Who Defends Our Right to Free Speech?

[Dale00]

A person who does not believe in right and wrong will have a difficult time finding support from most people on this board. Someone else might pipe up that murder is not real and so our concern over our murdered diplomats is wrong. These sorts of discussions are best conducted on a philosophy board. I don't see their value here.

What does have merit, in my opinion, is the question of how we should react when people riot over a statement or a film or a cartoon. Some here have condemned the filmmaker and urge some sort of restraint of free speech to prevent violence. Others have argued that we should not restrict free speech because of the threat of violence. I do not see how we as a nation can tip toe around the sensitivities of others without damaging our free speech rights in the long run. Appeasement will lead to greater demands for restrictions on our freedoms.
.

 

[Dave70968]

By your logic Osama Bin Laden bears no responsibility for most of the acts of terror he inspired.

Not true. What he did, he did with the specific intent to bring about the results he achieved. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[Hobbes]

Not true. What he did, he did with the specific intent to bring about the results he achieved. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Yeah, and that film maker uploaded several clips on youtube and go no response.
On September 4, he had one of the clips translated into Arabic and uploaded that, which is the one that was shown on Egyptian Tv.

You think he was exercising 1a rights OR attempting to provoke a reaction in the Islamic world?(which he did)

 

[caojyn]

Not true. What he did, he did with the specific intent to bring about the results he achieved. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

SO the film maker had no intent for there to be a reaction?

 

[Hobbes]

It's telling that he claimed to be Jewish and claimed that the film was finance by Jewish donors.

It's almost like knew what a $hitstorm was coming and he wanted to make sure someone else got the blame.

 

[Dave70968]

I suspect he did intend a reaction; artists (don't quibble) generally do. Did he intend to get the specific reaction of murderous mobs? I doubt it. Bin Laden did intend to get people dead.

Here's one for you: consider the infamous "Piss Christ." Offensive, I'll grant you, but the most violent reaction it's gotten is that a copy of the photo got torn up, and I think another copy was vandalized with paint. Now, consider what would happen if somebody released "Piss Mohammed." I can think of a perfectly valid artistic reason to do so: not to inflame the Muslims per se, but to cast a spotlight on the radical difference between the reactions to functionally similar pieces. Problems, mistakes, bad ideas don't get fixed if they're kept in the shadows; we need the disinfecting power of bright sunshine to cure them.

This controversy has done an amazing job of turning the light on what some people think. There are actually calls from within this country to eviscerate the First Amendment in order to prevent people from getting butthurt. Frankly, I'm glad to hear it: it lets me know, in no uncertain terms, who needs to be removed from office at the earliest opportunity.

Starting a discussion should never be a hanging offense.

 

[Hobbes]

Starting a discussion should never be a hanging offense.

No but inciting to riot is punishable by law, first amendment or not.

 

[Dave70968]

No but inciting to riot is punishable by law, first amendment or not.

Correct you are, but the elements of "incitement" set a fairly high bar: "...the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" [emphasis mine]. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). The burden rests on the government to prove the intent.

 

[MyMonkey]

One of the terms of his parole is that he not use computers or the internet. Finding out he's released a video on YouTube would seem to be a bit of a clue that maybe he's not playing by the rules.

Seriously? Who comes up with such guidelines for a parolee? Seems broad. Was he an internet crime boss or something?

 

[Hobbes]

Seriously? Who comes up with such guidelines for a parolee? Seems broad. Was he an internet crime boss or something?

He used his relatives names to commit financial fraud against banks by way of computer and internet.
That's why he was also forbidden from transacting business under a false name.