Okay, so now I *am* going to United Fan Con. Apparently their money situation has sorted itself out (the fact that Aaron Douglas dropped out probably freed up some funds, I’d think) and I was reinvited.
Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn’t seem fair to all the fans who’d written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they’d purchased nonrefundable tickets.
So I’ll be there.
PAD
• 
And Alan has the decency to simply avoid challenging anything because he doesn’t understand it.
“Could someone — anyone — please cite an example of Peter either:
retreating from his criticism of the NABJ based on them being “free speech but-heads,” or
reconciling his criticism of them as “free speech but-heads” with his claim he never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.
I heard he issued one, if not both of these, ad nauseam, so someone’s unobscured vision should have no difficulty putting me in my place.”
How do you explain colors to a blind man or sounds to the deaf?
If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠ Rocket+Surgery
Only if you answer the question.
(I wonder of I should simply let him believe he won. Would it be the end of this game he’s playing with us?)
Why don’t you simply settle the issue, if not for your own sake, then for Peter’s?
I don’t see how the issue can be settled? We have reached an impasse. You are incapable of understanding PAD’s point no mattrer how well he explains it to you, and although it’s clear to everybody else. And you are also incapable of presenting you own case in a way that would convince PAD or anyone else for that matter.
Unless you can solve the metaphorical question: how to explain colors to a blind man, we are stuck.
You would, you could, you should — you won’t. Thanks anyway, I suppose.
“You would, you could, you should — you won’t.”
What?
Good night
I paraphrased a saying common in the US: would’ve, could’ve, should’ve — didn’t.
Your failure to cite an example of something Peter claims to have explained Repeatedly™ demonstrates the validity of what I say regardless of your excuses for your failure. So much for his denial he didn’t try.
I guess I benefited more from your failure than I portrayed in my last post. Thank you.
Bill Myers: “Uhm… by “Bill,” do you perhaps mean “Mike?” Because I always… “
Don’t worry about it, Alan. We can’t tell the difference most of the time either.
~8?P
Chandler: You’ll pay. Don’t think you won’t pay.
Luigi Novi: Why would you label yourself an absolutist if you acknowledge that there are exceptions?”
Peter David: Easy. In the same way that a Supreme Court justice stated that he was a First Amendment absolutist: I believe that “Congress shall make no law” means that Congress shall make no law. As opposed to, say, “I believe in the First Amendment, except I believe there should be a law passed making flag burning illegal.”
Luigi Novi: But we already agreed that general principles have limits. Or in other words, exceptions. Congress has passes laws abridging speech, namely those examples I mentioned. Because we agree (I assume) that libel, threats, espionage, kiddie pørņ or false advertising are illegal, then how is this an absolute. Yes, the example you mentioned was one that we believe is wrong, because burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law. Bu all we have to do is agree that there are abridgments that we agree with in order for the principle to be not “absolute”, which most principles aren’t anyway. Since I’m guessing you agree that these things I mentioned above should be illegal, and that Congress was right to pass laws against those things, how is your belief in the principle absolute? You have used the example of a person walking into another person’s house and spewing hatred. The right of a property owner to ask that person to leave, or forcibly eject him if necessary, is a law passed by Congress, or otherwise guaranteed in the Constitution, isn’t it? (Sorry, Peter, maybe I’m just missing something in the way you articulate your POV of this.)
Micha: Luigi, I think that PAD’s point was that even people who apply the principle of free speech to its fullest accept certain limitations to it.
Luigi Novi: Right. Which is why it’s incorrect, IMO, to call it an “absolute” position. It’s a principle that we hold in general.
Btw, Micha, how do you pronounce your name?
If Mike isn’t a troll…what is he?
A peek at http://www.flamewarriors.com/index.htm could give the answer (it’s worth a look even if you are bored to tears by Mike).
