New York Democrats Argue Free Speech
Is A Privilege That Can Be Revoked
Jason Mick (Blog) -- October 5, 2011 – reprinted in DailyTech on line
Free speech? Fuhgeddaboudit!
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, that hasn't stopped state and federal officials to creatively redefine what "freedom of speech" means. Of late there have been multiple attempts to legislate digital censorship, with government officials looking to decide what forms of online speech they feel aren't okay and make them illegal.
The latest effort on this front comes from four Democratic New York state senators, who have published a report entitled "Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age". In that report, Sen. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci, and David Valesky argue that the First Amendment has been long misinterpreted by politicians and courts and really means that free speech is a privilege (not a right), which can be taken away.
They write:
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
The argument that free speech was not intended as a protected right seems rather baffling given that the First Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights."
Of course they argue that state politicians should be tasked with creating laws of what they feel constitutes "abuse" of free speech and grounds for censorship. According to their full report, possible "abusive" speech that they feel should be banned includes:
However, it's hard to avoid the possibility that such censorship couldn't be abused by politicians to silence political rivals.
After all, if you can put someone in speech for "trolling" and "leaving hurtful messages on online message boards", does that mean ruling politicians can imprison those who criticize them online? Clearly that's how officials in other countries like China have used similar laws. Is the U.S. headed down a similar road?
The Senators have used their report to draft a proposed law.
Under the proposed law, "offensive" speech would become constitute Third-Degree Stalking, a Class A Misdemeanor. And if someone commits suicide due to online harassment -- or "bullycide" as the report calls it -- the harassers can be charged with Second-Degree Manslaughter, a Class C Felony.
Please share your opinions with us. Is Sen. Klein (D) right -- "Our laws are not keeping pace with technology?" Is free speech no longer a feasible right in the digital era?
Source: New York State Senate
http://www.dailytech.com/New+York+Democrats+Argue+Free+Speech+is+a+Privilege+That+Can+be+Revoked/article22929.htm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
COMMENTS BY THE BLOG AUTHOR:
These modern Democrats strictly follow the Civil Religion of Modern Liberalism, which places no value upon any limits to government power. The tenets of this religion are listed on the companion Quiddity blog post #138 of January 18, 2011. The post immediately preceding this (#137 of January 17, 2011) quotes the father of the new left, Herbert Marcuse, who said that undemocratic means are sometimes necessary, which "…include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc."
To the modern liberal, only politically correct speech and assembly are rights. All other speech and meetings are privileges subject to government approval by caring progressives.
Is A Privilege That Can Be Revoked
Jason Mick (Blog) -- October 5, 2011 – reprinted in DailyTech on line
Free speech? Fuhgeddaboudit!
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, that hasn't stopped state and federal officials to creatively redefine what "freedom of speech" means. Of late there have been multiple attempts to legislate digital censorship, with government officials looking to decide what forms of online speech they feel aren't okay and make them illegal.
The latest effort on this front comes from four Democratic New York state senators, who have published a report entitled "Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age". In that report, Sen. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci, and David Valesky argue that the First Amendment has been long misinterpreted by politicians and courts and really means that free speech is a privilege (not a right), which can be taken away.
They write:
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
The argument that free speech was not intended as a protected right seems rather baffling given that the First Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights."
Of course they argue that state politicians should be tasked with creating laws of what they feel constitutes "abuse" of free speech and grounds for censorship. According to their full report, possible "abusive" speech that they feel should be banned includes:
- Leaving hurtful messages online "LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS.’
- Flaming people online: ""FLAMING’ (HURTFUL CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INCITE OR ENRAGE);"
- "Happy slapping" (a 2005 meme that the befuddled Senators appear to mistake for a current problem): ""HAPPY SLAPPING’ (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);"
- Trolling online: ""TROLLING" (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY) OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);"
- Exclusion of people:
However, it's hard to avoid the possibility that such censorship couldn't be abused by politicians to silence political rivals.
After all, if you can put someone in speech for "trolling" and "leaving hurtful messages on online message boards", does that mean ruling politicians can imprison those who criticize them online? Clearly that's how officials in other countries like China have used similar laws. Is the U.S. headed down a similar road?
The Senators have used their report to draft a proposed law.
Under the proposed law, "offensive" speech would become constitute Third-Degree Stalking, a Class A Misdemeanor. And if someone commits suicide due to online harassment -- or "bullycide" as the report calls it -- the harassers can be charged with Second-Degree Manslaughter, a Class C Felony.
Please share your opinions with us. Is Sen. Klein (D) right -- "Our laws are not keeping pace with technology?" Is free speech no longer a feasible right in the digital era?
Source: New York State Senate
http://www.dailytech.com/New+York+Democrats+Argue+Free+Speech+is+a+Privilege+That+Can+be+Revoked/article22929.htm
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
COMMENTS BY THE BLOG AUTHOR:
These modern Democrats strictly follow the Civil Religion of Modern Liberalism, which places no value upon any limits to government power. The tenets of this religion are listed on the companion Quiddity blog post #138 of January 18, 2011. The post immediately preceding this (#137 of January 17, 2011) quotes the father of the new left, Herbert Marcuse, who said that undemocratic means are sometimes necessary, which "…include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc."
To the modern liberal, only politically correct speech and assembly are rights. All other speech and meetings are privileges subject to government approval by caring progressives.
No comments:
Post a Comment