Now you’re just being silly
No, I really don’t think I am. You haven’t presented one lick of evidence that private actions have anything to do with Freedom of Speech. And your example of Robbins/Sarandon telling the world, “I’m not allowed to speak” is absurd. If they’re not allowed to speak or express themselves, then why exactly are their words in nearly every newspaper I open?
From Latro
“I think not, baby puppy.”
YOU are the one who is disputing the majority on this thread (we won’t count Aldebaran, as after dropping his load he has fled the thread, again) without giving any of the requested cites. Looking at the vast differences in political stances by some of the posters opposing your stance, were it me I’d conceed defeat and quietly just let this thread die. If not, you need to stake out your claim why the majority is wrong (or at least what exactly your contention IS) then back it up some, no? As you said yourself, the only thing put forward so far as ‘proof’ was an opinion piece by Tim Robbins whinning about how his Freedom of Speech is being denied.
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that this is the case, by showing how Freedom of Speech is being denied to the citizens of this country. The reason for this is, its kind of hard to prove a negative…its hard to prove that people AREN’T losing their jobs because of their political stances, no?
As you’ve already conceeded that its not the GOVERNMENT thats doing it, but private citizens, you need to show how those private citizens are doing such. I could make any number of wild ass claims about satanic rituals and the murder of puppies being performed in the Netherlands, for instance, but if I don’t back them up with SOMETHING more than my uncle Joe says so, its pure bullshit and anacedote. You have been asked to provide cites backing up your position by providing cites showing people that lost their jobs or livelyhood SOLELY because of their stance against the war/administration, and therefore are being denied their rights to free speech through coercion. Please do so, then we can examine those cases and continue.
Thanks,
XT
This is what I’ve always loved about America–the Voltairean ideal of “I don’t like what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Aldebaran, I’ve known Muslims and I’ve known Belgians and you’re not exactly a shining representative of either right now.
So I’m not the only one who quotes that.
I feel so with it!
Julie
The website McCarthyism watch has an index of incidents that illustrate the new McCarthyism sweeping the country, including examples of journalists who were fired for editorials or cartoons critical of Bush.
http://www.progressive.org/webex/mcwatch.html
Ironically, one of the journalists is named McCarthy.
http://www.progressive.org/webex/wxmc030902.html
These examples are not all necessarily examples of first amendment violations, but they are examples of the intolerance for dissent in our society. Aldebaran is right in the sense that if society as a whole does not tolerate dissent, then we don’t have freedom of speech. If society slides toward fascism, the government doesn’t have to.
This intolerance exhibits a double standard. If a “conservative” says something and a “liberal” objects to it, the “liberal” is a member of the PC thought police and is stifling freedom of speech. If a “liberal” says something and a “conservative” objects to it, the “liberal” is an America-hating leftist. Even though the “conservative” political correctness is much more succesful at stifling dissent, “conservatives” are never labeled PC. It is similar to the myth of the liberal media.
The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Unless I am reading this wrong, as a strict constructionist, could you not say that the first amendment applies only to the passage of laws by Congress? So, technically, if police abridge the freedom of speech and peaceable assembly of protesters (as they routinely do), this is not a first amendment violation.
Thanks for the cites Roger. /em rubs hands together. Now we can look at this.
From McCarthyism Watch
I see nothing wrong here. Obviously the president of the Baseball Hall of Fame felt that Tim/Susans very public stance was inappropriate, and that he didn’t want his organization associated with it. Whats wrong with that, exactly? I see no difference than with Dell and the Dell Dude. When the Dell Dude was caught on a drug charge, Dell moved to drop him as a spokesman. Whats the difference?
From McCarthyism Watch
Anecdote Alert!! I remember going to DC once when the KKK was having a scheduled rally…with the express purpose of heaping abuse on the KKK. We went there, and sure enough, there was a rally. However, when we attempted to counter protest or rag on the KKK guys, the police, some of who were black for gods sake, prevented us. I couldn’t belive what I was seeing…I felt that, at least the black police, should be out there beating the crap out of the KKK guys!! Hell, I was all ready to join in to be honest, as I REALLY have a problem with the group.
However, as I got older and thought back on it (I was quite young and pretty hot headed in my youth) I saw that the police were doing the right thing. They were preventing us from abridging the KKK guys rights of Free Speech and lawful assembly. In addition, they were preventing a major public riot with god knows what consequences. As far as death threats and such, I can say we were heaping them on the KKK guys, and they were threatening us with lynching and everything else, as well as telling me to go back to fucking Mexico where I belonged, etc etc…and the police did nothing. Nothing that is, but maintain the peace, which is their JOB.
