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.
In Canada, we do not have free speech in absolute terms like our southern counterparts. The difference between us and what those senators are suggesting is that we have a Charter of Rights which protects us from any attempt of gov't approved censorship. It can be annoying at times, but it keeps the holocaust deniers at bay.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Those god damn Republicans continuing to erode our rights like this, first Bush and the Patriot Act and now . . . what? They're Democrats? Oh, well then, carry on.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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'm going to go out on a limb here and say they probably didn't campaign on an anti-Bill of Rights platform.
The quote given is taken completely out of context, infacT the report notes on the page previous that
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!!!!!
The standing precedent is that the First Amendment is really just a law against "prior restraint." In other words, the courts have decided that, the First Amendment just says the government can't stop you from speaking. However, they can punish you for your speech after you do it!
I think most normal people would find this interpretation of the First Amendment as ridiculous. But guess what? It is the precedent that our courts have upheld.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
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.
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.
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.
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
Senators Want To Make Free Speech A Privilege 52
Why does it not surprise me that the senators are all Democrats?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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.
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.
Right on! These people need to read some Locke, Paine or Bastiat!
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.
The correct solution is for adults to help kids learn how to deal with it, not find ways to make it illegal.
And when the adults are part of the problem? http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3882520&page=1 You could have just as easily said:
Being abused/raped/assulted etc... is a part of life. It's GOING to happen. It sucks, but that's how it is.
And it would have sounded just as stupid.
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.
Because what usually results from rules like this is the indirect results are more likely to be what people fall victim too. There will be a good chance of prosecutions versus people who did not know the audience was a protected age range and there will be ambushers using this law. Throw in adults hit with the law by protected age people claiming offense when none was directed towards the affected group, yet the affected group claims offense.
So your basically stating that certain age groups should feel its okay that government tells them when they make exercise their first amendment rights? Because that is a very wrong path to start going down. Hell, we have seen this age group recently expanded to 26 for health care considerations, do you truly expect that once one foot is in the door that you can close it?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
Christ. To get to the original source article, you have to click links through two different intermediate sites, one of which is the Volokh Conspiracy, which while always interesting is not exactly an unbiased source.
Remember kids, when you get your news from Slashdot, you're getting it fourth-hand. It's good to read the news, it protects your rights as a citizen. Kinda like a condom. But do you really want to protect yourself with a fourth-hand condom?
Anyway, on to the meat of the matter: the original article doesn't clearly come down on the side of the scare-quote that's being passed around. It says, IN ALL CAPS FOR GOD'S SAKE, that some people think free speech rights should never be limited, while others think a less extreme approach, with exceptions for grievous harm to others, is needed. Its tone does seem to suggest it favors the latter, which is disturbing, but as an "oh my God these guys want to burn the Constitution" freakout document, it lacks a little punch.
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.
Hey guys, look! There's a monkey jerking off in the corner which makes him more productive than either of you have been in this discussion!