Where absolutism brings us

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I find this community immensely informative.  Earlier this afternoon, I learned that the Constitution protects a person's right to tell a small child that one has decapitated its puppy and shoved the puppy's severed head up its mother's rectum.

I am genuinely curious about how many other people in this community hold this same position.  My own position is that a good and just society ought rightly have some legal measures in place to protect children from such terrors -- but perhaps I am wrong.  Will you show me the error of my ways?

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

rofl.

[victor-szasz.livejournal.com]

I'm not in favor of harming puppies, or torturing small children with the imagery of hurt puppies.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

I'm not in favor of it, but I think the Constitution definitely allows that sort of behavior.

Limitations on speech quickly become political in nature. So while a mod or a passer-by has every right to tell you what a horrible person you are for spouting such filth to a small child, the state should stay a hundred feet from that argument.

It's a social issue. Not a political one.

But I thought the ACLU did right by defending NAMBLA.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But the children

This is ultimately where I'm coming from, yes.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Certainly one would expect it to be illegal to kidnap a child and force him or her to read Atlas Shrugged by candlelight for six months while listening to nothing but Air Supply.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So, what, we needed a whole new thread so you could call out one poster you disagreed with?

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

It wasn't one poster. And I think the issue is rather intriguing.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

it's evil but I don't see how it's not protected by the first amendment

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Because it's not. The courts have affirmed this.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Actually posting in the topic: So, you assert that some people believe the Constitution objectively protests X. You then do nothing to refute this, but instead assert your normative belief in what a "good and just society" would do with that behavior. Is it your belief that the Constitution, by whatever light you interpret it, has succeeded in establishing the legal framework necessary for a "good and just society"?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Sorry, should read "the Constitution objectively protects X."

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

This may not be the popular answer, but I agree that such language is protected by the First Amendment. Disgusting language is not illegal.

What the Supreme Court has ruled

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Wrong. The following is from BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER, 478 U.S. 675 (1986):

"First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes an interest in protecting minors from exposure to vulgar and offensive spoken language, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 , as well as limitations on the otherwise absolute interest of the speaker in reaching an unlimited audience where the speech is sexually explicit and the audience may include children, Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629."

[oportet.livejournal.com]

We've been hearing that 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy for 200 fucking years. I think the puppies head up the child's mom's ass is more relevant at this point. Just go with it.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

There is the key difference that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is both not the accepted analogy anymore (there is, in fact, no real easy analogy for what is protected vs. non-protected speech, given that it now falls into a series of categories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Communicative_impact_restrictions), most of which are difficult to determine at a glance), and that the analogy there dealt with speech having an immediate and physically damaging outcome, in addition to being false. The old analogy and the modern reality are just vast distances apart.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

It is the good old "what is protected speech?" issue. Certain forms of speech are not constitutionally protected (libel, slander, perjury, etc.). In some instances, offensive language, but I don't think that applies here, unfortunately. Look, it sucks...so do the Neo-Nazi idiots and NAMBLA, but like someone said above. just because someone says something horrible and disgusting, even to a child, doesn't make that speech unprotected. Fraser doesn't really apply here because it dealt with public school institutional speech restrictions (previously and since held constitutional...though I disagree with those holdings). Pacifica dealt with broadcasters, who are subject to federal communications regulations. Ginsburg dealth with the marketing of published materials. None of the cases would cover the actions of some random dude on the street spouting off offensive bullshit at a child.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Yes, the thrust of those particular opinions were not directly relevant to the example I posed -- but the quotes within the opinions make it clear: "Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions."

The reason the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the kind of verbal assault I describe is most likely that no creep who does such things has had the wherewithal or the balls to actually try to defend his actions on constitutional grounds. And the scenario I describe is in no way analogous to Neo-Nazis demonstrations or NAMBLA literature. It is a form of assault that is simply not protected -- just as the sale of porn to minors is not protected.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's any constitutional protection to be had in this example. Telling the kid about it also sounds like child abuse. It would be up to the state of course to prove the abuse, but assuming the person falls under those who could be charged with child abuse, verbal abuse isn't protected by free speech. Nor should it be, verbal abuse and free speech are different things.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Ah, reason. Let us attend.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

It's protected and I'd rather live in a society that keeps it that way. As for the rest, well, that's the price you pay.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Well it's my free speech as a mother to tell you to go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

And I will defend to the death your right to say that.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Reading that thread certainly showed me the many logical flaws in your argument.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

There is not a single logical flaw in my argument, actually.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

I have the right to emit a steady brown note around all libertarians.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Actually, you don't, as that would be assault and/or battery.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I agree with those commenters who say such words are evil. Free speech protections are non-discriminating because it doesn't judge content.

This is where free speech should have controls. If it incites panic, fear, hate, etc. then that speech should be judged just as actions are.

I mean, people are free to do what they want, when they want, with whom they want, to a point. Certain things are forbidden. Thou shall not steal. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not fornicate in public. Etc. At which point, if they do these forbidden acts, they are arrested, tried, and eventually judged. But why not speech?

