Kevin's Watch

Fist and Faith wrote:I can't remember my history will enough. Refresh my memory. Was it the 1960s or the 1860s when racist filth held their tongues?

(Oh, and I don't mean they literally held their tongues.)

Get real, there was no racism at all prior to 2008.

You have made a common mistake. It's not that there was no racism before. It's that it was only recently that racists have begun using the First Amendment as a weapon to express their racism. We never heard or read racist words before this started. Slaves would have been shocked to hear racist views spoken aloud. As would Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King,

Fist and Faith wrote:I can't remember my history will enough. Refresh my memory. Was it the 1960s or the 1860s when racist filth held their tongues?

(Oh, and I don't mean they literally held their tongues.)

Haha lol and touche

No not my point or even close to it Z.

I contend that free speech is already limited by anti discrimination laws, and in some countries by anti obscenity laws and by tort.

I contending that todays free speech advocates are yesterdays free speech opponents. I am contending that todays political correctness advocates are yesterdays free speech advocates.

In sum, I contend that todays free speech advocates aim is to spin racist, bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric that is driven by a populist agenda.

No, my aim is most certainly NOT to spin racist, bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric that is driven by a populist agenda. My aim is to preserve freedom of speech.

Skyweir wrote:In sum, I contend that todays free speech advocates aim is to spin racist, bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric that is driven by a populist agenda.

Fist and Faith wrote:No, my aim is most certainly NOT to spin racist, bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric that is driven by a populist agenda. My aim is to preserve freedom of speech.

What utter BS. You're either for free speech or you're a fascist. The content of the speech is immaterial.

Its surely not that simple.

Its not one or the other. Legal limitations currently proscribe the content of speech ... so absolutely not immaterial. Limitations apply whether you choose to ignore the fact or not.

And lets not start labelling .. fascism is no laughing matter. Its certainly not fascist to possess a social conscience. Thats some kind of weird catch call of right wing American sensibilities. Such claims do not hold water.

Its kinda reminiscent of topsy some turvey upside down world.

Yes Fisty if you are talking free speech .. that doesnt include slanderous, libellous, racist content .. I too support such freedoms.

At the end of the day freedoms are never entirely free .. all have limitations that apply to them. And they exist for good reasons.

I have no issue with your alt right expressing their political views peacefully. The same is true of the left or the moderates and expressing their political sensibilities..

Your social conscience is immaterial. I contend that you are both wrong and evil if you believe in limiting speech based on content. The limitations that currently exist in this country are few. You can't slander or libel someone, nor can you threaten or incite violence.....and that's about it. That's as it should be.

You are (and should be) free to say anything else, and it's downright fascist to believe that the government should have any say in it.

Wow .. so very insightful

You have identified limitations .. you acknowledge their existence .. and Ive noted the very same.

You feel free speech gives you an inalienable right to be be racist, so long as youre not threatening or inciting violence, to be a bigot, so long as you are not threatening or inciting violence, etc.

Ok

Skyweir wrote:Its surely not that simple.

That is exactly my point. Embracing a simplistic, demonstrably inaccurate article lead you to make the simple, demonstrably inaccurate blanket statement that "todays free speech advocates aim is to spin racist, bigoted, hate fueled rhetoric that is driven by a populist agenda." That is not the aim of the three free speech advocates currently involved in this thread. Our aim is to preserve free speech. Which can ONLY exist, and only ENDURE, if it applies to ALL points of view.

Skyweir wrote:Yes Fisty if you are talking free speech .. that doesnt include slanderous, libellous, racist content .. I too support such freedoms.

At the end of the day freedoms are never entirely free .. all have limitations that apply to them. And they exist for good reasons.

Yes, even in a free society, nobody has absolute freedom. Society could not exist if everybody had absolute freedom. That's a different discussion.

Skyweir wrote:I have no issue with your alt right expressing their political views peacefully. The same is true of the left or the moderates and expressing their political sensibilities..

Nobody here is advocating anyone expressing their political views non-peacefully. That's also a different discussion.

Skyweir wrote:You feel free speech gives you an inalienable right to be be racist, so long as youre not threatening or inciting violence, to be a bigot, so long as you are not threatening or inciting violence, etc.

Ok

Yes, and if you believe otherwise you don't believe in free speech, which is a hallmark of fascists.

You have the right to hold any belief you want, and you are absolutely free to express it.

Cail wrote:

Skyweir wrote:You feel free speech gives you an inalienable right to be be racist, so long as youre not threatening or inciting violence, to be a bigot, so long as you are not threatening or inciting violence, etc.

Ok

Yes, and if you believe otherwise you don't believe in free speech, which is a hallmark of fascists.

You have the right to hold any belief you want, and you are absolutely free to express it.

The irony being, the First Amendment gives Americans the right to speak out against the First Amendment. As you (though not an American) just did, Sky.

Edit: If we want to be picky, the First does not give you the right to BE racist. You are racist, or you are not. If you are, the First gives you the right to express it.

