From: caherty@wizard.nrl.navy.mil (Frank Caherty)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re:  Free Speech/Tipper Gore/Argument by Intimidation
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:34:57 GMT
Reply-To: caherty@wizard.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: The Internet

In a posting that would serve as a good negative example to frosh 
logic students   ST702459@brownvm.brown.edu (Jordan Schwartz) writes:

| I think that it is a dangerous over-simplification of the situation 
| to say that Tipper is "against free speech". I mean, we all agree 
| that noone has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. 

A: I dont know who the "we all" is that supposedly agrees to that point.  
   The right protected by the First Amendment means you _can_ yell "Fire"
   in a crowded theatre.  If the theatre is not on fire, you should be
   prosecuted for any damage, injury, or loss of life that occurs.  Your
   right to yell fire cannot be pre empted because you may yell it in-
   appropriately.  That argument has been used by many people who try
   to argue that there is somehow not Free Speech, rather Free (but
   limited) Speech.

| Now we take the song "cop-killer" by Ice-T. Many would argue that he is 
| simply venting his justifiable anger against a bigotted society. However, 
| how would we feel if the song was called "Jew Killer" or "Head Killer". 
| There are clearly some cases where we can see intuitively that it is abuse 
| of "free speech" to use the media to spread "dangerous" ideas. 

A: Therein lies the problem with using "intuition", whatever that may be,
   to reach an answer in a problem of logic.  He has now set up a category
   of ideas, unspecified except that they are somehow "dangerous".  This 
   false assumption will now be used, along with another assumption, to 
   justify limits on what speech is acceptable.

| Of course, this begs the question "who defines 'dangerous'"?  Well, 
| someone HAS to, otherwise cross-burnings, etc. will be legal and common. 

A: There is no evidence that cross burnings will become any more common
   than they are now.  This is the second unjustified assumption.  Notice
   that the question of who defines dangerous has not been answered.  Now
   a distracting idea is thrown in and further muddies the waters:

| Now, at present, I don't have a great deal of faith in the good judgement 
| of our elected officials, but I don't think that this means we should 
| simply dismiss the idea of controlling what kinds hateful words impres-
| sionable youth are exposed to. 

A: What does Mr. Schwartz' faith in the judgement of elected officials have
   to do with placing limits on free speech?  This clause is apparently thrown 
   in so that the noncritical reader may think "Yeah, I don't have much faith
   in those guys either", and then may go on to accept the onerous idea in the
   succeeding clause.  This is a nonsequitur, B does not follow from A, dis-
   missal of the concept of controlling words and ideas is unrelated to
   faith in elected officials.
   
   We should not "dismiss the idea of controlling what kinds hateful words 
   impressionable youth are exposed to" based on Mr. Schwartz faith or lack 
   of it.  We should dismiss the idea of controlling ideas and words because 
   an individual must be free to make up her own mind about what ideas and 
   words are acceptable.  Keep the government out of your mind.

| Tipper, I believe, supported warning labels, not necessarily outright bans. 

A: She supported government mandated warning labels.  The "slippery slope"
   argument applies here, in that parents would still find their kids
   listening to politically incorrect music, and the argument would be made
   that the original labelling laws were not strong enough.  The thought
   controllers next moves would be to call for stronger restrictions,
   perhaps penalties for noncompliance, etc, etc.  

| While I think that in practice this would probably be counterproductive 
| (consider how you would prefer to see an R movie rather than a G movie...), 
| I do believe that free speech is a privilege that should not be abused. 

A: Again the nonsequitur.  Free Speech is a _right_ neccessary to the life
   of human beings.  It is not a privilige granted to us by the gov't.  The
   founders recognized this and protected that right as the first, or 
   primary amendment to our Constitution.  The clause about ones preferring
   to see an R rated movie vs. G rated one has nothing to do with free speech.

| By encouraging hateful and demeaning attitudes towards women, groups like 
| 2 Live Crew are abusing the American system and giving free speech a bad 
| name. 

A: By putting distasteful ideas out there, they are giving us the chance
   to improve the minds of the generation that follows us.  We do this by
   openly discussing with our children what is right and wrong with the
   ideas expressed in these songs, not by shutting off the ideas or words.

| Let's save our amendments for when it matters, such as political issues.

A: Since free speech is a right guaranteed us by the Constitution, our
   founding political document,  this is a political issue.
 
| We can all see that 2 Live Crew and Ice-T do not deserve our support.

A: Mr. Schwartz has placed no evidence before us to support this statement.
   I hope I have expressed why they do deserve it.  I may or may not buy
   their albums, but I defend their right to offer them for sale.

Feel free to respond via E-mail for a more extended debate...

A: Absolutely not!  You opened this discussion in a public forum, put forth
   a set of poor arguments to justify poeple accepting an onerous under-
   cutting of personal freedom, and you expect me to make my rebuttal in
   private email?   Guess again pal.

| Jordan

Regards,
Frank.
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead