The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion

from the congress-shall-make-no-law dept

Tue, Aug 16th 2011 10:40am — Mike Masnick

Pretty stunning to see L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the WSJ (and now a columnist) make the argument that shutting down social media is fine and dandy, if governments say that it's to stop bad stuff (as defined by those governments). Specifically, he defends UK politicians calling for blocks on social media in response to the London riots. Crovitz's reasoning isn't just weak, it's full of bizarre logical fallacies.

But all uses of technology are not equally virtuous. Enthusiasm for technology should not lead to a moral and political relativism that confuses crime with free speech and the British police with authoritarian governments.

No one has claimed that the two are the same. The point, which seems to sail way, way, way over Crovitz' head, is that the ability to block communications in one case quite easily leads to it being used in the other. Bizarrely, Crovitz then defends the highly questionable BART cell service shutdown in response to the threat of protesters, by saying it's fine because "the world did not end."

And the world did not end when police did indeed temporarily shut down social media. This happened last week in San Francisco, Calif., one of America's most liberal cities.

Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It does not say, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech... but it can if the world won't end from doing so." From there, Crovitz just gets weird:

Permitting peaceful protests while stopping violence seems like a reasonable compromise.

Let's be clear: when discussing the First Amendment, the phrase "reasonable compromise" generally means someone taking away your rights. The problem, which Crovitz can't seem to get his head around, is that you can't set up a system that properly determines what speech is allowed and what speech is violence-inducing. People who trample on the First Amendment assume, falsely, that it's easy to tell one form of speech from another. If someone is committing violence, arrest them for committing violence. Don't take away their free speech rights.

From there, Crovitz insists that China's free speech trampling is different. Why? Because it is! Don't you see? The problem is that it's very much in the eye of the beholder. China continues to insist that its trampling of free speech is a "reasonable compromise" because it keeps "bad stuff" away from the people. How do you determine where that line is? Crovitz pretends its easy. Our founding fathers knew that it was not, which is why they specifically wanted to make sure that "dangerous speech" was allowed.

Then Crovitz jumps into obnoxious false dichotomy territory:

Robert Andrews, a reporter for the paidcontent:UK website, asked Twitter users whether they would prefer to keep the service available so they could chat about the television music competition "The X Factor" or let the service be closed temporarily "so that fellow citizens like shopkeepers need not be assaulted, have their property and premises pilfered and trashed, and so that they need not live in fear."

Though it was an admittedly unscientific survey, Mr. Andrews nevertheless reports that every Twitter respondent opted for "The X Factor." He concludes: "So addicted are we to our electronic connections, we simply cannot bear to be parted, for even an hour or two, in the name of public safety while London burns."

Or perhaps the people responding to Andrews recognized the ridiculousness of the question, and knew damn well, that social media is used for a hell of a lot more than discussing some TV show... and that allowing communications platforms to be shut down, because the government and Crovitz think "bad stuff" might happen, is a path to censorship. It's not that people are "addicted to electronic communications." It's that people believe in their rights to free speech. Taking away social media wouldn't stop London from burning, but it might harm some pretty core principles of democracy and the ability to speak your mind.

Techno-utopians would like to believe that digital technology is always a force for good, but technology can also accelerate evil. As Thomas Hobbes would say, without the enforcement of rules for ordered liberty, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short," both in the real world and online.

And since we're doing a grand tour of logical fallacies, Crovitz closes with a claim that is simply unsubstantiated because it's false. I've never heard the folks normally associated with "techno-utopianism" ever claim that digital technology is always a force for good. In fact, I've almost always heard them claim that technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and bad. If anything, people tend to note that it can help amplify both good and bad uses. But the point that they make is that you can't somehow cherry pick the "good" stuff to allow and the "bad" stuff to ban, because that always fails in the long run. It always leads to greater than "reasonable" censorship and always leads to important critical speech being stifled. Crovitz may have no problem with trampling on the rights of others. I, on the other hand, have serious problems with it -- and with the WSJ advocating what appears to be flat out censorship.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: compromise, free speech, l. gordon crovitz, riots, social media

110 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:00am

Censorship
They'll keep right on advocating it until they are censored themselves, then they will cry and wonder how this awful censorship happened.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:28am

So the Greater Fuckwad theory only applies to Enemies of the State?

Interesting notion of compromise you have there, Mr. Crovitz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:45am

Preaching to the choir
Is this asshole advocating blocking a tool to prevent possible future crimes? This isn't "Minority Report", we don't punish people for acts they might commit. We don't punish everyone for acts a select few may commit.

How's this for a "reasonable compromise"? I'll keep using the tools I have at my disposal, you can go bother people who actually do wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PrometheeFeu (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:53am

or let the service be closed temporarily "so that fellow citizens like shopkeepers need not be assaulted, have their property and premises pilfered and trashed, and so that they need not live in fear."

I actually laughed at that. It is so ridiculously over the top and stupid that I have a hard time believing anyone would mean that question seriously. Let's ask another question: Should Mr. Crovitz be allowed to continue his absurd writing or should we throw him in shark-infested waters so that fellow citizens may be allowed to live without the specter of censorship and totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:53am

Some would argue that the government shutting down social media makes future rioting more likely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:54am

What's the difference between shutting down Twitter and the WSJ? Aside from people actually reading Twitter that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:56am

I notice he left actual media outlets off the table.

You know the stations rolling endless coverage of a fire, over and over and over. Telling people how horrible the rioting was and getting everyone worked up.

Shouldn't the media be able to be shut down as a reasonable compromise to protect things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:57am

Re:
People are obsessed with Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:00am

"And the world did not end when police did indeed temporarily shut down social media."

And the world did not end when Hitler rounded up all the Jews because they were a threat to the nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:01am

Or, to put it another way:
An inalienable right cannot be compromised.
Reasonable or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dfed (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:05am

Re:
When greater fuckwads are outlawed, only outlaws will be on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:07am

better comparison
The better comparison would be twitter ~= pubs. During the revolutionary war pubs were the common meeting places. Sure you could also get a drink and food there as well. shutting down the pub would likely quash the transfer of ideas/plans, but would also block many from getting food or drink. Shutting down twitter or social networks would stop the rioters from easily planning, but would also stop other legitimate uses. Is it a reasonable compromise to shut down all pubs/restaurants so no one can get food or drink because a few may meet in them to plan a gathering? Why isn't this idea being promoted, it is just as likely as the use of social media in riot planning, and has similar collateral damage. shut down all the denny's/shoney's/McD/starbucks that anyone may gather in to have a meeting of more than 2 I say!

oh, wait, that just sounds crazy. how about we just let everyone keep their rights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:07am

or let the service be closed temporarily "so that fellow citizens like shopkeepers need not be assaulted, have their property and premises pilfered and trashed, and so that they need not live in fear."

So, if the service had been stopped, then the gangs of rabid youths around the corner from the local shop, armed with all manner of dangerous weapons, would have looked at their phones, looked at each other and then quietly gone home.
Yeah. That makes sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:08am

Frankly, this is a dumb argument.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater, threats of violence, incitement to violence, defamation, prank calling 911, etc. are all exceptions to the First Amendment that represent reasonable compromises.

If you think reasonableness should not be employed when determining the boundaries of free speech, then I question your ability to reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donnicton, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:10am

Re: Preaching to the choir
This isn't "Minority Report", we don't punish people for acts they might commit. We don't punish everyone for acts a select few may commit.

Unfortunately, yes we do at times. (Read: Fireworks bans in some states)

I miss the days when I used to be able to celebrate July 4th with some good old outdoor fireworks in my (nanny) state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ScytheNoire, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:12am

Police state is coming
Things are downhill fast. People often wonder what happened to the Roman Empire that it fell so fast. One day, they will wonder how the United States fell so fast too. We are watching it happen right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:13am

Re:
Yet, we're not shutting down 911 to prevent the prank calls, we're not banning theaters to prevent the shouts of fire. We punish the people who violate others rights, not everyone. How about we punish those who do wrong instead of everyone using the tool?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:14am

Re:
The central argument is who gets to determine what is reasonable? I would say, based on all of your examples, that it is the court's job. Therefore, BART/police/whoever should be required to go to court, with a full adversarial hearing with someone advocating for the free speach rights of the citizenry, including appeals, in order to make those "reasonable" exceptions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:18am

Re:
What is it with you people invoking Godwin's Law? THEY STILL DON'T TATTOO YOU MORONS WHEN THEY SAY YOU CAN'T TWEET FOR A WHILE! I don't know why you people equate not being able to steal people's ideas, not being allowed to get on your Facespace, TweetBook, or MyFriend accounts, and all sorts of patent issues with one of the greatest atrocities that ever occurred. Maybe if you would stop with the retardation, people would stop calling you 'freetards'.