I know anacdotes mean zippo on this board, but this is the best I can do to explain this behavior. When its your pet issue, it seems wrong and bad. I REALLY wanted a piece of those KKK guys and was horribly offended when I was prevented. However, if you can sit back from a distance some, you can see the logic of such actions by the police.
From McCarthyism Watch
Hm. So, some POLITICIAN, hoping to cash in on some publicity by shamelessly pandering to this kind of sentiment, and (IMO) with full knowledge that such a bill would never be passed, put this forth. It was reviewed and put down. The Register-Guard of Eugene (whatever that is) did an editorial on it, protesting against it. Seems this is a PERFECT example OF Freedom of Speech. Thanks for providing it Roger. 
My post is getting overly long at this point. I’ll cut it short. Simply put, IMO NONE of the things on the McCarthyism watch are abnormal or against Freedom of Speech…quite the opposite. Maybe, instead of simply posting the link, you could read through it and pick out the things you DO think are, and we can debate that.
-XT
MEBuckner:
My mistake, MEBuckner. Won’t happen again.
To those crying about the “stifling” effect, climb down off the cross. You have a right to say what you want. You do not have a right to tell me that I can’t object to what you say, because if I do I’m “stifling” free speech.
The prevailing cultural mood has you down, and you don’t feel “comfortable” saying what you want? Cry me a river. Grow a spine and say what you want, and be prepared to take the heat.
As a primary source, I can report that Americans still have every right - through organizing/participating in rallies, to writing letters to the editor, to writing posts on the SDMB, to writing letters to congressmen, to participating in indignant meetings - to exercise their free speech rights. I too am free to call them morons. The idea of free speech lives.
xtisme:
The difference between the Dell Dude and Robbins/Sarandon is that the Dell Dude was arrested on a criminal charge and Robbins/Sarandon were not. I think it is silly that Dell dropped Benjamin Curtis, whose character is so obviously a stoner, which was part of his charm. I would think being arrested for pot would increase his notoriety and thus sales of Dell computers.
As for the McCarthy Watch page, I think all of them are examples of attempts to suppress dissent and freedom of speech. Not all the attempts were successful (like the Oregon bill didn’t fly), but many of them were. In the example of the peace rally you mentioned, the police abridged the right of peaceable assembly of the peace crowd and then apparently witnessed incidents of terroristic threatening without taking action. I would think that a police officer who witnesses a crime is obligated to do something. By not taking action, the police are in a sense endorsing the suppression of freedom of speech by private citizens.
http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wxmc0406pa03.html
This case is a clear example of someone’s first amendment rights being violated:
On October 24, Brett A. Bursey went to the airport in Columbia, South Carolina, to protest a visit by President Bush. Bursey was on public property holding a sign that said “No War for Oil.”
Airport security insisted that he go to “a protest area on the verge of a highway, a good half mile from the hangar where the President would be speaking,” The New York Times reported on April 27.
But Bursey wanted to be closer so the President or his entourage might actually see the sign. Airport security told him “to go the free speech zone.” Bursey said, “I was in it: the United States of America,” the Times reported.
Eventually, “an airport policeman told him he had to put down his sign . . . or leave,” the story said. “You mean, it’s the content of my sign?” Bursey asked. The policeman said, “Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign,” Bursey recalled to the Times reporter.
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch03/mc070103.html
It is really a sign of the insecurity of Bush and his supporters that there is little tolerance of criticism of Bush. I don’t see why we have to treat him with kid gloves, considering all the abuse that was slathered on Clinton. And if Clinton’s people had tried to pull off this sort of censorship, you can imagine the screeching from the masses.
BTW, are you formerly from Tucson? I grew up there (east side) and now reside in Hawaii.
Just a point about firing teachers:
In public schools that is not so easy because of tenure and due process. There are also professional organizations on the local, state and national level that protect the rights of teachers.
When someone tries to fire a teacher for such frivolous reasons as wearing a peace symbol, it makes the news. So I am a little skeptical that these teachers actually lost their jobs and were not rehired upon appeal.
Roger_Mexico, I agree with you that there is widespread intolerance for dissent. I don’t understand why. I’m just glad that teachers are fairly well protected.
Which part? Section 1, I’d presume.
I wasn’t saying that state laws trump Federal laws, but simply that hate crimes legislation is generally left to the states.
Okay, I don’t know anything about the Baseball Hall of Fame (or for that matter why Robbins/Sarandon should be in it, or associated with it in any way).
(This may be sort of a hijack.)
