freedom of speech

[Tjerk12]

Last night I heard on the radio a complete idiotic message. In some state in the USA a courtyard decided that some fundamentalist Christian religious group has the right to demonstrate (loud) during a funeral when a homosexual soldier, who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, gets his last respect. That can't be true, is it?
In The Netherlands there is a more than average freedom of speech, but a thing like that would never be possible. Respect for other people is more important than the right of freedom of speech!

 

[diklik]

Last night I heard on the radio a complete idiotic message. In some state in the USA a courtyard decided that some fundamentalist Christian religious group has the right to demonstrate (loud) during a funeral when a homosexual soldier, who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, gets his last respect. That can't be true, is it?
In The Netherlands there is a more than average freedom of speech, but a thing like that would never be possible. Respect for other people is more important than the right of freedom of speech!

It gets worse, Tjerk12. Even if the soldier is not gay, this freak bullshit church is allowed to claim the fallen soldier's death as "god's punishment upon the usa for allowing gay men and women to serve in the armed forces. This same bunch of morons claims that the 9-11 terrorist attack was also a punishment of god upon the usa. The idiot who leads this bunch is Fred Phelps, a known hate-monger. The church is said to be made up of his family and close friends who support him financially.

It never bothers them that they god and jesus they speak about don't sanction the hate and violence they preach. Naw, it's easier to just keep spewing hate and stick god's name on it with a rubber stamp. It disgusts me that the laws can be twisted to allow hate mongering to be called free speech. The problem, of course, hinges on money and political favours. This Phelps guy has poured in a lot of cash to various election campaigns of local, state and federal politicians. His reward is the ability to squeak by the anti-hate laws and call his stuff religious proclamations.

 

[ritsuka]

Yes, the supreme court thinks it's constitutionally protected speech to stand outside military funerals with signs saying "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS!" Unfortunately, many christian fundamentalists make their living doing this--for instance going onto college campuses and shouting their hate propaganda, then suing for a lot of money if they are forced to leave. Such opinions are increasingly typical of the supreme court and the US government as a whole; corporate money in elections and vapid far-right religious harassment are protected, whilst political speech that doesn't benefit the status quo is lumped under terrorism and has no rights at all.

 

[gb2000ie]

Last night I heard on the radio a complete idiotic message. In some state in the USA a courtyard decided that some fundamentalist Christian religious group has the right to demonstrate (loud) during a funeral when a homosexual soldier, who was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, gets his last respect. That can't be true, is it?
In The Netherlands there is a more than average freedom of speech, but a thing like that would never be possible. Respect for other people is more important than the right of freedom of speech!

As long as they remain on public ground they are protected by the US constitution from being silenced by the government. America takes the view that you can only have true freedom of speech if you are protected fully from gagging by the government. In other words, you have total freedom of speech, or you have none. How else can you be protected from government bias? If the government get to choose what is and isn't OK - then you can't speak uncomfortable truths about them, or about things that society as a whole would pressure the government to suppress.

Just look at Ireland, we now have an anti-blasphemy law - our free speech clause in our constitution puts limits on it - can't incite violence, or treason, or blasphemy. As of last year it can cost you 20 thousand Euro to say something that "may cause offence to a large proportion of a religious group". Frankly - that's a disaster, if Fred Phelps took his hate parade over here he could use that law to silence all his critics!

Ultimately - you can either have total freedom of speech like the US does, or you can accept that your society has some liberty of speech, but that it's not actually free. There are down-sides to both approaches. The US has to allow hateful insults like the example above, and the Irish and the Dutch can be silenced by their governments when they say things the government thinks shouldn't be said. I'm not sure which system is best - more like which is least bad I guess, and for me, that's the US model.

The anti-blasphemy law in Ireland acts as a shield for hate and in particular for homophobia - and the biggots are protected from criticism because of our incomplete freedom of speech.

Nothing annoys me more than Americans who don't understand both the wide scope, and the limits of their law. The ONLY protection you get from the 1st amendment is that right to freedom of speech from GOVERNMENT intervention, that is not the right to come on TV and say what ever you want, and it is ESPECIALLY NOT the right not to be criticised - I say this for any Pailin fans listening - that woman is one of the worst abusers of the first amendment I've ever seen, yet she claims to be an American patriot. She either hasn't bothered to actually read the first amendment, or she's illiterate - or both (my money's on both)!

Sorry about that rant - but there are two sides to freedom of speech in the US - and many right-wingers are woefully ignorant of the constitution they so proudly thump.

B.

 

[dangerdog17]

its miserable that we have to let these jackasses speak. but it is WAY better than the alternative.

i embrace freedom of speech, even for losers. i just ignore them.

in other countries, you can go to jail just for what you say or think. i oppose that 1000%. the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights to protect us from thought crimes.

basically i ignore racist sbags. if the press would stop giving them 'credit' by advertising their rants, they would quiet down.

but the chick who runs that show has 'good' connections, it seems, so she will always get noticed. it sucks.

 

[leevex]

everyone has their own interpretation of such lines, as everyone is entitled to their own thinking. whatever the lines project, in any way i think it has its own meaningful ideal.

 

[bijou]

I spoke with my legal eagle about this particular case (Funeral antics). She said she was surprised the case went to the US Supreme Court as a "right to free speech" case, because the plaintiff sued for emotional distress brought on by the speech, but not the speech itself. It seems that the defendant, in trying to avoid paying the $$$$ damages, brought the free speech issue to court. My friend said that if the plaintiff hadn't responded to the free speech aspects and had stuck to the emotional harm aspects the case probably wouldn't have been heard. As it is Phelps and his gang of desperadoes, stayed just inside the law and that is what saved their bacon.
My legal friend, who is licensed to argue cases before the SC, said that, as nasty as these folks are, they haven't broken any laws--so far.

 

[brmstn69]

It should also be mentioned that Fred Phelps and over half of the members of his "church" are also attorneys...

I'm just waiting for the day when they take their antics into some little hick town that's mourning the loss of it's hometown hero while also dealing with a case of blue flu and there is no one there to protect their sorry asses...:butslap:

 

[diklik]

in other countries, you can go to jail just for what you say or think. i oppose that 1000%. the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights to protect us from thought crimes.

I applaud your post, but I'd like to offer this thought, that the Founding Fathers of the USA did not express against or contemplate "thought crimes" as you suggest it. To be sure, they enshrined the freedom to utter pronouncements against the government or others without the utterer suffering penalty. I believe that the Founding Fathers never anticipated how their doctrine of freedom of speech would be so abused by those who utter hate and discrimination. However, speech is free, and that is much better than totalitarian control.

 

[Daedalus]

I think groups like this Phelps crowd thrive on attention. Their strategy is to always go right up to the limit of what is legal, but they are too clever to cross the line. So... they annoy and upset a lot of folks, get into conflicts and confrontations, get media coverage, and so on. They thrive on it!
Imo, the best way to deal with a group like that is to completely IGNORE them. If there is a protest just walk by with an air of indifference. Ideally, the Phelps group ends up being ignored by everyone including the media. Then they would be the only ones left to listen to their own noise! This is the best way to deal with an attention seeker, and equally it is the best way to deal with a group of attention seekers.

 

[diklik]

Ideally, the Phelps group ends up being ignored by everyone including the media.

In a balanced situation, this would quickly shut that crowd up. However the media are attention whores of their own creation - lacking real news to report and serious issues to discuss, they will always show footage of morons like Phelps and his bunch. Sensationalism runs the press, not responsible reportage. A shame. Most major TV news outlets would create a specific issue of people "ignoring" Phelps, on the grounds of public interest in the lack of interest. That's already happened many times with other fringe lunatic organizations.

 

[Tjerk12]

Freedom of speech seems important for minorities. Especially when their opinion greatly differs from, so called, common sense. Therefore it is obvious that in a free society this right should be cherished. Yet there is a danger:
There are two elementary things which form the basis for a sense of freedom. First there is your mind and second your means to communicate your thoughts with other people.
The freedom to think whatever you want is in my opinion the most important part. It is nice and convenient when you can also communicate in the same way as you think.
When you are free to communicate without any limitation this eventually can result in limitation of the freedom to think freely. This may seem an illogical statement. I am afraid that it is tricky for me to explain properly in English, but I will try:
A. When you are free to say whatever you like, it is also permitted to tell lies.
B. When you are a political party it is therefore also free to tell lies.
C. As a political party you have a lot of possibilities to influence the opinion of people.
D. In The Netherlands a government needs 50+ percent of the votes to change an administrative Order. But to change the law you need 75+ percent.
E. So when you are well organized and you have the financial means, it can be possible (not likely, but possible) that you can change the law. And that in a way that it limits the rights of minorities to think what they want.
When such happens the freedom of speech has negative influence for the freedom of mind. So it has become contra productive.
So I think it is better to limit the freedom of speech in a way that it is forbidden to tell (obvious) lies and also when it serves no other target than to insult or damage other people.
As a judge I would have forbidden to demonstrate during a funeral. It serves no other goal than to hurt people. The victim himself should be on trial by God. Let Him judge about his life. (I am an atheist, but I suppose that is the way it goes).

 

[c750dt]

The Westboro Baptist Church has been in existence since the 1950s. In 1998, they picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepherd who was the victim of a gay bashing and since then, the media along with many individuals have been shouting out load about the WBC thus giving them more publicity. It wasn't until those attention whores started getting the attention they were craving that they started to become the trolls they are now.

It's unfortunate for family members trying to have a peaceful funeral to have to walk out and see them holding signs. However, I don't think they'll go away until the media quits feeding these trolls.

 

[diklik]

When you are free to communicate without any limitation this eventually can result in limitation of the freedom to think freely. This may seem an illogical statement. I am afraid that it is tricky for me to explain properly in English, but I will try

You made very good sense in English, Tjerk12. Inevitably, the freedom to do anything will result in some humans abusing that very freedom to limit it for others.

I personally would favour an alteration of the law that defends free speech, wherein words that specifically promote hate or revulsion or denigration of any given group, race or orientation be limited to written comments in a public newspaper - editorials or letters to an editor. The moment that hate speech can be uttered aloud on radio or tv or the internet, it consumes many others with mob mentality and promotes rapid escalation of hatred without any understanding of the target or the rationale for those words. In writing, hate speech has less opportunity to motivate the weak-minded who simply want attention when they jump on a bandwagon. Written words in the print media can be rebutted or upheld by others writing in --- not so of most electronic media-based reportage.

Most newspapers in North America stop far short of actually publishing word-for-word what guys like Fred Phelps utter in front of mics and cameras. If his stuff were limited to written word only, he would still have the means to disseminate his views (however distasteful), but have little power to inflame and hurt others by his mere presence. Canada has interesting anti hate speech laws. They over-rule basic freedom of speech to criminalize anyone who utters race hatred or hatred of any specific group within society. That law has successfully been used to prosecute several hate mongers who uttered their tripe in pamphlet form and on their internet web sites. {In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.} Perhaps the USA needs to consider that type of sub-amendment.

It's a pipe dream wish, of course.

 

[Tjerk12]

Diklik, it amazes me to find companions in mind. Often I stand alone in my controversial opinions. I am really afraid about the developments in The Netherlands where an ultra right wing is extremely (an appropriate word, isn't it) successful. And Putin, you know, that mostly I agree with your opinion; this time however I disagree. It is not enough to deny. We should fight such sick minds. We must explain people how wrong these minds are. Wilders (in The Netherlands) and Phelps in The US must be shown in their real perspective. Sick Minds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! May be we should find the courage, same as the people in Africa have found nowadays, and stand up. We must be able to explain normal thinking individuals, that we are far more normal than the Wilders and The Phelpes are.

 

[diklik]

Diklik, it amazes me to find companions in mind. Often I stand alone in my controversial opinions.

Join the club in standing alone or nearly so. I hold many opinions that differ from the mainstream of society - even from those who are similar to me in orientation and likes/dislikes. I rebel against being cast in a conformative mold, as I am an individual. I may like certain things and feel a common bond with millions of others in some aspects - and be totally out in left field on other topics. I relish my own stubborn will to be different as I please. At age 60, I can also get away with it more easily

Controversial opinions are what makes for change. I don't always agree with the statements made by, for example, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union); but a significant slice of their opinions has helped change North American society for the better. Of course, those in power will never want to accept opinions that run diversely to their own. It always amuses and amazes me that those who often evoke change with their own controversy are very defensive about allowing others with equally controversial and differing opinions to be heard.