Masnick, get these people off of your side, quick! They're making you all look like a bunch of inept baffoons!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:19am

Re:
Godwined already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:24am

Re: Re:
Fine by me. But the notion that we should eschew reasonableness in determining these things is stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:25am

How is
Shutting down Twitter a violation of free speech? I guess I'm pretty dense on this but I don't see how shutting down a medium is a violation of a person's right to free speech. I don't think the medium is a right, i.e. you don't have a constitutional right to tweet (or Facebook or whatever). I believe the violation would be if Twitter were blocking specific expressions or tweets. I would consider it like shutting down a newspaper vs. censoring the editorials. Would you really say it's a violation of free speech if a newspaper stopped operations and didn't publish any papers?

Anyway, I just can't make the logical leap from shutting down a service to a first amendment violation. As I said, blocking specific expressions in tweets would be a violation of free speech rights. Stopping them altogether is not. At least to my thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:25am

Re:
Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Re-read Schenck v United States. No matter how powerful Holme's analogy, the facts of the case make that opinion a disgrace to the nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:26am

Re: Re:
Sounds good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
V, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:27am

It starts small...
Abridging freedom usually starts small... and is usually for a "good" reason. "Good" reasons are the favorite tools of power hungry politicians and extremists to do the unspeakable.

To a Muslim extremist... blowing up a building full of people is fine... because it's for a "good" reason.

When China censors everything that it's people see, they say it's for a "good" reason...

Even Nazi Germany did things for a "good" reason.

And because it may not directly affect us at that very moment, we sit back and accept it... until suddenly, they're using the same law to prosecute us for something "good" that we're doing.

Just a reminder from Niem�ller back on January 6, 1946:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
I always assumed fireworks bans were a lot more about safety and property damage than about speech or criminal things a small few might do with fireworks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:33am

Re: Re:
Is that necessarily bad?

People are obsessed with where their next meal comes from.

People are obsessed with making sure they will have a roof over their head.

People are obsessed with sex.

People are obsessed with the size of . . . . um, er . . . oh, nevermind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Havoc (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:33am

Re: Re:
Aw, you had me up until you misspelled 'buffoons'!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine
Meanwhile, more of my descendants(Native Americans) were slaughtered at the hands of the U.S. government than Jews by Hitler. Millions more.
Move the hell on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:35am

Re:
Ah yes, shouting fire in the theatre, the risks of it happening justifying temporarily removing people's vocal chords.

The world wouldn't end after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:36am

Re: Re:
You know, Godwin's law can actually be a bad thing.

If things were ever headed for another round of the world's greatest atrocities, people commenting on it would be responded to with replies of Godwin's law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:38am

Re: Re:
AC's analogy stands. You may get THAT worked up and angry with his analogy and it just shows how ridiculous it is.

Besides, those atrocities you are so angry about happened after they started as potentially innocuous and harmless statements from a well known figure. And maybe, just maybe, if Twitter was there and what was being done by Hitler and his minions was actually openly and widely discussed the Germans would have turned against the Government and further atrocities could have been prevented.

So chill out and keep your righteous moralism to yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:38am

Re:
If you think reasonableness should not be employed when determining the boundaries of free speech, then I question your ability to reason.

Exactly. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
I attended the funeral of a guy who blew off his hands in front of his kids and family while setting off fireworks at a backyard barbeque.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:41am

Re: Re: Re:
You still don't get it.

Reasonableness is to go after the individuals doing bad things -- WEATHER OR NOT they used Twitter, etc.

Arguing that shutting down Twitter is reasonable is actually unreasonable and prohibiting freedom of speech, association and maybe in some sense, assembly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:43am

Re: How is
Your argument seems to be that you can have all the free speech you want as long as you are unable to use any form of communication to converse with others.