Possibilities:
Archivist—Archivist saves and squirrels away each and every discussion forum message. Do you remember having a bad day back in 1996 when in one of your messages you may have said a few things that were…well, perhaps a little…hasty? Don’t worry, Archivist still has it and will post it to the forum if you begin to get the upper hand in battle. Archivist can be a very effective and fearsome Warrior.
Effective? Fearsome? Nope, keep looking…
EGO-
For Ego, the discussion forum is all about him, and he regards discussions that stray from that topic as trivial dalliances. Although tolerant of an occasional shift in focus, Ego grows increasingly restive when the forum’s attention shifts away from his interests, and he will often provoke conflict to reestablish himself as the subject at hand. Ego is one the the fiercest of all the Warriors and will fight to the death when attacked.
JERK— Jerk is sarcastic, mean, unforgiving and never misses an opportunity to make a cutting remark. Jerk’s repulsive personality quickly alienates other Warriors, and after some initial skirmishing he is usually ostracized. Still, Jerk is very happy to participate in electronic forums because in cyberspace he is free to be himself…without the risk of getting a real-time punch in the mouth
TIRELESS REBUTTER-For Tireless Rebutter there is no such thing as a trivial dispute. He regards all challenges as barbarians at the gates. His unflagging tenacity in making his points numbs and eventually wears down the opposition. Confident that his arguments are sound, Tireless Rebutter can’t understand why he is universally loathed.
Close, all so close…yet not quite there…
FERROUS CRANUS—Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
Bingo! We have a wiener!
RE: http://www.flamewarriors.com/index.htm
Wow! I never realized there were so many different categories. However, now that I think of it, I think I’ve seen many of them at a BtVS blog a few years back.
Thanks for posing the link, Bill M. 🙂
Luigi:
“Btw, Micha, how do you pronounce your name?”
Read phonetically. the ch is like in Loch-Ness , (but without the scotish accent).
I am aware that this sound is difficult for Americans to pronounce, so when I lived in the US I went by the name Michael. Micah would have been good too since it is the English variation of my Hebrew name. Last time I was in the US my sister confused me by introducing me as Micha or Michael to different people.
Luigi Novi: “Right. Which is why it’s incorrect, IMO, to call it an “absolute” position. It’s a principle that we hold in general.”
Agreed. But it seems to me that this is only a semantic issue. PAD’s point was pretty clear.
—————–
Bill, that link is great. I’m a little disappointed because I thought Mike was a unique marvel of nature.
———–
Mike: “I paraphrased a saying common in the US: would’ve, could’ve, should’ve — didn’t.”
Thanks. I’m familiar with the phrase but could not see the connection + it was late. This phrase usually refers to someone who regrets not doing something. I have no such regrets. The issue of Imus was addressed in detail in the relevant thread, and PAD then made the extra effort to explain things here.. You just don’t accept or don’t understand his explanation. Time to move on.
“So much for his denial he didn’t try.”
He did try, first at the Imus thread and then again here. That’s why I said he’s a man of great patience.
“I guess I benefited more from your failure than I portrayed in my last post”
No you didn’t. You’ve learned nothing, understood nothing, convinced anybody of anything, restructured your own views, grew in any way or earned anything. In general you’ve wasted your time as well as PAD’s.
Yeah, Luigi, you *are* missing something: When you say, “Or in other words, exceptions. Congress has passes (sic) laws abridging speech, namely those examples I mentioned,” you are one hundred percent wrong.
There’s nothing in the First Amendment that says they cannot pass laws punishing MISuse of Free Speech AFTER THE FACT. That’s what libel laws are, slander laws are, etc. They’re not prior restraint laws. They’re laws that say, If it can be demonstrably proven that you’ve abused the right of free speech, you’re going to have to pay for it.
Your reasons why you think that Congress shouldn’t pass a law about flag burning all miss the point. It’s not because “burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law.” Those are all vague and even disputable (what if someone sets a flag on fire and someone else gets so upset watching it that they have a heart attack? What if a crowd gets so upset seeing it that a riot ensues? Then it’s disruptive and a danger.)
