Slate Columnist Eric Posner Questions the value of American Free Speech

[BvBPL]

In an essay entitled The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment: The vile anti-Muslim video shows that the U.S. overvalues free speech Eric Posner asks some questions about the contemporary view of free speech in the US differs from other nations and from historical American views.

Below is the response I wrote when a friend posted this to the Facebook when a friend claimed Posner was calling for limits on free speech:

I'm uncertain if Posner is actually calling for a reduction in free speech or merely pointing out how contemporary American values as they relate to free speech do not coincide either with the values of some other nations or historic American values relating to the same. The headline is inflammatory, but I don't see any actual call to act from Posner.

I think the key takeaway from Posner’s article is recognition that American contemporary values are neither universally held across the world should they be recognized as longstanding, permanent ideas. Sixty years ago, America had a very different understanding of what “free speech” means, and we may well have a wholly different interpretation in another sixty years. Other nations that also value free speech have differing standards on what constitutes exceptions to free speech; the UK, for example, has much harsher rules of defamatory speech targeted at public persons than the US does, even though the courts in the US recognize that there is no absolute freedom to make defamatory remarks. Given the reasonable differences between liberal democracies on this issue as well as the historical context, I see it as perfectly fair to raise the question of what we mean when we talk about free speech and whether or not our contemporary understanding of free speech is helpful at this time.

To be fair, how we think of free speech in sixty years could go either way. Maybe there will be more control over our speech, but maybe we will recognize that the uploader of the “Innocence” movie has a right to be heard that supersedes Google’s right to edit its hosted content even if Google is paying for infrastructure to distribute the movie.

In any case, I don’t think it is necessarily fair to jump down Posner’s throat for merely raising the question of whether or not the American notion of free speech is constructive. If nothing else, at least Posner’s article limns the objections to American free speech in such a manner that those objections can be constructively opposed by parties who believe in fewer limitations on free speech. To that end, Posner is performing a service to those of us who may wish to advocate for the protection and extension of free speech.

--

Enough of that. What do you think? Is the contemporary valuation of free speech in America appropriate? Should it change, and if so, how? Would hold up another liberal democracy or another state as a better model for free speech?

 

[Gigaz]

Enough of that. What do you think? Is the contemporary valuation of free speech in America appropriate? Should it change, and if so, how? Would hold up another liberal democracy or another state as a better model for free speech?

Right now free speech is limited by Disturbing the peace-law. I may say whatever I want as long as I use the right hour to do it.
I think this limitation should be extended so far that it becomes impossible to actively force an opinion on someone who doesn't want to hear it. (Politicians are an exception) No more anti-gay demonstrations at a funeral, no more neonazi demonstrations in the jewish quarter. Those would have to move to a public space.

 

[BvBPL]

That’s an unwieldy, unworkable, and absurd idea.

For one, we would have to determine what the standards are by which we can objectively demonstrate someone’s desire not to hear the opinion of others. Certainly vocal and demonstrable objection would be one way, but we’d also face the situations wherein a party says something like “I didn’t want to hear that opinion, but I didn’t make a big deal of it at the time.” Under that circumstance, how can we know the heart of the complainant to determine whether or not he or she really did not wish to hear that particular opinion in the instance? And upon whom would the burden of proof rest: would the speaker need to prove that the complainant was willing to hear the opinion or would the complainant need to demonstrate his or her state of mind that that time?

Furthermore, such a rule would completely destroy advertising, broadcast, and mass media in general. People would have actions against advertisers and the carriers of advertisers simply because the people did not want to hear the opinions expressed in the advertisements. Heck, if I drove by you playing “Cripple Creek” you could sue me, my radio station, and The Band because you don’t want to hear that Bessie is a drunkard’s dream.

Beyond even that, this rule would create a cause of action for perfectly normal conversations that occur in everyday life. Don’t want to hear someone’s thoughts about the latest blockbusters movie? Your rule gives you a cause of action against that movie reviewer at the office watercooler. If you’re sitting on the throne and pinching a loaf in a public bathroom you could enjoin people from complaining about the smell. Any rule that prevents people from telling you that your s*** stinks is a bad one in by book.

--

It is also possible that there was a miscommunication between us and that between your statement and my interpretation your intended meaning got lost in the shuffle.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the key takeaway from Posner’s article is recognition that American contemporary values are neither universally held across the world should they be recognized as longstanding, permanent ideas.

