As I pointed out, the only justification to violating 1st amendment would be if it conflicted with other rights. I don’t see “monetary boundaries” as justified using that rule. There are no rights that conflict.
See my “rule” above.
It’s the point of their joke. They don’t say it–it’s the implication of their joke. They say it by enacting the absurdity of its opposite.
What do you think their point is?!
I didn’t say he’s not allowed to–I said he should be sanctioned. I didn’t say he would be, I said he should be.
But in any case, the case you mention makes an exception for speech which will imminently lead to the unlawful action being carried out–and though I didn’t specify it, I did mean it to be assumed that if Limbaugh said “all niggers should be killed” on the radio, then of course, several black people would be killed as a direct result–no doubt immenently.
I don’t see advocacy here for an illegal act. I’m not sure why you think this example is relevant tbh.
No, it’s not a red herring?
I’m asking you to have the courage of your convictions.
Since you won’t give any numbers, then let’s say for the sake of argument that the corporation responsible for Fahrenheit 911 spent 100 million dollars to make, produce and distribute it.
In your opinion, did they spend too much and therefore deserve to be sanctioned or do you think it was fine of them to do so.
For myself, I’ll be quite honest.
I think it’s not only a clear violation of free speech but frankly unAmerican to suggest that the government should have sanctioned the Moore or the corporation that made the movie regardless of how much money was spent.
As all Ray Bradbury fans should know, book-burners are horrible and people who entertain the idea that movies and books should be censored by the government are morons.
Huh? Freedom to speak cannot be bought. What you can buy is the means to be more widely heard. But since there is no right to be heard, you’re not buying any “right”.
Money is speech in the sense that your political donation expresses your support for the candidate. There is no difference in principle between me buying $10,000 worth of advertising space and placing an ad for the candidate in it and me giving the $10K to the candidate so that he can do the same.
Again, expand on that. How exactly is my spending megabucks on political speech abridging your freedom of speech?
I’d love to know what “reasonably available” means. I support candidate X. Should the newspaper provide free space in it for me to express that support? Should the TV network? Billboard company? Should the government buy a megaphone for me?
There’s no argument here, you’ve just restated your position. Moving along…
Dude, I do not know how much is too much. Why do you keep asking me? It has shit-all to do with the issue at hand.
I do not know if they should have been allowed to spend as much as they did. I don’t know how many more ways I can say this.
The correct answer to your question is I do not know. Isn’t this the third time you’ve asked and I’ve answered?!
I just answered your “free speech zone” argument. So try to find another one.
This is quite possibly one of the most moronic things I’ve actually read on this site.
You’re actually arguing that you think that calling for the commission of genocide against Muslims is not “an illegal act”.
That’s certainly mighty white of you.
Now, if you honestly don’t understand why a Muslim like myself would think that it’s relevant to a discussion of hate speech a prominent conservative calling for the bombing of all Muslim nations, the killing of all Muslim leaders and the conversion of surviving Muslims to Christianity than all I can say is that you are completely clueless.
I certainly can’t imagine any self-respecting black person continuing a discussion with someone who says they see nothing wrong with a call for mass lynchings so I’m done talking with you.
Good night.
Actually there is. Now I do not know what courts have said about anything called a “right to be heard” but it is clear from logic and definitions that a right to speech without a right to be heard is meaningless–and I presume the right to speech is not supposed to be meaningless. Hence, there must be a right to be heard as well. (In other words, if there is a right to speech, then there is a duty to allow speech to be heard. And if there is a duty to allow speech to be heard, then there is a right to be heard.)
One way it happens is this: The megabuck-supported speech on the airwaves distorts and polarizes everyone’s perceptions of the political situation is ways that make it literally impossible for me (or you) to be understood in any meaningful context no matter how clearly we communicate our views. If it is impossible for you to be understood, though you are communicating in a way that is, objectively speaking, perfectly clear, then it is impossible for you to speak in the “free speech” sense.
You’re right, it’s an extremely important question–one which no one asks, but everyone should be asking. I don’t have an answer for it, but people should be discussing it on the streets. Earnestly. As it is, the question is ignored.
What do you think it means for your speech to be reasonably available to others? How available does it need to be for you to feel your speech acts have had their proper effect–the effect you have a right to according to our constitution?
The quotation you gave says nothing about genocide. It says countries should be bombed, leaders killed, and people converted. I am not aware of a US law that makes the first and last inherently illegal. (If you or I did it, that’d be illegal. If the government does it, it’s legal.)
There is, though, a US law against killing other nation’s leaders, though–so you caught me there. I’d forgotten about that.
If Coulter’s words were likely to lead immenently to the commissioning of that act, she shouldn’t be allowed to say it. That’s not just my opinion, that’s actual law–under the very case you cited earlier.
No, all you said was you “don’t see” monetary boundaries as “justified” under the rule I mentioned. Didn’t give any argument that they’re not justified. You just stated you “don’t see” them justified. This is simply you stating your position without support.
Wait.
