rockaction
Footballguy
It was axed not by mods, but by the starter. Here's the place to post anything related to free speech, whether it be government restrictions or just social anathema and pressure.
Here. We. Go.
Here. We. Go.
Nah. It's a lot of things, but it ain't that.This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:
Eugene Gu, MDVerified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago
The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.
https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712
Unless the NFL is Congress, he's a bit off base. If he wants to argue that the NFL policy goes against the spirit of free speech, that's an argument he can take up. A chilling attack on the First though, no it's not.squistion said:This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:
Eugene Gu, MDVerified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago
The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.
https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712
Have you missed what the President has said about changing what is legally considered defamation? Plus his desire to shut down the press who criticize him (which is another part of the 1st Amendment)?timschochet said:We have, as a society, more free speech than we've ever had. I don't see any threats to it. Not sure that this is a relevant topic at this point.
Come get me when either of those ideas are close to becoming laws. I'm not concerned at all about that.Have you missed what the President has said about changing what is legally considered defamation? Plus his desire to shut down the press who criticize him (which is another part of the 1st Amendment)?
Huh? We have serious threats to publicly free speech (read: not First Amendment issues but raw speech) and freedom of expression and discourse. This deserved its own thread then, and certainly does now.timschochet said:We have, as a society, more free speech than we've ever had. I don't see any threats to it. Not sure that this is a relevant topic at this point.
W T FThis seems problematic. But it's from one of our nation's fiercest Bill of Rights advocacy groups, so I'm sure I'm just missing something:
My bad, I didn't make it past the halfway point. Just saw the tweet and watched the first minute or two to confirm. It's a very silly, obviously flawed argument, but it doesn't belong in the free speech thread. Will delete.W T F
Edit: OK, upon actually seeing the clip, it's clearly satire.
When I think of free speech, my mind goes to the First Amendment. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "raw speech" and "freedom of expression and discourse". Can you offer some examples?Huh? We have serious threats to publicly free speech (read: not First Amendment issues but raw speech) and freedom of expression and discourse. This deserved its own thread then, and certainly does now.
Check out Nobody Speak on Netflix if you have the time.When I think of free speech, my mind goes to the First Amendment. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "raw speech" and "freedom of expression and discourse". Can you offer some examples?
I will, thanks.Check out Nobody Speak on Netflix if you have the time.
The flip side is that with so many voices only a few truly break through the noise and are heard, and the argument made by the documentary is that the super-wealthy are using that wealth to effectively silence voices they don't like. Obviously the former reporters of Gawker can report their stories and opinions in blogs or on twitter or whatever, as can the reporters of the Las Vegas Review-Journal silenced by Adelson and the reporters whose editorials are subject to approval from (or sometimes just dictated to them by) Sinclair News Group. But the wealthy have turned off their figurative microphones, and in many cases forced them to choose between reporting the truth and making a living. It's obviously not a Constitutional argument because there's no government action other than indirectly through the courts, but the underlying principle is nevertheless troubling.I will, thanks.
Intuitively though, I have trouble believing that the press, with so many venues as a result of the internet age (practically unlimited) has less free speech than any other time in our history.
No, it’s not.This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:
Eugene Gu, MDVerified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago
The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.
https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712
Freakin' paywall.David French on the NFL’s policy regarding the anthem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/conservatives-fail-the-nfls-free-speech-test.html
That right there is some good readin'David French on the NFL’s policy regarding the anthem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/conservatives-fail-the-nfls-free-speech-test.html
Right-click and open incognito. Or (I think this trick still works), click the link from Google search results.Freakin' paywall.
Not with all sites, I tried it yesterday on a Boston Globe article and was notified that they (The Globe) saw that I was in incognito mode and if I wanted to continue to read their articles I would have to pay $.99 a month, or whatever.Right-click and open incognito. Or (I think this trick still works), click the link from Google search results.
According to a Bloomberg article it would have to be enforced by litigation by the blocked users against Twitter, whom the writer believe would ultimately prevail, some snippets from the article:I asked it elsewhere, but this thread seems more appropriate. What happens when Trump ignores the order to not ban twitter followers? How can this be enforced? Is it just ignored and that's it? Can twitter be held accountable in any way? The President himself?
Nice work-around. Great op-ed. Especially agree with the words from the Barnette decision and state actors. I think others in here have made good points about marketplaces and reprisals, so I'll leave that for another day, but I side with French there, too.Right-click and open incognito. Or (I think this trick still works), click the link from Google search results.
This is a really interesting question. And technically Dan Scavino is who would have to control this, as Director of WH Social Media, I would think. The problem with all corrupt entities though is not always just resistance but also corruption. Can the WH even find a way to efficiently unblock everyone they have blocked? What are the numbers? What was the criteria? Do they even know? No idea. I sense some serious stupidity emanating from all this eventually but also some gross defiance of judicial orders.I asked it elsewhere, but this thread seems more appropriate. What happens when Trump ignores the order to not ban twitter followers? How can this be enforced? Is it just ignored and that's it? Can twitter be held accountable in any way? The President himself?
Here's that case.A question for our legal scholars: back in the 80s & 90s, when i was active on talk radio, i would successfully argue that commerce had no 1st Amendment protection because the USSC had so ruled, in Mutual Film v Ohio (1915) - the ruling which allowed movies to be censored on the 'commerce' basis - and that, when it was overruled in the early 50s, it was only on the basis that films were being banned as sacriligeous. At the time - and these were national radio shows - no one could find new law which countered my claim.
I'm wondering if there have been other rulings in this area in the quarter-century since and am especially curious if giving corporations 'person' status would have any effect there.
Wow, that was easy. And it was probably true, I don't think that is really debatable.The censorship, therefore, is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce.
good stuff, but i was assured by lawyers at the time i was arguing this stuff that the ruling, because the Ohio Constitution did not conflict with USC in this realm, was a tacit establishment of the regulatability of speech whose sole purpose was commerce and that was not countered by the ruling which overturned Mutual v OhioHere's that case.
Wow, that was easy. And it was probably true, I don't think that is really debatable.
When old cases like this (which are almost indecipherable to begin with) are overruled one thing that drives me nuts is that the USSC often does not explicitly overrule the thing that everyone thinks was overruled. The USSC is really deferential to past Justices, even in the worst of situations (say Brown) they won't come out and clang the bell that a really terrible and stupid thing was done.
- On the face of things I agree with you. This ruling, which simply solves the 1st Amendment by reclassifying any monetization of it into commerce, seems to stand on its own.
And in truth I think this is probably an example of how Citizens United could create great harm. Reclassifying the speaker as a corporation would take almost all speech requiring any sort of artificial or juridical entity to become automatically regulatable, which would be a disaster.
Listen to this:
Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond that possibility. They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the state of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.
We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. In other words, as we have seen, the Constitution of Ohio is invoked, and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom of speech, writing, and publication assured by that instrument, and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is insisted, that as no law may be passed 'to restrain the liberty of speech or of the press,' no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition. [236 U.S. 230, 243] We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and its expression, and whether by speech, writing, or printing. They are too certain to need discussion-of such conceded value as to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of their breadth, nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the words of another, 'that opinion is free, and that conduct alone is amenable to the law.'
Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press,-made the same agencies of civil liberty.
Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their contention, and cite a case in this court where the title of drama was accorded to pantomime;2 and such and other spectacles are said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the definition of the dictionaries,-that is, and we quote counsel, a means of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise might have remained private or unknown,-and this being peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures, they come directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio constitution.
The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of our cities and towns, and which regards them as emblems of public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by counsel, and which seeks to [236 U.S. 230, 244] bring motion pictures and other spectacle into practical and legal similitude to a free press and liberty of opinion.
The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the country is against the contention. As pointed out by the district court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means of their regulation. ...
The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions has been sustained. ...
It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the state of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal ...Code, to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.
It does not militate against the strength of these considerations that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct in other places than theaters,-in churches, for instance, and in Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the provisions of the statute, nor to anticipate that it will be so declared by the state courts, or so enforced by the state officers.
Actually I was trying to agree with that. But IMO while that may be the speech itself would be protectable in its own right, though I think CU shows just how close that issue would be. I do not see too much distinction between the outcome of the CU dissent and this case from 1913.wikkidpissah said:good stuff, but i was assured by lawyers at the time i was arguing this stuff that the ruling, because the Ohio Constitution did not conflict with USC in this realm, was a tacit establishment of the regulatability of speech whose sole purpose was commerce and that was not countered by the ruling which overturned Mutual v Ohio
The NFL is an entertainment business...the actors are being asked to follow their scripts when they are on stageMichael Moore @MMFlint 17h17 hours ago
Oh NFL! I love you! What better time to curtail free speech than during the National Anthem! USA! USA!! USA!!! Back in the USSA!!
Can’t Twitter just step in here and enforce compliance with a couple of lines of code?SaintsInDome2006 said:This is a really interesting question. And technically Dan Scavino is who would have to control this, as Director of WH Social Media, I would think. The problem with all corrupt entities though is not always just resistance but also corruption. Can the WH even find a way to efficiently unblock everyone they have blocked? What are the numbers? What was the criteria? Do they even know? No idea. I sense some serious stupidity emanating from all this eventually but also some gross defiance of judicial orders.
So how many posts in the free speech thread before speech is stifled?Nah. It's a lot of things, but it ain't that.
Let's reserve this thread from talking about the real threat to our First Amendment freedoms:the White Housebillionaires who buy up news outlets and manipulate coverage 19 year olds who disrupt white supremacist speeches on college campuses.
True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting?If I talk politics at work that’s one thing, but if I show up at meetings and conference calls and start making political speeches instead of addressing the subject of the meeting, then it is appropriate for management to ask me to stop doing that.
C+. Not that effective. The examples given were of employees actually fired for expressing non-PC opinions. Nobody outside of the idiot populist president who has zero say in the matter is saying anything about firing players.David French on the NFL’s policy regarding the anthem:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/conservatives-fail-the-nfls-free-speech-test.html
Good question. When to they start work, at kick off or when they show up to get ready to work?True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting?
I’m not sure it really matters but just pointing out that I don’t think Rove’s analogy really worked.Good question. When to they start work, at kick off or when they show up to get ready to work?
You have millions of people watching and they are in full uniform. Their views are reflecting upon their employer. If their message is that important, perhaps they could tweet and explain what it is.True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting?
Not millions - typically the anthem isn’t shown on TV. That time is reserved for selling beer and pizza. Also they do tweet their messages. Eric Reid is regularly tweeting things related to the abuse of police power. The NFL has the right to set rules for the anthem and I don’t think it is violating the 1st at all.You have millions of people watching and they are in full uniform. Their views are reflecting upon their employer. If their message is that important, perhaps they could tweet and explain what it is.
Noting the significant rise in "witch hunts" these days, perhaps being burned alive upon a pyre may not be too dumb a place for said sword fall.I think any place is a dumb place to fall on a sword.
Kaepernick still doesn’t have a job.The examples given were of employees actually fired for expressing non-PC opinions. Nobody outside of the idiot populist president who has zero say in the matter is saying anything about firing players.
That’s a frankly bizarre misinterpretation of the phrase. Kaepernick is not conservative. French is. French is saying that the cure for kneeling is criticizing it, not prohibiting it.Then stating:
"The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship."
is condescending (conservative speech = bad speech). The best speech is free speech, not some elitist self-judged 'better speech.'
It’s like you’ve never been in the Kaepernick thread.The vast majority of people, both conservatives and liberals, do not support firing players and in general support the players right to protest.
Link to David French supporting government censorship?And if you really care about free speech, what about real government censorship 60 days prior to an election. David French was in full support of government censorship, but somehow this is worse?
I can’t think of a fiery pyre without thinking of Khaleesi and perhaps her falling on my sword. Queen of the Andals and the First Men indeed.Noting the significant rise in "witch hunts" these days, perhaps being burned alive upon a pyre may not be too dumb a place for said sword fall.
?
Just say'in.
True, but he was not fired. SF was happy to not resign him due to performance. I suppose we will find out if there was any collusion.Kaepernick still doesn’t have a job.
At that point in the article he had only given the examples of conservatives being fired and had not mentioned his disagreement with Kaep's kneeling. The way it reads it was talking about them, but in the context of the whole article he clearly was including Kaepernick too. I don't follow journalists and really was not all that familiar with French.That’s a frankly bizarre misinterpretation of the phrase. Kaepernick is not conservative. French is. French is saying that the cure for kneeling is criticizing it, not prohibiting it.
Of course, but I don't see a ground swell of people demanding kneeling players be fired. I am not even sure there is one I recall in that thread. Conservatives see kneeling as disrespectful and out of place. Polling shows 82 percent support their right to protest. That is a strong showing in a poll and would include strong support across all political slants.It’s like you’ve never been in the Kaepernick thread.
I am not familiar with French. It was late and I simply assumed his support of McCain-Fiengold and Google was not that helpful. I was probably wrong in that. There are just too many people who supported government censorship (McCain-Fienld) who are up in arms over this NFL policy.Link to David French supporting government censorship?