---------------------------------------- | |
free speech | |
January 21st, 2019 | |
---------------------------------------- | |
solderpunk, visiblink and yargo have a great thread going on the | |
topic of discrimination. Here's the most recent link to it, but | |
there's a history you can dig through [0]. | |
[0] visiblink - Of nature, nurture, and dinosaurs | |
In visiblink's first post on the topic the discussion began with | |
a comedian who repeatedly ridiculed a disabled child and a human | |
rights tribunal that then fined him for it. That's where I'd like | |
to focus my very narrow band of thought on the topic. | |
While the discussion that spawned has been interesting it has been | |
focused on what constitutes an appropriate topic of criticism. Is | |
it based on whether that factor is in full control of the | |
individual, is it related to their culture or wealth, and does | |
that play a factor in what is appropriate. Great stuff... go read. | |
The part that stuck out to me was the concept of free speech and | |
protected speech, their terminology, and the psychology involved | |
in each. Yargo, in a simplistic and unfair summary to him, stated | |
that he'd prefer to say whatever he likes without fear of legal | |
consequences. That's a great place to start. | |
There is some psychological system at play which places the idea | |
of protection on the individuals who are criticized, or who are | |
the subject of hate speech. Media discussions surround the idea of | |
sensitivity and others refer to "snowflakes". Protection is | |
demanded by the sensitive, or so it seems. | |
We know in reality that it is the speech which is the subject to | |
protection instead. It is not the targets of the speech, but the | |
speaker who needs focus here, right? | |
The distinction is minor because the relationship between the | |
speaker and target haven't changed. But that's not the whole | |
story, is it? If we use terms like "free speech" it hides part of | |
the story. When we say "protected speech" now we get at the crux. | |
Protected by whom, and from whom? | |
There are other parties involved: the speaker, the subject, and | |
the protective entity and the persecutive entity. So when we look | |
back at the discussion of protected speech now we can fit everyone | |
into context: | |
A speaker's (subject) speech toward someone (object) is | |
potentially protected (protector) from persecution (persecutor). | |
Who is the persecutor? In the case of the United States and the | |
1st amendment from which most of this discussion flows for | |
Americans it is the US government itself. | |
Who is the protector? Well, again in this case, the US government. | |
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. | |
Congress is limited in their powers by the Constitution from | |
abridging the freedom of speech. | |
Done, right? libertarians have at it. Except, no. Oliver Wendell | |
Holmes comes knocking next... | |
In the landmark case of Schenck v. United States, Holmes stated, | |
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a | |
man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic | |
Okay, so all speech is does not warrant protection under the first | |
amendment. Where do we draw the line? Here we get into Public | |
Forum Regulation, Prior Restraint, Expressive Conduct, Defamation, | |
and so on. Most appropriate to our discussion is the topic of | |
defamation, and inciting, provocative, or offensive speech. | |
Here we go to the courts to decide where the line should be. Did | |
that speech represent an individual freedom, or did it put at risk | |
the lives and liberty of others, such as by listing the home | |
addresses of families of abortion doctors? The line gets blurry, | |
right? We're not talking about feelings being hurt anymore. Our | |
objects of discussion potentially got much more serious. | |
Back to my focus: the protector and persecutor are the same | |
entity, though perhaps different departments of it. That entity | |
is given the power to determine what it protects from itself. | |
That's pretty weird when you word it like that, but so be it. | |
What stands out though is that the justification for NOT | |
protecting speech is required based on the wording of the | |
constitution. The US government, at least, needs to justify a | |
decision to step in and persecute a speaker (at least to itself). | |
Where was I going with this? I don't remember. I tried writing | |
this at work and got interrupted every five minutes. I think I was | |
getting to something about the psychology of speech protection, | |
asking an outside entity to come in and protect you from itself in | |
some cases and not others. There was going to be a really cool | |
reference to 80s sitcoms in there too. | |
Meh, now I'm hungry and totally forgot where I was going. So, um, | |
thanks for sticking with me through the first half of a well | |
thought-out argument. Marsha will validate your parking on your | |
way out. | |
Cheers! |