Free Speech Is Dead

[kite]

i did some searching and it keeps coming up with the SPP incident. i would hardly believe this is an isolated incident though. the way things work, special interests groups want you shut down, they will shut you down.
still, glad to see where you stand calling the canadian broadcast centre a conspiracy theorist group. and just it's not all full of bigfoots and ufos:
YouTube - Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs
Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader
need more?

[Valentine]

With the videos of peaceful protests at both the DNC and the RNC it's official that the constitution is nothing more than toilet paper. you may now retext your US history books. cross out constitution and write in sh*tpaper... that is all.
http://www.stimulator.tv/

i did some searching and it keeps coming up with the SPP incident. i would hardly believe this is an isolated incident though. the way things work, special interests groups want you shut down, they will shut you down.
still, glad to see where you stand calling the canadian broadcast centre a conspiracy theorist group. and just it's not all full of bigfoots and ufos:
YouTube - Stop SPP Protest - Union Leader stops provocateurs
Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader
need more?

Since you started talking about the US Constitution, it would be nice for you to show something that actually happened in the US. You do realize that Canada has their own Constitution and it isn't the same as the US one?

If you want to show something destroying the US Constitution, it needs to be happening in the US.

[Incomplete Dude]

Also, the Canadian constitution has no enshrine right to "free speech", instead you have a right to "free expression". The difference is critical, because it allows the courts to rule that certain types of expression should only be done via certain mediums. For example, protesting the existence of the Jews in the street would get you arrested for hate crimes, but doing it in a book that's not publicly distributed probably won't. I guess the message is, you can express anything you want, but you can only express some things (like racism) in private.

[Mingus]

Also, the Canadian constitution has no enshrine right to "free speech", instead you have a right to "free expression". The difference is critical, because it allows the courts to rule that certain types of expression should only be done via certain mediums. For example, protesting the existence of the Jews in the street would get you arrested for hate crimes, but doing it in a book that's not publicly distributed probably won't. I guess the message is, you can express anything you want, but you can only express some things (like racism) in private.

What kind of free expression is that? Free expression requires the right to announce that message in public, or to publish one's views in print. J.S. Mill makes the argument much more cogently than I can at 3AM, but surely it is tyranny for a government to say certain types of beliefs may only be expressed in specific ways, or that they may only be expressed in private.

I'll return some time tomorrow (don't know when, I have a busy couple of days) with some quotes from On Liberty on why any liberty worth the name must imply a right to dissent and a right to express that dissent. Unless, of course, Charlie F or Jaiden feel like helping me out here (or anyone else, for that matter, but they come to mind first). I'm thinking of the passage where Mill argues that freedom of expression follows swiftly on the heels of freedom of thought and conscience in all matters, theological, political, philosophical, etc...

[Charlie F]

I'm with the Canadian government, people have the right to express whatever they want, but there's a time and a place! (Although the idea of 'expressing' something only in private is quite disturbing...)
It is difficult really, between the two extremes of expressing racism, say, only privately and the other extreme of expressing it whenever or where ever you want... where's the fair middle ground?

I'd quite like to see what an uncensored society would look like, where anything could be said at any time legally and on any medium. Not saying that it would be ideal, but it would be interesting...

Personally I think all views should be able to be legally printed or put on the internet (and legally accessed), and then protests should be allowed with permits... and permits should be given to anyone unless (just to copy from the Germans) there's good reason to suspect that people protesting will: (1) carry weapons, (2) pose a thread to the public order.

I won't think that Free Speech is dead until I can't say "Gordon Brown is a worthless piece of s***" without fear.

[Jaiden]

I'll return some time tomorrow (don't know when, I have a busy couple of days) with some quotes from On Liberty on why any liberty worth the name must imply a right to dissent and a right to express that dissent. Unless, of course, Charlie F or Jaiden feel like helping me out here (or anyone else, for that matter, but they come to mind first).

Heh, awesome. What gives you the impression that I would have a copy of On Liberty? I mean, I do have one so you're quite correct, just wondering why you were certain I would.

Anyway, I'm not sure of which exact passage you mean but I'll throw a few quotes out there where he argues against censorship:

• "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
• “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme"; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.”

He did also say, however, " Some rules of conduct must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law." and " That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So he acknowledges that there are circumstances were freedoms must be curtailed for government and society to function and that it's a matter of striking a balance of the greatest possible liberty that still allows an ordered society with the protection of law. Saying that, I'm sure that Mill wouldn't agree with the private/public thing in the Canadian constitution, I just imagine that he would appreciate the principles behind it.