As long as you are in isolation, you may have unlimited free speech.

Attempt to use technology, of any kind, to interact with others, and it is "reasonable" to isolate you so that nobody else can hear your free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:46am

Free speech zones
My favorite is the defense that "free speech zones" are provided.. apparently your liberty is only valid in certain locations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:47am

Re: How is
If you shut down Twitter to prevent riots because it's the main and preferred mean of communications then it fails because ppl use Pastebin, Facebook, Myspace [whatever] then it's ok to shut down the Internet to prevent riots. If it fails and ppl use telephones then it's ok to shut down every communications after all you can still shout your free speech out and loud. Even if there are tanks and machine guns from the Government killing every free speech loud advocate. Oh but fear not, you can still throw paper planes and hope it reaches the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:51am

Re: How is
Mike takes a 4th grader's view of the First Amendment ("the Constitution says 'no law'"), but the reality is that lots of laws (if not all laws) have some effect of free speech and expression. Rather than look at it like a child, courts employ actual analysis, comparing the benefit and the detriment, the interest and the burden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re:
[i]Aw, you had me up until you misspelled 'buffoons'![/i]
[i]Meanwhile, more of my descendants(Native Americans) were slaughtered[/i][...]

It's lovely to meet you, time traveler! Is it also true in your time that when correcting someone's spelling or grammar, you will often make a spelling or grammar mistake within that very correction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or a markup error.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:54am

Crovitz and Leviathan
Okay, so we've got Crovitz concluding with a quote from Hobbes' Leviathan. This is a work which directly states that monarchy is better than democracy, that sovereign power should be absolute, and that the sovereign's actions are beyond popular criticism or punishment. Is this seriously where he's getting his political inspiration?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HavaCuppaJoe (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:56am

" and with the WSJ advocating what appears to be flat out censorship."

- I think that this sentence fragment should properly read:

" and with the Fox Street Journal (FSJ) advocating what appears to be flat out censorship."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: Re: Re:
I was pointing out the difference between Twitter and the WSJ. Well, that and the fact that the WSJ has yet to be involved in a hacking scandal...yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: Censorship
Here is a Link to the BART protest photos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A different Mike, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:00pm

Re: How is
Would you really say it's a violation of free speech if a newspaper stopped operations and didn't publish any papers?

No. I wouldn't. But I would say it is a violation if the government forced a newspaper to stop operations without due process because it thought that some criminals used the personal ads to set up a violent action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Censorship
Whoops... Working Link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:03pm

Re:
Because people only use Twitter to talk about the sandwich they ate for lunch. You haven't been paying attention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike42 (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:04pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or a logic error. Doesn't he mean, "Ancestors", not "Descendants"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donnicton, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
You know, that's probably the same logic that BART was going by when they shut off the cell service. Public safety and property damage rather than doing it for the sake of suppressing free speech. Flash mobs and all.

I'm not defending BART, but I don't think that they were doing it simply because "OMGZ FREE SPECHE R BADZ" either. But irresponsible is irresponsible, nanny statism isn't going to stop that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
I am glad you agree. Especially since the aforementioned process would likely take months, if not years.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re: How is
No,I think the argument is that the medium is not the message. We don't have absolute rights to use any medium at any time in any way, there are legal restrictions that exist that do not violate free speech, such as limited television broadcasts to licensed entities.

The technology in and of itself is not the speech. Locking the doors of a Business Depot at night does not suddenly limit free speech until morning (because nobody can photocopy). The lack of access to technology isn't in itself a limit on free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:09pm

1A
> Our founding fathers knew that it was not,
> which is why they specifically wanted to
> make sure that "dangerous speech" was allowed.

Indeed. The very fact that the 1st Amendment is prefaced by the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." indicates the absolute protection they intended to give speech in America.

Nowhere else in the Constitution do you find such a bold and forceful limitation on government power, not even in the other amendments which make up the Bill of Rights.

And yet somehow in the 200+ years since the document was inked, our courts and legislators have found a myriad different ways in which "Congress shall make no law..." can be interpreted to mean, "The goverment can make many laws".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
I lit off some aerial fireworks for at the start of this year and it was fun as shit. My friends little brother was there and we let him light one too. I think firework saftey is similar to gun saftey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
Aw, you had me up until you mentioned people that don't exist yet (descendants are the people that come from others, not the ones that come before...unless you had millions of children and grandchildren that were recently slaughtered). If your ancestors were slaughtered then I feel terrible for you. I'm sure you knew and loved each of them. Meanwhile, there are many people alive who lost people they actually knew and loved to Hitler.

I'm glad that freetards and folks who love their Facebook make light of the holocaust and spelling errors. It shows they have no real arguments and are just throwing temper tantrums.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re:
> What is it with you people invoking Godwin's Law?

Actually, *you* are the one who invoked Godwin's law. Merely mentioning Hitler, Nazis and/or Jews invokes nothing but Hitler, Nazis and/or Jews.

You invoked the law when you used it to criticize the mention of Hitler.

So now I have to ask, what is with you people invoking Godwin's Law every time someone says anything about a Nazi? You act like that Godwin guy was some delphic oracle on high and the fact that he made some comment years ago and self-proclaimned it a 'law' means that no one can ever legitimately refer to the Third Reich ever again.

It's become a lame and pathetic anthem of internet douches everywhere to start railing about Godwin every time a Nazi comes up in conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
Nah, AC's analogy only shows that the people on your side of the argument don't have a grasp of the difference between genocide and turning off Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:21pm

Re: Re: Re:
So chill out and keep your righteous moralism to yourself

P.S. Do you see the irony of you saying that those platforms should remain open for speech no matter what and then telling me to shut the hell up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:22pm

Cellular service does not equal free speech. Restricting the use of a cell phone doesn't restrict free speech, it's just an inconvenience.

Everyone seems to accept restrictions on cell phone usage in hospitals and on aircraft because of safety concerns. Nobody seems to be complaining that their 1st amendment rights are being trampled in those situations. Why not extend that reasoning to situations where public safety is of concern?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Havoc (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
While 'ancestors' vs. 'descendents' was certainly an error(re-worded but not re-read) it doesn't make your post less stupid.
While I don't 'make light' of your ancestors' slaughter, I sure as hell don't act like mine were the only ones, like, well, a certain group of people seem want to do.
I will make errors, but at least I will admit them.
And, apparently unlike you, I will move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re:
FUCKING THANK YOU! A reasonable argument. Not about the subject of the blog, but reasonable in the context of the thread, nonetheless. I thought it was just going to be a bunch of morons flaming and throwing out ridiculous statements that mean next to nothing.

Now, on to the meat of things: I believe that the Nazi reference is over the top in this particular case by a lot. I will sit on the sidelines for discussion about whether shutting down the most popular communication tools on the internet is a good or bad thing. I just come here to troll obvious idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, apparently you do move on since you felt the need to come back and reply to me. A smarter man would have moved on without whining about it.

I did make a spelling error. It happens. I don't grade posts around here so I don't look for those sorts of mistakes.

The Jews aren't my ancestors. I don't trust the dirty bastards. I just don't think they should have been slaughtered like that.

There have been many people slaughtered over the course of human history. Maybe you people can start talking about the white man killing the red man instead of Hitler killing the Jews. That would at least shake things up a bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get it perfectly well. Masnick said there should never be a "reasonable compromise" when it comes to free speech issues.

I think that is stupid. It is not an argument over what the reasonable compromise should be (go after the individuals or Twitter), but whether reasonableness should ever enter the conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can get emergency relief from courts extremely quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:34pm

Re: Re: Re:
I'd be the first in line. I want people to discuss the fact that the white man killed all of Havoc's descendants instead of Hitler killing the Jews.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:34pm

well
I do not think any transit system should EVER allow cell phone usage on their subways / buses. Transit systems aer soft targets, and IED�s are can easily be set off with vibrating cell phones.

As to Facebook and twitter, hell they keep records of all the twits that go out, and posts and what not. These twits and post and things can also be called �evidence�, I know it is a new concept but this �evidence� to prove who the troublemakers are and convict them of �crimes� that are committed. I know silly me, I am just another known coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:39pm

Re:
It is unconscionable to attempt to compromise an inalienable right.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh. But that wasn't part of the proposal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
Fireworks, when used at all, are only used in illegal ways. Social media? Speech? I don't need to continue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:13pm

Re:
It did for "all the Jews," asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re: How is
I'll make it easy for you:

Twitter can shut down to stop whatever it wants, whenever it wants.

The State cannot shut down Twitter to stop certain communications when the medium is used for limitless other communications.

Please tell me you see the legal, Constitutional difference. Please, oh please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:17pm

Re: Free speech zones
This ship has sailed: look what the State does to protestors at political conventions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:27pm

Re:
Private entities can do whatever they want. If a hospital does not want you to use a cell phone while int he hospital, that's fine. No State action. Ditto an airplane. If I'm wrong about who's making the decision here and it's in fact the State (FAA, State-run hospital, whatever), then it's STILL fine: it's the cell phone that's being blocked, not the speech itself that would be broadcast that's causing the blockage. This is called a "Time, place and manner" restriction and is fine, SO LONG AS CONTENT-NEUTRAL.

When the State decides that, based on a communication's content, that communication should be curtailed--well, then, you have a Constitutional violation. The reason for the Twitter shutdown is expressly to stop certain communications based on their content. Thus: unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: How is
So then, if the government asked nicely for Twitter to shutdown and Twitter did it voluntarily, that would be ok?

I think I see the altruistic point of view but I don't know that I can agree with it entirely. As someone said earlier, when weighing the consequences, even if on simple terms, it seems reasonable to stop a particular medium if that medium is contributing to some sort of widespread violence.

Then again, this is a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole barrel. Is it OK to remove the privilege (not the right) to tweet from everyone when just a few people are using it to incite bad behavior? It's a tough question to answer without soap-boxing one way or the other. I'm picking on Twitter but obviously the debate extends to all forms of social media.

To be realistic, if shutting down social media during social unrest was proven to be an effective deterrent I would support it whether the government forced it or the service provider did it voluntarily. But I also agree that's a slippery slope. It's a tough one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whining requires speech and sound. Just because you hear it in your head all the time, does not make it real.

And did you really just make a bigoted comment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
boost, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you think it's OK to beat women and children too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably. I like to change things up with some racial hate rather than freetard hate every once in a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:07pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you masturbate to pictures of dead livestock. Let's all make wild accusations about things that haven't been mentioned! It's fun!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:08pm

Just a short comment: I think that this pretty much sums up the reasons why it is hard to take Mike Masnick seriously at times. All human rights are built on being reasonable about the rights of others. We have to co-exist, we cannot have it all our way regardless of the effects on others. That is "reasonable".

Techdirt is appearing to be more and more unreasonable as times goes by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not listening to your own argument. Punishing those who have broken the law is not a "reasonable compromise". It's just reasonable. However, when it comes to free speech, there can be no compromise, however reasonable. By disallowing speech to innocents, for whatever reason, you are violating their First Amendment rights. As established by Supreme Court precedence, the rights of the few (or one) always outweigh the wants and "needs" of the many. Especially since the many, in nearly every case, are government bodies/representatives (i.e. the police).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Therefore, BART/police/whoever should be required to go to court, with a full adversarial hearing with someone advocating for the free speach rights of the citizenry, including appeals, in order to make those "reasonable" exceptions."

That can happen in a matter of days or weeks, except for the appeals part.

I'll change my answer from "sound good" to "sounds ridiculous" based on your further description and my further attention to the appeals bit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re: Re: How is
As against the government, you do in fact have a right to tweet (or, at least to be free from government suppression of your tweeting).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Punishing someone for what they said when it causes harm is not the same as shutting down communications tools, themselves, for what someone MIGHT do. I find it amusing that people keep making this comparison as if they were the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killercool (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:18pm

Re: Re: Re: How is
What you are missing, however intentionally, is that Home Depot has every right in the world to close their store whenever they want. The police cannot, however, go into that Home Depot and turn off all of the copying machines, since they had somebody go into a store yesterday and print off flyers organizing an event, and the police had decided a similar event was not "legitimate" free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:32pm

Re: Re: Re: How is
It's still prior restraint, even if people have the ability to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:45pm

Re:
Explain to me how abridging my rights to speech (et al) is reasonable to me? The fact that you are buying into such arguments is frightening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:45pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"when it comes to free speech, there can be no compromise, however reasonable."

