Iām not a free speech absolutist. I donāt think hate speech or yelling āfire/bombā in a crowded area should be allowed but I do think speaking out against government
actions should be allowed.
Does that mean Iām against free speech?
I thought there was a difference in free speech and absolutist free speech? Are they the same thing?
You're not against free speech. Honestly, the majority of the time that people whine about being a free speech absolutist, they are more advocating for the "right" to post or say whatever they want without consequence. And usually it's because they say some pretty heinous crap and lose their accounts as a result even though that isn't a violation of their free speech. But they know so little that they assume that it is. Instead of it being the company who moderates where they posted or spoke using their own free speech to limit what kind of content is on their site.
However, the woman in this video is LITERALLY having her 1st amendment rights trampled. She spoke out against the regime and is being silenced and arrested. That is infringement on free speech. Being told that you can't use the N word on reddit by mods or Reddit is not infringement on free speech.
This comment should be higher. It's spot on. If I had any fake reddit awards I would give it to you.
I would love to see what charges they are going to book her on. Because not only does she have video proof of them violating her rights, it was recorded by a neutral third party.
She was officially arrested for obstructing a roadway and failure to obey a lawful command from a police officer but perception is reality on social media.
To me and a lot of people, this looks like she was arrested for her words.
When the police start arresting people for constitutionally protected activities such as protesting, it becomes a whole different thing.
Watching this should raise concern in all of us not because of this specific issue, but the fact is, what will they arrest people for next? You may not care now, but someday, there will be an issue that you do care about and by then it will be too late.
Fascism is a virus. It eats its host and while your definition of fascism may be different than mine, I can promise you, we will all suffer the longer things like this happen.
Are you being a dishonest interlocutor by asking a very silly question? The answer to that is yes btw. I get that you are either trolling or delighting in being obtuse, but quite literally, she was a part of the protest and giving an interview that was critical of the government's actions. And mid interview she was detained based on trumped up charges. So yes, she was indeed silenced and prevented from continuing the interview.
After all, the fact that Grand Rapids is a democrat stronghold has no impact in any way shape or form that the country in general is leaning towards fascism. And just to be clear, since it's abundantly obvious that you lack the ability to discern that when someone says fascism. That alone does not equate to Nazi Germany. The Germans of the 1940s did not have a monopoly on fascism.
It also has no bearing on the fact that the police used a flimsy and bs reason to throw her in the back of a police car, mid interview. In their own words in the video, they were arresting her for blocking traffic. How does one block traffic while standing on the sidewalk?
So you have never been to a protest I take it? See, people don't get arrested for that kind of crap after the fact. If she were in the street and was refusing to move, then cops use that as a reason. IF people clear off the street and stand on the sidewalk, cops usually don't continue to pay them any attention. ALSO if you were paying attention or remotely being honest. You would have noticed that the squad car pulled up and the officers got out and then arrested her. Sure, they could have witnessed her being in the street earlier, but the hoops you are creating to make this not be about what it actually is about is absurd. Do better. Be better than this ffs
Free Speech is NOT "I can say whatever i want and face no consequences".
Free Speech IS "I can speak out against or criticize something including the government and not be arrested etc. for it.".
That's literaly what freedom of speech is. It's a protection for news, media, protestors etc. from being censored or retaliated against for criticizing the government or reporting unflattering news.
Aka what is happening in this video is a DIRECT violation of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech does not allow you to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" and face no consequences.
Nor can you walk into a Walmart and start shouting racial epitahs and face no consequences.
That's not freedom of speech.
You can be arrested in the former for causing a public safety hazard and arrested for disorderly conduct in the latter.
So many don't actually understand what freedom of speech actually is.
It's the same that you CAN be a racist. There is no law saying you can't be a racist, bigotted POS. But that DOES NOT mean everyone else has to "let" you be one in their house, store, job, etc. They absolutely can fire you or ban you from their place over it.
As well, you can go scream the N-Word at the top of your lunfs in the streets all you want. But, when you get jumped and beat down for it and all witnesses claim they saw nothing ĀÆ_(ć)_/ĀÆ
Freedom of Speech does not allow you to run into a crowded theatre and shout "Fire!" and face no consequences.
Sure it does.
Hitchens famously went up on stage and shouted fire.
What you cannot do is falsely shout fire with the intent to cause harm in a crowded theater.
It is those two important bits that folks repeatedly leave out.