I wonder if we have broached semantics in this thread now.

All are agreed it would seem that freedom of speech is a freedom worth advocating for.

All are agreed there are legal limitations on most freedoms, including free speech.

Where we diverge, it appears that anti obscenity and anti discrimination laws are irrelevant in the US .. as it seems from what you have variously stated .. that such laws do not apply ... er go you consider such a matter of .. speech content and are therefore irrelevant considerations.

Is that correct?

As you rightly state I am not American and it would seem our systems seem substantially different.

And for clarification.. the article you are referring to is the one where the Australian PM was accused of fascism.. and the author expands on characteristics of fascism?

If so please demonstrate its inaccuracy. Apart from an indignant opposition to it, no one has identified what it is they find inaccurate. After doing so, then you can rightly that it is ... demonstrably inaccurate.

We have been identifying the inaccuracies.

The First Amendment was not previously one thing, then became another thing. It is not now a "sword" used by evil people. It has always been the same thing. It has always given everyone the right to express their views. And it is always those with unpopular, "evil" views that must remind everyone what the First says, because nobody opposes those who are saying pretty, conventional, popular things. So when pacifists were considered cowards and unpatriotic, they yelled about the First. When certain artists were considered disgusting and immoral, and decent folk didn't want them influencing others and dragging society down into the gutter, they yelled about the First.

Racism is the most obvious way of showing the article's inaccuracy. When did the First change on this topic? When did it first allow the expression of these views? Meaning, when could racists NOT express their views? Was it when David Duke was active? Was it when Alabama sheriff Jim Clark beat blacks for trying to vote? Was it when U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd Sr. of Virginia and Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas fought the integration of public schools? Was it a 1916 National Geographic article that said "South Australian Blackfellows: These savages rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings." Was it when the newspapers were filled with racist articles during the Reconstruction? How about during slavery?

The right to express racist views has never been in danger.

The First Amendment has not changed. It grants freedom of expression to all. Those who are expressing unpopular views need to call upon it, because others try to shut them down. But they are the ones it was written for.

But she used a cute turn of phrase, with the shield and sword, so you don't see the fallacy of what she's saying. And you do not understand how this:

Skyweir wrote:You feel free speech gives you an inalienable right to be be racist, so long as youre not threatening or inciting violence, to be a bigot, so long as you are not threatening or inciting violence, etc.

Ok

reveals your complete lack of understanding of the right of free expression and why protecting the rights of the racist to express his views is necessary in a free society. You do not understand that not allowing someone to speak their racist filth is a violation of free expression, and the beginning of the road to a fascist society. We are trying to make you see that that is what you are advocating. And you are supporting your position with an article that misrepresents the First Amendment.

First, absolutely brilliant post. Thank you.

Apart from the parts where you felt to get personal .. as I assume when you refer to "she" you refer to me in the 3rd person. And that "cute turn of phrase" did not have a malicious intent .. as a matter of fact. But personal attack aside that was a powerfully compelling post.

I can see now exactly why you advocate your position. And I could not in good faith continue to hold my previous belief re speech content. I see this now as truly and absolutely irrelevant in comparison to the integrity and value of your First Amendment freedom.

Im not as convinced however, that calls for political correctness, moderation to racist, bigoted and or hate speech is a negative or detriment to the constitutionally protected The First amendment, in any way.

What I am saying .. is that a freedom constitutionally protected can not be defeated by the carion call of any that opposes it, or even seeks to limit it on content grounds. I see that I was indeed wrong in my understanding of that.

We have no such comparison here .. and definitely no such similar constitutional protections re free speech. Here we accept this is a legally protected right that is and can be very literally restricted. Few arguments for overtly inappropriate speech would hold ground or be defensible here.

But for you all in the US .. I see the value and need to safeguard that freedom of expression, whether palatable to the general public or not.

Thank you for a very brilliant reply. You have helped me see this from a very different perspective.

Bows in Fistys general direction ..

Well thank you!

And no, I was not referring to you with "she used a cute turn of phrase". I meant the author of that article, and the turn of phrase was her saying that the First Amendment had previously been a shield, and was now a sword.

Ahh .. then please disregard that observation

.. I was in error about that too

And thank you once more .. I feel I have truly learned something that I didnt know I didnt really understand. And that realisation is rather invigorating

Cheers

I seldom invigorate people! Glad to be of service.

I'd simply like to point out the systematic de-platforming of conservative voices on Twitter, YouTube, pattern, pay pal, etc. Look at Prager U for crissakes, they've been chased across the web from digital redoubt to digital redoubt by a relentless torch wielding mob of lefties, and it's perfectly clear the they are no more than classically liberal or libertarian in terms of ideology.

The elephant in the room is Media Matters, that orchestrates this online harassment using bot armies to ruthlessly mass report anyone who threatens their ideology. It's truly Orwellian.

And very well put F&F: for it is only speech that offends which must be protected in the first place.