Says you. I happen to think a prohibition against, e.g., shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is a reasonable compromise.

"As established by Supreme Court precedence, the rights of the few (or one) always outweigh the wants and "needs" of the many."

Um...I'd like to see the citation for that little nugget.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Squirrel Brains (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A matter or days or weeks would probably be often too late in itself. My point in general is that the executive authority will often overreact and use a "standard of reasonableness" that is based on its own desire and ease. Basically, you cannot trust the executive authority to consistently make good judgement calls because its judgment is one-sided. When it does prevent the speech, even if that prevention is later declared improper, the damage is already done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Punishing someone for what they said when it causes harm is not the same as shutting down communications tools, themselves, for what someone MIGHT do."

You're absolutely right. Luckily, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

You are arguing about whether this particular compromise (should we shut down a tool that might be used for bad things?) is reasonable or good, NOT whether we should reject reasonable compromises out of hand, always, no matter what, when it comes to free speech issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:27pm

Re: Re: Re: How is
It's totally legal for the government to ask Twitter nicely to shut down for any reason at all. Twitter has the complete right to decide which government policies it supports and which it doesn't. It doesn't have to be altruism--it can be pure self-interest or altruism or anywhere in between, as long as it's Twitter's choice.

But you can't have the State dictating a shutdown for content-based reasons, especially where the medium itself is completely, 100% content-neutral. That may seem reasonable to you, or even arguable, but it's completely unconstitutional--and so, as a matter of law, it's unreasonable in this country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but at least if you provide after-the-fact remedies (normally some sort of $$ damages), it provides a greater disincentive to engaged in the unlawful restraint in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:31pm

Re:
Do you think that being serious about upholding the Constitution is unreasonable? Your "all human rights are built on being reasonable about the rights of others" phrase is just tripe. It sounds good but it's nonsense. Rights are legal constructs, and here in the US, one of our most basic Human Rights is ensconced in the First Amendment--hmm...wonder why it's FIRST?--to the US Constitution, which trumps everything else in US law. And you think the person who hosts this blog is unreasonable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:32pm

Re: Re:
Your framing of the question seems to presume your conclusion. Namely, that any limit on speech abridges your right to free speech.

However, it may be reasonable to conclude that your right does not extend to any type of speech you could possibly conceive of.

This is, in fact, the nature of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, as interpreted by generations and generations of legislators, courts, and scholars, many of whom were and are, shocking as it may be, reasonable people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:34pm

Re: Re:
But you agree, I assume, that this right is not unlimited, right?

I get the impression that the other AC's comment was simply an acknowledgement that this right is limited by others' rights.

For example, you can't say (speech!) to someone, "I'll pay you $50 to kill my wife."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trish, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:59pm

damn twitter...
re commenter #93: Your example is flawed. Of course you can ask someone to kill your wife, as many people have done in the past (50$ though? cheap cheap...)
If you do, you will have committed a crime because it is illegal to hire someone to murder someone else. This does not mean that people should be prevented from speaking because they might hire someone to kill their wife. Some people might just want to tell their wife they love her, but they couldn't, and that violent dude could just kill her himself. Don't you see how censoring speech is stupid even when you try to turn the argument into "if you are against censorship you are for crime"? because you wtotally FAILED
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Fire in a crowded theater" ruling was specifically about punishing someone after the fact (i.e. they could be charged with criminal negligence or other local laws). It does not in any way refer to censoring an entire communication tool. That would be like outlawing air to prevent someone from shouting fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:33pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "Fire in a crowded theater" ruling was specifically about...

The decision was Schenck v United States in 1919, and Mr Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

The charges were two counts of conspiracy, and an unlawful use of the mails.

The defendants, Schenck and Baer, had printed up about fifteen or sixteen thousand leaflets. Quoting the description of these leaflets from the opinion:

The document in question, upon its first printed side, recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the Conscription Act, and that a conscript is little better than a convict. In impassioned language, it intimated that conscription was despotism in its worst form, and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street's chosen few. It said "Do not submit to intimidation," but in form, at least, confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal of the act.�.�.�.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is any of that at all relevant to my point?

