Never thought I'd see the day when defending the 1st Amendment on DU...

...is considered "concern trolling".

WTF, people? Have we totally gone down the rabbit hole here?

Details on edit - In discussing the issue of whether Bachmann and political officials have the same right to free speech as any other citizen some have said they don't. I say the 1st Amendment does protect their speech, even when it's wrong and dangerous, and I can guarantee the Supreme Court would agree. In defending the 1st Amendment the term "concern trolling" was used to describe me for doing so. This is a LW site, and if we, of all people, can't grasp the Constitution, how the fuck can we complain about the RW being stupid?

Have you heard it yet? I'm going to listen to it this weekend. Some cool names on it, like John Turturro, Alan Alda, Henry Rollins, Mark Hammil....looks cool.

Quite an eclectic range of readers, that's for sure. I've only read passages of the book, but everything I read was very cool.

We attended Pittsburgh's Horror Realm 2009 just last week, as a matter of fact. Zombies aplenty!

But it's abridged, I think. I am currently reading the book and am finding sections I don't remember hearing.

Wait till you get to the reference to Bill Maher and Ann Coulter getting it on.......:rofl:

glad you posted that!

i'll have to check that out.

I was happy to have seen him in the book, oddly. I felt strangely inspired by it, like I really was in World War Z.

Thank you.

I was just called a concern troll for defending the 1st Amendment. That's how sad this place is getting. I'm starting to think this country deserves whatever the fuck it gets.

or shall I guess who said what where?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We on the left have always felt some tension on the questions of prior restraint and liability for incitement.

People are calling for Constitutional Amendments, saying some people aren't protected by the 1st....it's fucking lame, and we should know better.

:hi:

:hi:

:)

If we knew what you are referring to.

:)

:)

On several topics.

more than willing to cut back basic rights, such as free speech, when it's the republicans that are saying things they disagree with.

Bachmann is a crazy lady, sure, but she has the right to say "hey, don't participate in the census." Hell, I hope those people in her district take her advice seriously!

Free speech is a right everyone has, even if you don't like what they have to say.

If Bush had suggested what they're now suggesting these very same people would have flipped their lid, rightfully so.

People willing to change stance depending on who's in power. It's actually just short sighted. Just because the Ds are in power now does not mean it will be that like for eternity. I have a problem with anyone wanting to shut down free speech.

:)

are more than happy to do the same to those they don´t like. Hypocrites, every last one of them.

dg

Up is down, war is peace, DU is FR.

I think you will find these long term friends more reasonable on a different day.

Just saddened by how easy they swapped positions with those they said they hate.

Thanks for your words of wisdom. :toast:

:hi:

:hi:

dg

Reminds me of how you were shouted down during the FLDS incidents. You actually knew what was going on and the majority just didn't want to hear what you had to say.

Maybe this is why I'm such a "well this is what the story is today, but I'm gonna hold off making a judgement for another week when the details start cominig out" kind of person.

by those who thought (and still think) they are experts because they read a book or 2, when I was on the front lines & had first-hand experience. :eyes:

dg

as an elected official to act responsibly and in the best interest of her constituents. Her responsibility to do this should outweigh her right to blather on with idiotic conspiracy theories that, while in doing so, threatens the stability of this country and its democracy and the well being of the American people.

And just as she has a right to free speech, others have the right to say anything they please about her blathering. And if while exercising their right to free speech they say that she should STFU, well so be it.

Also, there is a matter of law. Michele Bachman's call for people not to participate in the census is advocating the violation of the law.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa031800a.htm

She is also boasting that she will willfully violate the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/17/bachmann-census-lawbreaker/

I agree that I hope these people do not participate in the census. I have the misfortune of living next to her district and it is no mystery why she keeps getting elected.

However, I find it interesting that there are those here who go overboard defending her right to free speech while they ridicule and chastise those here who are doing the same.

rec

The "Fire!" in a crowded theater exception and all that.


Speech that incites a riot has been ruled, many times, to NOT be protected by the First Amendment.


