I used to think that I was a free speech absolutist as well.

[11 Bravo]

Today I find myself watching DUers haggle over the propriety of allowing a Confederate flag shirt in school. Some say it is a symbol of hate, others call it free expression. I have been a teacher for 35 years now (thank you GI Bill), and I am reminded of a day, sometime back in the early '90s in my own fifth grade classroom.
I was teaching at an almost entirely white public school in an affluent section of Fairfax County, Virginia. On the day in question, one of my young charges came into my classroom wearing a T-shirt which read: "Virginia, where our peanuts are bigger and our Governor's a n*****r". (Doug Wilder, the first African-American Governor in U. S. history was our Governor at the time.) I sent the boy to the office, where he was held until his parents could bring him another shirt. Where do YOU draw the free speech line?

(We pretty much bagged reading, writing, and 'rithmetic that day, and had what I recall to be an excellent discussion about bigotry, tolerance, and the history of race relations in our state, so I suppose something good came out of it.)

[Ian David]

1. How about students wearing these...

Or...



Or this...



All available at my Cafe Press shop (shameless plug)

http://www.cafepress.com/southdiversity

[supernova]

2. Oh, I love the first two

Those are awesome! :thumbsup:

I'd be happy to display either one.

Sherman, meh. :P

[Ian David]

13. I wore the first one on my trip to Myrtle Beach.

I got a few odd stares, no comments, except some subtle negative hints from my father.

I'm not a huge fan of General Sherman, but I know he pisses-off a good segment of the wrong sorts of people, so I decided to use him as red meat to get the dogs worked-up.

It wouldn't have worked as well had I used Alan Sherman.

[conscious evolution]

5. Steal the flag

I think minoritys in this country should steal the flag from the rednecks.
Originally,the flag was a battle standard for a rebel army.I think it should become a battle flag for another army.An army consisting of those oppressed by the the original owners.

I do like your shirts.Here is an idea for another.Replace the stars with the religous symbols,including the Taoist yiyang symbol and the Hindu AUM symbol.On the field go with either the rainbow colors or tyedye the field and bars.

[Ian David]

12. I had the same thought for the graphics, but I'm not that good.

I saw it in my head, but couldn't photoshop it well enough to consummate the union.

[Ikonoklast]

3. My idea of hate speech just may be your idea of free speech.

But in a classroom setting there needs to be rules and and some sort of limits set, unless you want total chaos. Same thing with the workplace.

Your right to free speech ends at my front door.

If you want to wear clothes that have messages that are offensive to others, do so on your own time. If you want to attend functions sponsored by those that are considered to be hate groups, well fine and good, it is your right to be as racist and stupid as you care to be.

But just don't do it in my front yard.

I also have the absolute right to point out that you are a hater.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. But students don't have full rights, right?

I'll yield to your experience, but in my stint as a high school teacher (and my experience as a high school student), I discovered that students while in school can have their free expression curtailed if it is demonstrably disruptive to the learning environment (which up here meant bigoted remarks of all variety, threats of violence, and the like).

[onenote]

6. Very few people are free speech absolutists

But some are more quick to demand restrictions on speech than others. I tend to be very suspicious of any governmental action to restrict speech, even speech that I find offensive. Why? Because if the first amendment only protected non-offensive speech, it wouldn't protect anything, since any speech may be offensive to someone. Moreover, I'm suspicious when the government plays the role of deciding what speech is legitimately offensive and what isn't. On the hand, I recognize that there are circumstances where expressive activity (and, in rare cases, even pure speech) can be cross a line that poses such substantial and immediate harm as to warrant restrictions. These are extremely rare situations in my opinion. The case you describe is a hard one for me, because I don't like the idea that students check their first amendment rights at the school door -- maybe because I remember wearing armbands and buttons protesting the Vietnam war in the 60s at a time when people want to bar me from doing so. And the fact that my protests might have upset some of my classmates with different views wasn't, in my mind, a sufficient reason to restrict my speech. Yet, at some point, schools do have to maintain discipline -- they are put in the unique position of being "caretakers" for other people's children during the school day.

The trick is in finding a way to draw the line so it doesn't end up restraining any more speech than is absolutely necessary.

