|
I want to raise a few points concerning the limits of free speech, how we enforce those limits, and the legal implications of the intersection between speech and money 1. It's always been accepted that the First Amendment protects a near sacred right to the freedom of expression. It's often been said that the value of the first amendment is not in the protection of easy or popular speech, but the protection of unpopular speech, particularly speech that is deemed dangerous or subversive to religious or political leaders. This idea of the freedom of speech being meant to protect potentially dangerous speech has made the the issue very contentious when we approach the limitations of this argument. Clearly, we accept that the freedom of speech is not absolute, and we have historically had a common agreement that freedom of speech does not cover things such as the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater", speech that is considered to be threats, and speech that is considered harassment. There has also been exceptions for the freedom of speech when it violates the rights of others or speech that violates secrecy provisions such as spying or leaking classified information. It seems that the spirit of the first amendment addresses politically unpopular speech and subversive messages, however there have been many cases in our history where people faced the ugly side of the law for their political speech. In 1918, the socialist leader and anti-war activist Eugene Debs was arrested and charged for giving political speeches where he spoke against US involvement in WWI, and urged people to dodge the draft. He was charged under the Sedition Act and served time in prison. Would such a justification hold up today if we wanted to imprison someone for their dangerous speech? A more recent example is the executive execution of Anwar al-Awlaki. Awlaki was in the crosshairs of the federal government for a decade before he was assassinated, without ever being formally charged with any crimes, because his speech was deemed a national threat. Ironically, Awlaki was a leading voice of moderation in the Muslim community, supporting George W Bush and condemning acts of violence in the name of Islam. After several years of being hunted, smeared, and even falsely imprisoned by federal agents here and abroad, his speech turned more and more extremist. At the end of his life, Awlaki was praising and encouraging acts of violent jihad against the west, and became a prime recruitment agent of extreme groups like Al-Queda. What are the legal implications of the government naming people as politically dangerous threats, putting them on executive "kill lists" and killing them without any due process or formal proceedings? Is anyone who utters "death to america" subject to this treatment? What if it's said in jest or pastiche? Is someone who says "George W Bush is a monkey" able to targeted for assassination? What about someone who posts a gif of someone throwing a shoe at Bush, or someone who holds up a sign implying violence against a tyrannical government, or someone who threatens to use anime wizard power to death note style kill and eat the rich? Is everyone who ever ironically posted "eat the rich, kill all cops" or other silly childish nonsense now subject to being imprisoned like Debs, or assassinated like Awlaki? Clearly, we cannot have people plotting murder or encouraging terrorism on the internet or on the radio, but how do we enforce this limitation without sending us down the slippery slope into state censorship and the criminalization of politically dangerous speech? This is particularly relevant because today, we face the problem of groups like ISIS turning to social media as recruitment tools. Conservative politicians and of course law enforcement agencies are pushing hard for the new legal justifications and expansion of powers in order to find and stop this kind of dangerous speech. 2. The second issue is something to consider in light of the Citizens United decision which ruled that spending money is a constitutionally protected form of speech. If the laws are to be consistent, what does this mean about laws which treat money as "material support" when given to criminal organizations or terrorist groups? For example, could someone be charged for writing an op-ed in the paper saying they support ISIS and agree with their message and hope they are successful? Could the same person be charged for writing a check to some ISIS affiliate an expression of their support? There is already a chilling effect, even when it comes to totally legal politically subversive groups. For example, Wikileaks is not on the list of federally recognized terrorist organizations, but let's try a thought experiment: Would you feel comfortable and secure in your rights if you published an article praising wikileaks and giving them your vocal support? Do you feel safe that you would not end up on a list somewhere and have your rights infringed at some point for saying that? Now...would you feel as safe using your credit card to donate money to wikileaks? Even though it's technically legal, I would not feel safe doing such a thing. What is the legal justification for money given to a major political party being considered "free speech", but money given to a criminal organization being considered "Material Support"? Why is it legal to say "I support the west side thugs in their struggle against trick rear end bustas", but hosting a BBQ with proceeds going to the West Side Thugs may get you brought up with charges? Either there is or there is not a legal distinction between speech and 'material support'. What say you, goons? What are the limits of free speech? Was the government justified in going after Debs? What about Awlaki? Should the government have more power in going after people sayings potentially dangerous things online? How do we address valid security concerns without inevitably creating problems down the road with regards to speech, especially with new forms of speech in the internet era? How do we reconcile the notion of money as speech without throwing a wrench into our existing laws concerning material support vs speech. Are there any other examples you can think of that involve legal gray areas with regards to free speech? Are there any other contradictions you notice in our legal framework and precedents involving protected speech?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Are you intending for this to be a discussion of the philosophy of government in general or are you specifically trying to have a question about how to interpret the US constitution when faced with 21st century problems such as terrorism, electronic security and the growth of a powerful state security apparatus? Do you particularly care about cases outside of the US or this basically a matter of domestic US politics? For that matter, why are you so focused on cases where the US government threatens the speech of American citizens while saying nothing about the US suppressing the speech of non-citizens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Americans only give two shits about "free speech" when they want to bitch and whine about something and no one wants to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
IMO you should be able to donate as much as you want to politicians. however IMO there should also be a vigorous communist mass movement which will end up lynching everyone who avails themselves of the ability to do that after the revolution. so it all evens out
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Speech is free, money is speech, therefore money is free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
There's too much loving speech! Just shut the gently caress up, everyone, I'm trying to shitpost here!!!Helsing posted:Are you intending for this to be a discussion of the philosophy of government in general or are you specifically trying to have a question about how to interpret the US constitution when faced with 21st century problems such as terrorism, electronic security and the growth of a powerful state security apparatus? Do you particularly care about cases outside of the US or this basically a matter of domestic US politics? For that matter, why are you so focused on cases where the US government threatens the speech of American citizens while saying nothing about the US suppressing the speech of non-citizens?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
rudatron posted:There's too much loving speech! Just shut the gently caress up, everyone, I'm trying to shitpost here!!! The Big Other has fractured and we are lost children when left to our own devices
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 04:12
|
|