Speech that calls for the assassination of someone has been ruled, many times, to NOT be protected by the First Amendment.



Bachmann has the right to free speech. She does NOT have the right to speech that calls for violence against government workers. We can argue about whether her words actually advocate that or not... but not about whether the First Amendment is all-inclusive.

It most certainly is NOT.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a frequent misquoting of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The misquote fails to mention falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. <...> The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Not *ALL* speech is protected by the first amendment.


Speech that incites imminent lawless action (riot, assassination) is *NOT* protected.


Bachmann's speech about census workers is getting dangerously close to that line.

But the key word is "imminent", and good luck proving that. We went through this when Dr. Tiller was murdered. If people like Bachmann and O'Reilly could be held responsible they'd have been arrested already. And if we can find a way to hold them so without taking away rights from the rest of us, you and me and the others who aren't talking like this, great.

That's good enough for me.


Bachmann voted out of office.

O'Reilly's ratings tank and he gets fired.

That's what I want to see too. It's funny, taking away free speech for them would take away ours, making it so much harder to counter what the RW does. I wish people could see how self-defeating it would be.

Thanks for your post, I agree 100%. :toast:

Explicitly calling for the murder of Henry Hyde and his family on national TV.

This sort of behavior goes across the political spectrum.

Or should it be high, protecting ugly and hateful speech.

Bryant

when the majority agree with what you have to say. If you stand up for the rights of anyone who is not (a) a democrat or (b) left-leaning, you are a troll. And heaven help you if you stand up for the rights of religious minorities, unless they are atheists, agnostics, or not Christians.

dg

:thumbsup:

God forbid we're consistent in our beliefs.

standing up for the left-leaning means you are a troll, if those you stand up for are not Democrats, or are Democrats who oppose the current administration.

Just being part of the "left" often means you are a troll these days.

not just those you agree with.

dg

your statement is correct. It just has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the topic under discussion.

You are, of course, free to drop in with unrelated comments.

since you are not the OP & the OP has already commented on what I said, there´s no need for you to play topic cop, but don´t let that stop you. It never has.

dg

:wow:

Your response to my response to your response to the OP was about defending the constitution and the bill of rights.

Right? :crazy:

You attributed the squelching of free speech to the left, if I understood your post correctly. I pointed out that the left is squelched at least as often, if not more so in the last 18 months, than the rest. Which is interesting, since this is a self-described "left-wing discussion board." Pointing that out is not an attack on the constitution or the bill of rights, which is why I consider your response to my response to your response to the OP "off topic," even though I agree with it.

In reality, the first amendment doesn't apply to DU at all, and "About DU" and DU rules make that clear. Topics ARE regulated. Many topics, sources, and points of view are not accepted at DU.

We acknowledge that reality when we register, and we're held to it as long as we choose to post here.

I'm tired now. All that circular tracking of topics leaves me thirsty.

:toast:

I even agreed with you about everything but your pov about the left.

Or is the left your enemy?

and simply reading it should make that clear.

:(

Simply reading it used to make that much clearer.

Which is where this stuff falls. It's less right vs. left than people who respect freedom and those who merely pay lip service to the idea while ardently working to make everyone behave as they would personally wish.

You can almost always smoke out an authoritarian by bringing up free speech issues. The "tax everything I don't like" folks are also members of this breed.

That too. :)

yes, there are limits to free speech. Do you honestly believe that your neighbor has the right to distribute flyers around your neighborhood that say "Forkboy is a drug selling serial killer and pedophile who has plans to murder your children an pets! We must take him down first, before he takes an innocent life!" Will you then be screaming "I support your right to free speech!" as a mob beats you to death? There are limits. There have always been limits.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6627717&mesg_id=6627805

Do you honestly believe that your neighbor has the right to distribute flyers around your neighborhood that say "Forkboy is a drug selling serial killer and pedophile who has plans to murder your children an pets! We must take him down first, before he takes an innocent life!"

I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't be shitting on the Constitution to stop it either.

One of my first posts on DU was hoping that Rush Limbaugh got hit by a bus. If some bus driver had gone and done it, by the logic of some here I should be held responsible for it.

thing to do. they have people listening and given the responsibility, obligation and privilige of talking to nation as a who, being a voice to them also comes with obligation. they have failed in obligation and responsibility. simply, they have failed

parents can say and do about anything. again, if they do not carry out their job in a responsible manner, they are not the ones to commit the action, but they failed to do their job

you saying rush should be hit by a bus impacts no one and nothing.

different

again, they have the right to do this. but we have lots of rights, doenst mean being irresponsible is ok either.

rights?

But if some here get their way it would happen. Which raises the point of what happens when the Republicans are back in power? Think it would be limited to RW people we think are saying dangerous things? Can you imagine Republicans getting to decide this stuff?

DU doesn't "deny" anyone their rights. I didn't see any police action against Bachmann or anything that would really "deny" someone their freedom of speech. Calling her out is hardly limiting her right to fear-monger and indirectly incite violence against innocent people. It has been proven that doing that is absolutely acceptable in this country and will be defended to the hilt. But if you point that kind of thing out then you are anti-first amendment.

On the other hand, we have media enterprises making big money on pushing lies to incite terror among the most fearful, racist, angry, and mentally unbalanced in the country. I haven't seen anyone suggest that the government go arrest these people, but I believe we need to admit the trouble this has caused our country, and the fact that fear-mongering and lies for $$$ flying the flag of "free speech" needs to be at least countered with blasting the truth in some way rather than forsaking whole stretches of the country to nothing but this kind of hate-media. Right now we are washing our hands of the south and leaving them to the vultures of AM Radio and Fox News.

And I encourage people to do just that, as that is their free speech. Calling for changes to the Constitution to limit, and even arrest people like Bachmann IS anti-First Amendment, and that's the issue I'm addressing.

No one on that thread called for anything like that.

Your arguments are utterly revisionist.

No one called for anything like that. Not once. Not at all. You jumped up proactively to challenge an argument that didn't exist and seemingly to argue against a poster that directed that the tenor and tone of the 'discussion' of the ultra right nut jobs to blame for some of the recent spats of violence including probably murder.

There were no Acronyms, no secret war counsels, no charges of enemy combatant, no calls for her to go to git-mo, no special wire taps, no nothing.

People were stating that they believed she had responsibility and suggesting the POSSIBILITY of criminal prosecution for Inciting Violence and I Specifically stated that I thought she should be censured for such insane language.

Clearly a bit over the top, but I really wasn't responding to what she said or acknowledging her. My points were my own.

Don't people have the right to express a desire to change the Constitution? There have been amendments to it. As citizens, calling for changes isn't anti-anything, it is just calling for changes. Should we, in effect, declare these discussions off limits? Debate isn't a bad thing.

Is the Constitution, as it stands, absolutely sacred? Should it be? To me those are good questions also.

Just throwing that out there. I would NEVER express what I think about the matter pro or con on this thread, just playing devil's advocate if you will.

protects citizens from the GOVERNMENT censoring us. WTF does that have to do with Michelle Bachman?

because that's what the 1st Amendment covers...ALL of us. If you can show me a clause in the 1st Amendment that says, "except Government officials" I'll take a look.

This has to do with Bachmann because many are saying she doesn't have the right to free speech because her words are dangerous.

FWIW, I support the 1st even when I don't like it. I was glad to see the ACLU take up Fred Phelps' case, for instance, even though I can't stand the man or what he says/stands for. We need a broad protection of expression, and there are some forms which I wish were more protected now.

That said, while I do not support revoking Bachmann's 1st amendment rights through any form of amendment or censorship, I do strongly feel that we as a society need to be more vigilant about people being able to spread lies and misinformation, that it is our duty to call people out on their extremist calls for violence. I am not calling for any sort of McCarthyist BS or anything like that, but we really should not put up with so much crap all in the name of "both sides of the issue" the way we do. This should be in the form that is also protected, however: boycotts, etc. In other words, there should be repercussions for lying and calls for violence, but I don't feel that arrests or government censorship are in any form the answer unless there is a genuine threat.

Also, to complicate matters further, there was someone in that thread who also was standing up for free speech, but kept putting out illogical arguments and analogies, many of which were straight from the rightwing playbook, such as equating the outrage at Bachmann to the troops being hurt by war protestors. Was that person a Troll? Probably not; I did not alert, but I did mention to them that they seemed to be repeating a lot of nonsense, imo.

So in short, while Bachmann and all of us have the right to expression, we should not take that right lightly. I have the right to call her out on her bullshit just as she has the right to say many of the hateful crap she spews. If her words - and those of other talking heads - incite violence and create a culture where violence is the natural reaction to fear, then we need to be able to address that. If she does not want to fill out a census, then she is free to do so. If she does not want her followers to fill one out, she is free to say that as well. If she is saying that census workers are going to create a situation where people will be locked up in death camps, well... that's getting very close to the line, and us saying so is not so far off the mark.

"Both sides" shouldn't automatically mean putting a known lie on equal footing with the truth. And this is precisely what we get from the media these days. It wouldn't be harming anyone's first amendment rights for the press to do their jobs for a change. If they would investigate insane drivel and call people on it we would see a lot of this crap spewing reduced. But in the effort to "be fair" a right-wing conspiracy based lie is put out as an equal alternative to the truth way too often.

give them an inch, and they'll be demanding a mile.

In our efforts to be diplomatic and accepting and tolerant, we sometimes allow bullshit to go on for far too long. Then again, the right always seems to cry about our intolerance when we DO call them out on it, so that egg-shell walking reaction is sometimes understandable even when it's frustrating.

And you were not specifically 'defending the first amendment' you were expressing concern that 'we not make the same Patriot Act' mistakes when it came to going after Bachman with regards to her inflammatory language.

What hasn't happened:

No one has passed or suggested a law to specifically target right wing extremism

No one has (to my knowledged) apprehended or arrested or even charged Michelle (the nutjob) Bachman for anything including 'Inciting Violence' (which by the way is a crime).

I stated that the bare minimum that Bachman should have to suffer is Censure.



What had happened:

After stating that she should at least be censured you continued to whine and wiggle and wring your hands about us not being like the republicans. Again there has still been no indication that we were moving in that direction and no calls for a new laws with strange misleading acronyms that make us feel good. Inciting violence is specific and has been on the books for decades and if you look at a list of her public comments she is doing just that.

If we had the power to shut up the freepers and teabaggers and those who disagree with us, what would we do with them? If we had the power to shut down and silence any media who supported right wing causes that we hate, would we? We worship our DU gods like KO and Rachel, but cannot understand that the right wingers feel as noble and self righteous about Limbaugh and Beck and hang on every word they say too.

There are so many who are diametrically opposed to all things Republican or right wing, but in reality it appears they are simply on the opposite side of the same coin.

(Oh, and you are absolutely correct about the "concern troll" label used here at DU. It actually is a slur used here by those who perceive themselves to be the vocal majority and is employed to shut up or humiliate those who express opinions that do not line up theirs, and since their opinions are the last word on any subject they should never be questioned. The "concern troll" tag is used because it works.)

"loyalists" (i'm being nice) no longer want discussion, just affirmation and agreement.

. . . if it weren't so totally transparent. Mandates are evil! Oh wait, no they aren't. There was no deal with Pharma! Uhm, except the one we're discussing this week. The administration cannot wait on LGBT rights! Except, er, would gay people just stop bitching and moaning already? There's a lot going on, ya know.

It's the serious, severe, transparent 180 pivots that are really grating. And when these loyalists aren't pretending that their brand new opposite position is what they believed all along, they're blasting everyone who didn't throw their liberal principles overboard on January 20th as trolls, PUMAs, Republicans, etc.

I used to see myself as somewhat left of center. Now, I feel as if I'm some kind of leftist radical. Merely for demanding what was promised us during the campaign. Change, real reform, a new direction, the people before the corporations.

Merely asking government to work for the people over the corporations now marks you as some kind of Jacobin.

