It’s not that simple. What is that compelling interest, exactly? And how do you define a bigot?
I think your “223+ year old tradition of freedom of speech” is nothing but an attempt to frame how you want others to see my arguments. Its wrong and you know it
Here’s how I would frame it. I am not against freedom of speech, I would gladly make legal or depenalize many types of restrictions we have now. But I realize the importance and necessity of some restrictions. I believe some speech now legal should be added to the list of restrictions and some speech now restricted should be removed
I think it takes a long time and a lot of effort and an extreme change in our societal climate to affect that kind of change. You are exaggerating a slippery slope argument that hasn’t happened, or not to the degree where all of us are threatened. There are plenty of speech and restrictions we now have on sacred institutions like religions. We don’t allow polygamy, human sacrifices, or more recently, Christian scientists to get away with homemade remedies for major illnesses. Maybe that’s one step to banning new age cures and maybe it’ll make such bans easier in the future should someone want to implement them. But society is nothing if not flexible, able to live with contradictions, and public outrage is a strong force if mustered and directed. I don’t see the banning polygamy as leading to the shutting down of religious-based hospitals for a state-sponsored secular one, do you? Even the recent flaps over Obama’s mandate that health insurers cover contraception is reasonable, and only a religious extremist would claim it violates religion’s sovereignty. But do you really believe Catholic hospitals are going the way of the dodo? There will be court fights, political fights, and maybe real fights. Eventually, one side will settle down and acquiesce to the other and hospitals will still be running
We’ve done horrible things in our past. Even within living memory, many of us are old enough to remember internment of Japanese, profiling of Arab-looking people, attacks on gays, blacks, and every minority you can think of. But the point is that we remember them as being horrible, and history isn’t repeated with the same vehemence. 50 years ago we used to turn fire hoses on blacks, juries would acquit whites who killed civil rights workers, and politicians could openly declare they want segregation and still have a job. Now, the problems are still there, but an offhand remark of “macaca” lead to George Allen’s defeat, Muslims were harassed by many in the public and government but they can sue and get settlements and apologies. Even though many many people still erroneously think regular Muslims destroyed the WTC towers, the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” or Park 51 is being built there. We’ve made progress.
I see allowing the KKK or Nazis the freedom to do whatever they want as if they were some pro-kitten hugging charity to be a move back to those times. This isn’t breaking new ground for a long-oppressed minority. This is allowing a long-ago oppressor to use the same laws they’ve fought against in their own favor. Well fuck that, we’re not going back to the 1950’s, no matter how hard the Republican party tries to drag us there. We’ve moved forward. Banning the KKK from adopting that highway will not lead to banning of socialists, or capitalists, or any -lists that doesn’t take their ideology from the social mores of Reconstruction. If anything, the next ones to be banned, if they aren’t already, will be the likes of NAMBLA, Michael Vick’s dog fighting kennel, and Al-Qaeda (the actual Al-Qaeda, not a group form by people who like them and want to press for legal rights for terrorists). If that comes to pass, I’ll make some superficial meh towards freedom of something or other, but deep down I’ll be glad those people aren’t picking up litter
Your nightmare scenario will not happen in our society. It just won’t, society’s got too much invested in this liberal, progressive, open, freedom thing to go back to what we had before. If anything, allowing the likes of the KKK to do this is a step down the slippery slope where Nazis, Fascists, terrorists, and pedophiles will be able to espouse the kind of speech only they want and suppress all others.
Yes, you are.
That’s great, up until someone decides that you are a bigot for your unpopular views.
If you only believe in free speech for those who agree with you, then you don’t believe in free speech.
Many posters have called opposition to SSM “bigotry.” Would you support a law prohibiting an argument or an advertisement against legal SSM?
IOW, I think that your argument is terrifying, to say the least. Bigotry, even horrible racial bigotry, is a political opinion entitled to the protections of the first amendment just the same as opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts is.
Some people can’t get past the violence aspect of the KKK, but it is irrelevant to speech rights. It’s against the law to bomb an abortion clinic, but not against the law to promote laws against abortion. Just because some people who would promote laws against abortion also bomb abortion clinics, does not mean that the underlying argument should be restricted.
You do realize that the case from which this quote derives is a textbook example of why it’s dangerous to allow the government to decide which sorts of speech are too “antisocial” to be permitted, right?
That doesn’t outlaw communists, it prohibits the naturalization of someone who has been a communist (or “subversive” or “totalitarian” advocate or affiliate) in the ten years prior to their taking the oath of citizenship. Citizens, born or naturalized, can be communists.
While I admit to being mildly surprised that that section of the law is still on the books, I would note that it does not make it illegal to be a communist, or even a member of the Communist Party. It simply prevents aliens who seek to become naturarlized citizens from becoming citizens if they have been members of the Communist Party somewhere in the last few years.
Homegrown communists are as legal as capitalists.
There was the Smith Act, which outlawed Communism.
Au contraire. It’s not just federal law, either; dozens of states have similar prohibitions, particularly with regard to holding public office.
No. Where is this right and why should I agree that it exists?
I certainly do not know that my characterization of your position is wrong.
I would not care if Freedom of Speech had only been added to the Constitution last year. I believe it to be a necessary aspect of any society that purports to be free.
To my way of thinking, you are simply arguing that you have a legitimate fear of some thoughts and you support government efforts to suppress any ideas you fear. We disagree.
You seem pretty much unaware of twentieth century U.S. history.
We successfully–and pointlessly–suppressed the expression of ideas during the Wilson Presidency in a matter of months and, following later, (or continuing on), during the various “Communist” witch hunts of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, with some of the excesses continuing even later. It did not take long, at all, to swing the country into supporting that suppression. Real citizens trying to lead their lives were actually harmed during those episodes.
So what? Aside from those occasions when we have forgotten the First Amendment, we have not prohibited anyone from talking about or promoting those actions. It was up to those who believed in such ideas to persuade the rest of the country to permit them and they have routinely failed in their efforts without suppressing their right to advocate for such silly ideas.
Actually, I agree with this while you do not. I say let the advocates of such nonsense plead their cases and allow the citizenry make up their own minds–which can include being outraged. You would prefer to see the speakers silenced for some reason, even though you claim, here, that the citizenry will prohibit the actions if they were proposed. I have not argued against proscribing actions that would endanger the common good or threaten individuals within society. I simply see no reason to silence individuals who would argue in favor of such proposals.
The first link appears to be all about requirements for public office. The second appears to be historical material. Perhaps someone with more legal scholarship is required to respond to this, but are you in fact contending that membership in, or advocacy of, an avowedly communist group is, in and of itself, a federal crime?
Because, you know, there are a bunch such groups running around, apparently unhindered. No doubt some desk at the FBI or wherever is charged with maintaining a file on them–as is the case, I am quite certain, with a slew of much larger and perfectly legal organizations.
Otherwise, to the subject of the thread, I’m pretty much with everything tomndebb is saying there.
I am not sure what your point is. Your first link brings up a statute that stupidly bars members of the Communist Party from being officers in a union. This falls into the same category as the earlier link regarding naturalization, in that there are a few nooks and crannies of law where we punish a few folks for being communists, although we do not imprison them for that action or bar them the right to vote or otherwise exercise their rights as citizens.
Your second link gives a more detailed description of the point I have made that we have, indeed, (in the past), chosen to ignore the First Amendment and have imprisoned people for holding the wrong beliefs, but that the Supreme Court chipped away at those laws for being a violation of rights and overturned them.
Yes. It’s a bunch of requirements for holding public office. Or, more accurately, a bunch of things which disqualify people from holding public office, one of which is current or former membership of the Communist party.
This thread isn’t about making a crime to be a member of the Klan. It’s about whether prohibiting the Klan from adopting a highway is a violation of the rights to freedom of speech or freedom of association. Do I really need out to spell out the parallels?
tomndebb, you seem to be missing the point. Anyway, the Supreme Court didn’t overturn the Smith Act; it just overturned some convictions under it (mostly over non-constitutional issues, incidentally).
Agreed. I always want to throw up whenever I hear someone use that phrase.