It still represents a reasonable compromise on what type of speech may be prohibited by government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:42pm

Re: damn twitter...
Whether or not my example is analogous to, e.g., shutting down Twitter does not make it irrelevant to the conversation I was having regarding the rights of one interacting with the rights of another.

If you'd care to join that conversation, replying is easier to follow along with the posting a new comment on a different topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 16 Aug 2011 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
Maine passed a law earlier this year allowing anything approved by the CPSC other than rockets. (It will take effect January 1st next year).

Massachusetts (H.3372) and New York (A 1102) both have bills in committee which would allow municipalities to issue permits authorizing citizens to use most fireworks.

That would leave New Jersey and Delaware as the only states banning fireworks. So, take heart. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
We have a winner!

Free speech isn't an absolute. Even in the US, the courts have found that some speech is protected, and some speech is not. As an example, consider the concept of obscenity. Obscene material is not protected free speech.

Your rights, your freedoms, they stop where they start to limit the freedoms of others. When your freedom hurts the liberty of someone else, or hurts them in a manner that takes away from that liberty, your rights have stopped.

Reasonable people in the last 400 years or so have debated it, they have ruled on it, they have taught it, and they have nurtured it. Without reasonable men and women, freedom would be anarchy, which is the ultimate form of freedom. That isn't what the constitution had at it's core.

It's just disappointing that Mike is do frigging paranoid, that he can no longer trust his fellow man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm arguing that shutting something down for what you seem to think are reasonable compromises should never be considered without there being proof that something HAS HAPPENED ALREADY. Just because something bad COULD happen is no reason to cut communications. That is pretty much the essence of prior restraint as I've come to understand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obscenity laws are still being challenged to this day. I can wear a shirt that says 'Fuck you right up your motherfucking ass' and the cops really can't do much about it in most situations. In places with obscenity laws, I will gladly, and loudly, defend my rights. You don't have an intrinsic right to not be offended.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:16pm

I remember a few years back when Newt Gingrich said that there should be limits on speech, that's when I decided that he no longer deserved my support.
Like every other progressive out there in the world who wants to tell you what to do. I got no use for any of them.
Its not a coincidence that the First and Second Amendments are speech and guns, because when the second is taken away, the first is soon to follow, then the Forth and Fifth.

When it says the Right Of The People, it means YOU and I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Obviously Intelligent, 17 Aug 2011 @ 12:20am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I just come here to troll obvious idiots."

You come here to troll yourself? How bizarre.

Do not ask for whom the troll trolls. It trolls for he.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
indieThing (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 4:44am

Re: Preaching to the choir
You say that, but... Here in the UK, a couple of guys have been jailed for 4 years for 'incitement to riot' - they tried to get people to join in the riots on Facebook, but never actually managed to get the riot going !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trollololol, 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I bet you work for the RIAA - on commission catching copyright thieves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous bovine, 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:05am

Re: Re: Re: Preaching to the choir
you forgot vermont
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2011 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get the impression you are not actually reading anything I write, but are rather trying to pick at anything you could possibly misconstrue enough to disagree with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 18 Aug 2011 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re:
Your example is definitely true: that's because the statement itself is a criminal act. It's not the speaking it that's criminal--it's the hiring someone in any way to kill your wife: you've just chosen speech as the means to do that.

Incitement to violence that poses an imminent threat is illegal, under First Amendment jurisprudence. The Supremes have decided that you can't do that with your speech. This was and remains a mushy area of the law, for obvious reasons. Note especially the 4-year sentences against those guys in the UK who posted incitements to riots in the UK where the riots didn't even happen...it ain't the US, but it's an interesting twist.

But the State can't say: "You, who offered a contract to kill your wife, can no longer speak, write, Tweet, post on FB, etc."...although these rights may be severely curtailed while in prison.

Have I answered your question? Because I've certainly confused myself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg, 18 Aug 2011 @ 10:09am

Re:
"You and me." Or, better--"yours and mine."
[ link to this | view in thread ]