The Limits of Free Speech

[Hrothbern]

I think the first amendment was never intended to be 100% unlimited.
If you look at the laws on blasphemy that co-existed with the 1st amendmendment atv the beginning of the US, that must have been the case.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States

But by the way the 1st amendmented is formulated as a law on her own, and not founded in a higher value or principle, that would allow for nuances, it leaves no judicial room on her own, not even for blasphemy in a originally very christian country, genuine or by lipservice of the establishment. So with lots of blasphemy around very few court cases (see link above) and diminishing over time.

Summarising... the 1st amendment is nothing more, and nothing less than:
"I want to have MY freedom of speech, and under equality of law (the higher principle), I now have also to grant any other citizen that right for HIS freedom of speech" written in stone.
(and fully based on individualism)

IF
the basic principle would have been "tolerance" as a founding higher principle,
then freedom of speech for all would have been a consequence.... but limited by the higher principle of tolerance.
extreme forms of disrespect, hate speech, insults, etc can then be judged to be an extreme form of being "intolerant", and would make it judicial possible to condemn it.

The only problem I see with using "tolerance" as founding principle, is that you have to put more trust in the courts, the judges, etc.
More of a collective culture as well.
There are enough countries who do it this way.
But I am not that sure whether this would work in the US

 

[Perfection]

What I actually said was "bankers," "1%ers," and "white collar criminals." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'private-sector leadership' (do you mean that this hypothetical candidate is for nationalizing everything so the gubmint runs it, or that (s)he's just angry at our current crop of "private-sector leaders"?).

Pretty much all people in leadership roles (with the exception of small business leaders) in the private sector fall under "1%er", if you're railing against "1%ers" you're railing against private sector leadership.

Of course I'm able to distinguish the difference. The President going on tirades about "corporate leaders" would be far more of a social good than a private citizen swearing about a complete jerkwad of a politician; the former might actually create some 'bully pulpit' political effects while the latter would accomplish nothing.

1. Denigrating the effects of private citizens expressing their views is self-defeating. Are you accomplishing nothing when you post here?
2. While corporate accountability is important, we need to remember that these leaders play instrumental roles in our economic prosperity.

Right, you made it clear that you believe attacks on white collar criminals are "wrong and likely economically disastrous." It's not that you're against vulgarity, it's just that you're on the wrong side of the class war.

No you said "bankers," "1%ers," and "white collar criminals." if you merely said "white collar criminals" then I obviously wouldn't really object.

 

[Lexicus]

I think the first amendment was never intended to be 100% unlimited.

One important consideration here is that the Bill of Rights was only ruled to apply to state governments in a series of court decisions beginning in 1897. In fact, in 1833 courts ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments at all, and this jurisprudence was only changed with the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

Pretty much all people in leadership roles in the private sector fall under "1%er", if you're railing against "1%ers" you're railing against private sector leadership.

1%er isn't a term meant to be taken literally. It's a political buzzword. If we're being technical then the problem really resides in the 1% of the 1% - the .01%, or even the .001%. Of course, this group isn't the only source of unaccountable elite criminality.

1. Denigrating the effects of private citizens expressing their views is self-defeating. Are you accomplishing nothing when you post here?

I mean, if I'm being realistic, not much. I do learn things occasionally, and I think posting here helps me to develop myself intellectually, but I don't think it accomplishes much in the political sphere, no. And in any case I flatter myself that I am expressing ideas that are just a bit more sophisticated and important than "**** Donald Trump", as much as I agree with that sentiment.

2. While corporate accountability is important, we need to remember that these leaders play instrumental roles in our economic prosperity.

That is total nonsense. It's just like Holder claiming that prosecuting the criminal bankers after the financial crisis would have created "instability." In reality, allowing corporate elites to be unaccountable turns the elites into a drag on, an impediment to, economic prosperity. Allowing fraud to occur in the financial system turns the financial system into an arena where fraud becomes the necessary survival strategy, because honest enterprise cannot compete with fraudulent enterprise. The guy paying his employees properly can't give better returns to his shareholders than the guy taking every opportunity to rob his workers. The guy following all the environmental regulations can't compete with the guy who cheats on them (and yes, I said "guy" because these are overwhelmingly guys doing all these things). Placing ethical behavior at odds with economic prosperity the way you have implicitly done here is simply wrong on so many levels.

Indeed, in an ultimate sense the very existence of elites is a drag on prosperity, for the basic reason that both Adam Smith and Marx identified: as capital becomes more widespread, the amount of profit one can realize from owning it (given the conditions of a properly free market) should shrink correspondingly. It follows that, eventually, for the class of super-rich to even exist, they must increasingly subvert the operation of the free market, which they are indeed doing (and, really, always have done) through a variety of mechanisms. Free markets create prosperity, but unaccountable elites are toxic to free markets, which is why free markets ultimately require the abolition of capitalism.

No you said "bankers," "1%ers," and "white collar criminals." if you merely said "white collar criminals" then I obviously wouldn't really object.

Well, the reason I included the other categories was because the problems extend beyond merely what is directly illegal. Part of the problem is that the law is too permissive when it comes to what the rich do with their money and how they run their businesses. And part of the problem is the general class conflict that transcends the fairly simplistic question of whether particular behaviors are legal or not. In the end I don't see the class interests of the capitalists as worth taking into account and fully believe in Keynes' concept of 'euthanasia of the rentier.'

 

[Perfection]

That is total nonsense.

I post here to have pleasant thoughtful conversation with insightful people if you're going to act pissy to me like this I will refrain from engaging with you.

Don't be an ass.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, sorry I called your argument total nonsense.

I categorically and completely disagree with the idea that our economic elites play an instrumental role in economic prosperity, and indeed I believe this to be the exact opposite of the truth in many respects.

Better?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

hmm...didn't know that. Maybe I'm thinking of the FCC's ruling on George Carlin's 7 dirty words that cant be said on TV

The difference of course being the order(s) of magnitude increase in the number of people who will see one broadcast versus one bumper sticker.

but they've become so commonplace to express disgust

how about the F-word's replacement terms, like frick and frack?

oops, are they even allowed here?

I think views on vulgar language are going to relax quite a bit in the coming decades. Heavy cursing is nearly universal in people my age.

I think the first amendment was never intended to be 100% unlimited.

Right but then we get into trying to read 300 year old tea leaves about what some dead dudes were thinking.

 

[Berzerker]

we just need new swear words, the kids can invent them and us old fogies wont even know

But I'm off the fence, I support displaying the sticker. But what if instead it was someone on the street yelling cuss words? For the sake of argument, they're not considered a nuisance (I know thats a tough given)?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

we just need new swear words, the kids can invent them and us old fogies wont even know

But I'm off the fence, I support displaying the sticker. But what if instead it was someone on the street yelling cuss words? For the sake of argument, they're not considered a nuisance (I know thats a tough given)?

I mean I see people cussing on the streets all the time and doing even crazier things. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think it rises to the level that requires government intervention, generally speaking.

 

[Berzerker]

Sure, I hear cuss words all the time - and thats when I'm alone in a room. I was thinking more of a street preacher who's kinda unavoidable spouting cuss words as children are walking by.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Sure, I hear cuss words all the time - and thats when I'm alone in a room. I was thinking more of a street preacher who's kinda unavoidable spouting cuss words as children are walking by.

I mean I literally see that stuff all the time in LA. There also doesn't seem to be any pushback against the Westboro types on the grounds of vulgarity - which they plainly are.

And when I say people my age curse all the time, I mean even in the office during normal conversation and formal meetings. It's not a big deal to most young people. Plus, what is allowed to be printed and spoken in media is also relaxing. The b- and s- words are both now used on cable television and radio. And with the popularity of Netflix and other media that are almost completely unregulated for vulgarity it is only becoming more mainstream and a part of normal discourse.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Apparently, the "f-word" was uttered on Star Trek Discovery (that new show that purports to be a prequel to the Original Series). Yeah, some people on the Star Trek forum I belong to are unglued over this, and also the first openly gay couple in commercial Star Trek (both swearing and same-sex relationships have been going on in Star Trek fanfiction and fan films for decades; the commercial studios are finally catching up).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I know you don't like the show but does the cursing bother you?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I know you don't like the show but does the cursing bother you?

I haven't seen the episode in which it occurs, so I have no idea what it was like.