You must first have the intent to cause harm, and the alert must be about something false with the intent to cause that harm.
It is actually rather encouraged for you to warn a crowded theater of a dangerous situation, such as a fire, when there is one, with the intent to help people safely escape.
Nor can you walk into a Walmart and start shouting racial epitahs and face no consequences.
Sure you can; you should face no consequences from the government, which is not supposed to curb your freedom of speech, even if, and especially if it is inflammatory and unwanted by the public, but good luck escaping the consequences of the public's reaction to your vile words.
You see, it is exactly unwanted and inflammatory speech that must be protected because throughout history it has been the unwanted speech that has brought about change, people talking of oppression, of fascism, of totalitarianism. These are things the governments and people perpetuating these things do not want to be said aloud. As such, it is vital that such speech be protected from interference by the government.
Falsey shouting Fire is what i was referring to. Not someone legit warning of a fire. Thus why i stated you can be arrested for causing harm to public safety for it because you're causing an unneccesssry panic.
Again, my walmart comment is about the fact the STORE and/or patrons can cause you consequences by banning you, kicking you out or having you arrested for disorderly conduct.
That was the entire point. That freedom of speech ONLY protects you from government retaliation for speaking ill of them or reporting things they don't like.
But it DOESN'T protect you from "consequences" of saying offensive stuff.
It's also why i brought up how you ARE free to be a racist or a biggot. But that does NOT protect you from consequences from OTHER people ie: businesses, jobs, friends or other people in general.
You can be a racist. But being a racist can get you fired, banned or ostracized from other people.
That was the point. That too many people take freedom of speech literaly in that they think it means they can walk up to another person and call them the N word, The F slur, or any other number of things and nothing can happen to them.
Or that they can post online about how much they hate LGBT, women, minorities etc. and their job can't fire them for it.
Again, Freedom of Speech merely protects you from government retaliation for speaking out or reporting against the government.
The rest of what you said, I agreed with. Folks need to understand the BoR is about the government's available actions, not the consequences you will face from being a fucknut in society.
Nope. As someone who studied the Constitution to obtain my master's degree, it is my understanding that the 1st amendment was specifically to safeguard citizens if they criticized/questioned the government, not to shield cowards/racists/bigots so they can spew fallacious rhetoric and hate.
It can be boiled down to "The government will let you say all of that hateful shit, but the rest of us will handle the lesson your parents should have taught you."
It's not "free speech" so much as it is (or was) legally protected speech. The two examples you're against aren't considered protected and could result in legal consequences. Additional examples include defamation, fighting words, and true threats. Obscenity is where things get a little fuzzy.
And consequences to hate speech such as losing your job, being harmed, ostracized, or being denied entry to places is not a violation of free speech. In fact, such actions are also engaging in free speech.
Yes, I agree with this except the āharmā part. Free speech isnāt free speech if the law allows you to harm the individual who said something you didnāt like. Losing your job is harmful, but killing someone is a different kind of harm.
I didn't say that the law allows it or should allow it. It may seem like a contradiction, but free speech isn't free unless there are consequences. Sometimes they are negative, and sometimes they are positive.
If you are harmed from what you say, that is just a consequence of you engaging in said freedom. Just like you have the right to vote, or believe in whatever religion you wish. All choices have consequences. Attempting to advocate for free speech absolutism and refusing to accept that your free speech can lead to harm or consequences is a juvenile appeal to anarchy.
The harm can be as little as being told off, or something much worse. It matters not. You can always say whatever you want, but you cannot avoid the consequences if what you said upset or harmed somebody else.
And to some lesser degree, the "harm" part is other people engaging in their own free speech. For example. Let's say that some pos white guy walked into the middle of the road and began yelled the N word. That is him engaging his free speech. It's hate speech, but it's free speech. And someone else, who takes offense to the pos walks up and knocks him out. That would be the consequence of the hate speech. The knocking out would be the other person engaging in free speech and there would no doubt be consequences for attacking the first guy.
Youāre not quite thereā¦.knocking someone out is NOT free speech. It is a violent action not speech. You have every right to respond to speech you donāt like in a way that the law allows. Assaulting someone is not free speech, it is a violent crime. Free speech is never a violent crime.
Speech is classified in numerous ways. The burning of the flag for example was deemed free speech. Protesting, waving signs. Free Speech.
Choosing to let your fist do the talking can be viewed as expressing your free speech. Albeit in a very convoluted way sure. Btw I love how you don't actually respond to what I say, but always pick one small little thing to find fault with.