If the BBHoF was refusing to induct some exceptional player of long duration because of his political views, seems to me that would be wrong. But that’s not the case. (Sarandon had the worst swing I’ve ever seen.)
Robbins/Sarandon may become box office poison because of their views, but probably not. The fact that they have a bigger platform from which to express their views makes them vulnerable in a way that most people aren’t–but it isn’t suppression. They’re obviously free to say whatever they want, and obviously they do, but they have to accept the consequences. MOST people would not have to deal with those consequences, particularly as applied to extended family members. That’s fame.
Faceless nonentities (me, for instance) can say anything they want against the war (and I did) to anyone who’s willing to listen. I’m still friends with people who didn’t agree with me and I’m still married to someone who didn’t agree with me. No consequences whatsoever. (Perhaps a few moments of coldness.) I might think twice before disagreeing about something like this with my boss, but in general I and most people try to behave much more nobly around people who might promote us, or not.
My apologies if I’ve completely missed the point.
Some teachers were suspended without pay in Albuquerque for protesting the war:
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch03/mc042803.html
Don’t know of any teachers who were fired, except for Sami Al-Arian, but he is a special case.
However, Robbins and Suranden are in the Entertainment business. If people don’t like them, they won’t get a paycheck. They can say anything they want, but that doesn’t mean people have to like and subsidize what they say. If they choose to say something that makes them unpopular, they shouldn’t be too surprised when their next movie brings in less then it normally would have.
So if a politician feels that certain groups are not really human and speaks his mind, then loses his job because of it, he doesn’t have freedom of speech?
Same thing with an actor. If an Actor says something similar and then finds out that nobody wants to cast him or hire him for anything, does that actor not have freedom of speech?
If the majority does not agree with a politician’s views, he doesn’t get elected. He should however be free to present his views. No matter whether they are pacifist, libertarian, communist, nazi or republican or whatever. freedom of speech.
What an actor’s political views are should have no bearing whether he is cast for a role.
You don’t have to invite him to do a speech at your party.
If a director makes a political movie, he should be free to make it.
You don’t have to buy it, if he goes bankrupt because of it, that’s his problem.
Frankly I’m amazed that I need to further clarify at all.
Freedom of speech is not some legalist speak, like involuntary manslaughter fi, that needs twenty paragraphs to expalin it. It just means freedom of speech.
An actor’s job is to please the public and their success depends upon, and is measured by, their popularity.
If they become unpopular, either through being a poor actor or spouting political opinions, then they have failed at their job and whoever is in charge of casting should rightly avoid them.
Producing a movie is a business like any other and is intended to make money. Why pick someone unpopular for the job when you know it will cost you at the box office?
Regards
Testy.
O.K. so say, in this case, the actor is pressured to keep his opinions to himself lest he lose his job. Don’t you agree that this person has less freedom of speech?
Which is my whole point. Freedom of speech is not only in danger from governments but also from private persons and institutions.
Alde: This very"unfreedom of speech" about which you carp and critisize so vitriolically is the very freedom which allows you to say what you want on this MB without fear of the door being kicked in at 2 in the morning. Can you say that the Iraqis enjoyed this freedom whils hussein was in power?
I doubt it.
The problem being that you cannot try to prevent “private persons and institutions” from objecting to the opinions of others without restricting their freedom of speech and of association.
For instance, the Baseball Hall of Fame, as a private association, decides that Robbins and Sarandon’s opinions on Bush and the war in Iraq are stupid and hypocritical. So they put “pressure” on R&S by declining to offer them a place in their Hall.
Let’s agree for the moment that there is nothing the government can do. Suppose instead that I, as a private citizen, write to the BBHoF and tell them to admit R&S. Am I not putting “pressure” on the BBHoF not to express their opinion of R&S opinion? Am I not limiting the freedom of speech of the BBHoF?
Or maybe I as a private citizen, believe that Robbins and Sarandon are moral cowards for their opinions, and I organize a boycott of their films. I am putting “pressure” on them to change their public opinions or shut up, no doubt about that - that is the point of a boycott. If someone tells me not to boycott them because it interferes with their freedom of speech, doesn’t that interfere with my freedom of speech to disagree with Robbins and Sarandon in public?
What I suspect is happening is what often happens in cases like this, both on the left and the right. Robbins and Sarandon want freedom of speech to reign up to the point where they have said their piece - but there it should stop. No one should disagree with them in public, and anyone who does is interfering with their rights.
It’s hypocritical, of course, but modern McCarthyism comes at least as much from the Left as from the Right nowadays.
Regards,
Shodan