My own feeling is that we are pushing the boundaries of what constitutes 'harm' in forbidding public displays of racism or bigotry into realms that are not so readily quantifiable as I would like. Accordingly, I would say that any statement made peacefully should be allowed however uncomfortable or offensive it may be; actions should be regulated because no one has the right to cause material damage to another person, but ideas and words are not the state's to control. Also, the way to deal with bigotry isn't, I fear, to simply attempt to blot out its presence but rather to address the social issues behind it.

I won't think that Free Speech is dead until I can't say "Gordon Brown is a worthless piece of s***" without fear.

Members of his own cabinet are basically saying that at the moment, so I should think you'll be safe for the foreseeable future.

[kite]

YouTube - Cops Steal Journalists Camera 1st & 4th Ammendment Violations
free speech is a chaining to a fence, an extended baton, and a stolen camera. you're in america now, you have no rights.
YouTube - New York Cop Attacks Rider
now there's a cop that hates bicyclists!
Elliot Hughes tortured in jail during RNC Cheeto Fingers
that's the guy that was tortured in jail with his jaw being pushed away from his face.
YouTube - Guard or Cop Pepperspraying Peaceful People Miami FTAA 2003
careful, the camera's a weapon! remember kids, words are as dangerous as weapons.
YouTube - Videojournalist arrested at Halliburton Protest in Houston
silly people, didn't you know freedom of speech isn't allowed in public.

man, we're almost got the DNC '68 level of freedom this election season.

[Mingus]

Heh, awesome. What gives you the impression that I would have a copy of On Liberty? I mean, I do have one so you're quite correct, just wondering why you were certain I would.

Anyway, I'm not sure of which exact passage you mean but I'll throw a few quotes out there where he argues against censorship:

• "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
• “Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme"; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.”

He did also say, however, " Some rules of conduct must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law." and " That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

So he acknowledges that there are circumstances were freedoms must be curtailed for government and society to function and that it's a matter of striking a balance of the greatest possible liberty that still allows an ordered society with the protection of law. Saying that, I'm sure that Mill wouldn't agree with the private/public thing in the Canadian constitution, I just imagine that he would appreciate the principles behind it.

My own feeling is that we are pushing the boundaries of what constitutes 'harm' in forbidding public displays of racism or bigotry into realms that are not so readily quantifiable as I would like. Accordingly, I would say that any statement made peacefully should be allowed however uncomfortable or offensive it may be; actions should be regulated because no one has the right to cause material damage to another person, but ideas and words are not the state's to control. Also, the way to deal with bigotry isn't, I fear, to simply attempt to blot out its presence but rather to address the social issues behind it.



Members of his own cabinet are basically saying that at the moment, so I should think you'll be safe for the foreseeable future.

It's a mark of the significance and importance of On Liberty that you were actually able to quote relevant and eloquent portions that weren't actually the pieces I was thinking of! You're a literate and philosophically informed guy, Jaiden, so I assumed you were familiar with one of the fundamental texts of Western Liberalism (the same assumption held about Charlie, in particular since he's studying philosophy). I'm not sure anyone can be an educated adult who has not read On Liberty, along with a few other crucial books (some of which I will freely admit I have read only in part, or only seen summaries of).

Mill on the proper region of human liberty:

It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the cfonduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in greater part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it....No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual.

Worth quoting at length, I think, in order to shed some light on Mill's credo, and that of political liberalism (not to be confused with American Democrats) generally.

And I think Jaiden's points on legislation regarding hate speech and racism are well-made. However reprehensible those viewpoints, however ugly and unpleasant it is to hear them, there is no better disinfectant than daylight. The repulsive, the outrageous, the malignant cannot survive the scrutiny of an informed and skeptical society. I certainly think Mill could see the points behind Canada's limits on the Constitution, and would argue that these points should be debated. He simply wouldn't agree with the conclusion.

Political debate is utterly pointless if every conceivable view cannot be represented and argued, and it is admirably served if every view has a staunch advocate.

[Jaiden]

It's a mark of the significance and importance of On Liberty that you were actually able to quote relevant and eloquent portions that weren't actually the pieces I was thinking of! You're a literate and philosophically informed guy, Jaiden, so I assumed you were familiar with one of the fundamental texts of Western Liberalism (the same assumption held about Charlie, in particular since he's studying philosophy).

Thank you very much, mate. Kind of you to say so. To even things out, I tend to find your posts to be very interesting and well-thought out.

"no better disinfectant than daylight" is a great little line, by the way. I might have to steal it for future use.

[Dethklok_still_rules]

I am sick of all of your bitching. You should feel happy. The only reason the police fight back is because the government is afraid of it's people, as they should be. And if you don't like it, quit being a little pussy victim, get a gun, and wait for reckoning day. WAAAHHHHH! I have no rights! You're free to take your rights by force. And if you don't feel that they are more valuable than your life, then shut the **** up and sit down like the compromising pussy you are.