This says it all, which is why it doesn't require much thinking. If you're an American and are uncomfortable with the fact that people in another country may not like your point of view, including your right to have a point of view that defies religious heritage, then I suggest you never ever exercise your right to vote, because YOU DO NOT DESERVE IT.

Freedom is for those who can seize it and defend it.


Posting a comment or video on the internet is exactly inflammatory, and one has the right to change the channel so to speak. This thread is as inflammatory to someone somewhere as some video on Youtube. Grown-ups except that fact and get over it. Fascists don't want you to have the right to free speech that is contrary to their ideology, which is why fascism is dangerous, in any form, to a liberal democracy.


There is a big difference between the above, and yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Posting a video on Youtube is not the equivalent of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater.

 

[Gigaz]

It is also possible that there was a miscommunication between us and that between your statement and my interpretation your intended meaning got lost in the shuffle.

I think I should then clarify what I said.

Let's say I have a really disgusting opinion which you've already heard and you don't want to hear it anymore.
Under normal circumstances you can avoid to meet me and you can avoid the advertisements and demonstration that I've set up in my right of free speech.
I can then go on and cover your whole path in demonstrations and advertisements until you have no more chance to avoid them by reasonable means. And that should not be allowed.
I admit that the exact interpretation would be difficult. It would require that a limited group of people is adressed with an opinion in a way that is harassing.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Fascists don't want you to have the right to free speech that is contrary to their ideology, which is why fascism is dangerous, in any form, to a liberal democracy.

Interesting how in this case there are people who agree with your ideology and "Fascists".

It would require that a limited group of people is adressed with an opinion in a way that is harassing.

Hm, sounds like "freedom of speech ain't freedom to harass" sums up your position in a reasonable manner?

 

[Cutlass]

I don't see how it's on our heads to change. Free speech is just too important. Once you open the door to restricting it, you don't know where that's going to end.

I think, instead, that we should be making an effort to explain free speech to the rest of the world so that they know what we are trying to accomplish, and why we are doing so.

 

[kramerfan86]

Much like we shouldnt expect people from other cultures to bend their cultures to ours for our own convenience, other cultures should NOT expect us to alter ours for their sake. Yea occasionally something offensive is said, either people in other countries can act like responsible adults about it or they cannot, that is there call and not our problem

 

[BvBPL]

I don't see how it's on our heads to change. Free speech is just too important. Once you open the door to restricting it, you don't know where that's going to end.

The trend has been a progressively increasing recognition of free speech. Given this, we may wish to consider that what constitutes free speech rights may increase over time.

I think I should then clarify what I said.

Yeah, well, going to law school has made me a way more critical reader than I was previously.

 

[luiz]

What's more vile about this "anti-Muslim" video than the countless insults on Christianity over the years, from that painting of a cross in a jar of urine to even the likes of "Life of Brian"?

Why nobody talks about limiting free speech when South Park mocks mormons, or scientologists, or pretty much any religious group, but when someone offends Muslims we must suddenly moderate ourselves? Why must Obama personally state in a video that the American government disagrees with the film? Why are no similar actions taken against other offensive material that is daily published in the US?

No, free speech shouldn't be limited. Our tolerance for islamic madness must be limited. No more apologies form Obama, no more clarifications. Either they behave as civilized human beings who know that there is always a choice to react with moderation to things they don't like or they behave like animals - and lets treat people according to how they behave.

 

[Ajidica]

If you think "Life of Brian" was insulting Christianity, then you badly missed the point of it.

 

[luiz]

If you think "Life of Brian" was insulting Christianity, then you badly missed the point of it.

It's not meant as an insult of Christianity, obviously, but it's equally obvious that from a fundie standpoint the movie is insulting and blasphemous. Can you imagine if someone made a movie called "Life of Ahmed" as a parody of Mohammed's life?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Moron.

So he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to criticize Islam?

I have a bookshelf full of the worst, most unapologetic screeds against theism and there are some really terrible things about Islam written in them.

Come get my books and burn them. Show the world how you really operate.

 

[Evie]

There is a problem, in my opinion, but it's not with free speech per se, and it's not a legal problem so much as a social one. I mean, you could legislate the issue away via hate speech laws, but that would not address the real source of the issue.

It's more a social problem in how people have started making the equation : "If I have a right to do something there is no reason for me not to do that thing, and no reason for me to apologize or feel bad about doing that thing, and no reason for me to get any consequences from anybody". And that's completely wrong. Free speech mean I can call AlpsStranger a jackass; but it doesn't mean I SHOULD call him a jackass, it doesn't mean there's no reason for me not to call him that, and it doesn't me I shouldn't feel bad and apologize for calling him that. And free speech doesn't protect me from being yelled at by AlpsStranger for insulting him.

