# The left hates free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720 "2013-11-12T13:39:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/121 "2013-11-13T20:27:49Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > The European Union is working tirelessly to ban a whole bunch of speech and thought - ironically enough in the name of “tolerance”. But as they say: no need to tolerate intolerance, although that sounds kinda oxymoronic. [A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK NATIONAL STATUTE FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOLERANCE](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf) > > _“Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism”_ > > So that rules out giving praise to for instance Communism. You can still be sent to the clapper for promoting communism _here_. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/122 "2013-11-13T20:35:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You can still be sent to the clapper for promoting communism _here_. Are you referring to 18 USC § 2385 (Advocating overthrow of Government), or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/123 "2013-11-13T20:58:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Are you referring to 18 USC § 2385 (Advocating overthrow of Government), or something else? Yes (otherwise known as the Smith Act or Alien Registration Act). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/124 "2013-11-13T21:11:02Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > The European Union is working tirelessly to ban a whole bunch of speech and thought - ironically enough in the name of “tolerance”. But as they say: no need to tolerate intolerance, although that sounds kinda oxymoronic. [A EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK NATIONAL STATUTE FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOLERANCE](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf) It is oxymoronic in the same way that imprisoning a kidnapper is oxymoronic. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/125 "2013-11-13T21:21:06Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Because if your reading makes sense, the clause “freedom of the press” has virtually no meaning in the amendment. Sure it does. The amendment permits individuals to retain constitutional rights. It leave open the question of non-profit corporations or for-profit partnerships. Why can’t it be read to say: Congress can regulate the election activity of corporations, so long as it doesn’t exceed the powers of Congress or violate the rights of those we chose to bestow rights upon? So you can have a: “No corporation is permitted to publish any reference to the election that does not speak favorably of the incumbent candidate” law; but you can’t extend it to \*all \*publications, since an individual can still publish. Also, it’s tautology to say that Congressional enactments need to be consistent with the powers of Congress. What effect do you give that phrase? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/126 "2013-11-13T21:39:25Z")
Seriously, Falchion, do you believe that removing Fox News’s editorial page speech protections is either the intent of the amendment, or a likely effect of the amendment once it gets hashed out by the courts? Perhaps you have that astonishing view, but it looks to me like a sophistic argument. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/127 "2013-11-13T21:41:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It also points to the problems with a money-isn’t-speech approach, when money is necessary for speech. Advertisements and other communications may depend on money, but that doesn’t mean that campaign contributions are the only possible source of money or speech. It’s just that right now that’s how our system is set up. But as I said earlier, campaign contributions aren’t just about speech, they are also about gasoline. And health care. And rental of strip mall space. And Blackberries. And tons of other stuff that isn’t speech. I think a constitutional amendment establishing public financing for Federal offices would be vastly preferable to our current system. I think it’s stupid the way that candidates have to spend so much time raising money for themselves, for their party, for their friends, etc. instead of doing substantive work for the country. > [@](#): > > And yet, the Saving Democracy Amendment is so loosly written, it could easily affect the operating expenses of CBS News or USA Today, and thus affecting the right to a free press. That is cause for concern. I don’t agree that it could be reasonably interpreted that way. You have to go in with a tortured preconception of what the amendment could do in order to arrive at your “concern,” sort of in the way that Sarah Palin was concerned that the ACA created death panels. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/128 "2013-11-13T22:20:15Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Seriously, Falchion, do you believe that removing Fox News’s editorial page speech protections is either the intent of the amendment, or a likely effect of the amendment once it gets hashed out by the courts? Perhaps you have that astonishing view, but it looks to me like a sophistic argument. I think that the fact that purpose of the amendment is to remove the speech protections from only _some_ for-profit corporations is exactly what’s wrong with the amendment (with a side of blatant viewpoint based discrimination in targeting organizations that advocate for business interests, but not other interests). I think that my reading of the amendment is entirely correct (because “no protection for for-profit corporations” has to mean something resembling “no protection for for-profit corporations”). I have no idea what a court might do, but the fact that we have to resort to the claim that the drafters don’t really mean what it says suggests that my reading is not as tortured as you suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/129 "2013-11-13T22:22:59Z")
