Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege

Posted by Unknown on from the silence-will-still-be-permitted dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A group of four NY state senators have written a paper suggesting that free speech should be looked upon as a government granted privilege rather than a right. They're specifically concerned about cyberstalking and cyberbullying, and are introducing legislation to make both of those against the law. Among other troubling concepts, they argue that merely 'excluding' someone from a group is a form of cyberbullying."

11 of 624 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by cappp · · Score: 4, Informative
    Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised.
    The quote given is taken completely out of context, infacT the report notes on the page previous that

    THE CHALLENGE LIES IN PROTECTING TEENAGERS FROM CYBERBULLYING WITHOUT TRAMPLING ON THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES THAT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:

    The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

    IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

    HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!

    1. Re:Bullshit by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED.

      HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD

      There is no "general protection" for speech in the first amendment, there is absolute protection:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      How are they considering the law as it is written?

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    2. Re:Bullshit by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Informative

      it's textbook knee-jerk reactionaryism.

      cyberbullying. root word: bullying. THE SAME SHIT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOREVER. except now you put "... on a computer!" and are granted a new patent I MEAN a new call to action to restrict the rights of citizens BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN!

      rights, mind you, that aren't meant to be restricted. these are not rights granted by the government. these are rights inherent to all people by virtue of their being people -- these are simply rights which the government has recognized the infringement of is inexcusable and tyrannical.

      I like the part of the bill where it mentions "...USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS,..." .. "CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD ."

      And yes, they do say free speech is a privilege GRANTED BY THE FUCKING STATE -- and not an inborn, inalienable right.
      What bullshit.
      This is not the use of force to prevent the unjust use of force, these fucktwits have corrupted Mills for their own big-government nanny-state ends. This is simply the outright abuse of force and twisting of the very concept of our rights recognized, not granted, by the government. I'm sorry. Words do not hurt. You can call me what you want -- it only affects me as much as I allow it.

      You want to deal with cyberbullying? Get some fucking parents with half a clue to raise their kids. Get some schools that aren't afraid to deal with troublesome students. And yes, they are. Little Jimmy, you see, is special needs, and only acts out because of his bullshit ADHD -- and his parents, gosh, any time the school punishes Jimmy they're down there causing a ruckus because they KNOW Jimmy didn't punch that poor boy and call him a fag! Jimmy wouldn't do that!

      Kids: Ignore unkind words that bother you. If someone physically harms you, that's fucking assault and don't let the school fucking feed you any bullshit -- you were fucking assaulted, and if they don't want to deal with it get the fucking cops involved. No, it's not fair you keep getting picked on. Life's not fair. Don't do stupid shit like take nude photos of yourself -- they WILL be distributed, what the hell were you even thinking in the first place. The more you let the bullies know this shit bothers you, the more they will bother you.

      This law? This law is bullshit. Flaming some 20 year old is not a crime. I don't give half a fuck. This very post could be argued to cause "... MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD". Fuck that. A child under 21? Since when were fucking children able to enter into binding legal contracts.

      Fuck you, New York, fuck you and your liberal fucking totalitarian dreams and desires.

      Oh, and the one citation of a court case I saw in that mess of shit? Was for a case involving cross burning. They used that to justify their crap. Y'see, the difference is, in that case, the burning of the crosses was intended to intimidate -- it was a threat. There are actually already laws regarding the making of threats of violence. Nope, let's not apply those, let's just throw the fucking philosophical foundation of our constitution in the shitter FOR THE CHILDREN!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    3. Re:Bullshit by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      They might be nuanced considerations, but the considerations lead to some really, really stupid consequences. The VC blog has some more level-headed analysis of their proposal.

      The end result is still that the proposed limitations on free speech will lead to some serious abuses. Not to mention that I find it strangely disturbing that a human being of 20 years, 11 months and 360 days is described as a child.

      It's not complete crazy talk, and, unlike some others, find it an idea that should be discussed in the open. And then the idea should be shot into itty, bitty little philosophical pieces.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Bullshit by airfoobar · · Score: 3, Informative
      How nice, you posted a few select bits and pieces where they SAY the 1st Amendment is important, but didn't post the bits and pieces where they say the 1st Amendment sucks and should only be applied half of the time. Did you miss these parts:

      [Freedom of speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege -- a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

      In the case of cyberbullying, the perceived protections of free speech are exactly what enable harmful speech and cruel behavior on the internet. it is the notion that people can post anything they want, regardless of the harm it might cause another person that has perpetuated, if not created, this cyberbullying culture. but "hate speech" that causes material harm to children should have consequences.

      In summary, although speech is generally protected under the first amendment, there are instances in which restrictions are warranted.

      Quick! Save the children from the hate speech!! Freedom of Speech will not be abridged except when it will be.

    5. Re:Bullshit by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

      shouting fire in a crowded theatre

      Why does nobody bother to cite the actual case this came from? Probably because it flies in the face of the first amendment:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

      No, that is not a joke, the Supreme Court really did rule that Schenck did not have the right to speak against the draft during World War I.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  2. Both parties hate you and the Bill of Rights by Sarusa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just to drive it home, since the summary and article avoid it scrupulously, this is a Democratic party proposal from an 'Independent Democratic Conference'.

    Not because I think the Republicans are any better, but people seem to need reminding that both major political parties hate the Bill of Rights and love short sighted dangerous 'fixes' for whatever they think today's social panic is.

  3. More readable copy from NY Senate website by milbournosphere · · Score: 4, Informative

    All the article links to is a report which is in all caps, and is very hard to read. Here's the official copy, as linked to by the NY State Senate. http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011_0.pdf

  4. No story here by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Informative

    There's no story here. Here's the original report, from the Volokh Conspiracy, a card-carrying rightwing blog. That enough should discredit the story. Second, the entire point of this blog posting is to point out that the politicians involved were all Democrats, something the Techdirt article (correctly) discards from the narrative as irrelevant. So, this is just a hit piece, no story other than "scary Demoncrats", everybody can go on to the next article.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  5. Ending Democracy by Jodka · · Score: 4, Informative

    The culprits are:

      Jeffrey Klein

      Diane Savino

      David Carlucci

      David Valesky

    They of a growing movement to end democracy. See, for example, North Carolina Governor Beverly Purdue's suggestion that federal elections be suspended. James Taranto provides other examples.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  6. Re:I am offended by swalve · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's because it doesn't matter.