From: mattb@ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead
Subject: Re:  Free Speech/Tipper Gore/Argument by Intimidation
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:31:47 GMT
Reply-To: mattb@olympus.ctron.com (Matt Brown)
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.

Thank you, Frank.  Some has finally posted an analysis of Jordan's article in
its entirety. instead of mud-slinging (though amusing) epithets at out of
context quotes. My newsfeed sent me the diatribes first, then Jordan's article,
then much later, yours.  Reading Jordan's stuff after the heaped insults, it
seemed much tamer, and I thought that it was just a case of loose connections,
while Jordan's later posts seem to claim an intent to provoke discussion.

Your analysis, in a reasoned way, makes me swing between judging Jordan's
piece as sloppy or slippery.  In one case, it's bad logic; in the other, it is
a sleazy attempt to cloud the issue.  I still cling to the hope that it is
being over-analyzed, _but_ even that is not bad, because sloppy logic can be
as damaging as intentional disinformation (IMO).

Anyhow, just a few comments (now there's an outright lie) to intersperse with
yours follow.

caherty@wizard.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>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.
On target. The "fire" yeller is liable for the result, not the words.  I
tried to point out the differences between rights, abuse, and controls in
a previous post, but didn't get it across too well.  Yelling "fire" is
very bad judgement, and if some one claims they yelled it because they had
a first amendment right to yell it, I consider that an abuse of the right.
But that is no excuse to claim that the right should be limited in any way,
nor is it an excuse to claim that the "yeller" should be punished for 
speaking.
>
>| 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.

Worse than that.  Using "intuitively" is a classic way to avoid presenting
supporting evidence or proving the point logically.  Stuff like this makes
me wonder if the author is dissembling intentionally, or is just re-using
unconsciously the kinds of bogus persuasions we have heard so often from
lie-spreaders, particularly in the last decade or so. I do think he presents
an instance of what most people consider unacceptable or distasteful ideas
(cop/jew/head killer).  The slippery part is that while a lot of people 
would see the ideas as "dangerous" (in that a person acting on those ideas
would constitute a danger to cops/jews/heads), he slips in the "abuse",
"media", and "spreads" ideas, none of which are justified, and each is used
more for its connotations than its real meaning. "abuse" (there I go again)
is used these days to imply "deserving of more punishment than is self-
inflicted by the abuser"  as in punish drug "abusers" not the dealers.  Abuse
actually means doing more of something than is healthy or reasonable, but
there is no legal penalty directly attached (some one is arrested for drug
use, not abuse; whether they are using drugs too much is not the question).
"Media" is one of the seven words a conservative always says on television
(apologies to George Carlin).  "Spreads" is used here with unwarranted 
connotations of "infects" like ideas were a disease.  Bad stuff.
>
>| 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:
Well, he did say it begs the question :-)
>
>| 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.
The only difference I have here is with the legitimate concern of protecting
young people (ie, minors).  Pre-teens don't have the experience or the 
reasoning power to make all these choices, some of which are difficult for
adults.  This should be recognized in arguments about rights.  This is one
of the fuzziest areas that confronts us today, with arguments over voting,
abortions, school newspapers, entertainment, and many others.  Speaking as
a parent, I have a hard time pre-screening the torrent of information my
kids are exposed to, and when they are at school or with their friends, I
can't control what they hear and say.  I can only rely on what we've discussed
at home, and hope that their rebellion doesn't throw out the few worthwhile
things (in their opinion) I've tried to teach them.  I can't test toys well
enough to know that my two year old won't break off a piece and choke on it,
and I wouldn't think of half the ways a kid could get hurt with a toy on my
own.  I'm glad that there is labelling.  If I had a kid with an allergy to
nuts, I'd be glad food was labelled.  These are not voluntary labels.  I
can't buy every record, or listen to all music.  I wouldn't mind the labeling
of records, but the chilling and the escalation of censorship are valid fears,
especially with the current power circle and Supreme Court. The professed
protection of youth is valid, but the protection offered is too dangerous.
Should we stuff a rubber ball in all theatre-goer's mouthes to prevent the 
potential "fire-yeller" from exercising free speech?  No.
>
>| 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.  
Those who wish to restrict speech and thought will try to do so anyway. Labels
could give them an inch, and you can bet they'd try for the whole mile. The
converse is that we can't let the country go to shit or anarchy because we
fear repression.  What we need to fight is the attempts to enforce political
correctness.  There is a distinction between recognizing and avoiding racial
slurs, and ostracizing/villifying those who use them (even out of context,
accidently, or stupidly -- the difference between Jimmy the Greek and David
Duke, as I have said before).
>
>| 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.
Free speech is not neccessary to the life of human beings, literally. There are
still lots of live Russians, Chinese, black South Africans, Palestinians.  But
depriving it is de-humanizing and immoral.  We are "privileged" to live in a
society that recognizes the importance of free speech, but that does not 
make free speech a "mere" privilege.
>
>| 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.
I think this is true in principle, but over-simplified.  Unfortunately,
logic does not always triumph over emotion, or persuasion.  The truth of
Willie Horton did not influence the last election, the impression did. Sad
but true.  We must not shut off the expression of ideas.  But the money-
makers glorify what sells, regardless of morals.  And the same free ex-
pression is twisted by the would-be repressors to scare the scarable (poor
and middle class Americans who may not have as much to lose, net, as the rich,
but who run out of reserves a lot quicker, and are thus less secure.) Your
answer is correct, but it too glibly states what is actually a difficult 
struggle for parents.
>
>| 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.
You've been too kind here.  Faulty inferences, unjustified conclusions, 
double meanings all abound here.  Maybe Jordan _really is_ studying to be a
Republican speechwriter :-).  These Rap ideas may not be supported by a 
majority of readers here, or Americans, but the efforts to censor or ban
their work are not supported by a majority (I hope). 
>
>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.

Thanks again, Frank.  Well spoken in spite of my over-long quibbles.
I still can't justify calling the author a fascist scum-sucking pig or r.m.gd
equivalent, but I can't buy his position either.

But I do support his right to speak his mind here, however objectionable
other readers find it.

Matt
ODC: I've covered this before, but if you don't think this applies to r.m.gd,
then you might as well send your ticket money to Jesse Helms instead of GDTS.
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead