[Noisebridge-discuss] Free Speech

[Eric W. Rasmussen]

Thank you, Rachel.

On 12.05.2013 21:00, Rachel McConnell wrote:
> Censorship is when an entity with power suppresses speech by someone 
> under its authority (usually legal but not necessarily).  When someone 
> with equal power in a context - such as on a mailing list - asks, 
> tells, requests, demands, etc that someone else not say something, 
> this is not censorship.  It's another, equivalent, speech.
>
> "Free speech" is the idea that the *government* should not censor its 
> citizens, and has a responsibility to protect them from censorship by 
> certain kinds of non-governmental authority, such as one's employer.
>
> It's silly to claim censorship by another nb-discuss member.  It's not 
> censorship, or even a failed censorship attempt, to ask someone else 
> to modify their speech.  Free speech does not mean that people can't 
> ask you to shut up, or otherwise react badly to what you say - it 
> means you can say it anyway despite their objections.
>
> Clear?
> Rachel1.0
>
> On 5/12/13 8:15 PM, Eric W. Rasmussen wrote:
>> Very Great. Thanks Johny
>>
>>
>> On 12.05.2013 20:10, Johny Radio wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2013 12:41 PM, LinkReincarnate wrote:
>>>> That is a straw man.  None of what he said was homophobic or racist.
>>>> Even if it was I would defend his right to say it.
>>> --It's not a straw man, it's a real scenario (i've heard racist and
>>> anti-semitic remarks at NB, and i spoke up).
>>>
>>> --You might defend someone's right to post homophobic or racist
>>> speech, but i'm pretty sure such list-posts would get shut down and
>>> quick, by a broad and loud NB consensus. And the person likely booted
>>> from NB.
>>>
>>>> In america the only limit we have on free speech is when you use it
>>>> to directly cause bodily harm to others (yelling fire in a crowded
>>>> theater)  Everything else must be protected (including speech you
>>>> find abhorrent like racism, homophobia, or sexism)
>>> --But Link, i'm just talking about noisebridge. You're discussing
>>> america.
>>>
>>> --In any case, I believe there are a few types of illegal speech in
>>> the USA:
>>>
>>>   * Defamation
>>>   * "The lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting
>>>     or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict
>>>     injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
>>>   * Seditious speech (if accompanied by imminent threat)
>>>   * Shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater
>>>   * Threatening terrorism against the United States
>>>   * Threatening government officials of the United States. Threatening
>>>     the President of the United States or other officials are Class D
>>>     felonies. When national boundaries are transcended, it is
>>>     considered a terrorist threat. When a threat is made against a
>>>     judge, it can be considered obstruction of justice. Threatening
>>>     federal officials' family members is a federal crime.
>>>       o There are three elements that make a threat illegal: (i) there
>>>         must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must
>>>         be a communication containing the threat;(iii) the threat must
>>>         be a threat to injure the person of another;(iv) and a
>>>         reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a
>>>         threat.
>>>   * "Utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite
>>>     crime, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of
>>>     organized government and threaten its overthrow."
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the_United_States 
>>>
>>>
>>>> The proper response is not to try to censor people who don't agree
>>>> with you, it is to use your own free speech to counter theirs.
>>> --In general, Link, I agree with you, in and out of Noisebridge. But I
>>> also believe in Community Standards (made by the Community). At NB,
>>> community standards are not necessarily written; they are generally
>>> determined and enforced by individuals, on-the-fly, without any
>>> consistent, defined framework. That's by design.
>>>
>>>> Free speech is it's own check and balance.
>>> --I'm not sure if history agrees with you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss