The difference between dissent and disloyalty

dyslexia wrote:

"it is open and viewable to the public."
and so is my front yard

And???

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Well, but we must not forget that some of the Reds infiltrated to the most sensitive areas (for example, to the nuclear project), and they actively spied in favor of the foreign country (e.g. Rosenbergs or Klaus Fuchs). It is a pity that FBI overlooked them...

To attempt to use these examples to justify the crimes against due process and political rectitude which were committed in the 1950's is specious. Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs, as well as Burgess and McClean, were all apprehended as a result of the revelations of Gushenko, the GRU code clerk who defected in Ottawa. Nixon and HUAC, and McCarthy and his "select committee" never caught a single agent of a foreign government, and only succeeded in destroying the reputations and careers of individuals who held opinions for which those "worthies" did not care, and who were otherwise unoffending. Frequently, they had not even publicly aired those opinions, but were simply alleged to have made remarks unpalatable to the hysterical right-wing by witnesses of dubious reliability. Given that the comparison made here concerns itself with the attempt at suppression of legitimate dissent against partisan policies of a particular administration, the suggestion that those committees were justified in their activities, and, by extension, that contemporary threats of the suppression of dissent are justified is nothing less than scurrilous.

0 Replies

Well said, Setanta. God, it's good to have you back. There is no justification for limiting free speech (and free thought) in this country... except in the group mind of the "hysterical right."

What will we become if this is allowed?

0 Replies

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fishin' wrote:

An even bigger travesty, many don't seem to comprehend that the "Free Speech" clause in the 1st Amendment is a prohibition against GOVERNMENT interference with speech. Free speech in a private setting or a non-government public setting (i.e. this forum..) isn't guaranteed.

I know better than that--and so do you. You're being disingenuous here, about the historical course of interpretations of this amendment by the Supremes. It was not the court as a whole but Justice O. W. Holmes, Jr. who made the statement that freedom of speech does not give one the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. He made this statement in a dissentient opinion (he wrote a great many of those), in which he articulated the concept of and coined the phrase "a clear and present danger." Since Holme's death, many of his opinions have been incorporated into legal precedent because of the force and justice of his arguments. The concept that free speech can only be limited on the basis of a defensible contention of a clear and present danger has been the basis of nearly every free speech decision by the Supremes since his times in those cases in which government were concerned. More than that, and as i am sure you know, the court both before and since the tenure of Justice Holmes has held that the protection of free speech is not just a limit upon government, but that government has an active duty to assure free speech. At the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, there was rush by the Supreme Courts of the States, as well as by Legislatures and state constitutional conventions to embody the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments, as well as those of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendements in state laws and constitutions--being a further guarantee of the rights of public and private speech.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The distinction you draw between public and private speech is a red herring as well--the Supremes have long held that an extension of the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment (quoted above) protects citizens in their private speech, as well as in their effects. I don't consider you to have been willfully deceitful in this statement of yours, but i do think that the love of the argument has carried you away in this case.

fishin wrote:

No, it doesn't (meaning a crowd is not justified in beating up someone who has expressed an opinion distasteful to that crowd). But their free speech rights also give them just as much right to tell the dissenters to shut the hell up. The sword cuts both ways.

Indeed it does, as one has a perfect right to ignore the injuction to "shut up"--as well as to attempt to shout down those who are attempting to shout them down.

0 Replies

I've seldom seen the right of free speech put to better use than in these forums. And that specifically includes the occasional flaming and the counter flaming that passes for advice.

0 Replies

I think this is relevant to the topic, be it on a sidetrack from it, probably ... did you receive this piece of spam? I received it just now. Suggests at least some confusion in America about dissent vs disloyalty, though I do think in the end that distinction is probably by definition subjective.

Quote:

"Deck of Weasels" Exposes America's Worst

The Pentagon's Iraqi Most Wanted "Deck of Death" playing cards was a huge hit with Americans. Now, NewsMax.com is raising the ante - with the Deck of Weasels, depicting the 54 worst leaders and celebrities who opposed America and were key members of "The United Nations of Weasels."

This hot new set of playing and informational cards - which will surely be a collector's item - depicts the enemies of America and Iraq's liberation in a satirical way while revealing the evidence of their hatred - their own quotes against America!

You can get these hot new cards by clicking here now!

No doubt the Deck of Weasels will enrage those included - including Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Jacques Chirac, Barbra Streisand, Teddy Kennedy, Kofi Annan and many more.

You'll laugh out loud looking at the faces of the world's greatest weasels - each wearing the beret of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard - now dubbed "Saddam's Weasel Brigade."

Under each photo is each Weasel's quote revealing his/her anti-American, pro-Saddam ranting!

The Ace of Spades is none other than French Prime Minister Chirac, Saddam Hussein's partner in crime of 30 years, and includes his most infamous quote: "Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.'" The Washington Times' new revelation that France helped Saddam's top goons escape shows just how relevant and useful this deck is.

You can get these hot new cards by clicking here now!

