You can't do that! - Democratic Underground

Cerridwen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Mar-08-07 07:31 PM
Original message

You can't do that!

Edited on Thu Mar-08-07 07:58 PM by Cerridwen

Yes, you can.

"Boycotting republican mouth-piece annie, is denying her right to free speech" - Nope.

"Expressing outrage, offense or anger at certain marketing tactics which causes them to be removed from the market is censorship/banning." - Nu, uh.

"Telling me you find my words insulting, offense, sexist, racist, etc., means you're trying to silence me. I've got the right to free speech." - er, missed the point and...nope.

I'm not buying it. Any of it. I've wrestled with First Amendment issues for a long time; from an activist's point of view. Example of several debates I've had with co-activists:

Question: Should our organization support another organization who wants to tell radio stations to remove <pick your favorite hate screech radio jock/advertisement/offensive words>?
Answer: Er, no. If we do, who's next? Us? Probably.
Question: Does <fill in the blank, again> have the right to say that crap?
Answer: Er, yep.
Response: But, but, they're lying!
Answer: Yes, no, maybe. Prove it. Protected speech. They keep saying we're lying. We'd likely be next.
Result: Impasse.

Requisite disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. My reading of this is basic, so I presume, DUers with legal backgrounds will be more than happy to point out where I've gone wrong. If you want to debate the intricacies of case law, don't look to me; see first sentence in this disclaimer.

Part A. - Free Speech unabridged by Congress

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. (emphasis added) link to Findlaw, First Amendment

1. Congress...shall make no law - it says nothing about We, the People, nor does it mention or imply a right to be free of the peculiarities of "market forces."

2. It does not guarantee, explicitly or implicitly, a right to benefit, financially or otherwise, from said free speech.

3. Nor does it guarantee explicitly or implicitly, a right to a megaphone, a large arena, or a large audience which might influence "market forces."

3. It does not guarantee, explicitly or implicitly, a right to be free of accountability in the exercise of free speech including loss of financial benefit from previously mentioned "market forces."

Part B. - Free speech "abridged" by the U.S. Supreme Court

We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205 , 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (note: Thank you to a DUer, whose name I do not remember, for bringing this to my attention. If you're here, holler out so I can cite you as my source *grin*)

1. Falsely is the key word in the above citation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, in some contexts, false speech is not necessarily protected, free speech. (There are more issues in this ruling, I'm trying to keep it simple without obfuscating. If my simplistic view causes truths to be obscured, it is through ignorance rather than intent to obscure. See opening disclaimer about my legal background. :D)

2. Causing a panic is the next phrase I find interesting. In some contexts (U.S. at war is the context of this ruling), false speech may not be a right.

So, here's how I "read" this issue (for it is different pieces of the same issue).

"Boycotting republican mouth-piece annie, is denying her right to free speech" - Nope. She can speak all she wants. She's not guaranteed a right to financially benefit from it. She's not guaranteed the right to an audience. Talk away.

"Expressing outrage, offense or anger at certain marketing tactics which causes them to be removed from the market is censorship/banning." - Nu, uh. You play for pay, you pay for how you play. I don't spend my money on companies that insult my intelligence or try to manipulate me. If I catch you at it, I'm going to respond accordingly. Lose my business or play your way. Market forces in action. I'm pretty sure businesses in the U.S. are not guaranteed a right to make money (though that may come *sigh*).

"Telling me you find my words insulting, offense, sexist, racist, etc., means you're trying to silence me. I've got the right to free speech. The Thought Police are here." - er, missed the point and...nope. I, speaking only for myself, am asking you to think about what you say, before you say it. I am asking you to expand your vocabulary beyond what you already have. I "came of age" at a time when a person's language skills were judged as an indication of their logic. That may be right or wrong, but that's what I learned. If your only response to a discussion is to resort to name-calling, then I presume you have no valid points to make about a topic. If the most creative language you use to describe another, is limited to school yard put downs and insults, then I presume your logic still rests back at the school yard. If I say, let's try to do this or look at this another way with different words and you hear "shut up," I'm not sure what that says about either of us; except we're not communicating at all. And finally, if you think pointing out objectionable language is some form of Thought Police activity, I have two questions for you. What other things do you think you should get to do with impunity? Seriously. If you get to speak (or act) without impunity and you insist on railing at people who would presume to call you on it, then why the hell aren't you giving the same pass to the little republican mouth-piece annie?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln (attrib.)

"There's a reason we've been given two eyes, two ears and only one mouth" - unattributed axion

edit: punctuation