Freedom of expression. It goes both ways, right?
Mantic
2012/03/30 20:47:57
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
88% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
13% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
Lots of people bandy around the terms "free speech" and "free expression." But how many support the idea?
To be clear, I am no fan of censorship.
I have seen people I knew driven to ruin and ultimately treated as poorly as child molesters by zealous censors. I have donated quite a bit over the last couple of decades to one charity (the CBLDF) that helps fund legal expenses of those fighting government censorship, and related efforts to ruin names and shut down businesses.
By the same token, I have seen plenty of abuse of the law by individuals and groups who believe their supposed freedom trumps that of others. Especially business owners.
The most recent scenario making the news is that of Lexington, Kentucky screen printing business Hands On Originals. This small, specialized printing company declined a job offered by the local Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), on principle of not supporting the associated message and event (for religious reasons, but that should have no relevance). Instead of simply going to a competing company, the GLSO immediately filed a discrimination complaint with Lexington’s Human Rights Commission.
It is an attempt to use the law as a weapon against even a passive expression of dissent, and so typical of censorship it tries to damage the livelihood of the victim (Hands On Originals) through legal harassment.
Printers, distributors and retailers of printed matter are more often targets of censorship efforts than individual authors. For obvious reason: the individual has very little means of impacting the wider environment without the support of these businesses.
Many major printers and distributors already have policies in place refusing certain kinds of material, not so much because of personal conviction as fear of legal repercussions. Whether it is obscenity or "hate speech," company owners have learned that lawsuits from agencies like the GLSO can put them out of business even if the courts don't ultimately fault them.
This DOES result in effective censorship of individuals!
Although I do not agree with the rhetoric of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, it still bothers me to know that those people and others like them are unable to find internet hosting or other publishing access in this country. Unlike the GLSO facing individual disagreement with this or that small company, they will not find willing alternatives just around the block, they are universally blackballed out of fear.
To be clear, I am no fan of censorship.
I have seen people I knew driven to ruin and ultimately treated as poorly as child molesters by zealous censors. I have donated quite a bit over the last couple of decades to one charity (the CBLDF) that helps fund legal expenses of those fighting government censorship, and related efforts to ruin names and shut down businesses.
By the same token, I have seen plenty of abuse of the law by individuals and groups who believe their supposed freedom trumps that of others. Especially business owners.
The most recent scenario making the news is that of Lexington, Kentucky screen printing business Hands On Originals. This small, specialized printing company declined a job offered by the local Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO), on principle of not supporting the associated message and event (for religious reasons, but that should have no relevance). Instead of simply going to a competing company, the GLSO immediately filed a discrimination complaint with Lexington’s Human Rights Commission.
It is an attempt to use the law as a weapon against even a passive expression of dissent, and so typical of censorship it tries to damage the livelihood of the victim (Hands On Originals) through legal harassment.
Printers, distributors and retailers of printed matter are more often targets of censorship efforts than individual authors. For obvious reason: the individual has very little means of impacting the wider environment without the support of these businesses.
Many major printers and distributors already have policies in place refusing certain kinds of material, not so much because of personal conviction as fear of legal repercussions. Whether it is obscenity or "hate speech," company owners have learned that lawsuits from agencies like the GLSO can put them out of business even if the courts don't ultimately fault them.
This DOES result in effective censorship of individuals!
Although I do not agree with the rhetoric of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, it still bothers me to know that those people and others like them are unable to find internet hosting or other publishing access in this country. Unlike the GLSO facing individual disagreement with this or that small company, they will not find willing alternatives just around the block, they are universally blackballed out of fear.

















While pro-thug (er, I mean union) teachers put bumper stickers on their cars one woman was fired for placing a pro-Walker sign in the back of her car window.
Freedom of speech does not go both ways in Wisconsin.
That is the sort of thing that SHOULD be addressed through the legal system. Problem is, of course, dissent is tied to the individual's employment so until the situation actually puts them out of that job most will not risk making waves.
Legal Censorship: PayPal Makes a Habit of Deciding What Users Can Read
Although eff.org is pretty left-leaning, I usually agree with their efforts in regard to privacy and censorship. This article, however, illustrates the kind of disconnect that leads to such things as the GLSO petition mentioned above.
Granted, PayPal/eBay are probably more concerned over legal issues than owner morality, but once again the complaint confuses the business service for a right, being denied, rather than respecting the company owner's freedom to refuse service, for any reason.
I also tend to agree on the free speech issue. While I strongly oppose the opinions of the kkk, they have a right to their opinion, and should have a means to express it.
Bottom line is indeed, it should cut both ways. Some may argue that speech from the kkk and similar (hell, even rush limbaugh) creates, inflames, or causes others to react violently. They may be right. But...nothing is perfect, and if we are to honestly embrace the concept, then that is the price to pay for such a freedom.
Storm
Well said. Rallying a boycott among the people is very different from legal harassment.
If anyone is interested, we're always growing, and always happy to meet new debaters.... http://www.politicalbuddies.com