And you still don’t get the point. Yes, there are additional hurdles to prosecuting libel laws in the 21st century. But I’m not talking about the mechanics of prosecution, I’m talking about the principle of whether libel should be protected speech in the first place. It may be hard to prosecute it, but that doesn’t invalidate the principle. And since not all speech takes place on the internet, the difficulties introduced by the internet do not apply to all instances of libel.
Sorry, which is our most important legal principle that’s being gutted here? Free speech, or prosecution for libel? Because this paragraph is not at all clear.
More gibberish.
I would not restrict free speech beyond any speech that causes immediate harm.
No, I’m not.
Considering that, when asked to summarize your arguments, you told me to go read someone else’s book, I don’t think I’m going to do more than point you back to the posts I’ve already made in the thread.
Buddy, you wouldn’t recognize a well-formed argument if it ran over you with a truck.
It’s interesting, the lengths you’re willing to go to avoid having to describe the argument Lessig puts forward. I’m going to go ahead and assume that it’s because you don’t actually understand his argument, and are trying to get away with throwing his name around in an effort to make yourself look more informed than you actually are.
I’m sorry, are you now suggesting that my joke was a form of libel? Really?
I’m not suggesting that it is inherently or absolutely OK.
I’m saying that within the confines of the community, should the majority choose to decide that it’s OK, or at least acceptable, then it probably is so, within the confines of that community*.
But that doesn’t imply that I also consider that such consensus consitutes a universal statement re. what does and doesn’t constitute separation or church and state, or an absolutely factual statement that holding political discourse under the shade of a cross isn’t layered with meaning.
I do think (or maybe hope ?) that right and wrong are not an arbitray construct of popular opinion, that they are intemporal, not subject to borders and situation etc…, and that somehow, somewhere out there there is a definite, universally and absolutely right social structure we’ll reach someday. I also think that universal utopia is what we all work towards.
I also realize that in the meantime, we gotta make do with what we’ve got, and try to make it better. I ain’t particularly happy about it, but there you go.
Chill. First I gotta get done wondering if that issue is or should be relevant. Once I’m satisfied with a conclusion concerning that one issue, I’ll get back to you and we’ll tackle the rest of 'em
Nope.
But I *am *constantly struggling with that exact kind of problem :
I don’t feel it’s ethical or justifiable to tell my SO “naaah, you look just fine” when I don’t really think so, on the sole grounds of avoiding conflict, or because I weight such a lie against my self-interest in keeping the relationship going. I also don’t think white lies are a cruel yet inherent necessity of social contact.
I don’t feel it’s anyone’s business to regulate my behavior, punish me or correct me should I do opt to tell a “white lie” when it doesn’t cause harm.
I don’t believe there’s a God or ultimate authority out there that’ll sort it all out in the end. It’s all up to me/us.
… well, fuck. How am I supposed to reconcile all that ?!
I feel the right course of action is to follow one’s conscience regardless of cureent social rules. But I realize that this statement also gives legitimacy to any crime, as long as you honestly believe it justified.
… well, fuck.
Get the point ? I’m confused and wracked with doubt about most things, is the point.
*“But what about the minority who strenuously disagrees” ? Yeah, I know. Soon as I come up with the perfect system… I’ll copyright it and make millions off it, suckers !
Holy crap man. Enough questions? This isn’t the Socratic Method, this is the Carpet Bombing method!
I mean that the public throughfares which are provided and maintained for the use of all the people collectively can be reasonably maintained and controlled with the intent of facilitating their use by the people collectively - including not bombarding those people with things they’d rather not be bombarded with.
Anyone may object - ideally, even a single person could tell you to put your pants back on for the love of god oh my eyes it burns it burns - and if you’re out in the street where the road is as much theirs as yours, you’d have to buckle up.
Note that this specifically refers to denying things - the minority is allowed to force a “no” on you, but not a “yes”. It goes both ways - either party is allowed to say no or stop, and if they do, that’s the end of it. (And none of that “her mouth said no, but her body said yes” stuff, either.)
The hurdle the objection meets is that it cannot enforce an unreasonable or unfair restriction, like “I don’t want to see you out here again” or “No black people are allowed on this street” or “All the women have to cover all their skin” (or “street signs offend me”). Now obviously some disagreement will occur over what is “reasonable” - some people will feel unjustly put upon being asked to wear even a thong and pasties - and some people will feel unjustly put upon when the government tells them that ties will remain optional. And yes, we do have governments around to decide these matters. And in fact the government will occasionally decide not to respect the wishes of the lone objector, though we do hope that they make at least a token effort to keep the minorities out from under the oppressive jackboot of the majority.
The first amendment is specifically about “Congress”, and has no conflict with local ordinance, technically speaking. The existence of noise ordinance laws, public decency laws, etc, supports this. And of course this goes somewhat against the spirit of the first amendment, but I think not intolerably so.
I don’t recall an amendment about freedom from religion either, but we generally frown on the idea of dragging atheists or members of another religion into your church.
No. Humans cannot turn off their ears, and cannot reasonably be expected to walk from place to place with their eyes closed. And it’s certainly not reasonable to claim it’s a person’s “responsibility” to do so.
Not congress according to the first amendment. Local government.
And the deciding factor here isn’t so much the nature of the media as whether it’s posted on a public throughfare. If it’s separated off inside private buildings, then any media is fair game. (And we’d know the difference because of all the people complaining about the eyesore they’re seeing from the road.)
And I personally think that verbal speech should be allowed regardless - because of the ‘don’t have to worry about getting tossed in the stocks for just talking’ consideration. I would even extend that to printed text as well, but that’s just me.
It’s more effort than just talking. You’re not going to toss up a billboard without knowing what you’re doing.
Yes. Has been for a while, actually.
Dude, I’m talking about signs and paintings and video screens visible from the public roadway. I’m not talking about what books you choose to read or what you choose to watch on TV or see on your computer. I’m talking about the frikking road.
Nobody has personally pre-filtered the sights visible from the road they travel on. The closest they get is having their governments implement numerous laws restricting things alongside roads, which has been done quite successfully by most or all first-world countries.
It’s clear until you disingenously pretend it’s not clear. And it’s actually still clear even then.
The functioning of your eyes makes you see things. And it’s not reasonable to expect drivers to keep their eyes shut (and thus “pre-filter”) for the entire duration of their travels outside the home.
Radio, on the other hand, can be turned off. So it’s obviously not comparable in the slightest, and I do not propose restricting radio broadcast content even slightly. I only propose restricting the things that a person traveling in public spaces cannot be reasonably be expected to personally avoid - sights, sounds, perhaps smells.
For stuff like that, yeah, we’ll be left with lowest-common denominator content. No more fancy artsy porn painted on the sides of buildings and posted next to the interstate. You have to go inside or turn on the radio or something for that. Pity.
Putting aside the strawman that “everything” in “some media” would be subject to this (which it would clearly not - we’re talking ONLY and I repeat ONLY about things being shown in a human-perceivable manner on public throughfares and spaces), the government would keep track of what it had ordinances against. Like it currently does. Changes could be made to it, like they currently (occasionally) are.
You’re acting like I’m proposing something radical and new. I’m not.
Then we submit the matter to the committee for banning public vaginal representations and they laugh the matter out of court. And cite the fact that the public need for having traffic signs trumps the fact that to a sufficiently stoned individual every sign, even a stop sign, can look like a dick.
Dude. When you have to get this ridiculous in your hypotheticals, it may be time to find a new argument.
It remains sufficient that all the sensitive people who do not elect to go live in caves have public decency ordinances in place, so they don’t have to flee civilization. It’s been working for a while now.
I wouldn’t change anything - I’m talking about the way things are now, with perhaps a little more protection for the uber-minority groups and individuals who have not currently managed to lobby the government to remove the kinds of public displays that offend them.
Whether there are things that people “should” know or “need to” know is another matter for debate - I just don’t think that that’s what free speech is, or ever was, about. I think it was about not getting arrested for voicing opinions or distributing seditious material, and I seriously doubt that enforced ‘education’ of people ever entered the thought processes.
Well, hold up. What you put in a book or code in a game is between you and the willing reader/player. In my opinion none of that content should be banned or restricted (though if you broke laws to create the content you should be hunted down for breaking those laws, possibly using the content as evidence).
And I’m all for tearing down the billboards and screens if they’re offending people*. It won’t happen in practice, of course, unless they’re spectacularly offensive to a majority or loud minority, but I myself don’t object to sterilization of the public spaces.
*As long as anyone can tear down anyone’s displays. If they can take the atheist signs off the busses, I can take the crosses off their churches (or require them to conceal them from the public eye with walls).
It’s a perspective that makes sense but I disagree with it. I think that the public throughfares belong to everyone, and I think that in cases of group ownership, everyone should have veto power. It’s a personal perspective - I’d rather there be nothing than subject the minority to the whim of the majority. It’s perfectly legitimate to believe that, instead, the majority should be allowed to have their way and the minority should have to suck it up. Or to believe that anybody should be able to show anything publicly, even if everyone else hates seeing it…maybe?
My thinking is, nobody else gets to decide that truths anyone ought to face. Which means that everyone should get to exert veto power over shared spaces, to protect their own decision not to “man up”.
Well, that’s your opinion. They don’t have to share it.
I think it’s the same issue. People don’t like the noise you are dumping into the public sphere and forcing them to experience, so they have a right to complain and make you stop. People don’t like the vaginas you are dumping into the public sphere and forcing them to experience, so they have a right to complain and make you stop. Yep, seems the same to me!
Oh - so tell me, high an mighty principles aside, how will you actually legislate this?
Libel is libel if it is said in person or in a local media, but if it comes from offshore, via the internet, tv, phone, ham radio, the same words are gong to be OK? Protected in one case, not protected in the other?
I get your point, I just wonder if you have considered the practical issues or not? Yes or no? If yes, then what practical issues do you see and how do you aim to resolve them? If no, then why not?
Either way, your answer will give us all an(other) example of how in depth your thinking on this really is.
Make your best guess. Unless you are now claiming that libel laws are not a subset of free speech matters, in which case what the fuck are you prattling about?
And another opportunity for you to explain yourself willingly passed up for all to see.
Harm that doesn’t involve the actions or interpretations (an action) of another person?
Because absent that, I can’t see how mere words can be harmful at all. Someone must deliver them or interpret them at the very least to be harmful. Otherwise, the words need not even be uttered to be harmful, only conceived of, and that is patent nonsense.
And if there are other actions involved, then the legal theory of a tort existing would turn on those actions, not on the speech itself. sure, with additional action, words can harm, and so can a baseball bat. It is the action of how we cause the harm, not the tools themselves, that is the tort.
Hence, all your claims notwithstanding, I posit that speech is not in fact limited by libel laws at all, any more than swinging a baseball bat at my head is prohibited. You can do both if you are determined, and the law will seek justice surrounding the damages, not the act itself.
That was not a summary of an argumetn, it was a position statement. it did not deal with how you got there, which is the function of the argument itself. maybe you are not clear on what an “outline” is? Maybe in this case a dictionary is sufficient.
Or maybe you already have given the best you have, and I am arguing with a chimera.
Is that your mirror talking?
I do know that there have been some presented in this thread, and none have been yours, and yours have not been worth the space that they have taken up in what would/could have been an interesting thread.
I might start the thread over again as soon as it dies down seeking better direction in the OP.
I’d much rather discuss Lessig than the nonsense I see so far. The tie is, I keep hoping, that you will actually extend your libel bit past the border and discuss how you intend to deal with cross-border issues.
Not that I think you know more about the book then looking it up when I mentioned it is online, but at least that is something.
So yeah, instead of making me go another 100 posts, simply answer my question about how you would move past your fortune cookie approach into the international arena, as repeated in this very post up above, and then we will move on to a more interesting discussion for both of us I am sure.
Otherwise, I will take my chances in a new thread sometime.
No, but I am starting to feel that sentences that are not in the simple declarative form, and contain commas delineating clauses, are beyond your comprehension to understand more often than they ought be regardless of topic.
Just an idea of what iot takes to cover to persuade, that things are maybe not always so cut and dried.
I am sure others, if sincere, could do the same to posts I make.
They don’t need to be answered one by one, but they do need to be resolved for the position to be persuasive. More likely, the position will evolve until there are no remaining questions, as a result of the issues brought up by these or other questions.
Even to the extent that people need to be protected from views of land and improvements on private adjacent properties?
Why build roads instead of tunnels everywhere?
So you realize it is not always clearcut?
And you would impose a “majority rules” aspect on free speech?
Yeah, and we are at war wit hthem ad their type
That such laws exist does not mean they are Constitutional, or that they are even about speech though. There are places, for instance, where women are allowed to bare their breasts in public and not just on the beach.
But collectively via government they can legislate what none can accomplish on their own?
Local laws must still pass the First Amendment test, and similar tests in what must be every State Constitution.
What if it is a private location visible form a public road (as is the case for virtually all billboards)?
Can’t the same be said for any media?
Right, what I am getting at is why you want o make different rules for different media.
In fact, the right to speak IN PUBLIC is the heart of the 1st Amendment, at least the part about speech.
But not on the basis of restricting speech, but as a way to resolve conflicting claims.
So you say, but it is NOT that clearcut!
Are you proposing to limit what I can have inside my house because it might be visible through a window or from a car driving by?
That is not wholly true either. There are a lot of steps involved in cognition between “passed by the potential field of view” and “saw”.
So I can play a sound loud enough for you to hear in your car via PA if I receive it by radio, but I can’t simply put up a sign? Because radio can be turned off, or you can roll up your windows or whatever?
I only propose restricting the things that a person traveling in public spaces cannot be reasonably be expected to personally avoid - sights, sounds, perhaps smells.
How do you value the aesthetics of the public space, as they affect all your senses? Might others see it differently (no pun intended)?
Wasn’t the First Amendment designed specifically so public discussion would NOT be limited by media or to the lowest common denominator?
Or are you saying it is time to revisit the arguments in favor if it and revise it somehow? If so how, the words are actually pretty straightforward, what changes would you make to accomplish all this?
Oh but you are. Or at least you might be. Still not clear to others, that is why we are engaging in the Socratic debate, so we can all think it through together.
Then if it will be laughed out whenever it comes to theis tribunal or whatever, then why even have it?
It is not an argument. The point I want you to clarify is precisely where you will define what a “giant vagina” is, since you brought it up. On the one hand, I think you will leave it to a vague tribunal or committe. OTOH, I think you would leave it up to each jurisdiction, perhaps with its own tribunal. haven’t we tried and failed at these methods regarding appropriate and inappropriate content? Why is your proposal going to be both better and sufficient? Maybe there is a way… I want to hear what you have to say.
Your hypothetical was the “giant vagina” btw, not mine
so you are saying that the mere existence of billboards visible from the public thoroughfare is a matter of public decency rather then public discourse that benefits the public good even if it is commercial advertising (although it frequently is not)?
Not getting that at all.
So we are just supposed to guess that people are offended if they don’t speak up?
Or, are you gonna make a list of what can and can’t be there, and a list of places?
In the US, this doesn’t work, and it works even less in the Internet era.
The 1st Amendment is not restricted to “…unless a local community votes otherwise”
Other countries, I can’t say, but here, no, that doesn’t fly. This town is headed for a Supreme Court smackdown eventually. It is that bad.
Chill. First I gotta get done wondering if that issue is or should be relevant. Once I’m satisfied with a conclusion concerning that one issue, I’ll get back to you and we’ll tackle the rest of 'em
Might I suggest DT Suzuki’s books n Intro to Zen Buddhism (don’t recall the exact title right now)
I’m not going to, but I also don’t see anything online about it.
I found your use of “extend” odd. Were you asking “do I object to people extending the limits of what is considered free and acceptable speech?” The answer is no.
To the extent that people have the right to at least have a say in what sort of visuals they are exposed to.
And there are cost and accessibility reasons to build roads instead of tunnels - and we seem to be doing okay with the roads so far.
I don’t know how this is supposed to respond to what I said.
Heck, I’d propose a “minority rules” aspect on that sliver of free speech which is posted out in public view on either side of the road.
Bwuh?
We’re talking about laws that have been around for generations. If they’re in conflict with the first amendment, then they’ve beaten the crap out of it.
And I’m totally okay with the restrictions varying by region. Enthusiastically in favor of it, actually. (In practice I see the prudish migrating to islands of prudery, allowing ‘liberal areas’ to exist; I just don’t see us requiring them to move to avoid such exposure if they wish to be so shielded.)
That’s what government is for, isn’t it?
Well, you try to get your local noise ordinances dismissed on first amendment grounds and let me know how that works out for you.
Then it’s subject to any public content laws that may exist.
I know lots of people who say things without thinking.
But objectively, this isn’t really the reason why I’m inclined to allow unrestricted public speech. I’m giving it (and written speech, but that’s just me) a specific exception due to the fact that I feel that restricting it would cut against the spirit of the first amendment protection of free speech much more directly than limiting the public display of images would.
It’s all about location, location, location. As it so often is.
Hm-hmm. Convince me that the founding fathers would defend to the death your right to run around in the nude and stand outside your neighbor’s house and shout as loud as you can all night, and then we’ll talk.
This is either nonsense or wrong. I’m not sure which. Certainly there are overt restrictions on certain kinds of “speech” in various developed countries around the world.
I propose that if you start to get complaints about what you’re displaying through your window, that they are not automatically without merit. (Though I would honestly expect you to be on the winning side of the resulting debate; much moreso than if you were displaying the offending content on your lawn.)
That’s so irrielevent I can’t believe you think it’s honest argument. The relevent issue is that it is indeed true that it’s unreasonable to expect people to drive with their eyes closed, just so you can pretend that the person posting the billboards is not forcing their content on drivers.
More smokescreening and goalpost movement - you’re changing the issue from radio waves to sound waves. Sound waves can be, and currently ARE, subject to regulation.
Not to say that you will get complaints for playing your radio - but if you crank up your bass enough to rattle fillings two cars over, then darn right they have a right to tell you to turn it down.
My argument is that if they see it differently from you you can each tell the other to keep all your offensive stuff at home, resulting in a sterile environment that offends nobody.
This would be a lot more relevent if I wasn’t excepting public discussion from all restriction. Just the graphic visual aids that you might use to provide low-denominator shock value.
As I already said, no changes are necessary.
No, really, I’m not proposing anything particularly new at all. Look into it - public decency laws and noise ordinances are not exactly the newest thing in radical government action.
And I’m pretty sure that’s clear to most people here.
The first “it” in this is “finding triangles offensive”. The second “it” is “any codified public display standards”. There’s a whole football field between those goalposts.
Okay. I will now concede that there may be a jurisdiction where they decide that all triangles are to be interpreted as giant vaginas and thus ban them.
I will dub this place “Stupidsville” because it is obviously populated by people with the cognitive power of gerbils. Dead gerbils. But I concede such a place could theoretically exist, and could indeed decide to tear down all the yeild signs. And probably replace them with ones shaped like phalluses, given how dumb they are.
Okay, that was a bit garbled, but I think you’re asking if billboards visible from the public thoroughfare are a matter of public decency. I dunno how you missed this, but my answer is “yes, not counting the text printed on them, since printed text is exempt.”
If you’re also trying to ask by implication whether I think that matters of public discourse can also be matters of public decency, then the answer is yes. It’s fortunate that there are other ways to discuss such things besides billboards, isn’t it?
