From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship
Subject: Freedom of Speech (was: Mister Ed Nilges)
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:32:43 GMT
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)

Sheheryar Hasnain writes
> Ted Frank writes:
> > Sheheryar Hasnain writes:
> >>In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:
> >>Does free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on
> >>all levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how
> >>many people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
> >>
> >>1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.
> > 
> > Not true.
> 
> Has the ruling changed then?  In any case clarify this for me.

All the regulation said was that clinics will only receive federal birth  
control funding if they don't counsel abortion or give abortion referals. And  
even that regulation only lasted a few months before the Bush administration  
overturned. 

> > >2. Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the
> > >beans.
> > 
> > Leaving aside the fact that many whistleblowers have brought successful
> > suits against employers who've fired them, this does not implicate free
> > speech.  I can't start calling my boss names to his face, either.  (Not
> > that I would -- Doug's my hero :)
> 
> What happens after they are fired is pretty much irrelevant.  If 
> the application of the first amendment does not protect them from 
> losing their jobs, it is inconsistent.  What comes later is not relevant.

So you'd say that in the US there is no protection of life or property ? After  
all you can be stolen from or killed. No, not even constitutional protection is  
omnipotent. It just means that the state can not make it its policy to violate  
that a constitutionally protected right.

> And thanks for the last sentence:  Why can't you call your boss names
> to his face?  If you're for free speech, that is your right!

Absolutely not. If I may quote the 1st ammendment of the US constitution:

"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."

Notice in particular the first five words. That is what Freedom of Speech  
means. Freedom of Speech has absolutely nothing to do with the voluntary  
associations between private entities. It is exclusively a limitation on the  
power of the state.

Freedom of Speech does not repeal the law of cause and effect. Your conception  
of this right seems to be that unless any speech is guaranteed to be absolutely  
free of negative consequences of any kind, there is no Freedom of Speech. For  
example, if I called you a fool as a consequence you might come to dislike me.  
By you conception you are violating my Freedom of Speech if you do.

> >>Using the above logic, I do not consider racist propoganda to be considered
> >>as "speech."  Racist propoganda drives some people to physically, 
> >>economically and emotionally hurt others (I'm also not an Al Sharpton or
> >>Farakhan fan!).  Should it be punnished accordingly?
> >>That ofcourse is a different issue.  
> > 
> >But who is to determine what is "good" speech, and what isn't?  You?  Me?
> >Jesse Helms?  Better to have a blanket rule that all speech is protected.
>
> Hey, all I say is that if free speech is to be stressed upon with such 
> enthusiasm, then ALL speech should be free.  If we pick and choose what is
> free and what is not (as is currently the case), then we already exist in 
> a censored world where the "power elite" make this decision. 

Absolutely.  All speech should be free.  There are genuine violations of this  
in the US currently.  Examples are obscenity laws, "hate crime" laws,  
anti-libel laws aso.  But you choose not to attack any of them but instead  
bring up cases which have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.

	Carl Edman
Newsgroups: misc.legal