Friends of CwG Discussion Board

I was reading up on the South Park - Muslim controversy and seeing this issue through 2 lenses. The popular one (in America) is that this is a free speech issue, and the other lens relates to how some Muslims are ultra sensitive to any depictions of Muhammed.

Whatever. It's not even what I care to talk about, mainly.

But in reading up on this, I came across the old adage of how free speech doesn't mean you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. And once again, I have to ask WHY? Why is free speech limited in this way?

Now, I did have the sense to google this, and came across Wikipedia which does provide historical context and rationale on the 'can't yell fire in a crowded theater' line, which is summarized as:
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.

Emphasis mine. The key, which must be understood, is that it is FALSELY shouting the word. Cause, arguably, you CAN shout fire in a crowded theater when there is a fire. For some reason, not clear to me, this is acceptable. IMO, it is hypocrisy, and I believe not very defensible. Why do I feel this? I'll tell you.

It's not that the word or phrase that is the problem. Nope. Because if there is a fire, and you shout it, and a panic ensues, and people get hurt in the process, it won't be looked at as 'the word' is what caused the panic. IMO, this is key. Instead, this comes back to perceived sense of threat. And I believe strongly, that the WORD ITSELF IS NOT A THREAT. Falsely shouting it or honestly shouting it, it is NOT A THREAT. While people who choose to go into panic mode, ARE THE THREAT.

If I'm in a crowded theater, and someone shouts this, I truly believe I'm going to want to know where the fire is, before getting up, leaving my seat, and running to nearest exit. I also like to believe that I could wait with sense of patience and not get into shoving match toward the exit. I've had to go pee really really bad after a movie, and so wanted to push people or bowl them over. But I didn't. I chose not to resort to panic mode in that situation. So, if I don't see the (false) fire in the crowded theater, I'm not clear on why I would feel a need to shove people to get to this place called "safety."

And the fact is (also very key IMO) anyone can falsely shout this in a theater. Do I think there ought to be accountability to falsely shouting, or even speaking, things in public places? Yes. But I do think it ought to be light repercussions. And not the kind that are determined to be 'reckless endangerment.' But more along the lines of, if politician falsely states something, how does accountability work in that situation? Like if politician says, I promise to lower taxes, but instead raises taxes, that would be a false statement.

Again, the fact is anyone can falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, but another fact is that fellow humans will desire to hold you accountable for this. Likewise, going back to the South Park controversy, the depiction and words are not a threat. And yet, it really isn't too hard to make the case that the writers of South Park knew in advance that this could lead to a 'clear and present danger' within the world we currently live. If you can stand firmly on the side of South Park creators, in the face of this perceived threat from those who wish to hold South Park accountable, then I believe you have it within you to stand by the person who (falsely) shouts fire in a crowded theater, while you chose not to lose your senses in the potential aftermath.

That's my stand. I still feel like the most pro free speech person I have ever met/known.

And your thoughts?

I like free speech 'specially if I get free popcorn. Mostly I like free popcorn. Free speech is good too tho.

Ya know, free popcorn is okay. But nowhere near as good, and addictive, as freecell.

Free speech is fine, but saying things like "oh, I think we should bomb all muslims/christians and they should burn in hellfire" is not being free speech, it's being an idiot. The statement should read something like "I am concerned at the way this particular religion, is going about it's business".

You see the difference?

I stopped reading after you uttered the "should" word.

I think being an idiot and speaking freely can go hand in hand. Afterall, silence is that which is golden.

I think laws only work when it is applied equally, even if you want to have exceptions to the law is fine if it is equally applied. But the law can be biased in the way it is being interpreted and so you allow selectively, which works only to silence people you want to silence, and the backlashing past the point isn‘t any better. Basically those crying free speech are really wanting to silence others, and those crying misuse of free speech are wanting to silence others, and the intentions with this law missed its mark; suddenly it hit’s the mark when equally applied though. Yeah basically what Fallen said.

What is example of "those crying free speech are really wanting to silence others" in your view?

I was talking about in those cases where the law is not applied equally, which is most of the time, imo; and this is when I don’t care which way you go, it seems to serve to silence others regardless. And eventually it results in silencing yourself, imo.

Did I mention imo? Because I don‘t really know, but maybe I can give you an example of what I am perceiving.

The intentions is important, most of the time the intentions are diverted and people end up using this law with bias to silence those who oppose them, it is subtle but it is there. For example, the women’s rights organizations make use of freedom of speech to combat rights violations, and it works well. You may not notice that they only speak up when it is women they agree with though; it’s mostly political differences, but it has been around for a while and as organizations tend to do, in time it has excluded women that don‘t fit their mold. I am using this as an example but take a look at any organization. What ends up happening is, if it is women they don’t agree with suddenly their outrage of rights violation is nowhere to be found. This misses the point and the purpose of this law or the organization. It’s like things started with good intentions and served a purpose but it is turning into ideology and now the result is more of the same.

Let me give you an example of how the law can work when the intentions behind it is different. Months ago the whitehouse decided that fox news was not a real news organization and people should stop watching it or treating it like a news organization. For those who may not know, fox news is a more conservative cable news channel, while the majority of the other news organizations are more liberal. But when the whitehouse tried to exclude fox news from the news conference the other news organizations said wait a minute… uh uh, their sense of freedom of speech was violated even though it was being done to the opposition, even though fox news has high ratings and a competitor, they stood up for this one. That’s how the law works to keep your freedom of speech from being violated.

When you use it to shut people up eventually it will shut you up, that‘s what would have happened to all these news organizations if they had allowed this, and eventually the government would be deciding what news you should hear. It is all very subtle and you may not notice but it is not different than those rare times when it is acute and evident, like these radical groups who spew out hate but if you criticize them or make a cartoon of them they want to kill you. For the most part the same people crying out freedom of speech are the first to violate against another in opposition… I think it is like a slingshot and it bounces right back to shut you up.

here in Australia they come up with this internet filter, an idea that many of us are concerned is too anti free speech. To me, they are concerned that government might ban a pro-euthanasia website for example. Not that I particularly care about that, as I don't support euthanasia anyway.

Tonia, I think your second example is the one that makes most sense to me. Clearly the press in the U.S. has always been about free speech, and if the government tells a news organization that they are essentially not welcomed to their opinions, that is akin to attempting to silence them.

Hmmm, not sure I made that point well, since what you originally stated is 'those crying free speech, may silence others.' And so, in this case, it would have to be the government that is crying free speech. Which they (Dems) did when they were on the outside looking in, but it often seems to me that the party that is in power (at the executive branch) takes on this attitude of 'national security is vastly more important than any free speech principles.'

I recall how Pubs and Bush admin made it a huge issue that if you protest the war and express strong disagreement with Bush, you are akin to traitor of the U.S. I'm pretty sure I can find that on Bill Tucker's thread if I look for it. Yet, now we live in America where expressing strong disagreement with Obama is seen as hunky dory, and not even a little akin to being a traitor.

The hypocrisy on this does tend to bother me. Because for last 12 years (maybe longer), it seems like the party not in power will do everything they can to tear down the president of the U.S., which makes the work of enemies of the U.S. much easier. As in, we are doing their work for them. They can just sit back and watch us tear ourselves apart from within. I recall hearing Al Qaeda at some point claim that while it might not be possible to topple the U.S., it is possible to make them bleed so much that they will withdraw from foreign lands. Isn't this exactly what is occurring and is thus making their prediction come true?

When we can live in an America where the opposing party can support the current president, then we will get back to the U.S. I remember liking a good 25+ years ago. As things stand now, I tend to think of U.S. voters as much further away from being truly patriotic than those of us who choose not to vote, and who recognize the joke that voting has become.

Anyway, I digress. IMO, free speech ought to never be curtailed. Instead, it ought to be made clear that if you misuse free speech, such as yelling fire where there is no fire, you might face the wrath of mob mentality. Those who are pro free speech may wish to protect you in principle, but the reality is, you may be held accountable by people who believe words can hurt, and desire to hurt you back. This isn't far off from current reality, though I am one who may 'cry free speech,' and strongly believe we ought not to silence people when they engage in it. Ever. Like when Michael Richards went all stupid in his 'comedic' rant using the N-word, that struck me as great time to have dialogue on race relations. Instead, it was treated as, never ever do that, even if you are trying to be funny. And if you do that, we must silence you and silence anyone that supports that. And we'll call that good. And we'll also wonder, why can't America talk about race relations and inequities to this date? Hmmm, I wonder why?

It's a trillion and one.

If you are meant a thousand trillion, that's a quadrillion. But that's another matter...this is a threat about free speech. Hm, well I have been sanctioned for going totally wild with my free speech on many occasions, and am doing my best to be a little less callous in the way I deliver my message. Generally Facebook is quite a safe website, in that I can say generally what's on my mind without concern, in a public forum like this, one must remain vigilant about what they say, in that it's to a LARGE audience of a lot of people.

Tell me honestly, are you offended by anything I said in this post...
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16528&p=357083#p357083

I suspect some people might be, given some of the things I mentioned about America, though I hope whoever does choose to read it, realizes that it's building up to flattery of Obama-the US head of state, right?

That's the problem when you choose to talk a lot, people can get offended very easily.