New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked!

[uscitizen]

I'll happily fight to the death to protect the right to free speech.

Because it's a fucking right.

Pornography is free speech.

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

Interesting situation there. Giving ones life for something they do not condone?

 

[daveman]

Pornography is free speech.

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

Interesting situation there. Giving ones life for something they do not condone?

I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That includes the rights of people with whom I disagree

Why do you have a problem with that idea?

 

[Photonic]

I'll happily fight to the death to protect the right to free speech.

Because it's a fucking right.

Pornography is free speech.

Yes. It is.

 

[ladyliberal]

Figured LadyLib would muscle in here and straighten us out..

I am not responsible for the emotional stability of posters on this board. Obviously, if it were required of me to evaluate possible mental harm to a particular poster, I'm not capable or qualified to perform that task. So it's NOT MY FAULT if i type a couple
"STFU or I'll kick your ass(es)" and THEN find out that LadyLib is a mental patient on lapsed medication with a self-abuse complex...

Am I?

And please --- if you want me to be serious -- Don't be relying on UN Declarations for definitions anyway...

(Clue -- Article 29.3 of the UN Declaration of Human RIghts). If you're interested in my complete dismissal of that POS -- I'll post you a link..

Thank you for your interest in my post. I wasn't endorsing the UN view, I was merely pointing out that the report mentioned multiple contradictory views on free speech without (as many posters, including the original claimed) endorsing the one originally quoted.

And even if you were subject to New York law, and even if the proposed change had been made and even if I was under 21 and even if your suggestion that I may have a "self-abuse complex" somehow caused me material harm and even if someone wanted to prosecute you for that you still wouldn't be guilty of that misdemeanor unless it could be proven that you could reasonably predicted that such an outcome was likely.

Again, I'm not endorsing the proposed legislation. I merely find your characterization of it inaccurate.

 

[Si modo]

Pornography is free speech.

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

Interesting situation there. Giving ones life for something they do not condone?

For many, the integrity of the Constitution is far more important than an opinion.

 

[westwall]

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

Interesting situation there. Giving ones life for something they do not condone?

I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That includes the rights of people with whom I disagree

Why do you have a problem with that idea?

And that's something that leftists can't or won't understand. The Constitution is inviolable. It is the document that has allowed this country to do more in less time then any nation before it and, based on the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it, likely will never be seen again.

 

[flacaltenn]

Figured LadyLib would muscle in here and straighten us out..

I am not responsible for the emotional stability of posters on this board. Obviously, if it were required of me to evaluate possible mental harm to a particular poster, I'm not capable or qualified to perform that task. So it's NOT MY FAULT if i type a couple
"STFU or I'll kick your ass(es)" and THEN find out that LadyLib is a mental patient on lapsed medication with a self-abuse complex...

Am I?

And please --- if you want me to be serious -- Don't be relying on UN Declarations for definitions anyway...

(Clue -- Article 29.3 of the UN Declaration of Human RIghts). If you're interested in my complete dismissal of that POS -- I'll post you a link..

Thank you for your interest in my post. I wasn't endorsing the UN view, I was merely pointing out that the report mentioned multiple contradictory views on free speech without (as many posters, including the original claimed) endorsing the one originally quoted.

And even if you were subject to New York law, and even if the proposed change had been made and even if I was under 21 and even if your suggestion that I may have a "self-abuse complex" somehow caused me material harm and even if someone wanted to prosecute you for that you still wouldn't be guilty of that misdemeanor unless it could be proven that you could reasonably predicted that such an outcome was likely.

Again, I'm not endorsing the proposed legislation. I merely find your characterization of it inaccurate.

Dam -- you're mostly reasonable.. OK so if I can't divine how far I can push YOUR mental state -- what makes you believe we should attempt to believe that adolescents can do that? In an attempt to child-proof free speech, they now require hormone - adled basketcases to divine mental state.

By your last line --- I presume all the defense would have to do is show that the victim was less stable than "normal" or had hidden issues. THAT makes for great court scenes - don't it? Kinda like "Let's ruin your life Officially in Court" -- instead of on FaceBook.

I just watched the last 10 minutes of the typical teenage angst movie.. Must be THOUSANDS of them.. And it occured to me that "bullying" is a real Hollywood staple. Sometimes even teenage "revenge bullying" is the THEME and the highest glory of the script.. Are we gonna outlaw that as well???

