On Freedom of Speech, Rush and the Turkish viewpoint

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I have long been a proponent of Free Speech. When I was young, I was part of a religion that fought and won many court cases on the issue. After I left that, I found the value of expressing my views in philosophy, politics etc freely.

Sarah Palin has recently defended Rush Limbaugh, calling his slurs of 'slut' and 'prostitute' 'Free Speech.

Since I've moved to Turkey, I've been exposed to a different philosophy on Freedom of Speech. Here, free speech is valued... within a few limits. If the Speech is false (Obama isn't truly an American citizen) or designed to simply be inflammatory ( She is a slut because I don't agree with her philosophy) they are NOT considered Free speech... they are considered lies, or speech designed to inflame hatred or cause rifts between people.

I understand the risks associated with limits on free speech. Recently the Turks got a taste of this when France made it illegal to disagree with the belief that the Ottoman empire committed genocide against the Armenians. I agree, that its good to know who the 'crazies' are, so they can be avoided.... BUT, I have to wonder, sometimes, if valueless rhetoric and baseless lies, designed only to engender division, should be something protected.

Perhaps even our valued freedom of speech is part of the Two-Man Con.

[Placid Dingo]

A guy here, Andrew Bolt was fined for stomping around like an arsehole ranting about how some Aboriginals aren't 'real aboriginals'.

They basically said the conversation was soothsayers but there was a lack of good faith at play which was why the guilty verdict was met.

If I'm honest with myself though I know I feel like I like the verdict only because Bolt is a revolt creature. I do wonder if 'good faith' is a sensible restriction on the manner of free speech.

[AFK]

It's a tricky spot.

That kind of speech definitely is dangerous because it relies upon the tried and true idea that there are a lot of idiots running around who will believe anything and, well, run with it.  It so quickly becomes an ingrained narrative that no amount of exposes, fact-checking, etc., is going to make any difference. 

But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either.  For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck. 

So I wonder if creating some kind of legal structure to beat back that kind of speech would really accomplish anything.  And in the end, protecting the value of free speech seems to be the only option, on a practical level.  You then just have to try your darnedest to impeach the speech. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.

The government didn't interfere here.

Now, there's consequences to being able to say whatever the fuck you want. It opens you up to other people saying whatever they think about you for saying what you said. If you want to say that's infringing on free speech, then by your logic you're infringing on the critic's free speech.

There's a simple solution to all of this.

If you host a radio show don't say stupid shit if you don't want to accept the consequences.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It's a tricky spot.

That kind of speech definitely is dangerous because it relies upon the tried and true idea that there are a lot of idiots running around who will believe anything and, well, run with it.  It so quickly becomes an ingrained narrative that no amount of exposes, fact-checking, etc., is going to make any difference. 

But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either.  For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck. 

So I wonder if creating some kind of legal structure to beat back that kind of speech would really accomplish anything.  And in the end, protecting the value of free speech seems to be the only option, on a practical level.  You then just have to try your darnedest to impeach the speech.

In Turkey, it seems that the knowledge of the consequences naturally limits the speech. Once the speech is out there, punitive punishment is not gonna fix it.  However, if everyone knew that they would be held accountable for their speech, maybe such a thing wouldn't be said in the first place.

I'm not arguing that Rush shouldn't be allowed to disagree with the health care plan, even forcefully... but it does seem that hurtful name calling, or outright lies contribute nothing valuable to the speech. He didn't call her a slut to make a key point, he called her a slut (and grossly lied about the content of her testimony) to hurt her, to incite his dittoheads and to drive a further wedge between citizens with different opinions.

Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.

The government didn't interfere here.

Now, there's consequences to being able to say whatever the fuck you want. It opens you up to other people saying whatever they think about you for saying what you said. If you want to say that's infringing on free speech, then by your logic you're infringing on the critic's free speech.

There's a simple solution to all of this.

If you host a radio show don't say stupid shit if you don't want to accept the consequences.

Agreed.

Though, I do sometimes wonder if the guys that wrote the Constitution really meant "Everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, as loudly as they want with no limit". It's sort of like the second amendment... did they really mean everyone should have flamethrowers and AK-47's?

ETA:

On of the other key touchstones in the Turkish view is if the speech was intended to be disrespectful. Is psychological abuse (certainly being called a slut, and being considered a slut by millions of people could result in psychological damage) all that different than physical abuse?

[Doktor Howl]

A limited right isn't a right.

Somewhat free speech isn't free speech.

Remembering, of course, the Thurgood Marshall distinction between speech and an overt act...ie, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an overt act, and stating an opinion about someone is protected speech.

[Doktor Howl]

Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.

The government didn't interfere here.