No, the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn’t pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, “This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden, end of story.” That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit.
In the cases of libel, slander, etc., there’s still a burden of proof to be met. Is this statement really libelous? Is it truly slanderous? Did the author know the statements were false? Are they demonstrably false? Did the subject of the statement experience any genuine harm or damage as a result? Even the laws as they stand are chockful of protections for free speech. An anti-flag burning law has no protections. It says, “We don’t want you to make your opinions known in this way.”
I suppose it could be argued that the existence of, for instance, libel laws have a nominal chilling effect and therefore could–if one stretches one’s imagination to the breaking point and then pushes it a bit further–be considered as abridgement. Personally, I think that’s a ridiculous approach to take, because all the existing laws do is say that one should take one’s free speech rights seriously and not abuse them. I have no problem with that.
“Abridgement” means an attempt to diminish. Libel laws don’t stop me from, for instance, publishing a book that’s full of lies about someone. Libel laws simply provide a means of relief for the person who has been libeled.
Understand now?
PAD
Peter David: There’s nothing in the First Amendment that says they cannot pass laws punishing MISuse of Free Speech AFTER THE FACT. That’s what libel laws are, slander laws are, etc. They’re not prior restraint laws. They’re laws that say, If it can be demonstrably proven that you’ve abused the right of free speech, you’re going to have to pay for it.
Luigi Novi: As you yourself stated later in your post, laws punishing espionage, threats and libel have the effect of restraining people from doing these things through the power of deterrence. I sense that you and I agree on the principle, but as Micha suggested, maybe we disagree on the wording. When a law is passed punishing a given act of speech because it is an “abuse”, that act becomes, therefore illegal, and therefore, an exception to the First Amendment, and the principle that it codifies, because that principle, like just about any principle, is provisional, not absolute.
Peter David: Your reasons why you think that Congress shouldn’t pass a law about flag burning all miss the point. It’s not because “burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law.” Those are all vague and even disputable (what if someone sets a flag on fire and someone else gets so upset watching it that they have a heart attack? What if a crowd gets so upset seeing it that a riot ensues? Then it’s disruptive and a danger.) No, the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn’t pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, “This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden, end of story.” That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit.
Luigi Novi: The reasons I gave and the reasons you gave seem like two halves of the same principle, and can be incorporated into a single statement like this one made to a hypothetical proponent of an anti-flag burning Amendment:
“Burning a flag does not infringe upon anyone’s rights, endanger anyone, or serve as a disruption to the government or law. It is clear that your stated desire to ban flag burning is motivated by the offense you feel at the act, and the very SPECIFIC reason they shouldn’t pass such a law is because they cannot be allowed to say, ‘This means of expressing your opinion is universally forbidden’. That is SPECIFICALLY what the First Amendment was created to prohibit.”
It’s not either/or. It’s both. 🙂
Peter David: I suppose it could be argued that the existence of, for instance, libel laws have a nominal chilling effect and therefore could–if one stretches one’s imagination to the breaking point and then pushes it a bit further–be considered as abridgement.
Luigi Novi: If we use the first two definitions/usages of the word “abridge” at dictionary.com (and your statement “Abridgement” means an attempt to diminish” indicates that you are), then there is no need to “stretch one’s imagination”, let alone “to the breaking point”, or “push anything further”. It IS an abridegment, and a GOOD one. Unless you’re using the third definition at dictionary.com, the word “abridge” is morally NEUTRAL. It does not carry a value judgment of “right” or “wrong” with it. Yes, libel is an abridgement of Free Speech. Hëll, any sort of “abuse” of any law is an “abridgement” of some type of freedom. And thank God we have those abridgements in our society.
You seem to be splitting hairs over legalistic protocols rather than the extent of a principle. If any sort of law, regardless of whether it deters you “before the fact” of doing something, or punishes “after” you have done, prohibits something, then it is creating a situation in which your freedom is limited. If any law says, “You can’t say that”, then it limits free speech, making free speech a general principle, not an absolute one. There’s nothing wrong with this.
Peter David: Understand now?
Luigi Novi: Peter, I understood then. My understanding was not compromised, I can assure you. I simply disagree with you. Nothing more.
First of all, Luigi, if anyone is splitting hairs, it is you. The principal of what I am saying is crystal clear, as is the intent, as is the spirit. But you seem to insist on scrutinizing every syllable of what I say, seeking out a contradiction that simply is not there.
We are not speaking of mere legalistic protocol here. The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating. It is incredibly easy to file a lawsuit involving libel or slander or character defamation. However convincing a judge to engage in or order prior restraint is a MUCH tougher endeavor. Why? Because libel laws do not speak to First Amendment violation whereas prior restraint does. Suing someone after the fact does not challenge the First Amendment. Attempting to engage in prior restraint does.
As near as I can tell, you are trying to contend that I cannot on the one hand hold to the notion that First Amendment protection must be absolute, while on the other hand acknowledging the necessary protections of libel law. To me, this is crazy. You are ascribing to me the concept that the only way I can believe absolutely in the First Amendment is to advocate the notion that there is no difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment. That the moment I acknowledge the obvious–that there can and should be deterrent for misuse of the First Amendment–I have just invalidated my status as a First Amendment absolutist.
It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist–mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself, and yours being one who advocates complete verbal anarchy without fear of reprisal, even if the person spews lies or endangers the commonwealth. My view is very succinct and fairly narrow in its scope; you keep endeavoring to widen it so that it would then be invalid.
It is as if I said, “Luigi–do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?” And you said, “Yes, absolutely.” And I said, “Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?” And you say, “Of course not.” “Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?” “Of course not! We have laws against murder.” To which I reply, “A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin.”
Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment does not contradict, in the slightest, the concept of First Amendment absolutism. The only thing one is being “limited” to is that he is being required to use his freedom of speech responsibly. That makes it no different than any other right that is held dear.
Saying libel is an “exception” to the First Amendment is absurd because, once again, it DOES NOT IMPEDE OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO EXPRESS HIM OR HERSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE. Free will exists. The right to say it still exists. Congress being unable to stop you from doing it still exists.
As much as you say you understood then, Luigi, I do not think you understood then or even now.
PAD
“Alan Coil: “Bill,
“The reason I never pay much attention to your posts is that you make WAY too many references to what other people have said WITHOUT labeling who the original speaker was.”
Uhm… by “Bill,” do you perhaps mean “Mike?” Because I always label the original speaker when quoting others’ posts. “
=-=-=-=-=-=
Yes. Dammit. Sorry, Bill. I am way more sorry than I can ever express.
Mike is the cause of my latest migraine, not Bill.
“Alan,
Are you sure you meant to address Bill in your post above?
I’m pretty sure you meant somebody else.”
=-=-=-=-=
Yes, Micha, I meant somebody else. Mike, in fact.
See, this is why I seldom participate in these long discussions. I have a tendency to screw up what are actually small details, yet are essential to the argument.
Sorry, again.
Alan Coil: “I am way more sorry than I can ever express.”
Don’t be. No harm done. In fact, it was amusing.
Alan, no need to apologize to me. I noticed you made a mistake — as we all often do — and pointed it out to you. No need to aplooogize to. Bill Myers on the other hand may not be so forgiving 🙂
——————
PAD, I can’t help but feel that Luigi is getting an undeserved backlash of your conversation with Mike.
I think most of us recognize limitations to free speech that still do not undermine the principle of free speech. Luigi is not saying what you think he does. And the use of the word ‘absolutist’ is mostly a issue of semantics.
It seems to me that we agree on the principles. but if we decide to articulate them than I think the definition of the limitations needs fine-tuning.
1) “It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist–mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself”
This critirion is too narrow: the whole Imus discussion started because of words spoken against free speechh by private people against a private person. Back then when people said that the first amendment only deals with preventing the government from limiting free speech you rightly replied that there’s a bigger principle at stake.