 

[flacaltenn]

I like this comment left on the blog linked in the OP...

What if I found this bill so offensive that I committed suicide? I hope these NY senators enjoy their a Class C felony!

 

[FactFinder]

New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked!

Gave way too much importance to them for way too long. They are but a tiny speck on the US. F' New York! Go Tigers!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As noted, and as with other rights, free speech is not absolute. It is possible, for example, for the ‘cyber bullying’ to be construed as obscene – the Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and it was never the intent of the Framers to make it such. Note also that obscenity is not necessarily pornography, as acts of excessive violence can be considered obscene. Indeed, in Roth v. United States (1957), the Court ruled that obscenity “was outside the protection intended for speech and press” and could be subject to preemption to advance “the social interest in order and morality.”

In Miller v. California (1973), the Court developed a test to determine if a given act of expression was indeed obscene:

[It must be determined] “(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It is conceivable, therefore, that such postings could run afoul of the Miller Test and be appropriately subject to restriction.

Needless to say each incident of ‘bullying’ should be subject to examination on a case by case basis to determine if the state’s effort to preempt such speech is Constitutional.

Also as noted defamation is not protected speech – in this case libel as all examples are written.

Again, I'm not endorsing the proposed legislation. I merely find your characterization of it inaccurate.

I don’t believe anyone’s endorsing the proposed legislation, it’s clearly wrongheaded. But so is the notion that one may ‘cyber bully’ with impunity, as he may be subject to a civil suit for libel and the state may indeed restrict or preempt speech found Constitutionally subject to such action.

And that's something that leftists can't or won't understand. The Constitution is inviolable. It is the document that has allowed this country to do more in less time then any nation before it and, based on the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it, likely will never be seen again.

This sort of nonsensical hyperbole is inaccurate and hardly helpful; if by ‘leftists’ you’re referring to liberals/progressives, their reputation as defenders of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular is beyond reproach. The Warren Court did more in 20 years to advance and protect the rights of Americans than any other political or judicial entity the 150 years prior.

And as for ‘the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it,’ there are sadly ample examples of such efforts by both right and left.

 

[ladyliberal]

Figured LadyLib would muscle in here and straighten us out..

I am not responsible for the emotional stability of posters on this board. Obviously, if it were required of me to evaluate possible mental harm to a particular poster, I'm not capable or qualified to perform that task. So it's NOT MY FAULT if i type a couple
"STFU or I'll kick your ass(es)" and THEN find out that LadyLib is a mental patient on lapsed medication with a self-abuse complex...

Am I?

And please --- if you want me to be serious -- Don't be relying on UN Declarations for definitions anyway...

(Clue -- Article 29.3 of the UN Declaration of Human RIghts). If you're interested in my complete dismissal of that POS -- I'll post you a link..

Thank you for your interest in my post. I wasn't endorsing the UN view, I was merely pointing out that the report mentioned multiple contradictory views on free speech without (as many posters, including the original claimed) endorsing the one originally quoted.

And even if you were subject to New York law, and even if the proposed change had been made and even if I was under 21 and even if your suggestion that I may have a "self-abuse complex" somehow caused me material harm and even if someone wanted to prosecute you for that you still wouldn't be guilty of that misdemeanor unless it could be proven that you could reasonably predicted that such an outcome was likely.

Again, I'm not endorsing the proposed legislation. I merely find your characterization of it inaccurate.

Dam -- you're mostly reasonable.. OK so if I can't divine how far I can push YOUR mental state -- what makes you believe we should attempt to believe that adolescents can do that? In an attempt to child-proof free speech, they now require hormone - adled basketcases to divine mental state.

By your last line --- I presume all the defense would have to do is show that the victim was less stable than "normal" or had hidden issues. THAT makes for great court scenes - don't it? Kinda like "Let's ruin your life Officially in Court" -- instead of on FaceBook.

I just watched the last 10 minutes of the typical teenage angst movie.. Must be THOUSANDS of them.. And it occured to me that "bullying" is a real Hollywood staple. Sometimes even teenage "revenge bullying" is the THEME and the highest glory of the script.. Are we gonna outlaw that as well???

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but...

The defense shouldn't have to prove that the defendant didn't know the victim was unstable-- the presumption of innocence should force the prosecution to prove that such could have been reasonably inferred.

