Defining free speech

[4Q Basket Case]

and there was this case

Tennessee officials drop charges against man jailed over Charlie Kirk meme

Larry Bushart, 61, spent more than five weeks in jail over post that made light of far-right commentator’s killing

www.theguardian.com

Well, as is often the case, the full story isn't as simple as the sound-bite title would lead the reader to believe.

The title makes it sound like a man was jailed for making light of Charlie Kirk's death. The full story was that he wrote several posts on Facebook (definitely not private communication) that made light of Kirk's death. Thing is, those didn't get him into trouble.

What did draw the attention of the police was a meme that sarcastically made light of school shooting. The clear connection was that if you're going to tolerate school shooting, you have to tolerate other murders like Kirk's.

Local law enforcement interpreted that as advocating and/or threatening school violence and feared that the author or someone else would actually act on the idea.

I think the reaction was out of line with the poster's actions. And I think the poster's attorneys might be right in alleging that the local sheriff targeted the poster. But then I also think of the hue and cry that would ensue if the poster or someone else did indeed attack a school after publicly posting the material in question.

Still, local prosecutors declined to press charges. And again, the speech that was interpreted as a violent threat was public, not private.

Side Note: I have little doubt that if Charlie Kirk had been a left-wing activist and his shooter had been a southern male member of the John Birch Society, the headline would have read something like, "Southern US White Supremacist Freed After Threatening School Violence"

This situation is a far cry from the English woman being fined, put on probation, assigned community service and assessed court costs for calling an attacker (who put her in the hospital) a sexual slur in a private one-on-one text. Compounded by the fact that the only reason the thought police found out about it was that the two parties to the communication later fell out for unrelated reasons. In an act of pure spite, the recipient of the text turned it over to the authorities....who did bring governmental law enforcement to bear.

 

[92tide]

Side Note: I have little doubt that if Charlie Kirk had been a left-wing activist and his shooter had been a southern male member of the John Birch Society, the headline would have read something like, "Southern US White Supremacist Freed After Threatening School Violence"

interestingly enough, we don't have to actually speculate on what republicans and "independents" would do in these situations to make a point

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Well, as is often the case, the full story isn't as simple as the sound-bite title would lead the reader to believe.

The title makes it sound like a man was jailed for making light of Charlie Kirk's death. The full story was that he wrote several posts on Facebook (definitely not private communication) that made light of Kirk's death. Thing is, those didn't get him into trouble.

What did draw the attention of the police was a meme that sarcastically made light of school shooting. The clear connection was that if you're going to tolerate school shooting, you have to tolerate other murders like Kirk's.

Local law enforcement interpreted that as advocating and/or threatening school violence and feared that the author or someone else would actually act on the idea.

I think the reaction was out of line with the poster's actions. And I think the poster's attorneys might be right in alleging that the local sheriff targeted the poster. But then I also think of the hue and cry that would ensue if the poster or someone else did indeed attack a school after publicly posting the material in question.

Still, local prosecutors declined to press charges. And again, the speech that was interpreted as a violent threat was public, not private.

Side Note: I have little doubt that if Charlie Kirk had been a left-wing activist and his shooter had been a southern male member of the John Birch Society, the headline would have read something like, "Southern US White Supremacist Freed After Threatening School Violence"

This situation is a far cry from the English woman being fined, put on probation, assigned community service and assessed court costs for calling an attacker (who put her in the hospital) a sexual slur in a private one-on-one text. Compounded by the fact that the only reason the thought police found out about it was that the two parties to the communication later fell out for unrelated reasons. In an act of pure spite, the recipient of the text turned it over to the authorities....who did bring governmental law enforcement to bear.

Calling someone gay used to be, per se, defamatory. Is it still?

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Calling someone gay used to be, per se, defamatory. Is it still?

Good question. Regarding that particular word, I think it depends on the manner of delivery and intent of the speaker.

If it’s delivered as a simple statement of fact, no, saying someone is gay isn’t a slur. If it’s delivered with a dismissive tone or it’s used to characterize the person as unworthy of decent human respect, it is a slur.

But you do raise a larger issue….can a word that was once a slur evolve into acceptability?

If I say someone is gay as a simple statement, that’s one thing. If I use one or more of the slurs we all know, that’s another.

***** used to be in that category. Now, it’s part of a widely-accepted acronym….the Q in LGBTQ.

If I say a person is black, or white, or Hispanic, or Asian or any other ethnicity, that’s one thing. If I use a slur (and there are multiple examples for all) that’s another — even if the members of that group use it amongst themselves.

So to answer my own question, I think a slur can evolve into acceptability. Though that's unusual and I can think of a number of slurs that I can't imagine ever getting to that point.

It’s an interesting topic. We could go forever on this.

 

[75thru79]

So to answer my own question about question, I think a slur can evolve into acceptability.

IMO a word in itself is not a slur, unless it's utterance was done in an attempt to humiliate or degrade the other person.