I'm saddened to hear that the Netherlands is becoming more right-wing in its politics. I had always looked toward the Netherlands as being a place of freedom of expression and tolerance far exceeding that in North America.

 

[gb2000ie]

The antidote to hate speech is to speak back. There are more good people in this world than bad people - so rather than ignoring hate-mongers you need to speak back. Freedom if speech applies to everyone - not just the Fred Phelpses of the the world. There are FAR more good honest people in the world than there are hate-mongers.

The single most dangerous thing that could happen would be for that numerical advantage to be taken away through limitations on speech. Any law that limits free speech will be editable and changeable by governments - so it can be twisted and turned to serve political ends - to silence opposition - Wilders is dangerous enough as-is - imagine if he had the power to suppress his opposition!

When you enshrine freedom of speech in the constitution it is very difficult to change it. In America it takes years to change the constitution, and super-majorities all the way - you would have to successfully sow your hate across the entire nation and keep it going for years. In Ireland - the constitution can only be changed by referendum.

You could argue that in that case the solution is to put your exceptions in the constitution too - but - the more complex you make your laws, the more leeway there will be in interpretation. What do you mean hate? What do you mean incite? What do you mean minority? Simple clear laws are much much harder for smart lawyers to destroy. This is why the American first amendment is so powerful - it's about as simple and as clear as a law can get.

The biggest threat I see to freedom and justice is not from freedom of speech - but from the media failing to excerise that freedom responsibly. Tjerk12 - you say that the likes of Wilder are getting away with spouting demonstrable lies - why are the press not going to town on him? He should be challenged each and every time he tries to utter his factually false talking points by every media outlet who report on him. When the media fail to care about facts, that's when we're in trouble - it has nothing to do with free speech.

As for Phelps - I believe there have been some very successful counter-demonstrations - where people have made their own sign in his style that parody his. This is just one example of how you deal with Phelps: http://anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XHU40rcF3Y

B.

 

[dysion]

As a continuation of the Supreme Courts ruling on this being protected speech most states are creating "funeral laws" that forbid protests of any kind within a hour before or after a funeral and within 1000-1500 ft.

While I do agree that while the protests are moronic at best and vile at worst, as long as they are not inciting violence it is protected free speech.

 

[diklik]

While I do agree that while the protests are moronic at best and vile at worst, as long as they are not inciting violence it is protected free speech.

That may be a technicality, as there are lunatic fringe redneck types out there who are constantly hopped up on whatever they can swill, smoke or snort, and it would be easy to cleverly manipulate such groups of morons with well-chosen phrases that on the surface - seem not to incite violence. If that were to happen, it would not be the first time that a political or religious faction created a covert scenario that provoked violence from which they tried to distance themselves and claim innocence.

If such an idiot goes out and kills a family member of a dead soldier whom Phelps' church demonstrates against, one could make the case that Phelps' speech and demonstration incited the ensuing violent act. New York State law apparently has provisions that address the rationale of a speaker making statements that a reasonable person ought to expect might incite violent behavior in some of their listeners ( therefore evincing a depraved indifference to human life). Perhaps other States have similar laws or need to enact such.

 

[diklik]

The antidote to hate speech is to speak back. ......................
The biggest threat I see to freedom and justice is not from freedom of speech - but from the media failing to excerise that freedom responsibly. .............................. When the media fail to care about facts, that's when we're in trouble - it has nothing to do with free speech.

Bart, you're on point in saying that the media must exercise responsibility (and be accountable). That just ain't so in today's world. Reporters lie constantly, pay informants for faulty tips and never are forced to properly acknowledge their deceit or failures. It's not about facts anymore, just about using any sensationalistic technique to get ratings.

Even if a legal battle is won that silences a hate-monger, the press will run to them first to get their 'reaction', rather than trumpet the cause of responsible use of free speech.