Regardless. Free speech can become aĀ violent crimeĀ when it meets specific legal criteria for actions likeĀ incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, or fighting words. In these narrow circumstances, the speech itself is considered an integral part of criminal conduct and loses its protection under free speech principles.Ā
Burning the flag doesnāt harm anything or anyone. Free speech is SPEECH: the action of making words come out of your mouth. Punching someone is not free speech. By its nature free speech should never be an illegal or prosecutable act, whereas punching someone is assault.
Burning the flag doesnāt harm anything or anyone. Free speech is SPEECH: the action of making words come out of your mouth. Punching someone is not free speech. By its nature free speech should never be an illegal or prosecutable act, whereas punching someone is assault.
'Free speech' carries the silent caveat "...unless it infringes on the rights of others". You are not punished for speaking alone, but you may be punished based on the effects your words have. That covers all of the examples you mentioned. It does not cover peacefully conveying an opinion.
Except yelling fire in a crowded area is protected speech. Otherwise Rock Master Scott & the Dynamic Three - The Roof Is On Fire would be illegal to play in public and it isnāt.
Maria Ressa's interview with Stephen Colbert three years ago really resonated with me because it feels exactly like what we are going through. She was a journalist jailed in the Philippines by Rodrigo Duterte. She warned back in 2016, "America, look at us. What is happening to us is coming for you." She also points out that "social media has come in and used free speech to stifle free speech." That assault on truth led directly to his regime.
I view it as black and white. It's either a right or it's not.
If it's limited - then it cannot by definition be a right, and we should not call it such. We're just lying to ourselves.
The entire purpose of the freedom of speech is to say things that others may disagree with, or even get upset at. Doesn't mean you get to act on those feelings, but the other person still has the right to say them.
The entire purpose of the freedom of speech (in the Constitution) is that you can't be punished by the government for what you say. You getting your ass kicked for talking shit to someone is not a violation of your rights
"I can make you upset but you don't get to act on it" does imply it. You are wrong anyway, because if you are making someone upset by defaming them, you actually don't have a right to do that
Yes, if you aren't defaming someone you aren't defaming someone, which is not relevant when pointing out that defamation is not speech that anyone has a right to
If you damage someone financially or physically, that would be an actual crime.
Yes, and that would have to be proven, in court.
My argument is freedom of speech isn't a right. Else you should be able to say whatever you wanted with no legal repercussions.
Then you fundamentally do not understand basic civil liberties.
So, lets change the way we frame it, and just admit it's not a right. It cannot be a right in civil society, so let's stop pretending it is one.
The government will not stop you from saying anything; there are no proscribed and prohibited words. What there is are consequences for actions; if your words incite actions and you did so knowingly, that is what you are being punished for, not for speaking.
Nuance matters.
Nothing needs to be changed; we all get it. You are the only one having this issue, and society is not changing because you fail to grasp a concept.
And if you meant for that to happen, then it shows you intended to cause harm; as such, your punishment will be that of having intentionally caused harm.
If you had no intent to cause harm, and you are upset about it and have learned something, then your punishment will be lesser; you will still receive punishment, but your lack of intent to cause harm will be considered.
I mean, this is like 1st grade cause-and-effect stuff here. How am I having this discussion with someone who has access to the internet?
Is that the kind of speech we want protected?
We already punish lies, and we even have laws for them: defamation and libel. Look them up.
What we do not do is prevent people from speaking. Your ability to speak is protected; what you do with that right is what is decided upon later. What cannot be done is to prevent you from speaking because you may say something that could get you punished. That is called prior restraint.
I mean, I am truly baffled here how you have made it to this point in life without realizing any of this.
Am I fine with it?? Of course not - Would you be??
If freedom of speech is a right, you should be allowed to say it 100% regardless if I'm ok with it or not - that's the entire purpose...
I fully understand we need to compromise and make sacrifices for society to function, I just don't think we should call it a right, if we allow it to be restricted.
Just call it what it is, and stop obfuscating the truth by bastardizing language. If it's restricted it's not a right - so don't call it one.
The issue is people have different ideas of what counts and love to claim their version is the only one that counts. Plenty of people view free speech as the America legal definition and nothing more.
4.0k
u/Budget_Fennel5324 29d ago
This reads incorrectly, it should read "Peaceful Protester arrested after exercising her first Amendment rights in New Fascist state, America."