Who’s having a discussion about hate speech?
Not me. Are you? I was trying to have a discussion about whether and when there can be legal limits to acts of speech. I mentioned advocacy for criminal acts which would lead to those acts being immenently carried out, as an example of speech which should be sanctioned. I wasn’t thereby intending to make the conversation one ‘about hate speech.’ My arguments are all just about whether there can be rules about who can say what how and when under the constitution. I claim that there can be such rules.
Hahahahahaha oh you’re serious. I was talking about legality. You’re mischaracterizing me as saying something about what’s “wrong” or “right.” What an incredibly blatant and immediate falsehood you’ve just written! I thought you had to be joking. But you’re not. I wonder what it is you’re doing instead?
I BID YOU GOOD DAY.
For example, I’m sure you’d think you didn’t have freedom of speech if you were allowed to speak your mind only inside your house. But–you’re allowed to say whatever you want in that case, aren’t you? So why isn’t your speech free?
Isn’t it because in such a situation, your speech isn’t reasonably available to others?
No it isn’t. You have the right to speak. I have the right not to listen to you. You do not have the right to be heard.
See, you say “distorts and polarizes”. I say “explains and educates”. But you apparently want the government to be the arbiter of what “distorts and polarizes”. And you don’t see any problem with that?
The question is ignored because it is ridiculous to assert that you have the right to have your speech “reasonably available” to others. Others have an absolute right not to listen to you.
Again, you are under an erroneous impression that the Constitution gives you some kind of right for your speech to have a “proper effect”. That’s a ridiculously false impression.
Pursuant to everything you said above, I’m most interested in hearing what you’d say in answer to my later post, quoted below:
No, because such a situation would violate the first amendment.
The constitution protects your speech from Congress’ laws. But - it does not require anyone (ANYONE at all) to listen to what you say. It also does not require anyone (ANYONE at all) to promote your speech or disseminate it. That ANYONE includes both government and private citizens.
And - if you speak but no one listens, your speech is not “reasonably available” to anyone. Probably because of the quality of that speech. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
A. I’m really surprised–genuinely–if you actually think there is corporate-sponsored political speech out there which genuinely explains anything or educates anyone. But I’ve been surprised many times before…
B. More importantly, no I have not said hte gov’t should arbitrate what distorts and polarized. I have rather advocated for a rule (enforced by gov’t) as to how much can be spent on speech. Having the limit in place does not arbitrate anything, unless you think that certain points of view literally cannot be expressed if there is a limit to how much can be spent to express them. The current system distorts and polarizes–a system with monetary limits would be one in which education and explanation could happen without interference. If money and power do not affect which reasoning gets heard, then the best reasoning will have the opportunity to win out over time. But if money and power affect which reasoning gets heard, then the best reasoning will not be heard and will have no opportunity to win out.
Sigh, I guess I’ll do one last little bit of fisking.
You’ve never read up on the legal definition of genocide have you.
You honestly think that John Stewart thinks that the Daily Show should be sanctioned for criticizing political candidates?
Please give me a clip of him saying anything remotely like that.
You clearly misunderstand the decision. The speaker must know that as a result of his speech lawless activity will immediately occur. I.E. a mafia don ordering his men to “fire” at someone.
If what you say were true then Bill O’Reilly could get in trouble with the government if following one of his rants regarding “Tiller the baby-killer” someone killed George Tiller, but in actuality he could only get in trouble if he KNEW that saying those words would lead to that result.
That being said, as I said before I can’t imagine any black person continuing to talk with someone who thinks calls for mass lynchings are perfectly fine and doesn’t understand why they’re being brought up in a discussion of hate speech so I’m not going to continue a discussion with someone who wonders why I bring up how prominent white people who call for mass murder against Muslims, the bombing of all Muslim countries, and the conversion of the survivors to Christianity.
But I do not understand why that is so, unless I have a right to be heard.
If I do not have a right to be heard, then Congress can make a law that says I can speak my views only in my own home. That wouldn’t violate my right to free speech–because they have allowed me to say whatever I want.
But of course, it does violate my right to free speech. Why? If I am allowed to say whatever I want? Because limiting my speech to my home makes that speech unavailable to others. In this way, we can see that the right to be heard is part of the right to free speech.
If you don’t think that it’s this–the fact that the speech would be unavailable to others–which makes the proposed rule an abrogation of first amendment rights, then what else is it? Is it the fact htat a limit has been placed on where I may speak? But that can’t be it–we already know that such limits can be placed perfectly constitutionally. So–if it’s not the placing of limits, and if it’s not the interference with the availability of my speech, then what is it? What is it about the proposed rule that makes it wrong according to the first amendment? Why is it an example of abrogating your freedom of speech?
Of course it is. The availability of something does not entail its actually being taken up by anyone.
It’s a matter of opinion. I don’t think the government should be the arbiter of that.
Because, as you argue, too much speech “distorts and polarizes”. So you DO want the government to arbitrate what distorts and polarizes.
Or “educates and explains”.