Libs vs. Cons: Attempts to silence free speech

[Ragnar]

Some interesting cases to ponder. Shouting down an invited speaker or rushing their stage or assaulting them with pie (or other items) or various threats of physical violence etc. Free speech? Does it make a difference if it's on a public campus or a private campus?

(rather than post 10 links, here is one link to a page with the following links/video...)
Michelle Malkin “Greenwash Guerillas:” Brown U. enviro-nitwits throw pies at Thomas Friedman; Update: Video link added

Conservative campus speakers have long endured the threat of pie-throwing, shoe-wielding, salad dressing-tossing nutballs (see below). MSM types have barely batted an eye.

Now, enviro-nitwits have been caught throwing pies at NYTimes columnist and author Thomas Friedman because they disagreed with his approach to global warming.

Mob rule at Michigan State University
The mob wins at Columbia University
Mob rule at Georgetown U.; update: disruption called “minimal”
Mob rule at Columbia University
Liberal thuggery at Ball State U.
Unhinged pie-thrower update
When angry liberals attack
The Buchanan pie incident continued
Campus thuggery continues
The myth of liberal tolerance

Also see:
Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech - WSJ.com
Mob Rule on College Campuses - SFGate
Being Shouted Down - News - Students For Academic Freedom

 

[manifold]

I specifically intended to discuss actions taken that do not violate any actual 1st Amendment "rights" to freedom of speech. My bad for using the term "free speech" in the title, as it seems to be a little confusing.

What I'm talking about is attempts to suppress the voicing of opposing viewpoints. Not illegal or unconstitutional infringement, but still an effort to muzzle opposing views.

And trying to get the Tebow ad pulled definitely qualifies, as does the Dixie Chicks boycott.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Both are equally guilty at times. However only one side claims to be the "tolerant" side .

I would tend to agree, however the libs are running away with actual examples so far.

I'm surprised you didn't say christians say they are tolerant and they are conservative so both sides claim the tolerance....i so set it up for you but missed the wide open net...i may have to call you a Boston Bruin awwww

 

[QUENTIN]

None of the examples cited so far are an attempt to silence free speech. That phrase gets bandied about way too much and is at risk of losing its real meaning, which is a shame because free speech is arguably our most sacred right.

A boycott is not silencing free speech, it's exercising free speech to declare that you don't want to hear someone else's speech or don't agree with it. An attempt by a private group to get an ad pulled from a specific venue is not silencing free speech, it's exercising free speech to voice dissatisfaction with the message of someone else's speech. Condemning anyone (Beck, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Maddow, Hannity, Moore, Palin, Obama) for their speech is not silencing their free speech, but exercising free speech to criticize another's speech. Shouting while someone else gives a public or private address, even attempting to prevent their ability to be heard or give the speech is not silencing free speech but exercising free speech and acting on your desire that another's speech not be heard by a specific audience that the speaker intends. Liberals calling Sarah Palin an idiot, conservatives calling Obama a liar, people calling each other traitors because of what they say, these are all examples of exercising free speech to express dissension from the speech of someone else. Nothing more or less. Free speech is not speech free from criticism. These examples may not be polite, civil, or deserving of approval, but they're not silencing free speech.

The government jailing or killing someone because of what they've said, as the president just authorized the military to do in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki or as they did with the anarchists who merely organized or gave speeches at the Haymarket Riot, is silencing free speech. The government banning a book, literature, speaker, or opinion from being disseminated or uttered is silencing free speech. The government using intimidation tactics like surveillance, threats to the physical safety of a person or their family, misinformation campaigns to discredit or villify someone in the public eye, prevention of employment, harassment by agents, those are attempts to silence free speech but even they don't silence it. A law that says "it's illegal to state the following: ______" and enforcement of any such law silences free speech, anything less is just the clashing of different speech in the robust, often quarrelsome marketplace of ideas and it's an exaggeration that insults those who have actually had their speech silenced to pretend otherwise.

 

[QUENTIN]

I specifically intended to discuss actions taken that do not violate any actual 1st Amendment "rights" to freedom of speech. My bad for using the term "free speech" in the title, as it seems to be a little confusing.

What I'm talking about is attempts to suppress the voicing of opposing viewpoints. Not illegal or unconstitutional infringement, but still an effort to muzzle opposing views.

And trying to get the Tebow ad pulled definitely qualifies, as does the Dixie Chicks boycott.

Okay, that's an important distinction to make indeed, but even if we move past that acknowledged mistake...

