Skip to comments.
STILLWELL: When Speech Becomes a Crime
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 6/28/6
| Cinnamon Stillwell
Posted on 06/28/2006 5:53:49 AM PDT by SmithL
- Roman Catholic Robert Smith is fired from an appointment on the Washington Metro transit authority board by Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich for the crime of saying that he doesn't approve of homosexuality.
- Journalist and author Oriana Fallaci cannot visit her native country of Italy for fear of being thrown in prison because of a lawsuit brought against her by the Italian Muslim Union for the crime of "defaming Islam."
- British neo-Nazi David Irving is sentenced to three years in prison in Austria for a 1989 speech in which he committed the crime of Holocaust denial.
- College Republican Steve Hinkle is found guilty by California Polytechnic State University (San Luis Obispo) for "disruption" for the crime of putting up a flyer advertising a black conservative speaker.
What do the above examples have in common? They are the logical outgrowth of a dangerous trend sweeping the Western world: the criminalization and censorship of speech.
Outright censorship and draconian speech codes have long been a staple of Third World authoritarian regimes. But Western democracies and in particular the United States (where the First Amendment is supposed to reign supreme) have always prided themselves on protecting free speech. Yet because of the creeping reach of political correctness, one can now be put in prison, lose a job, be kicked out of school or be otherwise censored simply for uttering an unpopular opinion.
It's called hate speech. If there ever were a more Orwellian concept, it would be difficult to find. For much like the concept of "thought crimes" in George Orwell's novel "1984," hate crimes and hate speech suppose intent on the part of the "perpetrator" that may or may not have any basis
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crimethink; freespeech; mdm; speechcrime; thoughtcrime; thoughtcrimes; thoughtpolice
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: RexBeach
A story published here yesterday indicates that DC now has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in the nation. And when Congress recesses, the average IQ of DC goes up 15 points.
21
posted on
06/28/2006 6:33:06 AM PDT
by
thulldud
("Para ingles, oprima el dos.")
To: BohDaThone
22
posted on
06/28/2006 6:33:53 AM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: freedumb2003
The Washington Metro transit board and Cal Poly are not part of the private sector, but are government entities. It would seem that First Amendment protections should apply in these institutions. As for the legal problems of Oriana Fallaci and David Irving, they occurred in Italy and Austria, respectively. Continental European nations have never recognized a broadly interpreted right to free speech in the sense the United States has. Not even Britain and the Commonwealth countries enjoy the level of freedom we have in this area, as evidenced by "hate speech" laws on the books in Britain and Canada.
To: oh8eleven
Show me where and/or how the 1st Amendment stops at the doorways of private institutions. The USC is a contract between individuals and the Government. The only entities recognized by the USC are individuals, the Federal Government and the States.
The management of businesses is left to the (late and lamented) 10th Amendment.
One person, acting as an individual, cannot "censor" another, per se.
24
posted on
06/28/2006 6:43:53 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
To: SmithL
In contrast, the libs think that disclosing operational details of a top secret anti-terror program is "free speach," despite an utter lack of free speach grounds (i.e., corruption, illegality, etc.) to justify such disclosure.
Liberalism really is a mental disorder, isn't it?
25
posted on
06/28/2006 6:46:21 AM PDT
by
piytar
To: Wallace T.
The Washington Metro transit board and Cal Poly are not part of the private sector, but are government entities. Within the confines of the job, they can indeed censor. When I worked for the State of California, we were given directives at election time that we could NOT have any political banners, buttons, etc. on our person or cubicle walls, since this would be viewed as an endorsement.
They couldn't censor me outside of the workplace but they had to do so to ensure impartiality (the converse of the issue at hand).
26
posted on
06/28/2006 6:46:41 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
To: piytar
In contrast, the libs think that disclosing operational details of a top secret anti-terror program is "free speach," But the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame OTOH was an awful breach of National Security.
Hypocrites, the lot of 'em.
27
posted on
06/28/2006 6:48:25 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
To: freedumb2003
The USC is a contract between individuals and the Government. The only entities recognized by the USC are individuals, the Federal Government and the States and state actors who act on their behalf. Those state actors include entities such as public schools and universities (it's actually a little more complex than that in some cases).
28
posted on
06/28/2006 6:50:03 AM PDT
by
piytar
To: SmithL
Vice President for Student Affairs Cornel Morton called attention to Hinkle's blond hair and blue eyes and the fact that Hinkle was a white male member of the Republican club. Morton said that to students of color, this could represent "a collision of experience." The chemistry of the situation has racial implications, Morton said, and Hinkle was naïve not to acknowledge this. Somehow, I doubt if the situation was reversed that there would be any stink.