2) I think Luigi is right that you give the distinction between preventing free speech and punishing after the event too much weight. You’re right that the law views them differently, and this certainly means something. But then, the law usually tends to treat punishment of actual crimes more severely than prevention.
In any case, we certainly would consider it an infringement on free speech if the government arrested flag burners after the event, or that Imus was fired after he made his statement.
I think libal laws exists to protect others from becoming victims of someone excercising his right to free speech. I also think that libal laws are civil and not criminal, although I’m not sure.
3) “Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment” “difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment”
This critirion is too wide and also needs fine-tuning. Punishing people, even after the event, for misuse or improper use of free speech could justify too many abuses. How do you define proper use? Is pornography proper use for example? In the caser of libal and of child pornograhy we consider it misuse because certain lines were crossed. While burning a flag, while making a racist statement on radio, while not being a laudable example of the use of free speech is nevertheless not considered an abuse to the point of justifing punishment. Again, fine-tuning of the definitions is necessary if we want to to articulate them, though I think we understand the principles and pretty much agree about them even if we do not.
All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion. Your decision to use that discretion only rarely says more about you than about free speech.
———-
Sorry I can’t comment on She-Hulk, I’ll only get it in a month or two.
Got to go.
Peter, I invited the readers devoted to you to find an example of that which you claim to have reiterated Repeatedly.™ They didn’t even try. Everyone except you has the deficit you ascribe to me.
At the risk of discouraging Luigi from saying more things that confirm what I’m saying, he is citing the very contradition of Peter’s I have been referring to.
Peter’s rolling pin analogy seems to be saying that free speech does not absolve responsibility for the effects of free speech. But Luigi is correct because one can still be judged guilty of libel even if no damage has been demonstrated — libel itself is a legitamate grievence.
Then don’t my posts. I wasn’t talking to you.
And don’t read them either.
So he says without referring to anything I’ve said — demonstrating no sense of irony.
Peter David: First of all, Luigi, if anyone is splitting hairs, it is you. The principal of what I am saying is crystal clear, as is the intent, as is the spirit. But you seem to insist on scrutinizing every syllable of what I say, seeking out a contradiction that simply is not there.
Luigi Novi: Peter, I’m merely pointing out a contradiction (or a word usage falsity) that I happen to see. I’m not seeking one. If it appears that I am, then I apologize, for that is not my intent. But perhaps something in the way I am expressing myself gives that impression. If so, allow me try and explain my viewpoint on this.
In life, there are few or no absolutes. All principles that we live by have exceptions. Is it wrong to kill people? Well, yes. Are there exceptions? Sure. Self-defense is one. And because there is an exception, then that principle about killing is not absolute, because “absolute” means without exceptions.
Thus principles like that are provisional. They’re generally right and true, for most people, in most situations, most of the time.
Peter David: We are not speaking of mere legalistic protocol here. The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating. It is incredibly easy to file a lawsuit involving libel or slander or character defamation. However convincing a judge to engage in or order prior restraint is a MUCH tougher endeavor. Why? Because libel laws do not speak to First Amendment violation whereas prior restraint does. Suing someone after the fact does not challenge the First Amendment. Attempting to engage in prior restraint does.
Luigi Novi: But I didn’t say that libel laws “challenge” the First Amendment. All I said was that the fact that there are limits to free speech is why free speech, as a principle, is not “absolute”. A limit to something is not a “challenge” to. The fact that there are exceptions to free speech is why it is a general rule, one which (in theory, at least) protects most things, though not all. What difference does whether restraint is “prior” have to do with it?
Peter David: As near as I can tell, you are trying to contend that I cannot on the one hand hold to the notion that First Amendment protection must be absolute, while on the other hand acknowledging the necessary protections of libel law. To me, this is crazy. You are ascribing to me the concept that the only way I can believe absolutely in the First Amendment is to advocate the notion that there is no difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment. That the moment I acknowledge the obvious–that there can and should be deterrent for misuse of the First Amendment–I have just invalidated my status as a First Amendment absolutist.