How is a boycott, a decision by people to not actively purchase the products of another party, muzzling opposing views or in any way remotely wrong or improper?

Most liberals don't read Glenn Beck's books, most conservatives don't see Michael Moore movies, most people don't listen to Lyndon LaRouche. That's not silencing those individuals speech, it's exercising the right to not want to hear it. Free speech does not come with the obligation that others listen (or don't react if they don't like what they hear).

Organizing with people who share your views to not give money to someone whose views you disagree with is exercising free speech and basic choice, not silencing anyone else's.

 

[Ragnar]

Shouting while someone else gives a public or private address, even attempting to prevent their ability to be heard or give the speech is not silencing free speech but exercising free speech and acting on your desire that another's speech not be heard by a specific audience that the speaker intends. .

I would argue that this does not constitute free speech. Shouting down or preventing someone from being heard on private property goes too far. It would be the same as a mob overtaking a printing press of a private newspaper to control it's content and that is not free speech in any way we might interperate it. Invited speakers to a Public University however would be an interesting case to argue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'll offer up one for each side:

1. Libs: Failed attempt to browbeat CBS into pulling the Tebow ad.

2. Cons: Boycott of the Dixie Chicks.

Of course neither of these involve the 1st Amendment as there was no government infringement taking place. But they are both examples of politically motivated attempts to silence opposing views.

What else can you think of?

1 is pretty bad example. As all the people did was use their right to free speech to protest the playing of the add. But then again, I guess my #1 can fall into a similar situation. Now, if they forced CBS to remove it through sicking the fcc on them, that would probably fit.

Even 2 I think is pretty bad, as its not preventing anybody's rights or freedoms, all they are doing is displaying their freedom to not buy or see the Dixie Chicks> No denying freedoms there, as stupid as I thought it was.

That boycott backfired. There next album "Not Ready To Make Nice" was a smash hit. Boycotts sometimes often fail. But boycotts are often right. The attacks on Confederate flags as state symbols are completely legitimate.

 

[QUENTIN]

Shouting while someone else gives a public or private address, even attempting to prevent their ability to be heard or give the speech is not silencing free speech but exercising free speech and acting on your desire that another's speech not be heard by a specific audience that the speaker intends. .

I would argue that this does not constitute free speech. Shouting down or preventing someone from being heard on private property goes too far. It would be the same as a mob overtaking a printing press of a private newspaper to control it's content and that is not free speech in any way we might interperate it. Invited speakers to a Public University however would be an interesting case to argue.

Shouting, including shouting down someone else, is free speech. Private wise, I meant for instance a speech at a private university shouted down by students or other attendees, or a speech at a private organization's gathering shouted down by members of an opposing faction of the organization, or any number of scenarios that aren't strictly public (open to the public or on public grounds).

I didn't mean trespassing or breaking in to a private place in order to do the same, which is a different case but for different reasons. There it's not the speech that's the problem, but the other actions necessary to exercise it in that environment. If all they did was shout it's still not analogous to physically taking over a printing press, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be illegal or improper.

I don't see how an invited speaker on a public campus isn't an easy and obvious issue. They have the right to speak, others have the right to boycott or shout them down. I don't suggest that's a good course of action to take, but in terms of free speech it's pretty simple.

 

[Darkwind]

I specifically intended to discuss actions taken that do not violate any actual 1st Amendment "rights" to freedom of speech. My bad for using the term "free speech" in the title, as it seems to be a little confusing.

What I'm talking about is attempts to suppress the voicing of opposing viewpoints. Not illegal or unconstitutional infringement, but still an effort to muzzle opposing views.

And trying to get the Tebow ad pulled definitely qualifies, as does the Dixie Chicks boycott.

Okay, that's an important distinction to make indeed, but even if we move past that acknowledged mistake...

How is a boycott, a decision by people to not actively purchase the products of another party, muzzling opposing views or in any way remotely wrong or improper?

Most liberals don't read Glenn Beck's books, most conservatives don't see Michael Moore movies, most people don't listen to Lyndon LaRouche. That's not silencing those individuals speech, it's exercising the right to not want to hear it. Free speech does not come with the obligation that others listen (or don't react if they don't like what they hear).

Organizing with people who share your views to not give money to someone whose views you disagree with is exercising free speech and basic choice, not silencing anyone else's.

Very good. You have the right to say what you want. You do NOT have the right to be heard.

 

[QUENTIN]

Very good. You have the right to say what you want. You do NOT have the right to be heard.

Exactly. And frankly anyone who argues that their free speech was infringed or silenced because they were criticized for what they said or people have organized to encourage others not to listen to them is just whining like a biggity bitch and has no real concept of what free speech is.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So, I'll go back to the OP.

Here's an example of what the OP was looking for(I think.):

O'Reilly's boycott of Ludacris and Pepsi. Michelle Bachmann's boycott of Dunkin Donuts and Rachel Ray(jihadist chic!).

 

[kwc57]

I'll offer up one for each side:

1. Libs: Failed attempt to browbeat CBS into pulling the Tebow ad.

2. Cons: Boycott of the Dixie Chicks.

Of course neither of these involve the 1st Amendment as there was no government infringement taking place. But they are both examples of politically motivated attempts to silence opposing views.

What else can you think of?

The list of companies, actors, singers, artists, countries, etc. that O'Reilly has asked people to boycott over the years is too vast to compile. But then, he will tell you that he has the top rated show on cable and he has influence and can make things happen and after all.........he's looking out for you because no one else will.

 

[manifold]

How is a boycott, a decision by people to not actively purchase the products of another party, muzzling opposing views or in any way remotely wrong or improper?
...

Organizing with people who share your views to not give money to someone whose views you disagree with is exercising free speech and basic choice, not silencing anyone else's.

I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong or improper with it, but when somebody pays a financial price for expressing their opinion, they (and others) will think twice before doing so again. And if you don't think it stifles the free flow of ideas and opinions you're fooling yourself.

 

[edthecynic]

Liberals constantly try to silence Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. The Color of Change boycotted Beck over the Van Jones thing. That worked out real well....... for Beck.

CON$ervaTards always claim people are trying to silence them, but it's always the GOP who actually do it!

Remember how Nixon got the "Liberal" CBS to kick the very successful Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour off the air and the Bros blackballed from TV. They used to crucify LBJ over the Vietnam War but he never banned them, but they quickly made Nixon's "Enemies List" after they went after him once he was elected.

And Nixon's silencing discent was not limited to national figures. Luke O'Riley, the program director for Philadelphia progressive rock station WMMR, was deported in a very underhanded way by Nixon. O'Riley was from England and Nixon blocked the renewal of his work visa.

 

[Ragnar]

Shouting while someone else gives a public or private address, even attempting to prevent their ability to be heard or give the speech is not silencing free speech but exercising free speech and acting on your desire that another's speech not be heard by a specific audience that the speaker intends. .

I would argue that this does not constitute free speech. Shouting down or preventing someone from being heard on private property goes too far. It would be the same as a mob overtaking a printing press of a private newspaper to control it's content and that is not free speech in any way we might interperate it. Invited speakers to a Public University however would be an interesting case to argue.

Shouting, including shouting down someone else, is free speech. Private wise, I meant for instance a speech at a private university shouted down by students or other attendees, or a speech at a private organization's gathering shouted down by members of an opposing faction of the organization, or any number of scenarios that aren't strictly public (open to the public or on public grounds).

If a private university/organization invites a guest and provides the forum then that is the speech that requires protection. The audience, be it students or members of the club can be legaly removed for attempting to shout down and thereby shut down the opposing view. It's not the same as a streetcorner soapbox where anyone can shout anything they want.

I didn't mean trespassing or breaking in to a private place in order to do the same, which is a different case but for different reasons. There it's not the speech that's the problem, but the other actions necessary to exercise it in that environment. If all they did was shout it's still not analogous to physically taking over a printing press, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be illegal or improper.

I'm just contending that invited guest, onto private property can become trespassers by violating the rules set forth by the owner. The same as if some guest to my superbowl party were shouting down the game... his ass goes to the curb for his speech and yet no violation of his rights has occured.

I don't see how an invited speaker on a public campus isn't an easy and obvious issue. They have the right to speak, others have the right to boycott or shout them down. I don't suggest that's a good course of action to take, but in terms of free speech it's pretty simple.

Well the right to boycott is obvious as well as the right to stand outside and oppose his views with shouts, fliers and counter speakers in another campus setting. I don't think it's quite so simple to say any student can go to the event and scream their heads off with the intent that the guest not be heard. The setting is a "public" university but who paid for the speaker? With whos money? Was the venue rented out and therefore paid for by some university club? In some cases one may indeed have a so called "right to be heard" at least to the extent that one has that right in a private setting.