This.  The first amendment doesn't protect you from sponsors, etc, pulling their ads.

[LMNO]

It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though.  Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?

[Oysters Rockefeller]

But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either.  For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck. 

Oooh, yeah. The second Rush got fined they'd start going on about how The Obama Administration is running a fourth reich (people love nazi name calling...) and the fact that Rush is being fined just proves he was right.

And Twid is right, too. People are always acting like free speech means you can say whatever you want, but I can't talk shit about it in response.

On a side note, Palin and Rush are drug-fueled nazi liberal homosexuals. FREE SPEECH!

[Doktor Howl]

It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though.  Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?

Pundits are by definition op-ed.  If we decide that opinion is no longer tolerable in the press (etc), then we may as well just shitcan two clauses in the 1st amendment.

Freedom was never meant to be safe or pretty.  The right wing has a problem with the first part of that, and the left tends to have a problem with the second part.

If an asshole can't say something unpopular, then why bother with the 1st amendment?  Popular speech doesn't need protecting...at least from the government.  Rush is already paying a penalty.  Several penalties.

1.  He has lost 30 sponsors, 15 of which are heavy-hitters, money-wise.
2.  Rush & Peter Gabriel have forced him to stop using their music (which he was using without paying), eliminating his signature "Sledgehammer" seque, among other things.
3.  3 Superpacs are funnelling him money to keep him on the air, thus taking money away from the very causes he espouses.

Ann Coulter jumped the shark with the 911 widows thing, and is now a has-been that nobody outside of the EXTREME right listens to.  Rush may have just done the same thing.  The hardcore GOP base will still listen to him, but the middle won't...And as Palin found out, you don't win elections or affect national policy by appealing only to your base.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though.  Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?

Pundits are by definition op-ed.  If we decide that opinion is no longer tolerable in the press (etc), then we may as well just shitcan two clauses in the 1st amendment.

Freedom was never meant to be safe or pretty.  The right wing has a problem with the first part of that, and the left tends to have a problem with the second part.

If an asshole can't say something unpopular, then why bother with the 1st amendment?  Popular speech doesn't need protecting...at least from the government.  Rush is already paying a penalty.  Several penalties.

1.  He has lost 30 sponsors, 15 of which are heavy-hitters, money-wise.
2.  Rush & Peter Gabriel have forced him to stop using their music (which he was using without paying), eliminating his signature "Sledgehammer" seque, among other things.
3.  3 Superpacs are funnelling him money to keep him on the air, thus taking money away from the very causes he espouses.

Ann Coulter jumped the shark with the 911 widows thing, and is now a has-been that nobody outside of the EXTREME right listens to.  Rush may have just done the same thing.  The hardcore GOP base will still listen to him, but the middle won't...And as Palin found out, you don't win elections or affect national policy by appealing only to your base.

I don't disagree with you. I'm still in favor of Free Speech... but I do find the concept of respect and truth in Free Speech compelling. Opinion is awesome... but that slut comment wasn't opinion, it was intentionally inflammatory, disrespectful and designed to incite hate. It may not be 'fire' in a crowded theater... but then again, it just might not be all that different.

[Doktor Howl]

I don't disagree with you. I'm still in favor of Free Speech... but I do find the concept of respect and truth in Free Speech compelling. Opinion is awesome... but that slut comment wasn't opinion, it was intentionally inflammatory, disrespectful and designed to incite hate. It may not be 'fire' in a crowded theater... but then again, it just might not be all that different.

The slut comment was opinion.  And I remember a place that had a "respect" rule.

And to compare someone calling someone a filthy name with an act that could cause immediate death to people around them is basically saying that statements of fact are okay, but free speech isn't.

Inciting hate isn't a crime, at least in the United States.  Inciting a riot IS.  What Rush did fell into the first catagory.

Either you're for the protection of unpopular speech, or you're not for free speech.  If you're not, that's fine...Plenty of cultures get along just fine without it.  But you can't have it both ways.

[LMNO]

I get what you're saying about opinions, but what about verifiable facts?  People get all up in arms about rude opinions, but I feel that polite distortions of the truth are much, much worse in the long run.

[Doktor Howl]

I get what you're saying about opinions, but what about verifiable facts?  People get all up in arms about rude opinions, but I feel that polite distortions of the truth are much, much worse in the long run.

An outright lie is grounds for a libel or slander lawsuit.  We already have a system in place for that.

Hell, Bill Clinton could have sued Rush Limbaugh back in the 90s, for calling Chelsea Clinton "the family dog". 

[Oysters Rockefeller]

Inciting hate isn't a crime, at least in the United States.  Inciting a riot IS.  What Rush did fell into the first catagory.

We can fix that.

jay kay, folks, jay kay.

Or am I?

I am.