Luigi Novi: Peter, I don’t even know what “improper use of the First Amendment” is. The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want, but that there are exceptions to this are implicitly built-in to in a way that is so obvious that it doesn’t even have to say “don’t publish kiddie pørņ”. That there is a separate law banning kiddie pørņ means that the FA simply doesn’t include that. Thus, kiddie pørņ is not an “improper use” of the First Amendment. It is simply a form of expression that is not covered by it. And if it isn’t covered by the FA (rightfully so), then how does publishing kiddie pørņ constitute any type of “use” of it, let alone an improper one? Kiddie pørņ is simply one of those illegal things that is an exception to the FA. Libel is another. Selling classified government secrets to the enemy, false advertisement, insider trading, threats, acts of reckless endangerment, etc., are others.
And while you and I may have both used the phrases “free speech” and “The First Amendment” interchangeably in this thread, the original statement of yours that I questioned was this one:
“Even I, absolutist that I am, have never argued that free speech is de facto without limits.”
Notice how you said “free speech” in that statement. Not the First Amendment. So we were talking more about the moral principle than the legalistic one. (I think there would still be problems if you had said “First Amendment”, but let’s put that aside for now.) Now, do you believe there are exceptions to free speech? Yes, you do. You don’t think that libel or kiddie pørņ should be protected. Thus, your view of free speech is not “absolute”. It is provisional, and I say, “Good for you. I agree”.
Peter David: It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist–mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself, and yours being one who advocates complete verbal anarchy without fear of reprisal, even if the person spews lies or endangers the commonwealth. My view is very succinct and fairly narrow in its scope; you keep endeavoring to widen it so that it would then be invalid.
Luigi Novi: Your view of free speech and mine are identical.
It’s our views on the proper usage of the word “absolute” that is not.
Peter David: It is as if I said, “Luigi–do you think that people should be allowed to buy rolling pins whenever they wish?” And you said, “Yes, absolutely.” And I said, “Ah. But what if a man makes it clear that he is going to buy the rolling pin for the express purpose of bludgeoning his wife to death. Do you approve of his buying the rolling pin for that purpose?” And you say, “Of course not.” “Do you believe that he should not be prosecuted for bludgeoning her to death with a rolling pin because he had the right to buy it?” “Of course not! We have laws against murder.” To which I reply, “A ha! So you admit that you do not absolutely advocate the right to buy a rolling pin.”
Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them. You can’t buy one if you’re in a store that doesn’t sell them, like a toy store. Moreover, the hypothetical use of the word “absolutely” that you suggest seems more like a use of the verbal shorthand that we see in everyday casual speech, as with the common misuse of the word “literally”, than a statement of one’s philosophical viewpoint that is made with much more deliberation and elaboration.
Peter David: Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment does not contradict, in the slightest, the concept of First Amendment absolutism. The only thing one is being “limited” to is that he is being required to use his freedom of speech responsibly.
Luigi Novi: Yes, and that’s a limit.
One I agree with.
Peter David: Saying libel is an “exception” to the First Amendment is absurd because, once again, it DOES NOT IMPEDE OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON TO EXPRESS HIM OR HERSELF IN THE FIRST PLACE. Free will exists. The right to say it still exists. Congress being unable to stop you from doing it still exists.
Luigi Novi: The fact that you will be punished for doing it means that you can’t. Which is why generally speaking, most people don’t do so. Why you feel that it matters whether the limit in question is “prior” or “post”, I don’t know. As far as I can see, it’s completely irrelevant to the usage of the word “absolute”.
Peter David: As much as you say you understood then, Luigi, I do not think you understood then or even now.
Luigi Novi: Maybe. Or, maybe you and I just disagree.