It is fun to watch their expressions when you ask them why they think people should be arrested for arguing against the draft.
Or, just accurately, holding office in a labor union, specifically.
I am not missing any point that has been brought with clarity to this thread. Aside from actual plots to overthrow the government, can you name any case that has been successfully prosecuted against a Communist under the Smith Act in the last fifty years? Why has Angela Davis been allowed to run for Vice-Presient rather than being imprisoned?
We have on several occasions ignored the Constitution and punished people for expressing thoughts. It has always been a bad idea and it has always been rejected by the people after the hysteria has passed. No law passed during such periods of hysteria has protected the nation from anything, although it has often been employed by various people to persecute other citizens with whom they disagreed.
We survived the Klan when it was at its height in the 1920s. Why would we need to stifle them when they are little more than a loose collection of tiny groups of fearful white folks, now?
Yes, you are. It’s irrelevant whether prosecutions are actually brought under the law, because we’re not discussing it in the context of some all-out ban on the Klan. We’re talking about the potential for one tiny Klan group to be denied access to one tiny form of public expression.
Nobody had been prosecuted in 30 years under the Texas law that was at issue in Lawrence v. Texas, either, but it was still an infringement.
Anything can be abused. To update the old trope, can I shout “Riot!” in a crowded political rally? Should I? I think all people, not just the government, has a compelling interest, and a rational one, to make that sort of thing illegal.
And nowhere did I suggest it should be illegal to be a member of the KKK. I don’t want them adopting highways. Or kids. Or a lot of other stuff. Practice that in private and I have about as much desire to stop them as communists, capitalists, or furries.
I think you know that the framing of what I am advocating is not legitimate, or else you’d let me frame it my own way as I have and go with that definition. Not going to argue with Miller up there, but that’s what I see from your phrasing. You think I’m against free speech when I’m not and don’t want your mind changed
Here’s what I would ask you: To prevent that from happening again, would we need a government more like the KKK or the ACLU?
On one hand, and this is what you are claiming, allowing both equally free speech is ideally the best way to make sure no abuses happen. You can’t be oppressive if you don’t oppress anyone. On the other hand, in real life, is the KKK’s version of the government going to be as magnanimous to minorities than a government run by the ACLU? Real life leads to more than what your idealism wants. In real life, when people like the KKK get into positions of power, they restrict other dissenting voices. I’m trying to avoid this cycle of letting anyone have power, bad people abusing that power, and then everyone else fights back. If we restrict what is clearly a group attempting to marginalize other groups, we prevent that roller coaster cycle to begin with. Nothing about free speech says it must be constantly attacked, suppressed, then fights back. It would be nice to have a high standard of freedom without the ups and downs
Alright, if you’re going to obfuscate the argument by dragging in non-sequitors, then fine. Let the KKK have their highway and their speech. But the government can simply blow up the stretch and reroute it, and put into the hole a monument to black people. Sounds fair?
Of course not. We were talking about speech and freedoms and I made the point that we have restrictions on such things. But you tried to limit this completely to just literal speech. So as long as I’m not restricting talking about their ideals, I’m not limiting freedom of speech right? Deny the KKK the highway then, they can still talk about it! Stop the Nazi’s from having a political party, but they can still talk about it!
You see, the part I said about restrictions on polygamy and human sacrifices already cut into freedom. Its the same damn issue. And even you I’m certain are ok with those restrictions. I am too! I have no problems telling Mormons they can’t have 10 wives. I still consider this a free country despite that! Freedom doesn’t mean 100% free to do anything you want. We need a system of laws and government to prevent abuses such as that. And denying the KKK a stretch of highway is part of that. Its ok to restrict them and still call ourselves free (because they can still talk about it, right?). Just as its ok to call ourselves free and not have human sacrifices
The citizenry has already spoken, if not in the forum you expect. The very fact that this denial is being considered by the Georgians is outrage. Outrage has made itself known, and is influencing those in Georgia whom make the decisions. People have spoken up, they don’t want the KKK adopting the highway
Meh. Let them have their highway. If they clean it up they’ll be doing something constructive with their time, and if they don’t the “adoption” can be rescinded. Win-win.