The Deck of Weasels also includes many other notables - weasels such as NAFTA "partners" Vicente Fox of Mexico and Jean Chretien of Canada, and others in our own Senate such as Teddy Kennedy and Robert "KKK" Byrd.

The Deck of Weasels is a "Who's Who" of celebrity weasels: Martin Sheen, Jane Fonda, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon and more.

There will be enough in the Deck of Weasels to keep you laughing for years!

You can get these hot new cards by clicking here now!

Each suite of the Deck of Weasels reveals America's enemies. The Spades are the most treacherous of the world's foreign leaders. The Diamonds are the most backstabbing U.S. leaders. The (bleeding) Hearts, of course, consist of Hollywood's woefully ill-informed would-be geopolitical "experts." And the Clubs include the worst of the biased media and self-appointed pundits.

And we have the Jokers, with their funny little hats: Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson.

[etc etc]

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The concept that free speech can only be limited on the basis of a defensible contention of a clear and present danger has been the basis of nearly every free speech decision by the Supremes since his times in those cases in which government were concerned. More than that, and as i am sure you know, the court both before and since the tenure of Justice Holmes has held that the protection of free speech is not just a limit upon government, but that government has an active duty to assure free speech.

I think you read more into what I said than what was there. That said, I don't recall any Supreme Court ruling that stated that there is an absolute right to say whatever one pleases in any and all situations whether there is a clear and present danger or not. The Court has never said that I have to allow someone to come into my home and protest for example.

To quote from the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments."

I know of no 1st Amendment cases between private individuals that have made it to the Supreme Court. All of the cases involve a government entity at one level or another.

Quote:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The distinction you draw between public and private speech is a red herring as well--the Supremes have long held that an extension of the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment (quoted above) protects citizens in their private speech, as well as in their effects. I don't consider you to have been willfully deceitful in this statement of yours, but i do think that the love of the argument has carried you away in this case.

I didn't make any distinction between public and private speech. I made a distinction between government and private restraint of speech. You are free to say what ever you like but I am not required to provide you with a forum to say it nor am I prohibited from restricting you from saying it on my real property or in a forum that I own (i.e. newspaper, TV, a furom such as A2K, etc..).

Quote:

fishin wrote:
No, it doesn't (meaning a crowd is not justified in beating up someone who has expressed an opinion distasteful to that crowd). But their free speech rights also give them just as much right to tell the dissenters to shut the hell up. The sword cuts both ways.

Indeed it does, as one has a perfect right to ignore the injuction to "shut up"--as well as to attempt to shout down those who are attempting to shout them down.

And this is the very crux of the issue people are complaining about. Those who are complaining about stiffled dissent haven't had their speech infringed upon by government. The pissing contest is between private (i.e. non-government) individuals and groups. Claiming that another individual is infringing on their 1st Amendment rights is a red-herring of the 1st order.

0 Replies

Those are offensive to me, Nimh, but another example of free speech. I'd never buy them but I wouldn't try to limit them either. Someone in that set of cards may consider a libel suit, however. It really shows how silly and frightened the right is, IMO. A bunch of entertainers are enemies of the state?

Maybe what gets the right's goat is that those entertainers have made a lot of money. That seems to be the only measure of value in this administration.

0 Replies

Fishin', i see no argument in your statement about an issue of free speech on private propery--so perhaps i did misread you. However, i stand by the contention that the Supremes have interpreted the first amendment to mean that private individuals may not infer with the right of free speech in public. I had read your statement to mean that the government cannot interfer in free public speech, but that individuals may, or at least, are not prohibited by the first amendment from doing so.

0 Replies

Quote:

"Our country right or wrong" is the first part of the definition of true patriotism that Carl Schurz set before the United States Senate in 1872. The second part is, "When right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

I like that quote very much.

Quote:

I've gone back to the begining of this thread and noticed an agreement among all those who allow free speech (dissent) to be limited. They don't seem to grasp that if you condition free speech, then it is not free speech.

There have always been limits on free speech. Our constitution attempts to constrain the government from unreasonable limits thereon, but I don't think anyone believes that absolute freedom to say anything you wish is a good thing.

Protesting a war should be protected. Giving away troop positions to foil your country's efforts in that war should not.

0 Replies

Being a "good thing" and being an inherent right are two quite different matters, of course. Yelling "you fuckin fag nigga" in the middle of Times Square is definitely not a good thing but it is definitely permitted (in my view). If a recording artist wants to record it and has someone who wants to produce and sell it, we just have to put up with it. Using it deliberately to start a melee or do physical harm is something else again. Clarence Thomas' decision based on something like "expected harm" in the cross-burning case was a little dubious, I think.

0 Replies

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--reportersspeech0520may20,0,4768281.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire

A story about some red-state (Stalinist sympathies?) kids who managed to be unpatriotic and rude at the same time -- but what did their college do about it?

It's good to protest. It's never good to prevent the opposition from speaking.

0 Replies

Tartarin - I think my example shows the kind of speech I think can reasonably be abridged.

0 Replies

The difference between dissent and disloyalty

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know