The left hates free speech

[BrainGlutton]

@cornopean

They are the left b/c they left liberalism behind and are fast becoming marxist.

Cite?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cornopean

First off, let’s define free speech. Free speech means we defend the right of people to speak things which we find offensive or hateful, etc. Free speech does not mean defending the right to speak things we like and appreciate.

Everyone else seems to be doing a good job of refuting the obvious issues with your argument, but i’d like to question you on this one. Why isn’t protection of defending the right to speak things we like and appreciate? Easier, sure, and likely less necessary, but it’s still speech. Not to mention of course that if we disregard protection of people being able to say things we like and appreciate, it would be acceptable for a political candidate to bar their opponent from saying things they think are a good idea - Presidential candidate X could challenge Presidential candidate Y on his use of “America’s the best!” so that voters don’t hear his presumed positively affecting words.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

There’s plenty of reason to be concerned about how leftist groups shut down speakers, writers, and others on college campuses and elsewhere.

Sure–just as there’s plenty of reason to be concerned about megacorporations bribing colleges to teach Ayn Rand. Academic freedom gets assaulted from the left and the right (generally leftists who assault it are idiot kids, and rightists who assault it are idiot CEOs), and we should have a genuine discussion about how to protect academic freedom.

I agree with you that this thread won’t lead to such a discussion.

[Voyager]

Remember when the Bushies wouldn’t allow people with the wrong type of t-shirt in to hear him speak? They were protecting freedom of speech no doubt - couldn’t let Shrub get shouted down by a loud shirt now, can we?

[Buck_Godot]

@Human_Action

That memo is from 2009, and shouting down speakers one disagrees with so as to foil their presentation predates that by a fair bit, wouldn’t you say? Further, it’s not some sophisticated approach that had to be carefully mapped out, it’s the approach any small-but-angry group is going to have to use to have an impact. No script-following is required.

I’m sure that others have used the tactic prior to 2009, but I recall that the degree of coordinated disruption used by the Tea Party with the goal of actively trying to destroy town hall meeting by not letting the speaker (usually a Democratic Congressman) get a single word out seemed at the time to indicate a sea change in incivility, beyond the standard cat calling and individual protests I had seen before.

In any case the OP’s assertion that the Right never uses tactics like this is absolutely ludicrous.

[Lobohan]

@cornopean

They are the left b/c they left liberalism behind and are fast becoming marxist.

I think it’s more likely you heard those words are are repeating them without understanding what they mean.

[Dissonance]

@cornopean

there are plenty of people on the right who hate free speech as well. no question.
…
There is none of this on the right.

Wait, what?

[LibrarySpy]

There’s plenty to question in the left “platform” with regards to free speech issues, so I’m disappointed ad hominem attack on academic political shenanigans instead of a legitimate philosophical discussion.

Something like Cohen v California would be more apt.

[Ravenman]

@cornopean

First off, let’s define free speech. Free speech means we defend the right of people to speak things which we find offensive or hateful, etc. Free speech does not mean defending the right to speak things we like and appreciate.

I think free speech is the ability to say and do things without being subject to legal penalties. I think it is a fantasy to argue that free speech means that individuals must be immune to debate, criticism, protests, condemnation, boycotts, or even sanctions by private individuals.

For example, if a reporter for a news outlet goes to a public conference and starts saying unacceptable things – the Holocaust didn’t happen, right-wingers are engaged in a plot to eat the children of liberals, whatever – that news outlet is totally free to decide that person isn’t fit for employment in their business any longer. The right to free speech does not extend to other people being compelled to hold their tongues and sit on the sidelines simply because they have a right to say odious things.

In a specific example, in 2004, a business fired an employee for refusing to remove a John Kerry for President bumper sticker. The company did not violate her rights to free speech, even though I think the company is run by extreme assholes to do such a thing.

And if the company were subject to a boycott which crippled their business and drove the business owner into bankruptcy and out on the streets, that’s okay, too.

But let’s face it: the OP is only talking about this because he has an axe to grind against people who don’t see things his way, and he would prefer that they be silenced. So much for defending free speech.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ITR_champion

There’s plenty of reason to be concerned about how leftist groups shut down speakers, writers, and others on college campuses and elsewhere. When I was a student at Harvey Mudd College, several students and professors were reprimanded for speaking things that were deemed offensive. But your OP is too sloppy to start a serious debate on the topic. If you want to change minds at the SDMB, you’ll have to try harder.

The fact that people were reprimanded is indicative of nothing. What did they say? There are lots of things which shouldn’t be objectionable on a college campus because of academic freedom, but lots of things that still are.

If you want a threat to free speech on college campuses to wring your hands about, try this one. Daniel Pipes came to speak at my campus, and amusingly enough there were lots of people there to tell him to fuck off. Nonetheless, he was allowed to speak even though he wants to stop lots of other people from doing so.

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, the biggest defenders of free speech in the U.S. are the flaming Teabagger right-wingnuts of the American Civil Liberties Union

[Hank_Beecher]

Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment stripping first amendment protections from groups of people who’s speech he believes to be harmful.

[Ravenman]

@Hank_Beecher

Bernie Sanders has proposed an amendment stripping first amendment protections from groups of people who’s speech he believes to be harmful.

Are you saying that you cannot distinguish between campaign contributions by corporations and free speech? Because I think I can.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Ravenman

Are you saying that you cannot distinguish between campaign contributions by corporations and free speech? Because I think I can.

The proposed amendment limits political speech, not just campaign contributions.

[Smapti]

Brown University is a private company.

Why, cornopean, are you opposed to free enterprise? Can’t the market decide what kind of speech it wants to tolerate without Big Government setting the rules for them? What are you, some kind of Communist?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Hank_Beecher

The proposed amendment limits political speech, not just campaign contributions.

Here’s the proposed amendment:

SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

SECTION 3. 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.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.

It does not strip protection for free speech from any human being. It does say that groups of humans may not form to create a Voltron-style metahuman that also gets free speech protections above and beyond those enjoyed by each individual.

Your characterization of this amendment is so far afield that it beggars the imagination to grant you the courtesy of assuming it’s an honest mistake, but that’s what I’ll do because I’m a swell guy.

[Ravenman]

@Hank_Beecher

The proposed amendment limits political speech, not just campaign contributions.

It limits contributions and expenditures. Expenditures are not speech, though speech may require expenditures. Expenditures can also used for a variety of things that simply aren’t speech. For example, renting an office. Paying workers. The expense of raising money. Polls and other research. The list goes on and on.

[Hank_Beecher]

@Ravenman

It limits contributions and expenditures. Expenditures are not speech, though speech may require expenditures. Expenditures can also used for a variety of things that simply aren’t speech. For example, renting an office. Paying workers. The expense of raising money. Polls and other research. The list goes on and on.

Limiting expenditures for political speech is limiting political speech. Any group who’s speech has historically been protected by the first amendment could have effectively been shut down by limiting their expenditures.

[Human_Action]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Here’s the proposed amendment:It does not strip protection for free speech from any human being. It does say that groups of humans may not form to create a Voltron-style metahuman that also gets free speech protections above and beyond those enjoyed by each individual.

…unless that group is a labor union.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hank_Beecher

Limiting expenditures for political speech is limiting political speech. Any group who’s speech has historically been protected by the first amendment could have effectively been shut down by limiting their expenditures.

How “shut down”? There was plenty of difference-making political speech in the days before such cost money. All putting an end to or limit upon all of that money-costing means is that all political actors are now in the same boat and A can’t outspend B. So what?