Free speech zones?

[0rthodontist]

(is there already a thread on this?)

I was doing some reading about public spaces re the thread about prayer, and stumbled on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones#_note-sfgate

which linked to this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

I am surprised I was not aware of this. Free speech zones sound completely antithetical to the point of free speech, and also free press: that latter article claimed that reporters were prohibited from entering the "free speech zones" to report on the "free speech."

Can this be real?

 

(is there already a thread on this?)

I was doing some reading about public spaces re the thread about prayer, and stumbled on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones#_note-sfgate

which linked to this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL

I am surprised I was not aware of this. Free speech zones sound completely antithetical to the point of free speech, and also free press: that latter article claimed that reporters were prohibited from entering the "free speech zones" to report on the "free speech."

Can this be real?

Welcome to Neo-America.

Your papers please.

 

[Evo]

Free speech is allowed, but within defined areas, those areas have been greatly restricted around the President. I don't know how I feel about the Presidential restrictions, but since a lot of people are just plain nuts, I guess I will lean towards agreeing on a space limit. If you want to hear people prattling on about their pet peeves, you absolutely can. If you don't, you don't have to. That's what makes it just for all.

 

[0rthodontist]

Why not make a national free speech zone inside a desert in Utah, reserved for all views that disagree with governmental policy? No press access, of course. But if you want to hear a few dissenting views, all you have to do is go to Utah, so it's perfectly fair. I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution really meant.

The true meaning of free speech is the ability to say what you want, where you want to, so long as you are in a place that reasonable people would call public, or in a place that you own yourself. We do not have any inherent right not to hear things we don't want to.

 

[Evo]

Why not make a national free speech zone inside a desert in Utah, reserved for all views that disagree with governmental policy? No press access, of course. But if you want to hear a few dissenting views, all you have to do is go to Utah, so it's perfectly fair. I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution really meant.

The true meaning of free speech is the ability to say what you want, where you want to, so long as you are in a place that reasonable people would call public, or in a place that you own yourself. We do not have any inherent right not to hear things we don't want to.

You really are young and naive. Those boundaries can change. And I, for one, do not think that if I go to a Macy's Thanksgiving day Parade that the KKK or a group of skinheads, or right wing religious fanatics can ruin my day by spewing their personal opinions.

 

[0rthodontist]

Though this is just a small point, not all skinheads are racist. There are also SHARP skinheads (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice).

Second, you seem genuinely opposed to free speech. You appear to have no problem with people saying what they want, so long as they do it in private. If this is ad hominem, then please tell me and I sincerely apologize, but this is what it seems you are saying. Am I wrong about this?

 

[Hurkyl]

False dichotomy. There's a (large) middle area between "able to speak anywhere I darn well please" and "able to speak only in private".

And, of course, the right to free speech is not something to be upheld at all costs.

(and don't make the mistake of thinking the right to free speech is the right to make other people listen to you)

 

[0rthodontist]

I would argue it's not quite a false dichotomy because I'm not saying it's either/or, just that Evo's statements have lead me to believe she only would like free speech to happen in private. It is certainly possible that there are public circumstances where Evo would not wish a peacable neo-nazi demonstration to be banned. (Not that I would like to see such a demonstration either, but I wouldn't want to remove their right to have one) But I would like to know what those circumstances are.

 

[0rthodontist]

And, of course, the right to free speech is not something to be upheld at all costs.

We're talking about forcing a few elderly people with anti-war signs to move a quarter mile away from a Bush gathering. What would the costs have been if those people were permitted to stay? They might have gotten a bit of media attention. That's it. The only danger is that they might have managed to communicate their views.

(and don't make the mistake of thinking the right to free speech is the right to make other people listen to you)

I believe the right to free speech is the right to try to make other people listen to you, within reasonable legal bounds. If you are prohibited from even attempting to get listeners, you are not speaking freely in any meaningful way.

 

[Evo]

Though this is just a small point, not all skinheads are racist. There are also SHARP skinheads (Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice).

How can you be a skinhead and not be racist? That's like a KKK member saying he's not racist. Either you are, or you aren't.

Second, you seem genuinely opposed to free speech.

You had better stop making things up, this is a warning. Next warning will be points.

I said nothing of the kind, I said there are limits to where free speech is allowed. I agree that there should be limits so people are not imposed upon.

 

[Hurkyl]

within reasonable legal bounds.

And you consider crashing an event organized by your opposition "reasonable legal bounds"?

 

[0rthodontist]

How can you be a skinhead and not be racist? That's like a KKK member saying he's not racist. Either you are, or you aren't.

You could have Googled it first.
http://www.skinheadnation.co.uk/sharpskinheads.htm [Broken]

You had better stop making things up, this is a warning. Next warning will be points.

I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm sorry to have offended you.

I said nothing of the kind, I said there are limits to where free speech is allowed. I agree that there should be limits so people are not imposed upon.

Under what circumstances would you feel a public neo-nazi demonstration is permissible?

 

[0rthodontist]

And you consider crashing an event organized by your opposition "reasonable legal bounds"?

So long as the event takes place on public property, yes, I would.

 

[Evo]

You could have Googled it first.
http://www.skinheadnation.co.uk/sharpskinheads.htm [Broken]

I'm saying you aren't a skinhead if you aren't racist, that's what a skinhead is. Either you are or you aren't. This is BS. Yeah, the KKK has an offshoot that approves of inter-racial marriage.

Under what circumstances would you feel a public neo-nazi demonstration is permissible?

Under the law. As I have been saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

You could have Googled it first.
http://www.skinheadnation.co.uk/sharpskinheads.htm [Broken]

So, they claim to be card-carrying skinheads - not because they subscribe to any skinhead philosophy, but because they like the music...

Got it.

They'll get along great with all the devout Roman Catholics who don't believe in God - but just like the unleavened bread they use in the Eucharist.

 

[loseyourname]

I am surprised I was not aware of this.

I'm surprised, too. The Democratic National Convention has been doing this for almost twenty years. I remember back when they held it in LA, the protesters were relegated to Pershing Square, a mile away from the Staples Center where the convention was actually taking place.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe the right to free speech is the right to try to make other people listen to you,

Um, no. There is no right to try and make other people listen to you. That is an infringement upon others.

The original intent was to allow one to publicly express one's ideas or thoughts without punishment (arbitrarily or capriciously). Expressing one's ideas publicly is not the same as trying to 'make' others listent to one.

Similarly, freedom of the press was intended to allow one to publish in print one's ideas or opinions without punishment (arbitrarily or capriciously). Freedom of speech and press have evolved in entirely different ways.

Now, there are provisions against slander and libel. There are provisions to prosecute those who verbally or in writing advocate the disruption of social order or overthrow of government. Inciting people to riot is illegal. Inciting people to overthrow by illegal means is illegal.

If one wishes to publicly express one's opinions, one is certainly 'free' to rent an appropriate venue, e.g. an auditorium or pavilion, to which one may invite the public to hear one's views. Similarly, one may write pamplets and distribute, but not forcefully, the literature to the public. One may publish one's opinions in a newspaper or other print media at the discretion of the owners/publishers of the media.

Freedom of speech/press does not imply free of expense.

 

from the first wiki link "Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone". this sounds like protesters in the zones designated for lawfull protests are often prevented from being viewed.

from what iv read in this artical it sounds like only people supportive of bush (in this case) are permited to express their opinions. basicly, the policy is "you are allowed to say or express anything to want here, this is a free country unless it is not pro-bush. in that case you have to leave or be arrested.

now if the safty of the president was in question here, i mean if there was a tip that someone in the croud was going to try to shoot at the president, then they would move the barriers back and not just move the non-pro bush people back (what kind of assasin would attract attention to themselves by being holding the only anti-bush poster in a probush rally)


a person holding a "i don't want war no more" poster at a bush rally is Not the same as a bunch of KKK voicing their opinions on what black people are most usefull for over a megaphone at a thanks giving parade. it would be more like someone holding a poster of "i don't want to treat terkys inhumainly" at a thanks giving parada.


to me this sounds like a clear cut tool for suppressing dissidents. if these protesters are yelling, making threats, being biligerent or acting violently, then they should be removed from the area for doing that. if they are showing their lack of support for a cause then that should be permited, even if it bothers the people around them that they are not like minded.

in addition to that, i think expressing opposition to government policy should always be permited. dispite it being unpopular and disturbing to those who are supportive of those government policys

 

[Astronuc]

"Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone".

If this is true, then this is a form of suppression of dissent, which in the case of Bush and his Republican supporters is no surprise.

 

[russ_watters]

from what iv read in this artical it sounds like only people supportive of bush (in this case) are permited to express their opinions. basicly, the policy is "you are allowed to say or express anything to want here, this is a free country unless it is not pro-bush. in that case you have to leave or be arrested.

Evo already covered this: it is (in this case) a Republican sponsored event. They have a right to not have it disrupted. Like loseyourname said, the Democrats have the same right and do the same thing.

to me this sounds like a clear cut tool for suppressing dissidents. if these protesters are yelling, making threats, being biligerent or acting violently, then they should be removed from the area for doing that. if they are showing their lack of support for a cause then that should be permited, even if it bothers the people around them that they are not like minded.

That's just not realistic/reasonable. Besides the 'its my party and my right to not have it disrupted' thing, it is the nature/goal of protesting to be disruptive and it would be irresponsible to wait until after an event is disrupted to do something about it. Police have a responsibility to be proactive.

 

looks like orthodontist was relegated to the free speech zone. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Hurkyl]

in addition to that, i think expressing opposition to government policy should always be permited. dispite it being unpopular and disturbing to those who are supportive of those government policys

I'll stick to the America where I have legal recourse to remove the person who decides he wants to oppose government policy in my bedroom, thank you very much.

 

[Kurdt]

This reminds me of an excellent program by British comedian Stewart Lee about free speech rights which he explored expertly as he does with everything. The program can be found on youtube and is called Don't get me started. I'm sure you can find it for yourselves.

 

I'll stick to the America where I have legal recourse to remove the person who decides he wants to oppose government policy in my bedroom, thank you very much.

your bedroom isn't a public place though, so i agree that people shouldn't have a right to not be required to leave when asked.

That's just not realistic/reasonable. Besides the 'its my party and my right to not have it disrupted' thing, it is the nature/goal of protesting to be disruptive and it would be irresponsible to wait until after an event is disrupted to do something about it. Police have a responsibility to be proactive.

i don't think holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt that says "i love peace" or "war kills people" is disruptive. like i said, if these protesters are being disruptive for harassing people, then they should be removed from the area for harassment. if these protesters are yelling "down with bush! he's a nazi and he hates black people! you guys are supporting the anti-christ and are going to burn in hell for your sins!" then they could be considered as harassing people of course. i guess I am trying to illustrate the difference between protesting/expressing opposition to something and being disruptive/dangerous

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll stick to the America where I have legal recourse to remove the person who decides he wants to oppose government policy in my bedroom, thank you very much.

When did city streets become your bedroom? You know you can be arrested for treating them that way!

In my opinion, the hundreds of Bill Neel type of arrests that have happened in recent years (and subsequently dismissed by the courts) are indicative of a trend towards suppression of free speech.

Furthermore, how does anyone here support the restricting of access of the press to these free speech zones?

 

[Hurkyl]

When did city streets become your bedroom?

They're not, of course. I never said they did.

I'm trying to snap people out of their knee-jerk "Free speech should be free, darn it!" reaction; as long as people are working from that premise, their arguments are unsound, because obviously (!) there must be limits on free speech.

And I picked this particular example (as opposed to "Fire!") precisely because of its relevant issue. For example, in terms of being "public", the route of a motorcade is clearly somewhere between a park bench¹ and my bedroom. So, it would be nice if the anti-FSZ crowd wasn't arguing as if someone was being barred from sitting on a park bench holding a political sign. :tongue:



1: under ordinary circumstances, of course.

 

[Kurdt]

The right to express ones opinion is the most important part of living in a free country in my mind. As long as that opinion is reasonable and valid it should be allowed to be broadcast in a public arena. As long as the person or people broadcasting the opinion are acting in a civil manner to those around them then they should be left alone.

Conversely people in a public space have no right not to hear things the don't want and they have no right not to be offended by other peoples opinions. If you operate a society in which people who don't want to hear differing opinions are allowed to be shielded then their beliefs can never be challenged. Somebody who does not re-asses and constantly question their opinions and beliefs is very dangerous indeed especially if they happen to be wrong. It is a requirement of society if it is to survive that the opinions and beliefs of those members of society should be continually challenged in a public arena in order for it to progress. This is especially true of those in power.

So I was quite shocked to see that protesters in america are hidden away from public gaze in case they shock anyone. This seems counter-productive to society as a whole. To repress any part of a society leads to those members taking disruptive and illegal methods in getting their voice heard and ultimately would and has led to rebellion if the issue concerns a significant proportion of people. Plus why punish a majority for the fear that a small minority might disrupt an event? Surely the police could handle the few 'crackers' that do turn up.

Anyway I say this an there probably exists a similar law in Britain.

 

For example, in terms of being "public", the route of a motorcade is clearly somewhere between a park bench¹ and my bedroom. So, it would be nice if the anti-FSZ crowd wasn't arguing as if someone was being barred from sitting on a park bench holding a political sign. :tongue:



1: under ordinary circumstances, of course.

the thing with the motorcades is that they should be as free as any other place in regards to political expression. the reason why people are being relocated away from these motorcades isn't because of the danger they pose, but because it doesn't look good to see protesters as the president drives by. if the issue was security, then even the bush supports should be relocated

 

I'm trying to snap people out of their knee-jerk "Free speech should be free, darn it!" reaction; as long as people are working from that premise, their arguments are unsound, because obviously (!) there must be limits on free speech.

I missed all the knee-jerk reactions. Could you point them out please?

And I picked this particular example (as opposed to "Fire!") precisely because of its relevant issue. For example, in terms of being "public", the route of a motorcade is clearly somewhere between a park bench¹ and my bedroom. So, it would be nice if the anti-FSZ crowd wasn't arguing as if someone was being barred from sitting on a park bench holding a political sign. :tongue:

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'm surprised, too. The Democratic National Convention has been doing this for almost twenty years. I remember back when they held it in LA, the protesters were relegated to Pershing Square, a mile away from the Staples Center where the convention was actually taking place.

Those were not peaceful demonstrations. Because of the violence associated with the demonstrations the LAPD was attempting to keep the peace. And the press was not prohibited from accessing the protesters.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/17/convention.police/

"There's simply just so many media people integrated into the crowds and it is unfortunate we had this situation, and again we apologize," Kalish said.

 

[russ_watters]

i don't think holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt that says "i love peace" or "war kills people" is disruptive.

I never said it was...

like i said, if these protesters are being disruptive for harassing people, then they should be removed from the area for harassment.

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?

 

[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.

 

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.

 

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?