Are Free Speech Zones Undermining True Freedom of Expression?

[russ_watters]

The right to express ones opinion is the most important part of living in a free country in my mind.

Yes...

As long as that opinion is reasonable and valid it should be allowed to be broadcast in a public arena.

Yikes, no! The entire point of the 1st Amendment is that it is the content of the message that cannot be suppressed. It doesn't matter at all how reasonable or valid the message is!

What this discussion is about is the method by which people express their beliefs, not the content itself.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the argument by the anti-FSZ crowd is the prohibition against access by and to the media. That to me is troubling. If someone is holding a public rally, the public should be allowed to participate, provided the conduct themselves in a civilized manner.

I checked-into that one because it doesn't make sense to me. Wik cites two articles, but the first one says nothing of the sort. The second contains the quote in the citation, but doesn't elaborate. It looks to me like the Wik statement about it being common is not correct. There was one instance of it reported. It is not a real public law/policy.

 

[Skyhunter]

I checked-into that one because it doesn't make sense to me. Wik cites two articles, but the first one says nothing of the sort. The second contains the quote in the citation, but doesn't elaborate. It looks to me like the Wik statement about it being common is not correct. There was one instance of it reported. It is not a real public law/policy.

I certainly hope not. I can understand setting aside areas for dissent and keeping two separate factions separated to avoid trouble. But denying the press access is IMO an egregious violation of the first amendment.

 

[Kurdt]

Yikes, no! The entire point of the 1st Amendment is that it is the content of the message that cannot be suppressed. It doesn't matter at all how reasonable or valid the message is!

What this discussion is about is the method by which people express their beliefs, not the content itself.

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment? How then do you encourage debate in society about divided issues?

On the point of the method of delivery I find that from this thread many believe they have a right not to see or hear other peoples opinions if they don't want to (or at least that is the way it comes across - educate me if I'm wrong). I believe that people have no rights at all to not be offended and the reason I believe that is because you can then not criticize those people and criticism generally offends. What criticism does do is allow other people a third party perspective on their own beliefs and if they're reasonable people they will re-asses their view and either take on board what you have said or reject it. If, also peoples ability to express those criticisms by having their method of delivery compromised on infringed upon then neither party can learn from each other which is the root of free speech.

For instance the president has this exclusion zone for protesters so he must be in his own isolated bubble where he gets no feedback and continues making decisions based on his judgement and his alone. As a democratically elected leader it is his duty to uphold the will of the people and if he can't get any feedback from the people then how can he do that? He is stuck in a place that he cannot grow as a leader and cannot put in place the opinions of the country's people. Of course I realize those that protest are a minoroty, but the fact that he can see that policy x, y and z are issues means he can at least consider the position on those policies again.

I used the presidency as an example there but it works all over.

 

[devil-fire]

You're missing the point: How do you tell ahead of time if that person holding the sign or wearing that t-shirt is going to be disruptive?

i would expect using aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. are you implying that wearing a dissident t-shirt and holding a sign like that is also a good indication that a person is going to become disruptive?

 

[Evo]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment?

Well, it's usually referred to as your right to vote. That's kind of the whole reason behind voting. You elect people to represent you and they are your voice (supposedly, in theory, that's how it's supposed to work).

If you have an issue, you write to the appropriate representative.

Of course there can be special issues which people feel can't wait to go through proper channels. You do have the right to peaceful assembly, but that doesn't mean that you can assemble anywhere, anytime, for any reason. You want to have a rally in a public space? You contact the proper authoriities and request a permit. They will approve the time and place and provide the necessary police protection. This may be just to route traffic, or crowd control, etc...

 

[devil-fire]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment?

Well, it's usually referred to as your right to vote. That's kind of the whole reason behind voting. You elect people to represent you and they are your voice (supposedly, in theory, that's how it's supposed to work).

If you have an issue, you write to the appropriate representative.

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

 

[Skyhunter]

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

Good point. A healthy democracy needs debate and free expression of ideas.

[edit] Which is what PF's P&WA is all about [/edit]

 

[russ_watters]

So how does rational debate about particular social points take place. If you can't even get a well constructed argument into a public arena to challenge particular beliefs then what is the point in the first amendment? How then do you encourage debate in society about divided issues?

Where in the first amendment does it say anything about rational debate being required? All it is saying is that you have the right to speak yoru mind. It enforces no standard of debate, nor should it.

 

[Evo]

there is much more to political participation then only the act of voting. for example, debate among citizens.

Unfortunately in such a large society , other than local town hall debates, it's a bit hard to get a couple of miilion people in one room.

 

[russ_watters]

i would expect using aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. are you implying that wearing a dissident t-shirt and holding a sign like that is also a good indication that a person is going to become disruptive?

Certainly aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. But if you want to be as disruptive as possible, you need to act passive until the event you are intending to disrupt starts. So to answer your question, yes, wearing a dissenting t-shirt or holding a sign is an indication of a possibly disruptive person. Certainly, you wouldn't expect someone wearing non-dissenting apparel to be disruptive. If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

 

[Skyhunter]

Certainly aggressive body language and a raised voice would count. But if you want to be as disruptive as possible, you need to act passive until the event you are intending to disrupt starts. So to answer your question, yes, wearing a dissenting t-shirt or holding a sign is an indication of a possibly disruptive person. Certainly, you wouldn't expect someone wearing non-dissenting apparel to be disruptive. If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

I must not be much of an ideologue then, because that is exactly how I would do it. Infiltrate and then subvert the dominant paradigm.

 

[devil-fire]

If protesters were smart, they'd wear non-dissenting apparel in order to infiltrate the event, and then become disruptive. But wearing supportive apparel is probably too much for an ideologue to stomach.

unless the objective is to protest and not be disruptive.

 

[russ_watters]

That's an oxymoron.

 

[ray b]

That's an oxymoron.

to the newly-conned maybe

I take it that was in responce to

"unless the objective is to protest and not be disruptive.''

wearing a shirt and or holding a sign is not disruptive at a public political rally
or at a road side, sidewalk ect
moderate heckaling, as appossed to shouting down, is not disruptive
but is an attempt to start a dialog with a public offical
BuSh2 is the very first to demand loyalty oaths at political rallys
and see any disagreement as disruption
this clearly shows the current leadership doesnot care what the people think
and wants only flocks of brainwashed sheeple at their events
who only baa at the approved times