It's true that adolescents are not as responsible as adults, so the law holds them to a lesser but finite responsibility. The New York stalking laws seem to distinguish among the degrees of stalking based on the defendants age, and of course kids aren't always tried as adults.

You're right that there are a lot of things to dislike about this proposed law (which, for all I know, has no chance of passing). I think my main objection would be that it would give prosecutors too much power. They'd naturally ignore most "cyber-bullying" but they could use the threat of prosecution to really scare some kids. I don't like laws that have the potential to be so selectively applied.

 

[FactFinder]

As noted, and as with other rights, free speech is not absolute. It is possible, for example, for the ‘cyber bullying’ to be construed as obscene – the Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and it was never the intent of the Framers to make it such. Note also that obscenity is not necessarily pornography, as acts of excessive violence can be considered obscene. Indeed, in Roth v. United States (1957), the Court ruled that obscenity “was outside the protection intended for speech and press” and could be subject to preemption to advance “the social interest in order and morality.”

In Miller v. California (1973), the Court developed a test to determine if a given act of expression was indeed obscene:

[It must be determined] “(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It is conceivable, therefore, that such postings could run afoul of the Miller Test and be appropriately subject to restriction.

Needless to say each incident of ‘bullying’ should be subject to examination on a case by case basis to determine if the state’s effort to preempt such speech is Constitutional.

Also as noted defamation is not protected speech – in this case libel as all examples are written.

Again, I'm not endorsing the proposed legislation. I merely find your characterization of it inaccurate.

I don’t believe anyone’s endorsing the proposed legislation, it’s clearly wrongheaded. But so is the notion that one may ‘cyber bully’ with impunity, as he may be subject to a civil suit for libel and the state may indeed restrict or preempt speech found Constitutionally subject to such action.

And that's something that leftists can't or won't understand. The Constitution is inviolable. It is the document that has allowed this country to do more in less time then any nation before it and, based on the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it, likely will never be seen again.

This sort of nonsensical hyperbole is inaccurate and hardly helpful; if by ‘leftists’ you’re referring to liberals/progressives, their reputation as defenders of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular is beyond reproach. The Warren Court did more in 20 years to advance and protect the rights of Americans than any other political or judicial entity the 150 years prior.

And as for ‘the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it,’ there are sadly ample examples of such efforts by both right and left.

appeals to the prurient interest;
What a curious statement! And who defines what the "prurient intesrest" is? Is that the back door for a passing power to shut the mouth of someone they deem to somehow be subservient to themselves? Who grants them the power to be the judge? Do we want such judges? I think not. Wall Street may have bought them and they are only looking out for a narrow self interest. They word as if it is for the good of all but who is really being protected here?

 

[Charles_Main]

LOL, Keep voting DEMOCRAT folks, you want all YOUR RIGHTS taken away..

Now try and deny the Democrat party hasn't become the Communist party of the United States..

Whoa...........you got us with that one! I'm pretty sure nobody has any desire to "try and deny" that completely unsubstantiated negative.

BTW, the correct term is Democratic party. Did you know that?

completely unsubstantiated negative

Really completely unsubstantiated?

What part of

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

In short, the report claims that the First Amendment should be treated as a government-granted privilege, not a fundamental right.

did you not grasp.

 

[FactFinder]

As noted, and as with other rights, free speech is not absolute. It is possible, for example, for the ‘cyber bullying’ to be construed as obscene – the Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and it was never the intent of the Framers to make it such. Note also that obscenity is not necessarily pornography, as acts of excessive violence can be considered obscene. Indeed, in Roth v. United States (1957), the Court ruled that obscenity “was outside the protection intended for speech and press” and could be subject to preemption to advance “the social interest in order and morality.”

In Miller v. California (1973), the Court developed a test to determine if a given act of expression was indeed obscene:

[It must be determined] “(a) whether the “average person applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It is conceivable, therefore, that such postings could run afoul of the Miller Test and be appropriately subject to restriction.

Needless to say each incident of ‘bullying’ should be subject to examination on a case by case basis to determine if the state’s effort to preempt such speech is Constitutional.

Also as noted defamation is not protected speech – in this case libel as all examples are written.



I don’t believe anyone’s endorsing the proposed legislation, it’s clearly wrongheaded. But so is the notion that one may ‘cyber bully’ with impunity, as he may be subject to a civil suit for libel and the state may indeed restrict or preempt speech found Constitutionally subject to such action.

