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."

Comments

I am offended

[Anonymous Coward]

by this attempt, and expect restitution for their callous behavior and pissing on the Bill of Rights.

Re:I am offended

[bonch]

I knew they were Democrats when their political affiliation wasn't mentioned in the headline. Seriously, it's a strange trend you'll begin to notice if you follow the news--when Democrat politicians do something unpopular, political affiliation is often left unmentioned.

Re:I am offended

[TheBrutalTruth]

Horseshit. They are POLITICIANS, you troglodyte. Call 'em what you want - they all do the same bullshit.

Now get off my lawn...

Re:I am offended

[mosb1000]

Maybe free speech is a collective right, not an individual one.

Re:I am offended

[Grishnakh]

This is because Americans are so stupidly caught up in this two-party mentality, they think politics is like a stupid sports game, with two sides, one winner and one loser. So if you say anything against one "side", then you must automatically be rooting for the other "side". I see it all the time on these discussion forums. Say anything critical about Obama (who's been a great Republican president so far), and someone will call you a "teabagger" or Republican or similar. Say anything critical about the current Republican politicians and someone will call you a liberal or Democrat or similar. And even if you're posting under the same moniker, no one ever seems to notice when you're bashing both sides, and just can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that someone might favor neither "side".

Re:Welcome to Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Land of the Free Home of the Brave - NOT

[jo42]

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.

Bullshit

[cappp]

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!!!!!

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Reading the primary source is cheating, you're supposed to be outraged, not curious.

Re:Bullshit

[Registered Coward v2]

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

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!!!!!

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.

Re:Bullshit

[eparker05]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[Kreigaffe]

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!

Re:Bullshit

[Endo13]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[RazzleFrog]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[EvanED]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Re:Bullshit

[Jason Levine]

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.

Re:why dont you beat them up ?

[Grave]

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.

Both parties hate you and the Bill of Rights

[Sarusa]

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.

More readable copy from NY Senate website

[milbournosphere]

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

Ending Democracy

[Jodka]

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.

Re:Welcome to Canada?

[chispito]

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.

Re:Ass-backwards "solution"

[vux984]

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.