A Major U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[The Good Michael]

Not that Japan is the ideal place, but they have a system of manners there that seems to be countrywide, that dictates what is annoying to most Japanese and simply, isn't done. People avoid bumping into each other, refrain from speaking loudly in public places, or confront each other with obnoxious dialogue. Loudness is saved for sporting events and karoake rooms. In the occasion that one crosses the boundary of nationally perceived manners, a simple look or a word from another brings the level down to tolerable limits. In short, there is a rough boundary in all countries that shouldn't be crossed with respect to localized perceptions of what's right and wrong. Unfortunately, not everyone works within the vagueness of those boundaries, and many don't see them, instead indulging in their own singular worlds. Freedom of anything is limited by those unseen, unknown (by some), and undefined (legally) boundaries. Those boundaries change on a daily basis as societies change and are, therefore, ever indefinite. Freedom of speech cannot exist. It is impossible for a law to dictate that freedom, but they still try to in most constitutions. Vagueness is further obscured by law. Everything is in flux. That's why we have courts, but the courts are made of (mostly) older people who aren't in sync with that flux. Courts need to be progressive and constantly changing in order to keep up with changing patterns of manners. There is a small core of politesse that seems to be relatively static. That core should be applied to any similar (as judged) or new behaviors so as to help to determine what might go over the boundaries and infringe upon others. As we are all individuals with individual levels of tolerance, no real freedom can be possible that encroaches upon the core set of values. In the meantime, keep your eye on the Japanese.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

I certainly would not want protesters outside my door. I would try to take legal means to stop them if I felt they were breaking the law. Would I consider going beyond the law? That is getting pretty hypothetical but I would say yes. But then I would have to face the consequences of having done so.

We are required to obey the law. There is no requirment that says you have to agree with the law or like it.

But now let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say an author publishes a book advocating the return of slavery. We should return to selling individuals, splitting up families and whipping and hanging slaves who attempt to run away. A group of black people whose ancestors were slaves want the book banned. Would you agree to ban it? If not, why not? Should the feelings of the black people be taken into consideration in making your decision?

c.d.

[Rubyretro]

But now let me ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say an author publishes a book advocating the return of slavery. We should return to selling individuals, splitting up families and whipping and hanging slaves who attempt to run away. A group of black people whose ancestors were slaves want the book banned. Would you agree to ban it? If not, why not? Should the feelings of the black people be taken into consideration in making your decision?

c.d.[/QUOTE]

I know that this question is specifically addressed to Caz -but for my part, I have no problem with things published in books or the Press, or even said on Tv....anyone can choose to read or watch what they like -reply to it or avoid it. However 'hypothetical pro-slavers' should not be allowed to shout their views infront of schools, community centres and housing estates (etc). Full stop.

Infact, regardless of whether black people live there or not..

I would be happy for my children to hear (or read) such views as part of a debate...I wouldn't be happy that they heard strong, one sided, racist views shouted in the street and got the idea that a) lots of people thought this, rather than a handful of bigots and b) it was ok to shout offensive
remarks in a public place potentially causing harm to a section of our population.

So, No, I wouldn't back people who wanted to ban such a book...but I would state loud and clear
that I didn't agree with the views there in and try to educate my children about the matter.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I don't think it is a question of courage. The justices are appointed for life so their jobs are pretty secure. They are attempting to interpret the Constitution as best they can.

c.d.

Courage

[Abby Normal]

You are one smart person, Errata.

you are missing the point, these are not terrorists or murderers

[c.d.]

Hi Ruby,

I understand your views completely. But what if those people instead of shouting pro slavery views were instead holiding up signs and chanting love God and your neighbor and be kind to children? Would you object to that?

c.d.

[Derrick]

Hi Ruby,

I understand your views completely. But what if those people instead of shouting pro slavery views were instead holiding up signs and chanting love God and your neighbor and be kind to children? Would you object to that?

c.d.

Hi cd
You have hit the nail on the head.

Are we all willing to accept Voltaire's view or is freedom of speech just too much for society as a whole to countenance and some curtailment has to be introduced.

It would be interesting if we left our houses and campaigned for our opponents view to be heard. Jesus said we should turn the other cheek after all.

Yet it seems we just can't be trusted by the state to behave ourselves so need to be hobbled in some way or other. So is freedom of speech governed by each and every individual or is it a factor for society to decide.

If that is so therefore it just comes down to what is politically expedient at any point or juncture and as Karl Marx said in Grundrisse in 1858;

Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

This has to be contrasted with a very famous quote from Margaret Thatcher:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!", "I am homeless, the Government must house me!", and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

Derrick

[protohistorian]

There is also the matter of differential rights. Joe Jackass does what he wants but when protesters outside his church on sunday displayed signs that said " Jesus was a fanny bandit" they were arrested. Dave

[caz]

Hi c.d., All,

I suppose, for me, it boils down to how much the 'victims' of someone else's free speech have to suffer, or are expected to suffer, before the law comes to their aid.