And that's something that leftists can't or won't understand. The Constitution is inviolable. It is the document that has allowed this country to do more in less time then any nation before it and, based on the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it, likely will never be seen again.

This sort of nonsensical hyperbole is inaccurate and hardly helpful; if by ‘leftists’ you’re referring to liberals/progressives, their reputation as defenders of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular is beyond reproach. The Warren Court did more in 20 years to advance and protect the rights of Americans than any other political or judicial entity the 150 years prior.

And as for ‘the multiple attempts to subvert and destroy it,’ there are sadly ample examples of such efforts by both right and left.

appeals to the prurient interest;
What a curious statement! And who defines what the "prurient intesrest" is? Is that the back door for a passing power to shut the mouth of someone they deem to somehow be subservient to themselves? Who grants them the power to be the judge? Do we want such judges? I think not. Wall Street may have bought them and they are only looking out for a narrow self interest. They word as if it is for the good of all but who is really being protected here?

Oh, and what is 'Cyber bully'? Does that mean that I haven't a clue on how to stand up for myself and I need some legislative bull crap to protect me? Protect me from what? Words on a page? Oh jeez, those words are gonna hunt me down and hurt me!

Oh please, just what we need. More legislation about meaningless stuff. I am fine. They pick on me. I pick back. It all washes out in the end.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For christ sake, if you're "cyber bullied" - change your screen name, stop posting, get out of the web site. if it's Facebook, cancel the account, fix it so noone can see what you post. I don't need the government to do that for me. use common sense!

That woudl be too easy. It would demand the individual took action on his own for his own welfare. We can't have that. Who knows where that kind of independence could lead? We need Big Government to craft a global solution to the scourge of cyber-bullying. For the children.

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

It will come from the far right, screaming 'freedom' while the few torture the many.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The People's Democratic Republic of Amerika?

The Union of Soviet States of Amerika?

OH! Ha Ha Ha! That's Really, Really Clever!

Hey, dumbass, if you don't like being called a communist, quit acting like one. Moron.

Then quit acting like af fascist trying to shut off free speech.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People here seem to be almost universally condemning the phrase in the report:

PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS
FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL
ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED
IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.

I certainly agree that free speech is a "right" and not a "privilege" as we understand the terms. However, the report never claims otherwise. The report attributes this view to unnamed persons (IE, the proponents). It is in that sense that many of the posters in this thread, and the articles they cite, mischaracterize the report. They characterize a view that is described by the report as one that is held by the authors of the report. They also give equal weight to the conflicting view

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The distinction is important, because the report does make endorsements, not only of viewpoints, but of new laws. In particular the authors propose:

CYBERBULLYING: §120.50 STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE (A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE
INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF
CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD .

I'm not an expert on New York law, but the author's contention seems to be that this has the primary effect of extending laws that protect against stalking via older forms of communication (in person, over the phone, etc.) to electronic communications. That is hardly a major shift.

I'm not entirely sure that the I like the report, but it is not how it is being characterized.

Y'all can be as philosophical as you like. Endlessly battering with your chatter, but free speech is a matter of the soul. Try shuttin' me up! It is not your decision. You have no greater rights than myself or anyone.

If you work for me and pull that nonsense, kid, your butt will outside the building on the sidewalk immediately.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but...

The defense shouldn't have to prove that the defendant didn't know the victim was unstable-- the presumption of innocence should force the prosecution to prove that such could have been reasonably inferred.

It's true that adolescents are not as responsible as adults, so the law holds them to a lesser but finite responsibility. The New York stalking laws seem to distinguish among the degrees of stalking based on the defendants age, and of course kids aren't always tried as adults.

You're right that there are a lot of things to dislike about this proposed law (which, for all I know, has no chance of passing). I think my main objection would be that it would give prosecutors too much power. They'd naturally ignore most "cyber-bullying" but they could use the threat of prosecution to really scare some kids. I don't like laws that have the potential to be so selectively applied.

There's nothing good about this law. it's a violation of the first amendment. Why should anyone be barred from saying on the internet what would be perfectly legal to say in person? Slander and libel are the only exceptions to the First Amendment, and I don't even believe those should be exceptions.

 

[bripat9643]

It will come from the far right, screaming 'freedom' while the few torture the many.

What a surprise that the RINO would come out against the First Amendment.

NOT!

 

[JakeStarkey]

And bripat succinctly demonstrates why his overtheboardness is laughable.