This ties nicely with the last post about freedom. Americans just love their freedom. But sane law-abiding Americans realize there are limits to freedom. Certain actions are considered criminal. Certain speech should be too.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Certain speech is, such as slander, fraud, or inciting violence (although I don't think that should be). Anytime you have an action that causes an interaction with another person you have a potential for a rights conflict and there can be a limit on someone as a result.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Kids need to grow a thicker skin, amirite?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. It's how you get antibodies. Also, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I hope that I'll be able to raise my kid in such a way that whenever a stranger comes to him and tells him that he has decapitated his puppy and shoved the puppy's severed head up my rectum, my kid will tell him "WTF, STFU & DIAF, biach, now GTFO cuz I got better things to do LOLOL". Or something.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

If a kid tells me that on the street, I'm going to shit my pants. Honestly.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I recall that in the US young children are below the age of legal responsibility. Also along with constitutional protection for free speech comes constitutional protection for gun ownership. Ergo, I should just teach my child to shoot anyone who says something like that, and no-one can do anything about it.

God bless America.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Not surprisingly, you have anticipated my own thoughts. The step from First Amendment absolutism to Second Amendment absolutism is a natural one.

[politikitty.livejournal.com]

From Ginsberg v New York

To be sure, there is no lack of "studies" which purport to demonstrate that obscenity is or is not "a basic factor in impairing the ethical and moral development of . . . youth and a clear and present danger to the people of the state." But the growing consensus of commentators is that "while these studies all agree that a causal link has not been demonstrated, they are equally agreed that a causal link has not been disproved either." We do not demand of legislatures "scientifically certain criteria of legislation."

Does this rationale not concern you? How many "studies" are there that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia? That porn leads to rape? That homosexuality is the outcome of a diseased mind?

From the dissent:

While I find the literature and movies which come to us for clearance exceedingly dull and boring, I understand how some can and do become very excited and alarmed and think that something should be done to stop the flow. It is one thing for parents and the religious organizations to be active and involved. It is quite a different matter for the state to become implicated as a censor. As I read the First Amendment, it was designed to keep the state and the hands of all state officials off the printing presses of America and off the distribution systems for all printed literature.

Today this Court sits as the Nation's board of censors. With all respect, I do not know of any group in the country less qualified first, to know what obscenity is when they see it, and second, to have any considered judgment as to what the deleterious or beneficial impact of a particular publication may be on minds either young or old.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I've never bought the expertise argument for courts, because except in appellate matters dealing solely with questions of law, not fact, the courts are similarly inexpert at all fields. He might as well say "I do not know of any group in the country less qualified first, to know what stops crime, and second, to have any considered judgment as to the impact of a particular sentence on society."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The two key words here are intent and location.

I'm curious though, how do you feel about the protected speech of the Westboro Baptist Church? Not only would their messages be of equivalent reprehensibility, but there are children involved, and in public, and yet it's not considered child abuse.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I don't see how my feelings are relevant to anything. But I think we can rationally assert a distinction between telling a child that one has just decapitated its puppy and shoved its head up its mother's ass and holding up a sign that says "God hates fags." I also think that we can rationally consider, as you rightly point out, the specifics of intent and location in any given case.

I mean, that's why you have to take Westboro to court and argue a specific case -- rather than just make a blanket statement about one's feelings.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

First, I am not sure that such language directed to an individual child would not fall under the "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech.

Second, even if it were protected speech as an utterance, this is what would happen if someone said that to my child. He would first be told directly that such language is unwelcomed and he will not speak that way to my child again.

On a second instance, he would receive a written statement, by an attorney if needed, that he is to never speak to my child again under any circumstances and that I will take whatever remedies are at my disposal to prevent him from doing so.

On the third instance, I would have him arrested and slapped with a no contact order.

A single act may be protected speech, but after that, it is very possible for "speech" to become criminal conduct and I will damn well take action to have the law enforced against it.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM???

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, I will not show you the error of your ways for I agree with you and thus if your ways are erroneous, so are mine.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

We should obviously move to Russia if we support mind-control by the State.

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

It is one of those things that requires people have the common sense and decency not to abuse said privilege. I do believe that the founding fathers had that in mind when they put that at the top of our list of "rights". The problem lies that people do not think about the consequences of their statements, and then try to hide behind the right to free speech.

For the most part there are some limits on free speech, because of other laws that have been enacted. One such law refers to hate crimes, or otherwise inflammatory speech with race as a motive. There was also Amazements (sorry if I killed the spelling) post about sexual harassment, in which Badlydrawnjeff felt that sexual harassment laws violated his free speech, in one sense it is limiting what he can say with punishment, but really, should he or anyone be allowed to say anything they want no matter how derogatory? No.

The thing to keep in mind about the US Constitution is that it is a "work in progress", it is not complete, nor is it intended to be a complete document as it stands. I also agree that society in general should have measures to protect children from the horrors of that. But then again, I once told neighborhood children that if they did not behave I would kill Rudolph, and when they did not comply, mounted a deer head to the chimney with a painted red nose. I ended up moving out of the neighborhood shorty there after, but it the kids started behaving.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I feel I need to write in caps, but I'll restrain myself. There's been so much bs in here lately.

The constitution and the first amendment has NUMEROUS (oops, I failed my self-control roll) written law exceptions to free speech.
Many more than most other democracies with free speech laws.

This seems to be unknown to a great number of people touting the US constitution in here.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

Only COMMUNISTS want to protect children from obscene verbal assault.