And suffering is of course relative when it goes beyond the directly physical kind.

If you (the collective 'you') don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. If you are male, and don't believe in abortion, don't impregnate a woman who may not wish to bear your child. Outside of that, you are not suffering personally if someone you've never met and are never likely to meet has an abortion you will never know anything about. You choose to 'suffer' (and make others suffer) for all the unborn babies who will never go on to share this 'vale of tears' with you. If you are so eaten up with hatred and bitterness over an issue like this, why would you force an unwanted child upon a reluctant parent and make two new potentially hate-filled bitter people just like you? Mind your own business; mind your own 'suffering'; help with other people's suffering if they clearly need and want help. Above all, don't deliberately inflict suffering on people using your right to free speech as your weapon.

If someone writes a book calling for everyone to hate straight women in their fifties called Caz, I won't lose a moment's sleep - unless it becomes a bestseller in a bad way, ie millions of readers are persuaded that women like me deserve to be hated. I think I'd be a bit miffed with that. I'd like to think that society has moved on and that anyone writing a book today, in an attempt to bring back the slave trade (or incite hatred because of one's race, age or sexuality - things that are not a matter of choice) would have to hit people over the head bodily with it to have the slightest impact. I'd like to think that even the descendants of slaves would simply shrug and smile and say "Good luck with the new book, mate, you'll need it".

Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Thomas]

This whole thing is quite ridiculous and I was quite shocked when I saw the antics of these inbred morons on a British TV show a few years ago disrupting the funerals of brave soldiers and I remember thinking then that the sooner those bikers (common decency can be found in unexpected places) thrashed the lot of them with pool cues and motorbike chains the better. One fact that is not too well known these days though, is that the Jewish law as expressed in the Old Testament expressly condemns homosexuality and the New Testament does nothing to revise this as it does, for instance the Jewish dietary laws. I love the hypocrisy in all this. There's a case in the US at the moment where some preacher who specialised in hellfire anti-gay sermons has been found to ride on the other bus himself.

[caz]

There's a case in the US at the moment where some preacher who specialised in hellfire anti-gay sermons has been found to ride on the other bus himself.

Just the one, Stephen?

I have a gay brother and you should hear the stories he tells about saunas where married vicars can be found 'riding the other bus'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hims ancient and modern.

[Errata]

Don't we have to toughen up to a certain extent? I mean, if the goal is for gays, blacks, jews, etc. to be treated like everyone else, then don't we have to suck it up like everyone else? I hear people say terrible things about liberals and democrats, but I don't hear anyone suggesting that we liberals and democrats need to be protected from such speech.

Sometimes I wonder if "special treatment" isn't doing more harm than good. I totally get wanting to wrap a gay kid up in cotton, handling them with delicacy and treating them as though they are fragile. They can be fragile. But is that doing them a favor? When they get out in the world and you can't protect them anymore, haven't you handicapped them by shielding them from hate?

I think we can and should protect kids from the vitriol of adults. My parent's did it by making sure we understood why adults behaved in such a way. That they were afraid and felt powerless and the way they conquered that was by blaming a scapegoat. They didn't have the option of shielding us from the displays of hate themselves.

But these things aren't what kills kids. What kills kids is bullying, and displays of hate from their peers. And bullying is not okay, and should be punished severely. But kids are made fun of for everything from their sexuality to their parent's professions to their looks. Schools need to do a lot more to protect their students before we start altering free speech laws. There is one school who had 4 students and 2 former students commit suicide in two months. All from bullying. And some kids showed up to one of the girl's funerals and made fun of her in her coffin. So clearly some people are raising psychopaths. I think we need to address parenting and bullying first, and when we get that sorted out, we can see how much free speech is affecting these kids. My bet would be that the answer is very little.

[caz]

Not quite sure I follow this, Errata. For a start, I don't see anyone wanting to wrap gay kids up in cotton, including the gay kids themselves. My brother never needed nor wanted that, nor did I want it for him. But you are suggesting that we should do exactly that for kids in general who get bullied - wrap them up in cotton against the bullies. Wouldn't gay kids deserve the same protection from bullies as every other kid under your scheme for getting things 'sorted out'?

Nice one, Robert.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Actually, Errata, maybe liberals should get "special treatment" and protection from the terrible things people say about them. I mean, nobody would choose to be born a liberal, so they obvious can't help themselves - whereas gays just need to toughen up a bit and make the 'right' choice....

Love,

Sarcazticaz
X