God knows what you think commercial advertising has to do with it. Clearly commercial advertising should not be exempt from any standards for public display that may exist.
Nope. No guessing. If they don’t protest, then they have chosen not to exersize their right to protest.
Now, a question for you, Socrates. Do you think that every time a protest has been made about something displayed in sight of a public throughfare, that the subject of protest was always removed?
Darn, after looking online, I would normally call the local newspaper for guidance in a case like this.
I get it though - it would be too close to revealing your identity, NP.
Not exactly what I meant. I was referring to the extension of what some posters and/or lurkers might consider on the matter, not the broader implications of extending the legal principles themselves.
And further, I meant not so much “schooling” one side or the other, but for everyone to be able to make a compelling case, and then for the group as a whole to make some movement twoards understanding the others and finding points of consensus by refining their positions in repsonse to what the other says.
And Tomndebb (and others),
I can assure you I treat every single post you make with great attentin and try to fit it into a coherent whole, and I am ALWAYS willing to modify my own position, from slightly, to largely, when presented with such a case.
When I ask you questions, they are designed to suss out your coherent case, because as a member of SDMB, I assume everyone has a coherent case even if it is not easy to state how they reached a conclusion, and I want to know what that case is because I care.
It is never personal.
I am just trying to understand you because I accept you are smart and brilliant and have given the matter great thought and want to share, just because you are here. Maybe that is not always the case, but I prefer to treat everyone as though they are smart and brillant on first meeting, and even beyond. That might be my weakness, but well, it is better than the alternative way to treat you
That would be a new “right” to me. Where is it enumerated?
Rally? because speech/clothing issues come up all the time in schools and elsewhere…it is hardly a dead and settled field.
Would people be required to move if they wished to expose though?
Anyway, if this is not a 1st Amendment issue, then we are off track, if it is, you couldn’t really legislate “by area”, could you?
In general, but does that mean there are no limits, that majority riles on everything just because something could be accomplished, it must be?
Right, in that case a court weighs a conflict and makes a decision. Perhaps the right to be let alone outweighs the free speech right to run your harley at 4am.
The point is there is a significant conflict there to be considered. I am not sure that your billboard proposal, fir instance has a conflict of the same magnitude in which your proposal would win, is my broader point.
You may be able to convince me otherwise, remember, I am trying to suss that out, how it might be the case, not trying to tear you down, ok?
In your state are a majority of billboards actually on public property then? They are not here.
Way back when, when I lived in Baltimore, the City tried to restrict billboards in certain areas where crime was high, especially liquor and cigs IIRC. Turns out the ad agency that controlled most of them was in the building where I lived, so I knew the principals a bit, and got to see that process play out. I don;t recall all the details, but all these things came into play, and more:
how to limit specific content
on private property
where zoning is OK
visible from roads and places where children gathered
In the end, I think the city backed down completely, or maybe got some kind of billboard tax passed that could be used to counter the message somehow. As if :dubious:
I know lots of people who say things without thinking.
Is it even allowed that anyone can put any message on public property to begin with? If the public owns it or it is private, isn’t the presumption still that the owner has to approve it? and that for billboards on the side of the road or otherwise on public land, there are safety issues, traffic control issues, conflict of interest issues, a whole rash of other things that come into play long before the 1st Amendment does? or that are, in terms used above, in conflict with the 1st Amendment and outweigh it in the circumstance, and hence are not a limiting of speech but a weighing of conflicts?
well, the founding fathers are the ones that didn’t die, but they put others to that fate
if you can demonstrate that your first amendment rights are not in conflict with other rights, then you can do the above.
if they are in conflict, and you can demonstrate that 1st amendment outweighs others in conflict, then go ahead and have fun.
that is precisely what they fought for. they recognized there would be conflicts, and they set up checks and balances to handle them as they arise.
let’s talk
It is neither.
What we are trying to do in this discussion is to put forth the basis of our claims. If you claim I am wrong or it is nonsense (it is not) then please cite the principle by which you draw the conclusion, as I have done, most recently just above.
And I assure you that in the Baltimore City case, the 1st Amendment as taken as a give, the City tried to find a reason (kid safety perhaps) that would outweigh 1st Amendment concerns. You can look it up (although being circa 1985, the news articles might or might not be available at baltimoresun.com)
What is the difference if it is in my open window, on my porch, under my gazebo, in my tree, or on my lawn? It is equally visible form the same spot on the sidewalk in all cases, let’s say.
So you are seriously proposing that, when I drove on a 500 mile trip to the Bay area the other day, and the only signs on public property I saw were either traffic control devices, or signs with small logos pointing me towards travel services at the rural exits, that there is a problem there? And that somehow I was damaged by having to drive past them? And that each and everyone seared itself into my brain, regardless of if I noticed it or if I was even looking that way at 80 miles an hour at the instant I passed it?
That that was somehow more problematic and deserving of regulation that the signs, logos, and commercial stickers on cars and trucks everywhere that are not affixed to a post on public land?
Really?
They are, to the extent that they are in conflict with something else. bt that is not true everywhere, and near a stop sign in a remote outpost somewhere in rural areas (e.g.) such a sound need not be loud to be heard.
I am still not convinced that you can make exceptions for media, you say so, but I think you are still working on closing that one off, to be honest.
Are you talking now about mobile media or fixed advertising billboards? because, well, I don’t know about your state, but here there is very little of that on public property, I already mentioned, just small logos directing travelers to services at some relatively remote exits.
Even if it is larger, how can I as a driver tell the sign to “go away”? There is no one there. Isn’t my simplest remedy to look away or drive past? Why wouldn’t a court accept such a simple remedy?
Do they have these on public lands in your state? Can you post a link to some photos of what you mean? I don’t know what is shocking about the 15" x 30" Shell logo at the exit ramp pointing right when I can see their 80 foot electric sign from 3 miles away.
so nothing you propose to change would be of any interest whatsoever to a court on first amendment grounds?
Not even the proposal to allow different speech in different regions (remmber the clothing thing?)?
But you are proposing to extend them in novel ways.
Sadly, I agree with that. But I am here to fight their ignorance.
Want to invite the lawyers in the Stoid thread over and get their take?
No one is saying all giant triangles are prohibited, only that a particular sign which uses a giant triangle to represent a vagina, when giant vaginas are in fact prohibited, must come down.
This was your own example of something you would ban. hey forget the triangle, suppose someone uses a black rectangle to cover minimally a real photo of a giant vagina. American Apparel for instance. You don’t think each side would try to make their case? There is no giant vagina there. What will you do, except let it stay and then change the regualtion to say “implied giant vaginas” for next time?
So if I make a font where the serifs are giant vaginas, and spell out “next exit 6 miles” or whatever, that is OK?
See where there is always a gray area when you start to define limits?
“Public decency” when imposed is counter to the 1st Amendment as is. have your morals as you like them, but imposing them is problematic on the face of it.
I was thinking more of PSA vs commercial messages that may have substantially the same imagery. You don’t have to be God to get that, only have to ask if you didn’t get it. I will be happy to clarify, I can see you are putting in the effort too.
Wit - then how do you plan to say what is allowed and not allowed before? Or would you allow anything until there is a protest and then possibly until the protest is upheld by the tribunal committee?
No of course not, but if a sufficient case can be made it will be.
I refer again to Baltimore, where more recently (a few years ago) there started to be an issue with people posting a zillion sings on sidewalk lamposts about flipping houses or some such. There were no pictures, nothing offensive anyway, jsut brief text and a phone number I suppose.
Again, 1st Amendment issues were weighed against other competing interests, not the least of which did the city even have the resources to pluck these signs down faster than they can be replaced? again, baltimoresun.com and probably citypaper.com have the info.
I don’t think these signs would run afoul of your proposal at all would they, being just text and all?
I don’t see the contradiction - it’s OK within the confines of your county if a majority of people in your county agree on it, and it’s not OK in the context of your country, if the majority as represented by the SC doesn’t.
I don’t think the idea and underlying principle mutates as you consider an increasingly wide picture.
But how is a billboard display separate and different from distributing seditious material ?
I agree with you on the intent of the dudes who framed the First, and that they were indeed mostly thinking it was uncool for those in power to send someone to jail for disagreeing with them.
But ISTM, a logical and pratical consequence of that principle and written law is that one shouldn’t be thrown in jail (or, in the wider sense, be threatened with criminal prosecution) by those in power for putting up an intentionally provocative billboard, or a t-shirt, bumper sticker etc… Even if “those in power” happen to be everyone.
Follow me here :
I put out a billboard conveying a message (on the side of my house, on my property and everything - but it can clearly be seen from the public street). Another citizen not only disagrees with that message, but feels it is actually offensive to him/her. The courts side with him and tell me to remove it. If I don’t remove it as ordered to, I’m facing a slew of legal penalties, up to and including jail if I’m really obstinate.
How is that in effect different and separate from facing legal penalties for voicing opinions ? Expression of opinion and the flow of ideas and information don’t happen in a sterile vacuum, nor without inherently causing conflict. I think.
Real world example : we generally hold Luther’s nailing his declaration on the door to the cathedral as an act worthy of praise, and a bold strike against oppression. How can we at the same time contend that not everything should be allowed to be nailed down for anyone to see ? Isn’t that the exact same oppression we were cheering Luther for defying a minute ago ?
I think these statements are in contradiction.
Or maybe I agree with you in practice, but not on principle.
I happen to very much dislike billboards in general, esp. in your face commercial advertising. I wish they weren’t there, and I think my existence is made quantifiably worse by them. They make my city an uglier place, and offend my sense of aesthetic good taste. The majority doesn’t seem to agree with me, obviously. Or maybe it does and keeps mum, which nets the same result.
But I also realize that it would be somewhat non trivial to do anything about them without the legal precedent having negative implications and making it possible and consistent to restrict other things that I think make my existence quantifiably better.
So I suck it and try to ignore them as best I can.
Yes, but at the same time you added the earlier caveat “unless the exercise of that veto is really unreasonable”. How do we decide what constitutes “really unreasonable”, and in that public forum, does the minority also have veto power ?
ISTM, if it does, then pretty much anything can be constituted reasonable if at least one guy screams that it is and uses his veto power.
And if it doesn’t, then the majority is still jack-bootedly imposing its notion of what’s reasonable upon the minority, innit ?
I’m not asking them to. I’m just stating my opinion, that’s not a threat to or restriction of theirs, is it ?
You neglected an important part of my sentence : “from the outside of one’s den into the inside of one’s den”, i.e. when the public sphere pollutes the private one. That is where I feel the distinction lies. In the public sphere, loud noise is annoying, but nobody’s getting sued for talking too loudly on a cellphone, or operating a jackhammer or something like that.
Now, I suppose it could be argued that one’s mind is a private sphere and one should have the right to keep it clean and free of unwelcome stimuli, ideas, concepts and any sort of contact with the outside world but… yeah.
You’re saying you think there exists some “official” theory of 9/11, and you doubt it. You’re a 9/11 truth denier. I don’t see any other way to cut it, but feel free to explain yourself.
Tell me what I rushed into? You said yourself you doubt 9/11 and you’re not sure if free speech should be a “right”. I just pointed out that I’ve seen these attitudes together before, and I’m not surprised to see them together again. There wasn’t any “judgement” involved.
Neither “9/11 truth denier” or “Official Truth Doubter” come anywhere near to describing me as a person though, so why even mention it? And as for “not sure if free speech should be a right”, I suppose it could be better stated as “I’m not sure free speech should be free.”.
I’m not so concerned about what is said, but more where they are allowed to say it. If someone wants to hire a hall and preach to the converted about how special their group is and how inferior another group is, fair enough. But I don’t think they should be allowed to encourage others towards hatred in a public place.
Or, if I was to purchase a loud-hailer and stand outside an immigrant’s, or someone I perceive as an immigrant’s house, asking them to go back to their own country, should my ‘right’ to ‘free speech’ protect me?
Is it location you care about or is it intrusiveness? Or the content itself “hate” - how do you decide what is hate. e.g.") Or a combination somehow?
What if you don’t have a “loud-hailer” - great word, I think you mean a powered megaphone but whatever it is, it is a great word! - but instead simply have a sign? Or the message is printed on your shirt?
Would these things be prohibited if they meet the hate test? If they don’t? What if they are done away from the target’s house, maybe not even in the same city? Are the tests the same?
I ask not to knock you down, but to clarify in my mind that which I think you have thought about in your own, so I can understand where you are coming from before I can formulate a decent response pro, con, or neither.
Right after your right not to be repeatedly punched in the face.
Not all rights are enumerated. Or honored everywhere, even. You may interpret my statement as an assertion that I think people have this right, to at least have a say in what sort of visuals they are exposed to when on shared community property that they nominally have a partial ownership of.
The issue of whether you may expose your genitals in schools and elsewhere is a dead and settled field.
People would be required to comply with the local laws, or go to somewhere where those laws don’t apply when they wish not to comply with them. This is pretty common, really - Nevada makes a living on people traveling there to gamble.
I can’t parse this.
“Now we have established that you can be bought. All that remains is to nogotiate the price.”
My position on this issue is merely that it is not absolute - the specific level at which the line is drawn is pretty immaterial to me. There can be (and are) regions that decide that billboards aren’t offensive, and it doesn’t hurt my point - if there are places where billboards are removed due to public outcry, or even could be, that’s all I need.
As I just said, I don’t care if they’re on public property or not. If they’re visible from public property, then the issue may be raised, and they might possibly be required to be removed, depending on the reaction to them.
The fact that there was even debate supports my point. Were such billboards given inviolate protection by the first amendment, that would have been that.
Answer to first question: somebody puts up statues and monuments. Answer to the rest: the fact that it’s complicated supports my position, not the absolutist position. (And if we’re allowing these mere conflicts to stop it from being a limiting of speech at all, then I think I’ve just won.)
I’ve been talking. And as I’ve been saying I think that your right to be a flasher or to disturb the peace is in conflict with other people’s right not to be flashed or have their peace disturbed - and I think the law backs me up on this one.
I stated why it was wrong. And the that other reasons could outweigh the first amendment concerns is the core of my point. Heck, as far as I’m concerned you are proving that I am right in practice…so I’ll graciously accept without question that your anecdote is true.
[/QUOTE]
I stated why it was wrong.What is the difference if it is in my open window, on my porch, under my gazebo, in my tree, or on my lawn? It is equally visible form the same spot on the sidewalk in all cases, let’s say.
