What does it Mean to Speak Freely?
As I have been reading over my own blog these past few days, as well as some comments from people via email, the issue has surfaced regarding free speech especially as it pertains to the blog world.
First of all, let me preface this by saying that freedom of speech, according to the First Amendment is not absolute. Some types of speech are restricted and not protected by the first amendment. For example, fighting words or acts that are libel to incite violence are considered unprotected speech.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Champlinsky v. New Hampshire held that a police offer who was called a "God damned racketeer' and a 'damned fascist' held that this speech was not protected under the First Amendment. The Court held that there this speech was in the category of a face-to-face epithets, or 'fighting words' that are wholly outside the protection of the first amendment. In other words, 'words, by their very utterances designed to inflict injury' and are not an essential liberty of any exposition of ideas are construed as non-protected speech.
Moreover, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell decided a year later, the Court held that sentences which resulted in racially-motivate assaults were not protected by the First Amendment. In 2003 the Court in Virginia v. Black held that cross-burning was not protected speech because it has a history of particularly virulent form of intimidation and is outside protection from the First Amendment.
It seems as if many here in blog world, some people have confused freedom of speech with the ability to say what is freely on one's mind. This is simply not the case, and some speech is regulated as you can see. Some posts have resulted in name calling, and assaults on the character of others, or have been designed to go beyond the expression of opinions and have been virulent in the form of intimidation. Just as our Constitution does not protect these types of speech, I am going to prohibit them from appearing on my blog as well, and deem them to be unprotected forms of expression.
I love and respect our Constitution and see it as a true living document which regulates behavior, words and actions.
When posting, please ask whether what you have to say is in the form of fighting words, or designed to insult, provoke or instill racial hatred before you say it. If so, please refrain yourselves from posting on this blog if your comments are in this form. If all you have to say is in the form of inciting words or a face to face epithete, please do not say it here.
Thank you for your minds.
First of all, let me preface this by saying that freedom of speech, according to the First Amendment is not absolute. Some types of speech are restricted and not protected by the first amendment. For example, fighting words or acts that are libel to incite violence are considered unprotected speech.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Champlinsky v. New Hampshire held that a police offer who was called a "God damned racketeer' and a 'damned fascist' held that this speech was not protected under the First Amendment. The Court held that there this speech was in the category of a face-to-face epithets, or 'fighting words' that are wholly outside the protection of the first amendment. In other words, 'words, by their very utterances designed to inflict injury' and are not an essential liberty of any exposition of ideas are construed as non-protected speech.
Moreover, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell decided a year later, the Court held that sentences which resulted in racially-motivate assaults were not protected by the First Amendment. In 2003 the Court in Virginia v. Black held that cross-burning was not protected speech because it has a history of particularly virulent form of intimidation and is outside protection from the First Amendment.
It seems as if many here in blog world, some people have confused freedom of speech with the ability to say what is freely on one's mind. This is simply not the case, and some speech is regulated as you can see. Some posts have resulted in name calling, and assaults on the character of others, or have been designed to go beyond the expression of opinions and have been virulent in the form of intimidation. Just as our Constitution does not protect these types of speech, I am going to prohibit them from appearing on my blog as well, and deem them to be unprotected forms of expression.
I love and respect our Constitution and see it as a true living document which regulates behavior, words and actions.
When posting, please ask whether what you have to say is in the form of fighting words, or designed to insult, provoke or instill racial hatred before you say it. If so, please refrain yourselves from posting on this blog if your comments are in this form. If all you have to say is in the form of inciting words or a face to face epithete, please do not say it here.
Thank you for your minds.
15 Comments:
Good question, NJ (Aaron)
Yes I will. Since I know these cases very well, I will, and love and respect our Constitution, I will apply the standards set forth in them and if posts fit into these categories, I will delete them.
c'mon mates. It's fair enough to respect views and prevent offensive language no matter who, where or when... The point is clearly made.
Doug,
Please read these cases. I can supply you with the citations if you like.
Disagreement is disguinable from the ability to speech freely and have that speech protected by the First Amendment. Am I to conclude from your post that you do not respect the First Amendment? Is it in fact your position that you can say whatever you want, to whomever you want, no matter what? If so, you are confusing freedom of expression with non-protected speech.
Although you are not a lawyer, I do know that you are educated, and thought that you had some respect for freedom of speech, but as you can see, it is not defined as the ability to speak absoulutely and there are some restrictions applied. And yes, it does apply to all types of interactions.
Frankly, Doug, I am rather suprised and disappointed by your response. This is just my observation as I have been reading your over your blog, as well as comments on mine, and would have thought, from what you have to say about freedom of speech, that you understood what it means as defined by the First Amendment.
what does it mean to speak freely? i'm not entirely sure. in recent months i've learned that although i have a right to freely express my feelings -- people seem to have a right to miscontrue them or criticize them. i find people do this without any questioning as to the meaning. i've also learned to talk less in social situations -- whereas i would start a conversation before, i now tend to be silent (more out of hurtful experiences). i'm not a person who would express opinions in a confrontational manner anyway, but i feel it is unappropriate for someone to do so on a blog -- especially if they have read yours and have come to "know" how you feel about it through your words.
People forget that freedom of speech mainly means that the government won't put you in jail for what you say (with a few exceptions, of course). There's NO guarantee to have your thoughts published in a privately controlled place, such as a blog! YOU have the right to delete any of our comments... and blogger.com has the right to delete any of our blogs... The government will leave us all alone, that's all! (Unless of course we make a threat against the President or something like that. That's not allowed.)