We already regulate speech which the courts have deemed harmful to society. We have laws against inciting a riot, committing libel and the classic shouting fire in a private theater. We also have laws against bribery. We are at the point where money has so infused the campaign that the distinction between a political donation and a bribe is just a difference in spelling. The affordable care act was largely the way it was due to the fact that the healthcare industry flexed its economic muscles and Washington fell in line. As with the other laws that regulate speech preventing the I feel that rich from buying our government is worth the slight reduction in freedom that it would entail. Otherwise the next time I get pulled over I might find that the officer expects a little free speech on my part in the form of a $20.00 bill. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/130 "2013-11-14T00:11:27Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I think that the fact that purpose of the amendment is to remove the speech protections from only _some_ for-profit corporations is exactly what’s wrong with the amendment (with a side of blatant viewpoint based discrimination in targeting organizations that advocate for business interests, but not other interests). > > I think that my reading of the amendment is entirely correct (because “no protection for for-profit corporations” has to mean something resembling “no protection for for-profit corporations”). > > I have no idea what a court might do, but the fact that we have to resort to the claim that the drafters don’t really mean what it says suggests that my reading is not as tortured as you suggest. The irony, of course, is that in getting it to say what you want, you put in quotes text that appears nowhere in the amendment–and then you accuse me of saying that I’m resorting to saying the drafters mean something other than what they say. I feel that you’ve satisfactorily answered the question of whether you’re putting this forward as an honest objection, so we’re done here. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/131 "2013-11-14T01:45:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Advertisements and other communications may depend on money, but that doesn’t mean that campaign contributions are the only possible source of money or speech. Of course not. > [@Ravenman](#): > > It’s just that right now that’s how our system is set up. But as I said earlier, campaign contributions aren’t just about speech, they are also about gasoline. And health care. And rental of strip mall space. And Blackberries. And tons of other stuff that isn’t speech. > > I think a constitutional amendment establishing public financing for Federal offices would be vastly preferable to our current system. I think it’s stupid the way that candidates have to spend so much time raising money for themselves, for their party, for their friends, etc. instead of doing substantive work for the country. There are still concerns I’d have with that (such as the advantage it’d give incumbents, or candidates who were independently famous), but it has more merit in my eyes than prohibiting for-profit corporations from spending money on anything that might influence an election, while leaving the door open for all non-business interests to pour in money. There are other concerns as well, such as stripping all rights from corporations. Warrantless searches and seizures, hooray! > [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t agree that it could be reasonably interpreted that way. You have to go in with a tortured preconception of what the amendment could do in order to arrive at your “concern,” sort of in the way that Sarah Palin was concerned that the ACA created death panels. Well, I didn’t go in with any preconception about the amendment. I read it when it was linked above, and concerns leapt off the page. Section Three reads: > [@](#): > > Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people. Well, what counts as an expenditure “in an election”? A film, like Hillary: The Movie? A special newspaper insert promoting a candidate? One addressing an issue but not a particular candidate? A website with opinion pieces that refer to candidates or ballot measures? The law doesn’t define its terms, and is certainly vague enough to have disastrous results. McCain-Feingold was much more carefully written, and still ended up _suppressing a film_. If you can’t imagine abusive laws being enabled by the SDA, it’s a failure of imagination on your part. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Yes (otherwise known as the Smith Act or Alien Registration Act). I see. That Act doesn’t appear to criminalize advocating Communism in the way the proposed EU law does, only advocating a violent coup or assassinations. Advocating for the election of Communists who would then change the government to a Communist one is legal. ---
**Author:** ![Subterraneanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Subterraneanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterraneanus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/132 "2013-11-14T02:15:16Z")
This lefty hates dumb speech, and this thread is pretty fucking dumb. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/133 "2013-11-14T03:40:34Z")
> [@Subterraneanus](#): > > This lefty hates dumb speech, and this thread is pretty fucking dumb. The **OP** is pretty fucking dumb. Subsequent posts show some intelligence, or at least some serious attempts to exercise it. There’s a lesson here somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![WilyQuixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WilyQuixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilyQuixote)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/134 "2013-11-14T10:08:13Z")
> [@cornopean](#): > > Marxists believe that the govt is the answer to all of society’s ills. Do you honestly have any concept of Marxism beyond a vague sense that its slur in your circles? All I can do is simply echo \*\*Budget Player Cadet \*\* and **Left Hand of Dorkness** : Read a book. Seriously, read a book. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/135 "2013-11-14T11:13:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The **OP** is pretty fucking dumb. Subsequent posts show some intelligence, or at least some serious attempts to exercise it. > > There’s a lesson here somewhere. BrainGlutton, you know better than to make a direct insult. Warning issued, please restrain yourself in the future. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/136 "2013-11-14T11:18:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The **OP** is pretty fucking dumb. Subsequent posts show some intelligence, or at least some serious attempts to exercise it. > > There’s a lesson here somewhere. If by OP, you mean Original Poster, you are posting a direct insult outside Great Debates. If by OP, you mean Original Post, you are threadshitting. So please do not waste our time by claiming that you did not “really” mean to break the rules. (SimulWarning—only one applied.) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/137 "2013-11-14T13:38:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The irony, of course, is that in getting it to say what you want, you put in quotes text that appears nowhere in the amendment–and then you accuse me of saying that I’m resorting to saying the drafters mean something other than what they say. > > I feel that you’ve satisfactorily answered the question of whether you’re putting this forward as an honest objection, so we’re done here. I paraphrase “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States . . . do not extend to for-profit corporations” as “no protection for for-profit corporations” and you call me dishonest and tuck your tail? I would feel vindicated, except that I tend to enjoy discussion more than resolution. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/138 "2013-11-14T13:47:44Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I paraphrase “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States . . . do not extend to for-profit corporations” as “no protection for for-profit corporations” and you call me dishonest Yes–that’s not an honest paraphrase. The ellipses are important. Watch: > [@Falchion](#): > > I think…wrong. I . . . don’t really mean . . . my reading. Your ellipses remove vital information, just like mine do. They change the meaning in a fundamentally dishonest way. And I think you know that. If you want to characterize that as tucking my tail, get on with your bad self. I’m not particularly interested in discussion with someone who goes for such tortured and disingenuous ways of misinterpreting another’s words. Edit: Actually, I slightly mischaracterized what you did. The stuff you deliberately left out wasn’t in the elipses, but was in section 2. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/139 "2013-11-14T13:57:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Well, what counts as an expenditure “in an election”? A film, like Hillary: The Movie? A special newspaper insert promoting a candidate? One addressing an issue but not a particular candidate? A website with opinion pieces that refer to candidates or ballot measures? The law doesn’t define its terms, and is certainly vague enough to have disastrous results. McCain-Feingold was much more carefully written, and still ended up _suppressing a film_. If you can’t imagine abusive laws being enabled by the SDA, it’s a failure of imagination on your part. Statute and judicial interpretation would control the meaning of expenditure, and there’s already a body of law on election expenditures. The Constitution doesn’t typically define its terms to the level of detail of the questions you’re asking. For example, nowhere does the Constitution define what “the press” is in the context of the First Amendment, or what “reasonable” means in the context of the Fourth, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720/140 "2013-11-14T14:17:08Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > I paraphrase “The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States . . . do not extend to for-profit corporations” as “no protection for for-profit corporations” and you call me dishonest and tuck your tail? I would feel vindicated, except that I tend to enjoy discussion more than resolution. I’m not going to get involved in the dishonesty thing, but those two statements are not equivalent. Remember, the _existence_ of (for-profit and other) corporations is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The enjoy neither life nor liberty. Any rights a corporation may have are established by statute, as are corporations themselves. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-left-hates-free-speech/673720.md?page=8)