As to which side is worse and/or a bigger threat to free speech? I don't know, niether deserves to carry that torch of freedom for sure. I don't think anyone's gotten the issue right except the founding fathers, lol.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Another one for the Libs: Attempts to marginalize the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party marginalises itself, it doesn't need any help from the left. The RNC has done likewise. They have so many really bright true Conservatives, and they just cannot seem to get away from scraping the bottom of the barrel. It is very sad really. They used to be such straightforward trustworthy types. Not at all like when I was a kid!

On the other hand there was that business about righties going to town halls and shouting down the speakers.


As for stopping free speech, I think anyone can say what they like, and then I can call them out on it if I don't like it.

On this board it is far and away the right that starts it, usually the ones who go off with the name calling first, then play the victim over it.....

I originally came to other message boards trying to be nice and all that, the third time I got called a name by some rude cracker the fight was ON and it's a no quarter no prisoners action from then on. Which is ok, because I know if any of that lot liked me I'd have morphed into something really ugly...

 

[JakeStarkey]

How is a boycott, a decision by people to not actively purchase the products of another party, muzzling opposing views or in any way remotely wrong or improper?
...

Organizing with people who share your views to not give money to someone whose views you disagree with is exercising free speech and basic choice, not silencing anyone else's.

I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong or improper with it, but when somebody pays a financial price for expressing their opinion, they (and others) will think twice before doing so again. And if you don't think it stifles the free flow of ideas and opinions you're fooling yourself.

My reaction is "so what?" Free speech is protected from government interference, not from the legal actions of one interest group on another. Why should they? We have neg and pos rep here, and to extent that governs some peoples' behavior here. Others laugh at it and drive on.

 

[Intense]

So which side of the aisle do you think is more guilty of trying to silence opposing views, whether via legislation, boycotts, marginalization or other methods?

I'm sure everyone has an opinion about this, but what I really want is to construct a list of examples that we can then compare, side to side, to determine which side is really the greater enemy of free speech.

Go.

I don't think it is either side of the isle generally, but the Federalist's V.S. the Statist's. Each side has It's culprit's and manipulator's. The Left leaning more to Government Control is more in danger of crating a Totalitarian State, where Witness through Free Speech is lost through mandate.
The Right, makes Witness Through Free Speech vulnerable more by protecting Big Business fault's and sin's, putting selfish interest and silent partnership above the general health and welfare of the People of the Society. Hamilton was wrong to tie Government to banking and Business the way He did. Our impartial Referee has too many players and wagers in favor of the other team, to give a rat's ass about fair and impartial justice. That interest sits on both sides of the aisle.

P.S. O'Reilly is not a Conservative. Nor is He impartial. He is a control freak and a bully. Image over content every time. Blame it on His Long Island upbringing.

 

[uptownlivin90]

On both sides if you want to talk about "silencing opposition" from a first amendment standpoint I think it's the christian right and the "politically correct" liberals that are probably more likely to try to use the government to silence the opposition. This cuts deeper then left and right. It's like with the recent corporations using their money help fund campaigns issue, it's not the government's job to protect Americans from speech, it's the American's job to do so. Bringing me to my next point...

for people boycotting, personally I'd have to question whether or not this is an attempt to "silence opposition". If there is a media pundit or group that is actively promoting hate towards me or anybody and I find out who exactly is backing them I have every right to refrain from doing business with the people who are backing them. Funding your enemies with your own hard earned money is a stupid thing to do. Just saying. It's one thing to have the government force you not to say something, but if your using my money and I don't like what you said, f-you.

 

[manifold]

How is a boycott, a decision by people to not actively purchase the products of another party, muzzling opposing views or in any way remotely wrong or improper?
...

Organizing with people who share your views to not give money to someone whose views you disagree with is exercising free speech and basic choice, not silencing anyone else's.

I'm not saying there is anything necessarily wrong or improper with it, but when somebody pays a financial price for expressing their opinion, they (and others) will think twice before doing so again. And if you don't think it stifles the free flow of ideas and opinions you're fooling yourself.

My reaction is "so what?" Free speech is protected from government interference, not from the legal actions of one interest group on another. Why should they? We have neg and pos rep here, and to extent that governs some peoples' behavior here. Others laugh at it and drive on.

I agree. The question is purely academic. But at the same time, when a group goes to great lengths to suppress the expression of ideas contrary to their own, it does speak to the insecurity they harbor regarding the ability of their own views to stand on their own merits.