in all kinds of public forums; the fact that there are specific instances where
you are not allowed to do so does not affect your ability to get your message
across to the public.  Not allowing you to enter certain zones does not limit
your ability to tell what you know; freedom of speech does not give you the
right to "know" anything that you want to know, it simply gives you the right
to say what you want to say.  The only example you've given that helps your
argument is that you would not have been permitted to file certain stories;
I'm not sure where noting that the government has illegally used censorship is
reasonable justification for encouraging the government to illegally apply more
censorship.
	Actually, I'm sort of stunned by this last one.  Do you think that
forbidding papers to publish that info was a correct decision?  I'll bet not.
If you don't think it was a good decision, that how can you consider using this
poor decision to justify more poor decisions?

	Free speech isn't partial at all.  However, deciding in favor of
privacy or immediate danger doesn't limit freedom of speech in the least, as
long as there are sufficient avenues available for you to get your message
across to the public.

>>
>>
>>You're quite welcome.  I think I understand what the problem is: by
>>"free speech", I mean that there are no content-based restrictions on
>>speech.  You mean that anyone can say anything at any place and any
>>time.

>This is just the SC's garbage little scholasticism.  The restriction on
>shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is content-based.  Gulf war
>restrictions on journalism were content-based.  And if you broaden
>speech to include Fascist performance art like cross-burning, you also
>break down the distinction between form and content, for in a cross
>burning the medium is the message.  Otherwise, the klan could get the
>same message across using desk top publishing, but nooooo...., they (and
>shitass little Viktora) must be able to "say" what they want to say
>by means of acts.  However, I can play the game of scholasticism better
>than Clarence Thomas, and I say that if it's an act, it DON'T have no
>content.  

	Which is, of course, absurd, since even speaking or publishing and
distributing is an act.  An act certainly has both content and action.  The 
action simply serves to dramatize the content.  Cross-burning is a more 
dramatic method of getting across content than printed material.  C'mon, Ed, 
if it has no content, what are you upset about?  You don't like the smell of 
burning wood?
	However, an act is also an act, and the act itself may be illegal.
Trespassing is illegal regardless of the content of the action.  Any action
that can immediately increase danger to the public can be illegal; there is
nothing wrong with insisting that the message be presented in a "safe" public
forum rather than an explosive one.

>>express any message to exactly the same degree that you have the right
>>to express any other message.  You cannot bother me in my apartment at
>>midnight, independent of your message.  You can stand on a
>>streetcorner and shout what you want, independent of your message.

>No, my message is such that it involves waking you up, just as the Klan
>can not content itself with desk top publishing its message of racial
>hatred.  Where's my freedom of speech in this hypothetical situation?

	No, your message is independent of your action.  Your choice of
dramatization involves a crime; I cannot have you thrown in jail for your
message, whatever it is.  You can shout your message at me through this forum,
for instance, to your heart's content, and I cannot bring governmental action
against you.  Trespass on my property, though, and you're committing a crime.

	(Note, also, that "speech" crimes such as libel are not crimes against
the government or the people, and the government cannot prosecute it.  The
government does, however, act as a mediator when a private citizen wants to
take action about your speech; your speech is "tortable", not illegal.  Thus,
the government has no ability to prosecute you should you say something
libelious about me in this forum; however, if I choose to sue you, the
government will act as a mediator.)

>>
>>>>>  During times of
>>>>>war, liberal capitalist societies have consistently destroyed free
>>>>>speech.
>>
>>>>"Destroyed" is too strong a word
>>>
>>>...except for:
>>>
>>>     *  The IWW labor activists killed in prison for opposing America's
>>>        entry into World War I

>>>     *  The Nisei whose homes were destroyed without a peep from us in 
>>>        WWII

	You don't agree that these were *crimes*?  You'd like to use these to
justify *more crimes*?  How about using these examples of crimes to educate
people against committing similar crimes in the future, instead of advocating
further crimes?

>>>     *  The Kent State students

	Without speaking about Kent State in particular, about which I do not
believe I have enough info to know The Truth, the difference between a peaceful
demonstration and a riot is a good example of how the message is not the crime,
the action is the crime.  The same message can be presented, and has for
decades been presented, through peaceful demonstrations.  As soon as one starts
to throw rocks to dramatize the message, however, a crime has been committed.
Punishing the crime of throwing rocks does not prevent peaceful demonstrations
from occurring.  (Note: of course, if the riot is starting by a policeman with
a billy club, then that person is the criminal, as that person did the illegal
action.  I say this for completeness sake, so that debate can occur about the
real content of my posting rather than disintegrating into an argument about
the sixties experience).

>>
>>I've never said that our society has always lived up to the standards
>>of free speech that it should.  I'm saying that those standards are
>>important, and the freedom of speech granted by society should
>>increase to match them.

>No, your saying that the present group of people who set the parameters
>of free speech must be allowed to continue to do so.  What bugs you
>about the bias crime law is the thought that it is of no benefit to you.

	I disagree.  The present group is definitely trying to limit some kinds
of freedom of speech in public forums that they shouldn't be doing, such as
censorship on nude dancing and publishing of war information (note that if the
information was gained by espionage, the action of espionage could be
prosecuted; the actual publishing should not).
	You, however, seem to be arguing to get a *new* group of people in to
make *new* decisions on what to illegally censor; I'd rather get a new group
of people in dedicated to lack of censorship as constitutionally mandated.

>Viktora's victims were forced to move by his little stunt, now protected
>"speech."  

	Did they really decide that it is legal to burn crosses on other
people's lawns without their permissions?  If so, this was a truly criminal
decision.  But it sounds to me like you'd like to ban cross-burnings on private
property or in public forums, and however repulsive that is, it must be
protected, else we do indeed justify previous crimes such as you described
above.

>I am all too familiar with the response to demands for change
>that empowers the town bully.  This is meant to confuse and disorient
>those who want change, for now they are faced with the choice between
>defending the town bully and the much more difficult path of showing how
>the town bully's actions make him less deserving of having his "freedom"
>protected.  In my experience, most of the American left has ended up
>self-destructively getting into bed with the town bully (the ACLU's
>support of Nazis, the support for Stalin in the 1930s
>and unconditional support for Israeli thugs like Begin are all
>examples; sometimes, Bob D., there really IS "the neighborhood bully".)

	You mean, an organization dedicated to freedom of speech has chose to
defend speech no matter what that speech is?  My, what a crime.

>It's easy to kick back and say, well, if we outlaw cross burnings we
>must outlaw flag burnings.  It's much harder to say, cross burning has
>an unavoidable historical meaning as a prelude to a battery, whereas
>flag burning has never been a prelude to a battery.  But the latter
>statement is TRUE.

	...and meaningless.  Your problem is with the battery, isn't it?  Do
you *really* think the battery that historically follows wouldn't have 
happened without the cross-burnings?  Do the cross-burnings "cause" the 
battery, or are they a warning that the sociological situation is hot?  Would
you prefer the batteries come without warnings?  Do you think the family in
this case that moved would have preferred that?  If we punished the perps for
the exercise of speech, would the family then have been safe?
	You're confusing correlation with causality; I know you know better
than that.  Cross-burnings and racial batteries are caused by the same parent
causes, a racially intolerant atmosphere; the appropriate response is
counter-speech and education, not censorship.  (And jail for trespass, of 
course).

	Your basic message seems to be that we have the wrong folks in there
making the decisions about what should be censored; my basic concept is that
we have folks in there making the wrong decision to censor.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women