1) It seems to me that we have different definitions of the First Amendment absolutist–mine being a person who believes Congress cannot make laws that impede the right of a person to express himself
This critirion is too narrow: the whole Imus discussion started because of words spoken against free speechh by private people against a private person. Back then when people said that the first amendment only deals with preventing the government from limiting free speech you rightly replied that there’s a bigger principle at stake.
The criterion is narrow because the question is narrow. I’ve been asked to define my position as a First Amendment absolutist. That relates specifically to how the First Amendment is handled vis a vis Congress. The Imus situation had nothing to do with the specificity of the First Amendment; rather it had to do with the spirit of free expression.
2) I think Luigi is right that you give the distinction between preventing free speech and punishing after the event too much weight. You’re right that the law views them differently, and this certainly means something. But then, the law usually tends to treat punishment of actual crimes more severely than prevention.
And I think Luigi is wrong. It’s not merely that *I’m* giving the distinction too much weight. The legal system gives the distinction that weight, as I noted. Suing someone for libel or slander is easy. Achieving prior restraint is a massive deal, and that is specifically because the former doesn’t tread on the First Amendment and the latter does.
I think libal laws exists to protect others from becoming victims of someone excercising his right to free speech. I also think that libal laws are civil and not criminal, although I’m not sure.
Libel laws are indeed civil. But again, they exist to protect people for after-the-fact misuse of free speech. It has chuck-all to do with Congress making laws abridging that free speech.
3) “Acknowledging that Congress has the right to protect the Commonweal from misuse of the First Amendment” “difference between the proper and improper use of the First Amendment”
This critirion is too wide and also needs fine-tuning.
Wait, back up. First you said that I was being too narrow…now you’re saying I’m being too broad? Also, I really appreciate your willingness to fine tune the thoughts in my head, but I’m pretty comfortable with the way they’re running now.
Punishing people, even after the event, for misuse or improper use of free speech could justify too many abuses. How do you define proper use?
Fortunately enough, I don’t have to. The law as it stands defines libel and slander. The law defines child pornography. Unfortunately, the law does a suck-ášš job of defining obscenity, and it shows in the wildly inconsistent away in which obscenity is prosecuted in this country.
Is pornography proper use for example? In the caser of libal and of child pornograhy we consider it misuse because certain lines were crossed.
Yes, lines that are defined by law. So why are you asking how we define proper use when the law already does?
While burning a flag, while making a racist statement on radio, while not being a laudable example of the use of free speech is nevertheless not considered an abuse to the point of justifing punishment.
Kind of the point, isn’t it. Imus’s actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.
Again, fine-tuning of the definitions is necessary if we want to to articulate them, though I think we understand the principles and pretty much agree about them even if we do not.
And, again, I think my definitions, which are consistent with the way the law distinguishes between what is and is not covered under the First Amendment, is coming in just fine.
PAD
All this is irrelevant to the issue of the disemvoweled troll, since it has been established that free speech in a private forum is not equal to free speech in the world at large, and that other limitations may be set internally at your discretion. Your decision to use that discretion only rarely says more about you than about free speech.
———-
. The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want,
Good God, Luigi, what the hëll? Where does it say that? When did I ever say it said that? It DOESN’T say that. You’ve made up an interpretation of the First Amendment that I haven’t advocated, that the law hasn’t advocated. If you went up to any constitutional lawyer and said, “The First Amendment is a law that says that you can say or express yourself however you want,” they’d either look at you strangely or laugh in your face. If that’s the underpinning of your position, then we’re done, because it’s so far removed from anything I’ve said–not to mention legal accuracy or reality–that there’s no point in continuing.
PAD
Novi: The fact that you will be punished for doing it means that you can’t.
And so, as a result of laws and criminal penalties, no one ever committed another crime because they couldn’t. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
PAD
Luigi Novi: And you’d be right, since I don’t advocate the right to buy rolling pins whenever one wishes. You can’t buy one when the store’s closed. You can’t buy one when you don’t have money, or when the money you have in your pocket is stolen. You can’t buy one if the store is out of them.
