From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: Nilges
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.151714.11497@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (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.


> 
> >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.
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!

> 
> >Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
> >cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 
> 
> Freedom certainly doesn't mean all or nothing.  I'm not free to firebomb an
> annoying fraternity or take diapers from Night&Day Stores without paying -- 
> does this mean I'm as oppressed as, say, someone in Saudi Arabia?

Okey, first we're speaking about "freedom of speech."  So I'll pass by the
stuff about firebombing or stealing (both of which are felonies of a different
nature...then again I'm no lawyer).  As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, why
is it oppressive?  Did you see it as an oppressive state  when you visited?
If you did visit and found it oppressive, that does not really speak for how
our fellow Saudi Arabians feel about it.  Maybe Saudi Arabia is oppressive for 
some.  Note that I said "for some."  Similarly the US is oppressive "for 
some."  Israel is oppressive for some (definitely).  And so on.  Not to get
into this but it is a pretty typically Western media created notion of 
the big bad middle east (except Israel of course!  But thats an issue of
who actually controls the media!)
> 
> >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.