 

[jthomas666]

Seems relevant...

University suspends Alice, Nineteen Fifty-Six student magazines

The University of Alabama Department of Student Life permanently suspended Nineteen Fifty-Six and Alice Magazine, two University-funded student magazines, effective Monday, citing a federal memo issued by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in July. “It is so disheartening to know that so many of...

thecrimsonwhite.com

 

[92tide]

Seems relevant...

University suspends Alice, Nineteen Fifty-Six student magazines

The University of Alabama Department of Student Life permanently suspended Nineteen Fifty-Six and Alice Magazine, two University-funded student magazines, effective Monday, citing a federal memo issued by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in July. “It is so disheartening to know that so many of...

thecrimsonwhite.com

i'm sure there are reasons this is totally on the up and up

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Good question. Regarding that particular word, I think it depends on the manner of delivery and intent of the speaker.

If it’s delivered as a simple statement of fact, no, saying someone is gay isn’t a slur. If it’s delivered with a dismissive tone or it’s used to characterize the person as unworthy of decent human respect, it is a slur.

But you do raise a larger issue….can a word that was once a slur evolve into acceptability?

If I say someone is gay as a simple statement, that’s one thing. If I use one or more of the slurs we all know, that’s another.

***** used to be in that category. Now, it’s part of a widely-accepted acronym….the Q in LGBTQ.

If I say a person is black, or white, or Hispanic, or Asian or any other ethnicity, that’s one thing. If I use a slur (and there are multiple examples for all) that’s another — even if the members of that group use it amongst themselves.

So to answer my own question, I think a slur can evolve into acceptability. Though that's unusual and I can think of a number of slurs that I can't imagine ever getting to that point.

It’s an interesting topic. We could go forever on this.

We could. I got seduced into the same train of thought you've outlined...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

IMO a word in itself is not a slur, unless it's utterance was done in an attempt to humiliate or degrade the other person.

That's not exactly the way the law of defamation has developed. There are numerous categories fitting what you state. However, there is also a class of terms deemed "libelous per se." These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally have included such as loathsome or contagious disease, sexual misconduct (formerly including homosexuality) professional incompetence, etc. In these cases, harm generally doesn't even need to be proven, just the utterance and its falsity...

 

[4Q Basket Case]

That's not exactly the way the law of defamation has developed. There are numerous categories fitting what you state. However, there is also a class of terms deemed "libelous per se." These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally have included such as loathsome or contagious disease, sexual misconduct (formerly including homosexuality) professional incompetence, etc. In these cases, harm generally doesn't even need to be proven, just the utterance and its falsity...

How does the status of the target (public person vs. non-public) figure in -- or does it anymore?

For example, if I have a billboard posted that says, "Senator Billy Bob Pettibon is an adulterer" and include pictures to prove it, is that either libel or slander? I've read that, if the statement is true, it isn't tortious because Senator Pettibon is clearly a public person.

But if it involves Joe Workaday, who is having an affair with my wife, and as the cuckolded husband I do the same thing, it is libel or slander. That holds even if the statement is true because Joe Workaday isn't a public person.

Does that line of reasoning still hold?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

How does the status of the target (public person vs. non-public) figure in -- or does it anymore?

For example, if I have a billboard posted that says, "Senator Billy Bob Pettibon is an adulterer" and include pictures to prove it, is that either libel or slander? I've read that, if the statement is true, it isn't tortious because Senator Pettibon is clearly a public person.

But if it involves Joe Workaday, who is having an affair with my wife, and as the cuckolded husband I do the same thing, it is libel or slander. That holds even if the statement is true because Joe Workaday isn't a public person.

Does that line of reasoning still hold?

It's tricky. Slander is verbal and libel is written (anywhere), is the simple form of the rule. You're discussing defenses. In the case of the senator, it's still tortious, but his "public figure" status (another fertile field of litigation) is a defense, which raises the standards for the actionable threshold. (At least until the SCOTUS changes it again)...

 

[Huckleberry]

The Atlantic gift link

Cancel Culture’s Boomerang Effect​

How we got to a place where free speech means whatever conservatives want to say

On Sunday night Bari Weiss, the editor of The Free Press and the new head of CBS News, abruptly stopped a forthcoming 60 Minutes report on the torture endured by migrants in the brutal El Salvadoran prison CECOT, where the Trump administration has sent more than 280 men.

Trump supporters praised the decision from Weiss, who, notwithstanding her description of conditions at CECOT as “horrific,” had previously praised El Salvadoran leader Nayib Bukele for making El Salvador safer. More broadly, the whole affair neatly encapsulates the bizarre anti-free-speech free-speech discourse of the past decade, the purpose of which has been to justify restricting any speech that conservatives disapprove of while framing liberal censoriousness as equivalent to state censorship.

 

[92tide]

How we got to a place where free speech means whatever conservatives want to say

that's pretty much been the case for the past few decades

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The Atlantic gift link

Cancel Culture’s Boomerang Effect​

How we got to a place where free speech means whatever conservatives want to say

that's pretty much been the case for the past few decades

That's simply not true.

I do agree that, for a long time now, free speech meant whatever the people in power have wanted it to mean. Thing is, who exactly is in power isn't necessarily who holds elective office.

There are several articles in the early part of this thread citing multiple specific examples, often but not always in academia, of free speech (even when backed by hard data) that has resulted in dismissal from faculty positions. IOW, we're all about free inquiry and debate until you start saying stuff that we don't agree with, even if you back it up.

Hard data on DEI performance and ESG investing are just two examples.

And it's not necessarily employment. In one instance, a speaker at Stanford University Law School -- a sitting federal judge -- was shouted down by students (who were egged on by a high-ranking Law School administrator), including threats of personal violence and shouts of hope that his daughters would be raped.

This is not a question of blue, red, liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. It's a question of who's in power and where.

But yes, regardless of political persuasion, the people in power tend to define free speech as speech they agree with.

 

[92tide]

Hard data on DEI performance and ESG investing are just two examples.

not surprising at all that you choose these two examples.

and we can argue all you want about how its the political correct/woke/ whatever the current slur is used to shut people up that's the real problem with free speech, but the ground work for what we are seeing now was laid in the language used by the right 24/7 during the 90s and then was furthered during the w administration (patriot act, freedom fries, you are either with us or against us, free speech zones, etc)

 

[92tide]

seems appropriate.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5662062-stephen-miller-cbs-news-60-minutes-producers/

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Tuesday urged CBS News to fire the producers of “60 Minutes” for launching a “revolt” against Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, who recently pulled a segment focused on Venezuelan men deported to the El Salvadoran CECOT prison.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

not surprising at all that you choose these two examples.

and we can argue all you want about how its the political correct/woke/ whatever the current slur is used to shut people up that's the real problem with free speech, but the ground work for what we are seeing now was laid in the language used by the right 24/7 during the 90s and then was furthered during the w administration (patriot act, freedom fries, you are either with us or against us, free speech zones, etc)

I’m not trying to affix blame beyond those in power, whoever they are. You’re saying, “It’s all THEIR fault,” referring to conservatives, turning a blind eye to blue examples of quashing opposing views.

I’m saying “they” are those in power, which varies depending on the specific arena.

This didn’t start in the ‘90s. Not even close. It dates at least to the ‘60s in my personal memory. In the US, it probably dates back before that. I know the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t real tolerant of dissenting religious speech, though they didn’t have anything analogous to the American Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Regardless of who quashed what first and when, all ideas should be open for debate, and let the best ones prevail.

That is not the case. But which ideas are unacceptable way too often depends on the political beliefs of whoever is calling the shots — which, again, varies widely.

If you disagree — and I think you probably do — just cite stronger points. Saying that my choice of examples is not surprising is ad hominem.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

***** used to be in that category. Now, it’s part of a widely-accepted acronym….the Q in LGBTQ.

It’s an interesting topic. We could go forever on this.

This brings up an interesting thing I saw a couple of weeks ago.

Some clearly Gen Z person was "offended" at hearing there used to be a game we played called "smear the Q." I mean, it's what we called it! There was no malice intended, we didn't even know what the word meant.

Not only that - the most fun part of the game was BEING THE Q!!!!

But she was blistered online with, "You know, there was a world that existed before you were born and this is what happened, quit reading today back into yesterday." And she should have been. There's a CONTEXT to everything.

I'm so old, I remember when you said, "He's so gay" meant, "He's a really happy guy."

I can't wait until that gal watches "The Flintstones" and hears the theme song about "we'll have a gay old time!"

 

[92tide]

I’m not trying to affix blame beyond those in power, whoever they are. You’re saying, “It’s all THEIR fault,” referring to conservatives, turning a blind eye to blue examples of quashing opposing views.

I’m saying “they” are those in power, which varies depending on the specific arena.

This didn’t start in the ‘90s. Not even close. It dates at least to the ‘60s in my personal memory. In the US, it probably dates back before that. I know the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t real tolerant of dissenting religious speech, though they didn’t have anything analogous to the American Constitution’s 1st Amendment.

Regardless of who quashed what first and when, all ideas should be open for debate, and let the best ones prevail.

That is not the case. But which ideas are unacceptable way too often depends on the political beliefs of whoever is calling the shots — which, again, varies widely.

If you disagree — and I think you probably do — just cite stronger points. Saying that my choice of examples is not surprising is ad hominem.

if you say so. i have provided plenty of points. you are talking about dei and esg boogeymen.

 

[92tide]

Court Rules in AAUP v Rubio: Trump Admin Violated First Amendment

The AAUP and partners sued to block the Trump administration from carrying out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty members for ideological reasons.

www.aaup.org