My view of it is this: Recent commercial Star Trek productions have featured characters who don't behave professionally (case in point: nuUhura constantly whining to nuSpock about their relationship - while on duty - and nuKirk leering at female crew (the infamous underwear scene in the second nuTrek movie).

It's my understanding that the incident of the "f-word" on Discovery was while the person was on duty (I could be mistaken about this). If it was uttered on duty, that's not good. It's not the way a Starfleet officer is supposed to behave. If it was uttered off-duty, that's a different matter.

If this series ever comes to Netflix Canada or if they're showing reruns when I try out the new Doctor Who, I guess I'll see for myself (I have no intention of subscribing to Space just for Discovery; it's not worth the money).

 

[Berzerker]

I mean I literally see that stuff all the time in LA. There also doesn't seem to be any pushback against the Westboro types on the grounds of vulgarity - which they plainly are.

Those people, dont get me started... Too late. They're aggressive and armed with lawyers, well, themselves. They're based here in Topeka, people across the street painted their house in rainbow. One case I heard long ago one of them was following an elderly woman around shouting whore at her. That sure is testing the limits of free speech... Thats more like an assault in my book.

 

[Zkribbler]

One case I heard long ago one of them was following an elderly woman around shouting whore at her. That sure is testing the limits of free speech... That's more like an assault in my book.

Technically "fighting words," NOT protected by free speech.

 

[Berzerker]

You might be right, I dont know how that would play out in the courts. Preacher follows someone shouting 'sinner', involves religion and speech.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know you don't like the show but does the cursing bother you?

You're damned right it does!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

(both swearing and same-sex relationships have been going on in Star Trek fanfiction and fan films for decades; the commercial studios are finally catching up).

Ehh... I'd hardly describe copying fan-fiction as "catching up". I mean with the same-sex thing you could argue that that's catching up in a more general sense with the zeitgeist of society, but you make it sound like adding a load of swearing is somehow progress.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not the way a Starfleet officer is supposed to behave.

That would make the Starfleet very different from every other fleet I know of!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ehh... I'd hardly describe copying fan-fiction as "catching up". I mean with the same-sex thing you could argue that that's catching up in a more general sense with the zeitgeist of society, but you make it sound like adding a load of swearing is somehow progress.

Admittedly I was thinking more of the same-sex relationships angle. Some people are freaked out over a very casual reference to nuSulu in the latest movie, but there's a fanfic series that has presented their version of Sulu as bisexual. That series has been around for over 35 years (and the authors are still actively involved in fanfic activities). I don't recall how many years ago the Phase II/New Voyages fan films started, but an early episode has Peter Kirk (James Kirk's nephew from Operation - Annihilate!) as a crewmember, SORASed* about 10 years or so, on the ship. There's a scene in which Peter asks his uncle for permission to marry his partner - another man, and a fellow officer. Kirk is surprised, because he hadn't realized his nephew had been serious about anyone, and was only concerned about whether or not Peter was ready for the responsibilities of marriage.

*SORAS is a term usually used in reference to soap operas; it means "Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome" - when child or young teen characters are aged by as little as a few years, or by as many as 10-15 years in order for an older actor/actress to take over the part in teen/young adult storylines.


Regarding swearing... I would not want to see the "f-word" in commercial novels, nor do I think it would be allowed. The publishers should be aware that some of their readers are underage (I started reading Star Trek paperbacks at age 12) and they don't want to anger any parents of underage readers. But it's normal in some types of fanfic, and the print 'zines and websites do have disclaimers stating that such language is used so the readers can decide if they want to proceed. I remember when I was getting my fanfic via snailmail order; there were a few cases in which the editor said that there would be stories with mature themes/language and that anyone placing an order was required to make an age statement, declaring that they were of legal age. No age statement meant they would not sell to that person.

The reason they gave for including this language was that they wanted to have their characters speak like some people speak normally. I should mention that it was always in-character (some were given to swearing; others weren't), and not gratuitous, just for the sake of including swearing.

Of course this isn't true of all ST fanfic, nor do I claim to have read any more than a small handful of what's been available over the last 50 years. Keep in mind that the number of Star Trek stories that exist is easily in the hundreds of thousands by now, if not more. I have an extensive collection, but it's just a drop in the bucket.