It has been firmly established that hate speech and/or speech that is "wrong and dangerous" is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment. The most common example given is "yelling fire in a crowded theater".

Therefore, if you conceed that their speech is "wrong and dangerous" then it is not protected.

"which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action".

Murder is a "lawless action". The question here is whether or not Beck, Bachmann, et al incited murder with their speech. I can easily argue that encouraging others to carry and use guns and using the quotation of Jefferson to encourage violence would be attempts at inciting lawless actions, and therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment.

it's like watching a precision drill team!

I was definitely extolling the virtues of the patriot act. And Inciting Violence, why that criminal charge must be brand spanking new as of 2001.

Oh wait. I didn't say anything resembling that. Oh and Inciting violence is rather old in most criminal codes.

Sooo... how does shoe leather taste?

from our elected leaders when it comes to things like the rhetoric they use, promote and willingly benefit from and calling for their hate-speech to be outlawed.

Really, you have a problem.

Freeper.

:P

You are just passing your time defending others right to exercise their 1st Amendment rights while you await Orly's assignment to the FEMA Gulag. You don't take any of this seriously, rights and all that.

















:hide:

I never heard Bachmann say "kill all census workers." I just heard he say "won't do census"(not exact quote) which you can simply say no I won't participate. If she said kill all census workers then of course she should lose her job right away and even spend time in jail.

I see a lot of can't "yell fire" in this thread. That was used originally as an opinion used against people protesting a war of all things.

You have my support Forkboy. :hug:

Over the past couple of years DU has increasingly gone over to the dark side.

I've seen people excusing the banksters and justifying their massive theft from the people of this country.

I've seen people excuse the continued wars in the Middle East and the genocide taking place there.

I've seen people excuse Obama for kissing up to the Health Insurance companies and excusing the proposed mandate that will indebt every person in this country to the Health Insurance Industry forever.

I could go on and on and on and on and on here.


I barely recognize DU anymore.

and we are free to point out those odious statements have real world consequences.

She did nothing illegal, though I would not rule out a civil liability at this point (only the courts can say on that one).

Yep. Exactly what you said.

Thank Darwin that Michelle Bachmann uses her free speech. How else would people know she's insane?

We have an incredible problem in this country with politicians who do NOT speak their minds, and instead deliver carefully worded sound bites that tell you nothing about how they truly feel. I wish all politicians spoke as openly and freely as Bachmann.

You could always try that thing called "reading".

Have a nice weekend. :loveya:

No matter how repugnant, everyone is entitled to free speech..

it's not like Backmann is gonna vote for a law restricting her own speech.

There are definitely some authoritarians on DU and if they had control of the government they would be died in the wool totalitarians. No question. When you see posts about how other side is not just wrong - they are evil and need to be eliminated, you know one of 2 things: A) The poster is 15 B) They truly have a totalitarian mindset.

1.- I will defend the rights of Mrs Bachman to say the stupid shit she said regularly. It is, as you said, first amendment. Just like I will defend the rights of the local Nazis to march around calling for the rounding of them ilegals... that is what makes this country so special. Oh and yes, they are protected by the First Amendment. Those who say otherwise are either stupid, or ignorant... or perhaps both.

2.- If there is any evidence though that those words lead to incitement to violence and they can be DIRECTLY tied to it... now we have crossed the line into incitement. That is calling fire in a crowded theater, which is not protected speech. The problem is... prove it. Not as easy as people think, and why Coughlin in the past and oh Bachman and the rest of them today, say what they say. Proving incitement, which means that speech is no longer protected, is extremely hard.

That said, I will defend the right of Bachman, or my local Nazis, to say the idiocy they say any day of the week and twice on Sunday, even at the risk of them screaming fire in a crowded theater. That said, if this could be proven in a court of law... not that I expect it to happen either... because of how hard this is to prove.

:rofl:

Just kidding... I agree and K&R!!

Because it's freedom of speech or isn't it? :shrug:
BTW: I am an ACLU Member...and sometimes I don't agree with them..until I think more about it ...and figure I gotta take some good with some stuff that bothers me.