Freedom of speech: limits, abuses, unfettered expression, etc

[Ten oz]

UC Berkeley recently cancelled their Freedom of Speech week which has led to criticism from various groups with some insisting, Milo Yiannopoulos specifically, they will proceed as planned with their events on and or near campus. The decision to cancel by campus officials wasn't a frivolous one in my opinion. When conservative writer Ben Shapiro appeared on campus the school spent about $600,000 on security blowing through its annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000. I don't think UC Berkeley should be forced to financially subsidize new media figures self aggrandizing promotion events. Ben Shapiro has a radio show Milo Yiannopoulos is a published author both have platforms where their speech can be heard. I see no reason why UC Berkeley is under any obligation to host their brands. I see no difference between them demanding campus access and a pop musician demanding the campus allow them to set up in their quad and promote their new songs.

 

I have seen where posters have lambasted moderators on this site claiming their freedom of speech was being oppressed. What are the limits? Can freedom of speech be abused or is any and all  unfettered expression equal and deserving of protection?

Edited September 24, 2017 by Ten oz
formatting error

[Area54]

To answer this you must first define what value is attached to freedom of speech.

[dimreepr]

Freedom of speech is illusory, as with every absolute, there are always caveats and boundaries however you frame the question. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Can freedom of speech be abused or is any and all  unfettered expression equal and deserving of protection?

If a person that trusts you unequivocally and is holding a gun to another's head, would you be deserving of protection if you said: "go on, shoot him"?

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Area54 said:

To answer this you must first define what value is attached to freedom of speech.

I am soliciting for that well as the negative. 

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

When conservative writer Ben Shapiro appeared on campus the school spent about $600,000 on security blowing through its annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000

Since his security costs are a consequence of what he says, and he doesn't have to say that, shouldn't he pay for his own security?

[tuco]

Value of freedom of speech depends on point of view, however, I think its safe to assume that for vast majority such value rests in their own protection in sense that freedom of speech and expression was curbed by every totalitarian regime in lets say modern history. In other words, those (societies) valuing freedom of speech and expression highly by protecting it and practicing it, are less successible to falling of the democratic wagon. This is not ethical but pragmatic argument. 

[Ten oz]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

Since his security costs are a consequence of what he says, and he doesn't have to say that, shouldn't he pay for his own security?

I certianly think he should. An argument can be made that lots of speech potentially can enrage people to violence and that one shouldn't be censored because of the bad behavior of others. That said in the case of Ben Shapiro he is only speaking to sell his brand and make money. As such I have no problem with a campus picking and choosing who they will and won't allow to use their facilities to promote themselves.

[John Cuthber]

Of course, if everyone actually believed in freedom of speech, his security costs wouldn't be an issue.

Perhaps the costs should be met by the protesters.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, tuco said:

Value of freedom of speech depends on point of view, however, I think its safe to assume that for vast majority such value rests in their own protection in sense that freedom of speech and expression was curbed by every totalitarian regime in lets say modern history. In other words, those (societies) valuing freedom of speech and expression highly by protecting it and practicing it, are less successible to falling of the democratic wagon. This is not ethical but pragmatic argument. 

I agree however throughout history democracies have mostly focused the exercise of freedom of speech to professional and semi professional media: radio, books, new papers, magazines, film, etc. When exercised in personto the disruption of a localities daily norms many of the most successful free speech related movements saw their members arrested. Martin Luther King was arrested numerous times for example. In 2017 the average person living in a western democracy has more access to mediums than ever before. People are free to say nearly  whatever they want on Youtube, Facebook, Twiiter, instagram, and etc. Self publishing books, animation, film, and all forms of expression has never been easier.

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Of course, if everyone actually believed in freedom of speech, his security costs wouldn't be an issue.

Perhaps the costs should be met by the protesters.

Maybe but aren't the protesters part of what make someone like Ben Shapiro a star? If the protests stopped or continued in a calm boring manner I suspect he'd tweak his language till they became attention grabbing again.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Ten oz
Spelling error

[MigL]

That's like saying there are criminals because we have laws, Ten oz.
John is absolutely right: Put the responsibility squarely where it belongs.

No-one's speech should ever be an excuse for someone else's violence.
 

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's like saying there are criminals because we have laws, Ten oz.
John is absolutely right: Put the responsibility squarely where it belongs.

No-one's speech should ever be an excuse for someone else's violence.
 

Where did I say otherwise? You are totally perverting what I said so you can self righteously counter it. Questioning whether or not Ben Shapiro seeks the attention that protests against him creates for self aggrandizing reasons doesn't defend or excuse violence. We have laws on the books against inciting a riot. I did not accused Ben Shapiro the illegal behavior of inciting a riot.

[John Cuthber]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

That's like saying there are criminals because we have laws, Ten oz.
John is absolutely right: Put the responsibility squarely where it belongs.

No-one's speech should ever be an excuse for someone else's violence.
 

In case you didn't notice, I said that it's far from clear where the blame lies.

Is it right to violently protest against someone who is inciting violence?
Is it better to contact the police and get them to deal with it?
Should the police stop Ben Shapiro making peaches that might result in violence or is the responsibility for that violence with those who participate in it?

 

If you shout fire in a crowded theatre and people get hurt in the crush, are you the one who is responsible for the injuries?

 

[MigL]

If you create a situation where harm may come to other people, that is reckless endangerment of human life.
That is what shouting "fire' in a crowded theater does.

If I tell you "go out and kill all the Dutch", you should know that that is wrong, and the fact that I told you to do it doesn't absolve your responsibilities.
( No Dutch were harmed for this public service announcement )

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

If you create a situation where harm may come to other people, that is reckless endangerment of human life.
That is what shouting "fire' in a crowded theater does.

If I tell you "go out and kill all the Dutch", you should know that that is wrong, and the fact that I told you to do it doesn't absolve your responsibilities.
( No Dutch were harmed for this public service announcement )

What if I attend a NFL Dallas Cowboys home game, have tickets for the home side of the stadium, and am wearing a shirt  that reads 'Cowboys are gay'; does security have the right to ask me  cover up up or leave? Obviously if someone assualts me they will be committing crime and deserve to be arrrested but that doesn't mean my behavior wouldn't be worth criticism. Now imagine this is how I made my living. I just travel around to different sporting events insulting the home team while streaming live via my phone on a social media service for my followers. Should I be banned?

[John Cuthber]

Somewhere along the line the Dallas cowboy fans who might beat you up were told that it as the appropriate thing to do by someone.
Are they guilty of a crime?

 

[Ten oz]

Also MigL Charles Manson wasn't present when When Sharon Tate was murdered yet was still convict for it. Do you believe that Charles Manson holds no responsibility for the Manson Family murders and that only those who physically acted out the murders are responsible?

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

Somewhere along the line the Dallas cowboy fans who might beat you up were told that it as the appropriate thing to do by someone.
Are they guilty of a crime?

 

Depends on who told them, when, and how. If a player on the field pointed me out and yell in to the stands 'don't let that man disrepect our house' I think the league would hold them accountable for sure. Ditto Jerry Jones if he gave a pre-game interview saying ' I sure wish that guy with that insulting shirt got what's coming to him'.

[swansont]

Freedom of speech in the US means the government can't censor you. It does not obligate anyone to buy you the megaphone and soapbox.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

Freedom of speech in the US means the government can't censor you. It does not obligate anyone to buy you the megaphone and soapbox.

I agree, that is the case. However in my opinion there are situations where I think the govt should be providing the infrastructure (megaphone and soapbox). Particularly to under represented communities or organizations. The U.S. govt is meant to represent everyone and not everyone aligns with target audience of our 2 party system. The govt should make efforts to provide vioces to those who lack representation in public offices as a means of ensuring the govt is working for everyone. For example there are currently no open athiests in either body of Congress and only a single Muslim in either body. Yet about a fifth of the population is atheist and there are over 3 million Musilums in the U.S.. So in my opinion the govt should make efforts to ensure those groups at least get the opportunity to speak nationally when they have something to say.

[MigL]

The bigger question, Ten oz, is why would you go see a Cowboys game ?

[Ten oz]

Not a home game, I live is DC .. 

[Area54]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

What if I attend a NFL Dallas Cowboys home game, have tickets for the home side of the stadium, and am wearing a shirt  that reads 'Cowboys are gay'; does security have the right to ask me  cover up up or leave? Obviously if someone assualts me they will be committing crime and deserve to be arrrested but that doesn't mean my behavior wouldn't be worth criticism.

You reminded me of an incident at a Cowboys game in the late 70s. The only one I ever attended. Around the same time there had been some disrespectful comments made by an American official about Queen Elizabeth. I considered not standing when the national anthem was played as a protestagainst that. Three things argued against this action: no one would no why I was protesting; I wold embarrass my American friends whose guest I was; it might cause an incident in which people might be injured. So I stood.

If we wish to have freedom of speech we should use that freedom responsibly.

(Today I would kneel, and damn the consequences.)

 

 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, Area54 said:

You reminded me of an incident at a Cowboys game in the late 70s. The only one I ever attended. Around the same time there had been some disrespectful comments made by an American official about Queen Elizabeth. I considered not standing when the national anthem was played as a protestagainst that. Three things argued against this action: no one would no why I was protesting; I wold embarrass my American friends whose guest I was; it might cause an incident in which people might be injured. So I stood.

If we wish to have freedom of speech we should use that freedom responsibly.

(Today I would kneel, and damn the consequences.)

 

 

The kneeling stuff to me is a no brainer. It is silent and doesn't force or even request accommodations from others. It is just an individual choice to take an individual action and doesn't burden anyone else. It is the minimum expression of freedom one should expect to have in a free society.

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The kneeling stuff to me is a no brainer.

It ought to be a no brainer, but when a segment of the population believes that "free speech" means "the right to say what I think, but supress the speech of those I disagree with", then it exposes - as we have seen - the deep divides in American society.

I grew up in the sixties, watching the civil rights movement in the US from afar. It's deja vu all over again! Only this time the racists have their own man in the White House. And - to bring it fully back to the OP - free speech is exposing him, to those with eyes to see, for what he is. (In fairness, I don't think Trump is a racist - he despises all people equally.)

[MigL]

Continuing with Ten Oz's point regarding the government providing a forum for those who don't have a 'voice', would you then agree that universities should provide and make accessible ALL viewpoints so as to promote free thinking and intelligent discussion ?

It sees like, these days, universities are the first places where violence erupts and non-mainstream ideas are censored.
Should you not be allowed to present a radical idea on a university campus, without fear of being attacked ?
Or is the concept of 'safe spaces' only safe for things/ideas we agree with ?

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Continuing with Ten Oz's point regarding the government providing a forum for those who don't have a 'voice', would you then agree that universities should provide and make accessible ALL viewpoints so as to promote free thinking and intelligent discussion ?

It sees like, these days, universities are the first places where violence erupts and non-mainstream ideas are censored.
Should you not be allowed to present a radical idea on a university campus, without fear of being attacked ?
Or is the concept of 'safe spaces' only safe for things/ideas we agree with ?

I said the govt should support under  represented  voices. Didn't say Universities should. Additionally "all points of view" aren't under represented. Those who have the elected representation that embody them already have a voice in national discussions and decision making. To your point about Universities though; no I don't think they should. A Christian University shouldn't be obligated to provide a platform to Satanic groups nor should Jewish Universities have to host Nazis and etc.