Because, at the end of the day, expressing my opinion, even if I have a right to do it, isn't the only thing I should consider when deciding whether or not to speak up.

A LOT of the criticism of islam is basically a lot people going up to call AlpsStranger a jackass (because why make the effort when you can bash Islam and point at their reaction), with relatively few (comparatively) people actually posting thoughtful, reasoned opinions on Islam.

(Apology to AlpsStranger, who was singled out for my example because I looked at whoever posted right above me)

 

[GoodGame]

Interesting how in this case there are people who agree with your ideology and "Fascists".

Hm, sounds like "freedom of speech ain't freedom to harass" sums up your position in a reasonable manner?

There are many absolutist stances one can take on these issues. One can deny rights of citizenship on the basis of smoothing over international cultural differences for example, or one can reaffirm that government is not in the business of promoting any one culture, religion, ideology, which is what a secular liberal democracy does. And yes, standing up for that is standing against literal fascism and other absolutists who wish to deny the citizens of their free rights. It is not a fascism to be intolerant of fascism. If you think so, I think you should re-examine your understanding of relativism, because it is more like a nihilism.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It is curtailed for public safety only, but not for censorship issues regarding religious or political speech, which is the reasonable summation of my prior post. The reason for this is simple---a liberal democracy is secular, non-theocratic, and not in the business of denying rights but guaranteeing them. The youtube video doesn't deny anyone of their right to practice any religion. So it is not a problem, because good government's protect the rights of their citizens, not rewrite basic citizenship laws just for the sake of non-citizens.


And note, I've not criticized a single religion, religious text, or sub-group of a religion, in writing the above. It is basically an a-religious (i.e. secular) stance.

And note, this is the same for any freedom guaranteed by government---firearms, religious practice, assembly, etc... Liberal democracies don't rewrite those rights as a matter of diplomacy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't see how it's on our heads to change. Free speech is just too important. Once you open the door to restricting it, you don't know where that's going to end.

I think, instead, that we should be making an effort to explain free speech to the rest of the world so that they know what we are trying to accomplish, and why we are doing so.

Everybody write down the date. September 27th, 2012. When I become a famous person someday I want this day to be remembered by the world, and never forgotten.

Cutlass actually posted something I thought was not only something I can agree with, but was downright brilliant as well.

we actually agree on something. I really, really was beginning to think we didn't agree on a thing

Moron.

So he thinks we shouldn't be allowed to criticize Islam?

I have a bookshelf full of the worst, most unapologetic screeds against theism and there are some really terrible things about Islam written in them.

Come get my books and burn them. Show the world how you really operate.

Liberals are two for two in this thread. I'm impressed

Keep it up

 

[AlpsStranger]

Liberals are two for two in this thread. I'm impressed

Keep it up

Don't be too impressed. There are two types of atheist in this life: the free speech extremist and the fool.

 

[innonimatu]

It's not meant as an insult of Christianity, obviously, but it's equally obvious that from a fundie standpoint the movie is insulting and blasphemous. Can you imagine if someone made a movie called "Life of Ahmed" as a parody of Mohammed's life?

Did you ever watch Life of Brian? It's not a parody of the life of Jesus, it's a parody of a lot of things including religious fundamentalism. Though fundies are indeed unlikely to watch it and believe any hogwash they're told...

I don't see how it's on our heads to change. Free speech is just too important. Once you open the door to restricting it, you don't know where that's going to end.

And that is one thing you americans do right, and are a good influence on the rest of the world for it. One of very few things, sometimes it seems, so don't change it!

 

[luiz]

Did you ever watch Life of Brian? It's not a parody of the life of Jesus, it's a parody of a lot of things including religious fundamentalism. Though fundies are indeed unlikely to watch it and believe any hogwash they're told...

It's my favorite Python film. All I was saying is at the time it was considered deeply offensive by many christians, some places in the UK actually banned the screening of it. But nobody died because of it...

I am not in any way justifying those who see it as offensive. I just can see why under a certain POV it is offensive, just like I can see why Innocence of the Muslims is offensive, but what I say to those who feel offended is: go watch something else and spare he rest of us.

 

[classical_hero]

Yeah at the time there was a misconception that "The Life of Brain" was an attack on Christianity, when it wasn't, but considering the same trends with the same thing about "The Innocence of Muslims", the comparison is adept.