Elisa,
It seems as if we all, myself included, can learn a valuable lesson from your humble words.
Thank you so much for your post.
Aral,
You make excellent points regarding governmental regulation v. personal one. It seems as if I am being overly generous to allow that the First Amendment apply to comments on the blog.
As for anything said against our President...........
Excellent point, greg.
If I was arrested for my thoughts, I would be serving a life sentence in a federal penetentary by now!
One of my friends just send me a kind email with this comment, which was most kind. That even though it seems as if I am being mature and responsible, some people are responding in a very child like way, with why him and not me, or kick me out and not him.
Maturity comes with age, wisdom, and the ability to know when to say something and when to stay silent as well.
the reason i have not been on this site much lately is because i only like to come here if i *know* i will have sufficient time to read all the comments properly particularly if i am thinking of leaving a comment myself
i did read most of yesterday's posts and i do feel that doug was misconstrued on more than one occasion (for instance, i did not see him 'minimise the death of 6m jews' nor do i believe anything he wrote had the potential to incite hatred)
and i don't feel that doug and the way he has expressed himself is childish (sorry, barbara) - on the contrary, i feel he has explained his position very eloquently
his view is clearly the minority view in this context, and it takes backbone to be the lone voice of dissent, but his views deserve to be just as carefully read as anyone else's
barbara: clearly it is absolutely your perogative to remove any comments you are uncomfortable with - it's your blog after all! but what i've seen so far today and yesterday, there aren't any that fall into the category of having the potential to incite hatred etc.
Urban chick and blemmy,
Thank you both for your comments.
As you can see, I have deleted none of the posts, failing to fall into the standards that have been set forth by the First Amendment. Fair is fair, and by no means am I discouraging fair discourse among individuals. This is something I truly value.
A few of my readers have emailed me privatly voicing some objection to both the content of the posts and the shear numbers by these two guys, with the conclusion being, that the last couple of days they have practicularly taken over my blog with long and frequent comments. If you count the number of comments by these two gentleman, they are more than l/3rd of any for a given post.
To me, telling someone that he is not normal, and saying nothing else, is a statement that is in the form of a face to face ephitath.
Knowing that someone who comments on my blog and lives in Isarel is experiencing much personal pain at the moment, and nevertheless keeps asking over and over for this person to respond, and makes his opinions known, although he is not hateful, he is in some ways worse, being insensitive and wanting attention for the himself and that alone.
These frequent posts baiting people are mean spirited and insensitive. I have a faithful group of people who read this blog, and who are not happy with these comments. I have indicated, from day one, that although I encourage free discourse of ideas and information, to try and be sensitive and kind, and mostly, respectful. Coming here over and over, to keep posting, and then now flaming me on their own blog because they do not like what I have to say is someone who is mean spirited and disrespectful. Do you like people like that? I for one do not, and stay away from them in the real world, and in the internet world as well.
Again, we are what we say, and what we do.
Doug,
Please stop posting on my blog. Yes, you heard me, I do not want you to post here any longer. You are disrespectful and unkind.
Your posts number more than one third of each post and now you are telling me who I should delete and under what circumstances. You have your own blog, which you can post on, and use in whatever way you feel is appropriate.
It is not what you are saying, but that you are saying it with such frequency, baiting people, and want more and more attention.
This is my blog, not yours. If you want attention, please keep the me, myself and I holy trinity limited to your own space.
Remember that as the authors of our own blogs we have the right to delete any comments we find offensive. I don't like reading blogs where people use foul language or intentionally try to hurt other people. If you come to my blog and you do that you will get deleted.
pawlr,
To me quality is far above quantity, however, the number of posts from both you and doug have been excessive over the past couple of weeks. I know you want people to come over to your blog, but using my blog as a vechile for attention is not appropriate. Quite frankly, it has been annoying.
I will not speculate about your motives, but curiously, the two of you, who post one or two comments, per post, have been using over l/3rd of the comments just between you. That, to me, is excessive.
I know you want traffic on your blog. My blog is not about who comes her, but that those who do come to read and comment feel a sense of respect and sensitivity, even if there is disagreement. These qualities have been absent for the past several days, and they are also reflective in the post about Bush visiting the families.
My blog is not a place to advertise yourselves, thank you.
Barbara,
I did not know that about free speech v unprotected speech, so thanks.
I have a blog. I also have had another site with a message board.
I learned this well. It doesn't matter how fair you try to be, there are always gonna be those who have other ideas. Some of them argue minutia and tie up discussion. I figure anyone who does this and distracts from the original point is not interested in genuine dialogue.
So, I delete (rarely) or ban when I can (preferred method of choice), when things get too personal or are offensive to *me* or
in my estimation. I have quite enjoyed my role as a petty dictator :). You should try it some time. :).
What I'm saying is, that this is your blog. No matter what you do, there will be dissenters. I try to keep focused on the task at hand, and if others try to derail it I take action. Works for me!
I think it's important to know your goal in setting up a discussion and then to be consistent in enforcing its direction in a sensitive manner. Even so, people will trash you, your character, your blog. The internet, I have found, knows no sense of decency or proportion, and hence we have to rise up and draw the line, resoundingly.
Well done!
Barefoot,
Well said! The idea of becoming a petty dictator, as you say, is becoming seductive, I might add.
Thank you for your kind words.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home