[TWiley]

7. Impose "Free Speech Zones" on Limbaugh

after all, he supported the idea to contain liberal rhetoric

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I think free speech is absolute

Hate speech is not a right.

There is a difference.

Like porn, we know it when we (see) hear it.

I also think it is far from contradictory to legislate (with GREAT specificity as to words or intent) certain forms of speech as illegal.

[onenote]

10. can you give an example of specific words you'd make illegal?

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Actually, I don't have any specific words I would ban

But I can see limits on free speech.

For example, the idea that corporations can make campaign contributions (and lobbyists can do what they do) is held up, at least in part, by free speech laws.

If we chose to, would could specifically ban that specific sort of free speech.

This is radical and I am not intending to debate it here (although I am happy to in another thread, but don't want yours hijacked), but I favor campaigns being 100% funded with public money and would love to see **all** campaign contributions outlawed. To do so would require some limits on free speech. I cite this simply as a way to show how I can free speech being limited.

[onenote]

14. complex issues

Let's say a ban is enacted against all campaign contributions. Would it also bar people from spending their own money to express themselves in favor of a candidate? Would you allow people to spend money to purchase or create a sign that they post on their lawns or bumper stickers on their cars? What about buying an ad in the paper? Would people be allowed to spend their own money on these things or only allow the campaign to spend money on them with the allocated public funds?

My questions aren't intended to be a criticism of your position, just examples of how complex the issue is.

As for barring "lobbyist" speech, I think you would have a problem with the part of the first amendment that guarantees the right of the people to "petition the government for redress of grievances." Not only would it not be sustainable to require that such petitioning be done only by someone on their own behalf, rather than through someone they hire to speak for them, such a limitatino would give those less articulate, less able to communicate, a decided disadvantage. I'm not talking about contributions by lobbyists, I'm talking about lobbyists, such as the ones employed by environmental groups, human rights groups, labor, etc. to represent groups of people with shared interests and communicate their desires and views to elected officials.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. You cite but a few of the complexities .....

... so yes, these are hardly simple matters. Circling back to my original point, I am just saying that, even as one who is a free speech absolutist, I am open to the idea that it can, in certain narrow, specific cases, be limited by legislation.

My absolutism is pretty firm in the use of specific words. Lenny Bruce and George Carlin should never have been muffled, porn is okay if that's your thing, and use of disgusting words - including the one that starts in "n" - should be everyone's absolute right. Let societal norms strike it down. Also, there is no inherent mutual exclusivity between using any words you wish and prosecution for hate speech. If you were black and I call you n***er, I'm a jerk and you have a right to picket my house till the day I die. If I say the same word while working to deprive you of even the slightest freedom, then I have crossed the line from exercising a right to say what I wish and into a criminal act. <---this is simply to make an example, and perhaps a poor one; as above, this is a very complex issue.

I also think the real reason we have freedom of speech is to allow us to speak out against our government without fear of retribution. The issues you and I are discussing are more in the way of side benefits, not the fundamental thrust of free speech laws.

[onenote]

18. Agreed

and because I believe that the first amendment is intended to allow criticism of the government, I'm particualarly disappointed in all of the posts that would seek to suppress certain speech because its not supprotive of the current administration.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Ah .... the heavenly chorus

As the ACLU is right to support the KKK's right to be jerks, so we need to be willing to hear dissenting opinion, even if it comes from otherwise kindred spirits.

[Bjorn Against]

15. Money is not speech...

And even if money were speech it would certainly not be free speech as if it were then "free" speech would be very expensive.

[onenote]

20. so it would be okay to spend money to buy an ad

but not to spend money so someone else can buy an ad?

If I write up an ad supporting a candidate and get three of my friends to contribute to the cost of running the ad, would that be okay? And if it is, at what point is it not okay for me to give money to someone to run an ad?

Obama's campaign was fueled by donations from thousands of people. I assume you think that was a bad thing?

[Bjorn Against]

23. We need a system of public financing.

While Obama's ability to fund his campaign from thousands of small donors is a lot better than many other campaigns that are funded primarily through a small handful of large donors, it still is a bad system. We need a system that allows all candidates to compete on an equal level, not a system that gives an advantage to those who can raise the most money. The way to do this is through public financing of elections.

[onenote]

24. so let me ask again

if we have public financing, should individuals be allowed, collectively or otherwise, to spend money to express their support or opposition to a political candidate?

[Bjorn Against]

25. It should be very limited.

It is one thing to spend a few dollars of your personal income to print up a logo on a T-shirt, it is quite another to spend millions on a massive ad campaign. We can not allow the rich to have a disproportionate say in our elections.

[Greyhound]

32. As long as that expression is not endorsed by or subject to the approval of the candidate, campaign,

or party. Yes.

Adding collectivism into the mix creates another issue which needs to be addressed. If David Geffen decides to bankroll a "vote for Obama" campaign, is that OK? I think it needs to be restricted to the individual.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. Actually, the case can be made that it is

In fact, that very case became the reason we have such a mess in our electoral system. I favor a frontal approach to the issue. Legislate limits to free speech. Scroll up to my discussion with onenote.

[Bjorn Against]

27. I know the courts ruled that way, but in my opinion the courts were wrong.

If money is free speech then bribery is free speech, I don't see what the distinction is between a big campaign contribution and a bribe other than that one is legal and the other is not. I think the courts were wrong in their decision, and I don't accept the argument that free speech requires the ability to write a really big check.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. You and I agree on this

[Ian David]

16. Well, certainly the word "tits" would not be on the list.

It sounds like a snack food.

[onenote]

21. true story about tits

Tits was one of George Carlin's original seven dirty words. A few years ago, a repub senator (Brownback, I believe, but I could be wrong) decided to introduce a bill that specifically banned the broadcast of the seven dirty words -- spelling them out quite explicitly. However, there was a change in the list. Tits was no longer one of the seven verboten words. And "asshole" -- which wasn't on Carlin's list, was added. I can only assume its because right wing fundies like to compliment women on their tits and don't like being called asshole when they do.

[Greyhound]

9. Government proscription of speech is the primary issue. No one is

protected from offense.

"We must bring ourselves to realize that it is necessary to support free speech for the things we hate in order to ensure it for the things in which we believe with all our heart." - Heywood Broun

"The right to discuss freely and openly, by speech, by the pen, by the press, all political questions, and to examine and animadvert (speak out) upon all political institutions, is a right so clear and certain, so interwoven with our other liberties, so necessary, in fact to their existence, that without it we must fall at once into depression or anarchy. To say that he who holds unpopular opinions must hold them at the peril of his life, and that, if he expresses them in public, he has only himself to blame if they who disagree with him should rise and put him to death, is to strike at all rights, all liberties, all protection of the laws, and to justify and extenuate all crimes. - William Cullen Bryant

"To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker" - Fredrick Douglas

"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed." - Anna Quindlen

This is why the ACLU must defend the KKK's right to march in Skokie. We are either free or we are subjects, I don't see any middle ground on this issue.

[KG]

19. not sure the inside of a school qualifies as a free speech zone.

[cynatnite]

28. School is not a free speech zone. That shirt was a violation of the dress code n/t

[MellowDem]

29. The Confederate Flag in and of itself..

would not warrant a ride home if I had been in your position. But the wording definitely warranted it. The Confederate Flag has lots of different meanings. It is NOT just a symbol of hate, though the KKK has tried to make it so in the past. Hell, many teens wear it because they view themselves as "rebels" trying to shake up the system. It really depends on the context I suppose.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Suck it up I sez.

and remember you too can say whatever the fuck you please, offensive as it may be in certain quarters. Marke me as pretty close to an absolutist in this area.

The term and very concept of hate speech is bullshit. If you are exposed to hate then refute it, disprove it, mock it, drown it out, or fucking ignore it. The totalitarian bent on the left is just as dangerous as the fascist machinations of the Reich. You have to stand by your principles when it is hard, require sacrifice, and/or hurtful or they aren't really principles at all but snake oil sales, some crap to spout off about to be sanctimonious in times of convenience.

This whole concept is a eerily similar to the kind of thinking that lead to torture. Being ready to give up on principles as soon as it takes serious strength of character is required to maintain them says a lot about character and convictions. None of it good.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. There's no contradiction, there. Kids- in public schools- don't have absolute 1st Amendment rights.

That's all there is to it.