Slashdot Mirror
NY Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege
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."
by this attempt, and expect restitution for their callous behavior and pissing on the Bill of Rights.
...should go die in a fire. For fuck's sake, people, what were you thinking??
why would you want to keep the holocaust deniers at bay by giving up the right of free speech?
are holocaust deniers that big a pest or is your free speech worth that little?
They spent World War II fighting the Nazis. Then they spent the Cold War fighting the Communists. Now they are becoming them. Fucking bastard asshole bags of shit. Hang'em high.
They wrote a paper that explains an opinion about an idea that is controversial and unpopular. It is exactly the kind of thing that the First Amendment was intended to protect.
Incidentally, there is no "right to revolt" in the Constitution. The concept is covered in the Declaration of Independence which, while culturally and politically significant, holds no legal weight.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I believe Thomas Jefferson would argue that the "right to revolt" comes from nature, and does not need to be outlined in any legal document.
Since revolution is fundamentally extralegal, that makes sense. It's also a fine illustration of the limitations of Law: it's meaningless in the face of sufficiently-commited violence.
Silent enim leges inter arma. -- Cicero
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Cultures who outlaw dickwads are at the mercy of those who define the term "dickwad." Wait until your favorite religion/race/affiliation/cereal-brand is a "hate crime."
The US has free speech so that no man may stifle another man's conscience.
They (the US) spent HALF the second world war fighting the Nazis, the other half selling them computers to help round up the jews. The gov of the US has a long history of helping bad men rule innocent people with an iron fist. The only thing new here is that they're doing it to YOU.
Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised. 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
HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!
Actually, no. The first amendment is pretty clear - and prior restraint is a violation of free speech. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you should ban it - you can still make certain types of statements a crime - but to suggest that preventing someone from uttering them is not a first amendment violation is wrong, IMHO.
They may be trying to make a good faith effort to not violate the first, but I think they fail.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Why don't these Democrat NY State Senators mind their own business?
It's possible to exercise freedom outside the perfectly defined bounds of the First Amendment, you know.
It's also possible to govern without trying to be everyone's Mom. Why should we tolerate governments trying to take away every tiny sliver of human freedom except the ones that are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights? We all know these people would take away even more freedoms if they could get away with it.
Do you want the author of this piece arrested for "Cyberbullying"? Or the Slashdot editors? Just wondering.
In essence;
WE ARE AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, BUT WE WILL CIRCUMVENT THESE PROTECTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:
It also has a plenty of nuance, read the next page if you like
IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED, OUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THIS FACT SHOULD MAKE YOU LESS SCARED THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO ERODE YOUR RIGHTS. IN
Holy crikey, the OP might have made some sense.
I'd say this is just the regular mouth-pieces 'thinking of the children' again, but this takes it to a new level. Essentially, any 'negative remark, post, and upload' against an online profile becomes 'dangerous' and subject to being stifled, by law? So much for /., or every other forum moderating itself.
Couple this with the Free Speech Zones, currently being used outside Political rallies, and you have a very real retraction of both the boundaries of the physical right to express free speech, and your free speech in the digital realm. It's quite obvious that restriction of opposing ideas is what this is really about. Call it what you want, anti-cyber-bullying law, or profile protection online, but you and I both know this kind of thinking doesn't restrict itself to the well-defined addages it is put forth under. We all know this will be used for the general speech, online and off, that elected officials, law enforcement bodies, and anyone with money, don't want to hear about.
Now take it one step further to the 'Occupy Wall Street' camp. Putting the whole purpose of it aside for a moment, does a law like the proposed put organizing camps like them in the cross-hairs? Why would they be exempt?
How much content online 'really is' what this targetted legislation is about? How many forums are public, at will acceptance, yet run by Corporations, non-profits, or private individuals?
To me, all of this strikes as fear of technology and communication. Is it as recognizable to you as it is to me that the public, albeit probably a bit misguided in content, is getting acces to more information than ever before? Do those running the country really want a 'well-informed' public to be at the voting booth? Like most legislation, this is about power. Who has it, how is it controlled, and who has more to lose.
The only real question you should be asking is, 'is this a small step forward for America in general, or a step backward'?
Though I try to avoid quoting movies, one does feel appropriate here:
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people
It seems fear really is turning on those who have the power to wield the kind of control they wish. Hopefully, this absurdity will stop before it gains momentum, and more forums than this one will show the adequate light to the insanity that is being proposed once again, upon a once great nation.
It's pretty much irrelevant what they're proposing, because they're trying to fix something that really doesn't need fixing. In fact, if anything their solution makes the problem worse.
The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it. You're not doing anyone any favors by putting them in a protective shell until they hit a certain age, then releasing them into the wild to get hammered by all the nasty stuff Real Life has to offer all at once. Some parts of life suck. But you have to learn to deal.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
You were that easily fooled? It's exactly like saying - "Not to insult you or anything but you are an idiot." Just because they preface it by saying that they don't want to piss on the first amendment. If YOU read the whole thing you'll see they are trying to broaden a couple of decisions to be so all-encompassing and vague that even this message I am writing right now will be covered if there happens to be a minor reading it who gets offended.
Considering the 1st amendment as absolute protection is something that I'm pretty sure has absolutely never been done. There's precedent out the wazoo for it, from defamation laws to false advertising laws to copyright laws.
Cultures who outlaw dickwads are at the mercy of those who define the term "dickwad." Wait until your favorite religion/race/affiliation/cereal-brand is a "hate crime."
This is why, as a morally and theologically conservative Christian, I would describe myself as libertarian. The more power you give the government to enforce your views, the more power you give the government to use against you.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
I suspect you weren't listening. It was pretty clear to me.
In a free society, you are free to do things. However, you are also responsible for the things you do (with freedom comes responsibility). Your implied concept that freedom must mean the abrogation of responsibility, then you're building the foundations of a lunatic asylum. There are already a whole slew of things that you're free to say, but reap the downside of (slander etc.).
I suspect the intention of "free speech" was to prevent the government repressing the people, not being able to speak out against tyranny and being forced to be mere silent pawns of the state (you know, kind of how the peasantry of England was at the time of the war of independence).
Instead, you now have abusive petty tyrants in the thousands who believe they have the absolute right to bully, demean and abuse people by way of words and expressions, and somehow, it's magically OK to do this because they're guaranteed freedom of speech, supposedly with no repercussion or consequence to their actions? This is definitely not the utopia imagined; more of a dystopia that wasn't even imagined back then. Actions have consequences.
The idea of freedom is you get to choose the consequences, good or bad. Same as you get the choice about whether to pick a potato from the fire with a toasting fork, or use your bare hand.
If people listen to the words, that's up to them. It gives you no real idea of their thoughts on it. As soon as they act on it, you know, and that's when you punish the illegal. However, incitement to crimes doesn't let you walk away free, as far as I believe.. Same as you'd be unhappy if someone kept threatening (in a serious way) to kill you, and asking people around to rough you up. Would you be happy that he was perfectly free to pursue this activity as 'just words' and fight for their freedom to say them? Or would you turn round and say "This guy's nuts, this is just plain dangerous and insane" and request that the cops do something?
Know what I'd do.. Request that this loon reap the consequences of their actions (speech is an action).
Sexual assault is a part of life. It's GOING to happen. It sucks, but that's how it is. The correct solution is for adults to help people learn how to deal with it, not find ways to make it illegal.
Right? Why not?
Cyberbullying is not exercising your right to call Tommy a jerk online. Its systematic harassment bordering if not jumping off into full on psychological torture.
It should be illegal along with all other forms of harassment, stalking, and so forth.
They don't even know what bullying is! Cyber bullying, BooFuckingHoo. Grow up, and stand up for yourself. What ever happened to words can never hurt me?
For the record I was bullied constantly through Junior high, and it only stopped when I decided I had had enough, and beat the shit out of my chief tormenter in front of the entire school. (At an assembly.)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
In so far as they would consider abolishing freedom of association: they are going against their oath to uphold The Constitution of the United States.
It suggests they don't consider their promise to the public when discussing or possibly deciding legislation. It suggests they think of themselves as rulers instead of public servants.
For example, if a corporation were to discuss defrauding the public as a way to solve a particular problem; people would generally be upset on finding out.
With a company you might have a choice whether to do business with them. But with government, since they have a monopoly on force (fines, prison, etc), everyone is subject and there is no other (safe) choice. People who don't have a choice about something they disagree with: well, they sometimes resort to more physical methods of argument
I don't advocating violence over something that's just being discussed: but it's perfectly reasonable why threats of violence would be a reaction in this instance.
Actually, the correct solution is to do both. You teach the children how to deal with it, but you also make it illegal since some kids haven't yet mastered the art of ignoring bullies. It doesn't take much bullying to turn a relatively normal kid into a basket case, and they need to have a better "out" of the situation than someone telling them to "toughen up".
I agree that the report is primarly an informative piece with a few suggested policies. I disagree with your conclusion; you seem to think the inclusion of moderate language and statements somehow offsets the damage that these policies, and this mindset, would do to our freedoms. Policy is often a one way street and it is hard to regain freedoms once lost.
Yes, cyber-bullying is an issue. No, this guys extreme view on the 'privilege' of free speech isn't going to help prevent kids from being bullies.
The correct solution is to help kids deal with emotional and verbal abuse, not try to outlaw it.
The correct solution is to help emotional and verbal abusers stop emotionally and verbally abusing people, not try to outlaw it. Only helping kids deal with it is like only helping the victims of any crime--it doesn't actually disincentivize the behavior on the part of the abuser.
Just because someone should have a thick enough skin or enough self-confidence to shrug off a verbal attack does not mean that someone else should be making that attack.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
From personal experience, I agree. In high school, I was bullied so much by one group of kids (who would ignore me if they passed me in the hall individually) that I became paranoid. Any laughter I heard, I assumed was directed at me. I didn't feel like I could talk to my parents or teachers, I only had one friend I felt comfortable confiding in. I couldn't fight back since a) I didn't want to get in trouble and b) even if I did, the five or six of them could easily beat me up. I ignored them the best I could, but that just bottles the feelings up. I dreaded going to school every day because I knew I'd be tormented at every turn.
My one friend finally spoke with the bullies (late in senior year). They thought they were just having some fun and didn't realize there were consequences. Although they stopped, it took many years of college before I recovered. In some ways, I've never recovered and never will.
Fighting bullying needs a three pronged approach. You need to help the kids who are bullied, educate the bullies as to the consequences for their actions, and, should the bullies not care about the bullied child at all, have some legal recourse to take against them. If cappp's assessment is right, this is a good thing. We might have freedom of speech but that doesn't mean we get to say whatever we want without any consequences.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Previous poster beat me to it, so here is another: thought crimes involving taboo subjects of the moment, like writing "child pornography" fiction, drawing "child pornography" cartoons or even just attempting to write a scholarly text on the subject, a work that disagrees with the official stance of the Holy Inquisition and which points out the psychotic attitude towards sex and minors in modern societies. People are in jail for this, and other "free speech we didn't like" crimes in the USA.
Writing a book that glorifies the aims of the current "enemies of the state", such as for example Al-Queda, is also likely to deprive you of your freedom, this time even bypassing the judicial system all-together and straight into some secret "detention centre" complete with "enhanced interrogation techniques" or should your book become too popular, simply executed without any due course whatsoever, something that has been demonstrated rather forcefully just a few days back.
Part of growing up is learning to deal with adversity and what in general can be a.cruel world that doesn't give a shit about your precious self esteem....part of this experience is learning to grow your skin a bit thicker, and learn the only person you should really care about their thoughts of you...is yourself...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It wasn't that long ago that it would be normal and acceptable to kick the shit out the bully.
Ahh...those were the good old days.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
ah the intelligent people who make the same broad cultural insinuations about said 'anti-intellectuals' (people who don't agree with their selectively biased quackery), while wearing said quackery as chips on their shoulders and clamoring for 'hate speech' style laws to shield them from criticism.
the left biased intelligentsia coming out of today's universities needs to learn that facts (all of them) and the resulting truth matters more than what they feel about it. true rapport doesn't come from shielding the truth whenever it hurts someone's feelings...whether it's a parent talking to a tweenager or a bunch of yale graduate politicians writing legislation. in fact, people who suffer selection bias based on feelings should not be considered especially intelligent or of good character.