Liberals and the First Amendment.

Great Debates
1

Politically, I consider myself conservative except when it comes to freedom of speech. Personally, I believe people have the right to say anything they want as long as it doesn’t truly affect someone’s life (i.e., slander or libel).

However, some of the most liberal people I know, most of whom claim to champion free speech more than me, are some of the most censor-crazy people on the planet. Simply and cleanly put, they do not see the irony of their actions.

For example, I knew someone who wrote a negative opinion about affirmative action. When word of the article hit the college, the liberal, “free thinking” club on campus decided to break in to the newspaper clasroom, destroy all of the already printed copies of the article AND deleted all the files on the computers that pertained to the article.

AT first, despite the cries of the class professor, the shcool’s administration tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug. That is, until a videotape of the event was produced. THEN the administration DEMANDED to have the tape and all copies. THEN the administration pleaded with the paper to not leak any of it to the press, and finally punished all of the perpetrators, who cried that their free speech rights were being violated!

This really happened, my friends. And I wonder if anyone has had any personal experience with this.

2

Cite?

3

Some people use political idiology as an excuse for violence. This happens on both sides of the political spectrum. Too many people will fight tooth and nail for their freedom but don’t give a damn about other people’s.

4

So called “liberals” are the most intolerant people around, that’s not news. The much vaunted and oft-repeated odes to diversity don’t apply to diversity of political opinion, either. What you’re describing isn’t irony so much as outright hypocrisy.

5

Why would you say that? Is it because they exercised their freedom of speech to speak out against the conservatives or do you have something more in line with the OP to justify your generalizations?

A very, very long time ago a group of Nazis wanted to march in a largely Jewish area in Skokie, Illinois. That was my first real test on my liberal views on freedom of speech. I supported their right and there were Jews who did also.

What the students did in the OP was wrong. If they didn’t like what was printed, they should have spoken up loud and clear about their feelings and thinking.

6

This thread was posted twice.

7

Read The State of The Art by Iain M. Banks… an interesting novella in there about the Satanic Verses and liberal attitudes toward free speech; made this liberal think about his own views a lot.

8

There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle. This isn’t news.

9

Moderator’s Note: Duplicate threads merged.

10

Interesting OP, **TERRA Rising **. I’ve been a free speech supporter for many years, having joined the ACLU around 40 years ago. There was a time when free speech was a liberal position, and censorship was conservative. Then the libertarian wing of the conservatives came to support free speech. However, during the last 30 years or so, liberal support for free speech waned, in comparison to other issues. E.g., laws about offensive speech in the workplace have value, but they restrict speech.

The change was most evident on college campuses. E.g., many colleges adopted Draconian speech codes. Today free speech on campus is championed more by conservatives, although liberal support hasn’t disappeared entirely.

The example you gave is not remarkable. It has become not unusual for activist groups to steal student newspapers or attack the newspaper office when they are offended by something that paper wrote. David Horowitz’s FrontPage Magazine probably has more on this subject than any other source. The cited list of articles is broadly about bias on campus, and it includes example after example of censorship of conservative ideas and conservative speakers.

11

First, as already noted, there are some liberal hypocrites and some conservative hypocrites, as well as far more of both groups who hold their views honestly. Bypassing the former for the moment, then:

“Freedom of speech” is not an all-out guarantee that you can say whatever is on your mind wherever and however the mood strikes you. It’s a guarantee that the government (state, federal, or local) may not adopt any content-based restrictions on your right to free expression of your views. (And that private entities licensed to use public resources may not discriminate on the basis of political stance in making their facilities available to the expression of views, gratis or for a fee.)

This distinction is important because a person may hold what appears to be contradictory views in consequence of it.

For example, I support fully the First Amendment rights of Ann Coulter to express her political views. At the same time, I find both her politics and, more especially, her style to be so offensive that I would like to see every publisher, broadcaster, ISP, and other medium refuse to give her any space or time in which to express them.

These views are not contradictory. Like every other American, Ann Coulter deserves the freedom to express herself free from the power of government to inhibit that freedom. Because she is a shrill demagogue who will lie and spin for the purpose of promoting hatred against other Americans on political lines, I feel it is the moral obligation of a communications medium to judge the content of her work harshly and refuse to pander themselves to vending it.

I felt it important to say that because it draws a distinction important to me, but better examples can be found right here on this board. I am certain the Chicago Reader, Inc., Ed Zotti, and the entire Evil Cadre of Commie Nazi Mods. (TM, patent pending) is 100% in favor of First Amendment rights – which would include an individual’s right to advise another individual how to obtain illegal drugs, use file-sharing software to illegally reproduce and dissseminate copyrighted music, etc. Nonetheless, as a private entity, the SDMB, as the property of the Chicago Reader, and the ECoCNM will close, delete, and otherwise trammell on those individualks who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to discuss the above by posting material on it on this board contrary to the clearly stated policies of the board.

