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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
Now get off my lawn...
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
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