Indeed, this reader (not the correspondent in the original letter, for the record) was aware of that example. But for anyone who isn’t as familiar, it’s from Schenck v. United States (1919), in which the court upheld the conviction of two members of the Socialist Party of America, who were arrested for violating the Espionage Act by distributing fliers urging men to resist the draft for WWI.
Interesting stuff, even for someone with a passing interest in the dry little details of history.
Surely the good news is actually that we don’t generally have to look over our shoulder for the speech police whenever we post something online or say something in public?
I don’t think many Americans would say it’s a good thing that racists can crank, but rather a necessary evil.
Powers &8^]
You CAN legally shout fire falsely in a theater. You can be prosecuted if someone gets trampled but not just for saying the words.
Schenck partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
Yes, the United States is a far more prudish country than others in the world, and the protection of freedom of speech is meant to be with regards to political speech or other opinions, not things that are gravely offensive to the community for other reasons. “Appealing to the prurient interest” is seen by the courts as unworthy of protection in the same ways that spreading your political opinion is. Arguments could be made as to why it should be, but it’s just seen as something that is not relevant for civil society to function compared to free expression of anything resembling a political idea.
One point I find interesting is that Norway’s press ranks highly because of laws against media consolidation. In other words, the press is more free, by virtue of being more regulated. That probably has some American heads spinning.
“it makes sense they’d outshine the U.S. when it comes to protecting institutions like the media, seen as broadly benefiting society as a whole.”
“It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”
–Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Norvell (June 11, 1807)
“…it was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies—unless one counts journalists.”
–George Orwell, “Homage to Catalonia” (1938)
“Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true—except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.”
–Knoll’s Law of Media Accuracy (Erwin Knoll, editor, “The Progressive”)
“…You read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate on those subjects than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
–Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect (Michael Crichton)
“Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper…”
–George Orwell, “Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1943)
“What we lack in strong institutions, by contrast, we make up for in unaffiliated racist cranks exercising their right to publicly say more or less whatever they want. I guess that’s the good news.”
Yeah, like Dan Rather trying to influence an election with unverifiable documents.
The first thing I noticed, and really the only insightful message of the article …
After all these years, after all the abuse … finally … FINALLY … you’ve been recognized as being worthy …
I think I speak for all the others who are downtrodden and tortured … the poor, the shoddy, those made to eat off the floor … you’re an inspiration for what you’ve endured …
No one’s gonna be blaming you for their farts anymore !!!
Cecil, I’m afraid you’ve goofed on this part of the article:
“…Germany, France, and Canada, which criminalize Holocaust denial;”
Canada does not criminalise Holocaust denial. Canada does have a hate propaganda offence, but that’s not the same as saying Holocaust denial is criminalised.
So, we can deny the Holocaust, but we can’t advocate that we should … that’s a slim distinction that, yeah, maybe Our Master should have caught …
“…Germany and France, which criminalize Holocaust denial; and Canada, which criminalizes hate speech;” …
The problem still exists though … the government and/or the majority can decide that certain kinds of political speech is both hateful and false and thus making such speech illegal … a real easy way to suppress unpopular political ideology …
But necessary for what?
Most people in most developed countries are not looking over their shoulder for the speech police because most people don’t want to utter racial epithets, and I don’t particularly see that we’re missing out on not letting the haters hate. The whole argument seems based on the slippery slope fallacy.
And if we’re saying that true freedom of speech must be unlimited, then no country has true freedom of speech.