[/QUOTE]
The difference is that the people who are inclined to complain will be dissuaded from doing so by their conflicting belief that a man’s home is his castle, increasingly so the further inside of the castle you get. So they will be less inclined to pursue their complaint and would be more easly dissuaded from doing so.
It’s all about conflicting priorities, see.
[/QUOTE]
I stated why it was wrong.
I don’t understand where you got this odd idea that I’m only applying the “the public has a say about all content that’s viewable from the road” principle to public property. That really doesn’t make any sense.
Thank you for accusing me of dishonest argument. No, I do not want to close off free speech in the media - go buy all the rape porn games you want for all I care! Watch all the slasher porn you like on TV! Fill your entire house with issues of Playboy and Penthouse! And while you’re at it strip completely naked in there! And in any other building where they allow such things! Go see violent gory slasher movies in theaters! Hold conferences about how to be a better serial killer! I don’t care!
The exception isn’t the media - it’s the stuff viewable from the road. Do whatever you like elsewhere.
Public, private, whichever. (I am no longer going to respond to statements regarding the public/private dichotomy that I am not presenting.)
And you can get on your cell phone and call your city council - perhaps not quick enough to save this trip, but perhaps soon enough to protect your sensibilities the next time through.
No change - this stuff is already happening.
Not really. I am arguing against the absolutist position that would remove such laws in novel ways.
You’re the goof who proposed interpreting a yeild sign as a giant vagina. I can’t be held accountable for the ridiculousity you propose.
And it’s up to the region (and people within) to decide what they consider unacceptable content when placed alongside public roads. I, personally, propose nothing except that they have the right to do so.
I completely saw this coming but hoped you wouldn’t try to muddy this issue.
If the letters are pictures, they can be judged as such - even if the message in the text is fine. Similarly, if cars are legal, it doesn’t mean you can’t do cosmetic things to them to make them illegal while cars in general are still legal.
Imposing your lack of morals is too. This is a conflict of interest where somebody will have to lose. And I see it as being arguably better to make everybody mildly unhappy by making them keep their offensive materials inside, than to make everybody more unhappy by getting them into an offend-each-other-with-our-speech contest.
PSA?
My argument doesn’t draw a distinction between commercial and non-commercial displays - if something is considered by some to be offensive and is posted alongside the road, it would be subject to consideration for removal.
Allow anything until there is a protest. You can’t fix something until you know it’s a potential problem.
Based on what I know of how tribunal committees and the like work in this country, I suspect the material would be covered or removed until the determination could be made - though it would be up to the tribunal to figure out how it wanted to handle that, or if it wanted to assess that case-by-case depending on the difficulty of removing/concealing the thing.
My proposal would specifically except those signs, yes, given that they’re just text. Not to say that the city couldn’t make other rules about that sort of thing -it disallows placing your decorative statues in the middle of the road for utility reasons, for example- but I don’t see there being a defensible argument that the eyesore level of the signs outweighed their informational content.
Well, I do have my handy-dandy exception for text-only materials to hide behind here. Unless the font was offensive at a pure imagery level, I’d let you keep your billboard, assuming it was text. So Luther is safe.
But supposing that it was a billboard with a gory picture of an aborted fetus on it, or perhaps the old standby of the giant vagina. (“Equal rights for all genitals!”) I propose that it’s pretty doubtful that the image is essential to your message - regardless of what your message is. And even if you can’t come up with a ‘nicer’ image, there’s always plain text to fall back on. Or you can always hold meetings about it and wave your horrific/stimulating picture around somewhere else than right off the road.
The thing that kept those things from being a contradiction is that I think that ‘public area’ content sterilization should be strictly restricted with no exceptions to things that are plainly visible to a person minding their own business traveling down a public throughfare. I can be in favor of draconic restrictions there, and no restrictions anywhere else, because the two areas are separate and, if not prefectly clearly defined apart from one another, they’re pretty close and the difference could be made explicit in practice.
Which is to say, banning bilboards based on not liking this content or that makes a slippery slope that could lead to any billboard being banned, but it doesn’t create a slippery slope leading to books and computer games being banned, because the initial slope was executing in a limited and separate context.
Well, you’d have to make an entity with dictatorial power that there are some things, like street signs, power poles, and the brick and concrete sides of buildings, that the offended people are just going to have to learn to live with because for reasons of need, difficulty to fix, or public good they can’t be removed. This dictatorial entity would have the authority to override the minority. (And would probably also be the entity that was enforcing the minority will in other cases, actually.)
And yeah, we tend to elect such entities by majority, but that’s a problem of democracy itself, not of my argument so much.
You merely holding the opinion that other people shouldn’t be such prudes is fine - but if you try to wave signs in their face for no other reason than to horrify them and force them to have to ‘man up’ and face what they wish to avoid…I’m thinking that’s not so fine.
Okay, fair enough, I missed that - though I’m pretty sure that’s not actually part of the law of noise pollution at all. I think that it’s the noise level at the source, outside, not the noise level inside the adjacent houses, that they use to assess it - though I could be wrong.