29
posted on
06/28/2006 6:50:48 AM PDT
by
razorback-bert
(Rush was a victim of profiling)
To: SmithL
Canada is getting really bad. There, people really are fined by the government for saying things against homosexuality. The Knights of Columbus was fined for declining to allow their social hall to be used for a gay wedding! It is really chilling what they do in Canada. A lady called into Bill O'Reilly's show yesterday stating that free speech in Canda was limited and he just discounted her out-of-hand. I can't believe he isn't aware of what is going on up there. Heck, isn't his show banned up there?
To: SmithL
Canada is getting really bad. There, people really are fined by the government for saying things against homosexuality. The Knights of Columbus was fined for declining to allow their social hall to be used for a gay wedding! It is really chilling what they do in Canada. A lady called into Bill O'Reilly's show yesterday stating that free speech in Canda was limited and he just discounted her out-of-hand. I can't believe he isn't aware of what is going on up there. Heck, isn't his show banned up there?
To: freedumb2003
"When I worked for the State of California, we were given directives at election time that we could NOT have any political banners, buttons, etc. on our person or cubicle walls, since this would be viewed as an endorsement."
But is it LEGAL to make those rules? Not the fact that it was done...bureaucracy will push to see what it can get away with and if it works they go for more restrictions and so on. And speech is curtailed all the time in the interest of "fairness" or "impartiality" or whatever thin veil they want to use.
But does that make it right or do we just resign ourselves to it?
32
posted on
06/28/2006 6:57:14 AM PDT
by
Adder
(Can we bring back stoning again? Please?)
To: freedumb2003
The management of businesses is left to the (late and lamented) 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment (p)reserves states rights. Nowhere do I see it nullifying the 1st Amendment - or managing businesses.
33
posted on
06/28/2006 6:57:39 AM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: oh8eleven
As originally written, the 1st Amendment places restrictions only on the federal government ("Congress") with regards to curtailing freedom of the press, freedom pf religion, etc.
In modern times, since the passage of the 14th Amendment, it is been interpreted as also applying to state and local governments, hence the endless battles regarding nativity scenes and high school commencement speeches. (I think applying the 1st Amendment to state and local governments completely subverts the original intent of the amendment, which was to keep the federal government OUT of local affairs, not to give federal courts the power to micromanage local affairs such as high school commencement speeches.)
Despite all this, few if any courts would say that the 1st Amendment as such applies to actions by private individuals or businesses. Nonetheless, myriad anti-discrimination laws, both federal and local, often create that impression.
To: oh8eleven
The 10th Amendment (p)reserves states rights. Nowhere do I see it nullifying the 1st Amendment - or managing businesses. You need to take a course on the USC. The 10th Amendment handles everthing not enumerated in the USC (or at least it used to). It is the most important Amendment we have (or had).
It says that the creation of and management of business or anything else is left to the States or the People.
And as has been pointed out to you, the first part of the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law..."
Businesses simply do not exist in the USC. Thus, the 10th.
35
posted on
06/28/2006 7:03:02 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
To: oh8eleven
Read the First Amendment. As someone once said it is better to remain silent and thought to be ignorant than to confirm your ignorance by speaking.
36
posted on
06/28/2006 7:05:03 AM PDT
by
monocle
To: SmithL
There is a distinction between speech codes in public versus private employ: The latter has the right to dismiss as a right pertaining to private property; the former does not.
37
posted on
06/28/2006 7:07:18 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: monocle
Well thanks - and fu too.
38
posted on
06/28/2006 7:08:29 AM PDT
by
oh8eleven
(RVN '67-'68)
To: SmithL
What do the above examples have in common? Not much, really.
Two of them (Fallaci and Irving) are examples of the abuse of government power.
One of them (Smith) is an example of the termination of an employment contract in accordance with the legitimate rights of the employer.
One of them (Hinkle) is an example of a breach of contract.
39
posted on
06/28/2006 7:10:21 AM PDT
by
steve-b
(Hoover Dam is every bit as "natural" as a beaver dam.)
To: freedumb2003
The difficulty with free speech in the public sector dates back to the spoils system prevalent in 19th Century America. Under the spoils system, a government employee's tenure in a job was dependent upon his willingness to campaign for the party in power or his family and social connections with politicians. The advent of civil service reform in the 1880s and thereafter was a response to the widespread corruption among civil servants, including the police. By requiring written or physical tests and prohibiting campaigning for public office holders, the intent was to create a group of peace officers and civil servants that would impartially enforce the law. No system is perfect and many urban political machines circumvented civil service rules, especially in the area of promotions. However, the goal was and is to separate civil servants from partisan politics. It was not to impose an immoral viewpoint on homosexuality on an individual or restrict support for a conservative speaker and his ideas.
The RINO governor of Maryland and the red diaper doper babies running Cal Poly are merely using their political clout to punish people who hold to traditional or conservative views.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson