Too tired to write a full post (I went upside down again in pole dancing class tonight!), so I’m just going to quote myself, from comments on the previous thread:
What I’d like to to write about in my next post is the cry of “censorship!!” and “free speech!!” that, predictably, always goes up whenever these assholes are called on their behavior. It amazes me that so many people are, apparently, ignorant of the fact (or, more probably, just don’t care) that ‘free speech’ refers ONLY to government. As in, the government cannot persecute you for expressing your views. Free speech does NOT mean you’re allowed to have verbal diarrhea anywhere, any time, with no consequences whatsoever.WRT blogs? The ‘delete’ and ‘ban’ commands are there for a reason. I use this analogy often, but it remains accurate: if someone comes over to my house and shits on the living room floor, they will be unceremoniously kicked out, and don’t let the door hit ‘em on the way out. They can stand in the yard screaming their head off, but nobody’s going to believe they’re being persecuted. In fact, the cops will be called and they’ll be escorted away and charged w/ trespassing.
Instead of writing more on that specific topic later, I might leave it at that. Brevity can be a good thing!
READ ME: Disclaimer
8 Responses to "Verbal abuse is not free speech"
Even if the protections of the first amendment do apply because the speech occurs in a public or government-controlled forum or medium, there are still limits on what speech is protected. The limits cut off more than just obscenity, badly defined though it is. So-called “fighting words,” speech that incites panic, commercial speech, and defamatory (and false) speech that damages the character, reputation or standing of another person all receive lesser or no protection from the first amendment, even if we are talking about speech in a government area or medium.
The reality is that the people who are most likely to reflexively cry “free speech!” or “first amendment!” to justify some dumbass’ offensive comment are often the least likely to actually understand how the 1st amendment and its protections of speech and the press actually work, and what the courts have ruled they do and do not protect.
Yay on all 13 of us going upside down un-assisted last night! We all looked amazing doing it - Angela was like a proud mama!
See, all I am trying to say is what you have so eloquently put in your post; there have to be limits, not chaos. Free speech doesn’t mean those limits are null, in fact, there must be regulation, and with it, consequence.
I am looking at you Coulter!
I would clarify, too, Duane - “regulation” doesn’t necessarily mean government regulation. Libertarians will be happy to tell you, for example, that private businesses have the right to specify their own policies about what will fly and what won’t. So, ya know, that scene in The Big Lebowski where the woman in the coffee shop tells Walter to quit shouting because it’s a “family restaurant,” and then he proceeds to rant about the First Amendment? Actually she was within her rights to throw him out.
Same goes for me making my own rules about my own house, and my own blog. If people don’t like the rules, that’s too damn bad.
Or one could point out that the “fire in a crowded theater” analogy is a false one, used to justify limits on free speech. It’s not that I don’t believe people should control themselves. I certainly do. And I believe in politeness and all that. (And, you know, some restrictions on commercial speech especially.) You’re also allowed to make all the rules you want, as you point out above, but Walter’s not getting thrown out for what he’s saying so much as because he’s causing a disturbance. And I think you’re saying that that’s why you’re restrictive when it comes to comments. But, basically, it’s a fine line. And I know that I tend to get a little antsy when it comes to situations like that, partially because I know I’m rarely in charge, and I certainly don’t want other people being in charge of what I say.
But on blogs, they’re not in charge of what you say - just where you say it. Which is not unlike the real world. Some people might not like guests in their home dropping F-bombs. So they might ask you to leave if you continually disrespected their rules. It doesn’t prevent you from saying the word, just that you have to understand that if you say it in that particular location, the consequences will be that you’ll be asked to leave.
I suppose so, but I still like to allow as much freedom as possible (and have it allowed me in return). It’s a lot like the arguments people make about freedom of the press and the consequences you might face if you publish a certain story. It’s better than not allowing it to be published in the first place, but it does lead to some self-censorship.
Again - freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc., as they are codified in the First Amendment, refer only to the government.
Secondly, I’ll reiterate what I posted on my new blog:
(via Making Light)