The difference: Government must be 100% fair, and (with very clear and specific exceptions) may not restrict content. Private individuals and entities have every right to judge on the basis of content.

There’s one other important exception on First Amendment rights that needs to be addressed: Any government body has the right to adopt non-content-based “time, place, and manner” regulations regulating the exercise of freedom of speech with a reasonable nexus to its own powers and responsibilities. E.g., a suburb may ban loudspeaker-bearing sound trucks completely during a political campaign, or limit them to specified hours; it may not ban Democratic-party sound trucks while permitting Republican-party trucks. A Roman Catholic diocesan paper’s staff may decide not to permit an ad from NARAL to run in its paper; if three members of that staff also constitute the majority of a municipal board in the town where the paper is published, they may not adopt the same rule for the community handout newspaper published by the town.

In short, I support the right of every individual to be free of government regulation in the expression of his or her views, subject only to reasonable rules equally applied to all persons. At the same time, I as a private individual reserve the right to discriminate on the basis of content, and to say that there are some persons whose views are sufficiently obnoxious to me that if I had my druthers, they would be permitted to express them only on a 250-watt radio station in the Badlands, where all they can corrupt are two hardscrabble farmers and a few thousand prairie dogs.

It would be appropriate here to also address the controverted question of “hate speech” – but that is one hot potato I’ll let someone else juggle.

12

What’s with these “both sides” references? What are libertarians and authoritarians, chopped liver?

13

Rights under the First Amendment and tolerance by non-government entities for unpopular ideas are, indeed, two separate issues.

14

Does anyone have cites of incidents where conservative student activits used similar tactics as that described in the OP?

15

I’m still waiting for a cite that the OP incident actually occurred. I’m not buying it.

16

OK, there are a few important distinctions that need to be made here. What the OP describes is not a Liberal act, but a Radical one. What follows is going to be purely anecdotal, but as I have had extensive political dealing with folks that have both ideologies, it merits sharing. Keep in mind that this is a pretty broad brush that I am using to try to convey an idea. YMMV.

Basically stated, a Liberal will tend to try to change things from within the frame of the law. This includes supporting free speech, even when it is repugnant to him ideologically. When a Liberal does break the law, it is almost always going to be through some for of pacifist civil disobedience and he will always accept the legal consequences of the act.

A Radical, on the other hand, has a clear idea of what is right and will tend to do anything necessary to bring that vision in to being.

Think of it like this: During a war, a Liberal will tend to be the one protesting at the Whitehouse and sticking flowers in the solder’s gun whereas the Radical will try to blow up the munitions plant.

17

“So-called” liberals indeed. Who’s calling them that? The people in the OP strike me as un-liberal as you can get; more like fascistic. On what grounds do they refer to themselves as “liberal”.

More like the liberalism of the Left has waned.

Liberalism is not a “side”, it’s an attitude.

18

OK, there are a few important distinctions that need to be made here. What the OP describes is not a Liberal act, but a Radical one. What follows is going to be purely anecdotal, but as I have had extensive political dealing with folks that have both ideologies, it merits sharing. Keep in mind that this is a pretty broad brush that I am using to try to convey an idea. YMMV.

Basically stated, a Liberal will tend to try to change things from within the frame of the law. This includes supporting free speech, even when it is repugnant to him ideologically. When a Liberal does break the law, it is almost always going to be through some for of pacifist civil disobedience and he will always accept the legal consequences of the act.

A Radical, on the other hand, has a clear idea of what is right and will tend to do anything necessary to bring that vision in to being.

Think of it like this: During a war, a Liberal will tend to be the one protesting at the Whitehouse and sticking flowers in the solder’s gun whereas the Radical will try to blow up the munitions plant.

19

I’ve seen something similar myself, back in college. Actually, I had to recover a friend’s computer… he was one of those Campus Crusade for Christ people, nice guy, as long as you smacked him down at appropriate times.

Someone, I can’t remember who, in Friends of Lesbians and Gays and the student council, not only rejected his article, but persuaded the RA to let him into the friend’s room, and Fdisked his computer.

Basically, when you are convinced that yours is the only true way, a certain type of person concludes that any means to the end are acceptable.

People are yutzes. Go figure.

20

Binary:

Good point. Similar to the folks on the “right” who kill abortion doctors instead of working to undo Roe v Wade in the legislature or courts.

But there have been a lot of articles out there, similar to the OP in which campus “radicals” are pretty much not disciplined by a “liberal” faculty. Perhaps this is anecdotal information, but why is there no similar anectdotals regarding actions of “conservative” students? Which is why I asked the question in my post above.