Luigi…honest to God, I don’t know what the hëll is going on with you. It’s like you’ll say anything to make a point that I can’t even begin to understand. I didn’t say “whenever one wishes,” I said “absolute right to buy one.” Obviously implicit in that is all the standard, legal, proper aspects of “buying” something. Your response? What if the store is closed, what if you don’t have money. You’re refusing to accept anything that’s implicit or understood in order to make some point that seems hugely important to you and astoundingly picayune to me.
You think there’s no such thing as absolutes? You’re wrong. I am absolutely done discussing this with you.
PAD
Yeah, I think we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns on this.
So he says without referring to anything I’ve said — demonstrating no sense of irony.
This constant need to have people refer to your words is almost as sad as your insistence that you’ve “won” all of the arguments you’ve so badly lost. Since almost everything you write ends up making you look bad it’s awfully hard to come up with just one…and since you are the only one asking for it and since you are at the absolute bottom of the list of participants here who are worth listening too what exactly is my incentive?
Besides, at your most loathsome you are usually demonstrating obnoxious cruelty to people and, should I revive those manifestations of your abnormality, I will probably be accused by you–with no sense of irony–of “reopening wounds” or some such idiocy.
Peter David: “In the same way that a Supreme Court justice (tragically, I forget which one) stated that he was a First Amendment absolutist…”
I believe you are referring to the late Justice Hugo L. Black. Justice Black’s interpretation of the First Amendment recognized no limits on “speech” or “the press,” and thus he believed libel and slander laws to be unconstitutional. His reading of the First Amendment was quite narrow, however, with respect to the definitions of “speech” and “the press:” nonverbal conduct such as defacing the U.S. flag was subject to regulation in his view (Street v. New York, 1969).
I am not sure if it was Black or not. But reading up on that link, I can tell you that the details of his views do not match up with mine.
PAD
PAD, I’m interested in how you feel about some of the recent McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, which some have criticized as amounting to suppression of free speech. I haven’t looked into them enough to have much of an opinion though I do note that that if they were intended to reduce the amount of money spent on elections they have failed to a catastrophic extent.
No, it’s because one is considered innocent until proven guilty.
The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.
The same can literally be said of Imus and the NABJ.
“absolute right to buy one” literally means “whenever one wishes,” you go so far as to admit it, but still somehow make it someone else’s fault if he can’t read your mind. I don’t see how that doesn’t qualify as narcissistic.
Dude, thank you for disqualifying anything I’ve said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or — even your favorite aberration — abnormal.
It’s a wonder you simply don’t wait until I demonstrate one of those traits again, since you have an unshakable faith I will do so again, rather than some wishful need that I am any of those things.
I said: “We don’t try to “win,” with a few trllsh exceptions, we don’t make our comments personal…see above reference to trlls…and we try to have good, spirited, intelligent conversation as much as a blog can allow.”
Mike said: “If calling someone a šhìŧ without referring to anything they say qualifies as impersonal, sure.”
Which prompted me to say: “That’s got to be some kind of effeciency record. Mike proves my first two points in 15 words.”
To which Mike replied: “Someday you may be generous enough to explain how calling someone a šhìŧ without referring to anything they’ve said or done proves goodness, spirit, and intelligence.”
I won’t go into PAD’s attempt to reason with Mike. But there this little gem from Mike that came out of it: “If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠Rocket+Surgery”
Mike, first off, if you weren’t being so dense…either purposefully, or perhaps that’s just the way you are, you’d recognize that my statement were qualified with the idea that, for the MOST part, with a few trllsh exceptions, this community treats each other well. Note that, while I didn’t have you specifically and particularly in mind for that qualification, you do largely qualify as a troll. Not because you engage in insulting pr derogatory actions, but because you rarely engage in debate. You may think you do, you may appear to the casual observer to be participating, but all you’re really doing is trying to inflate your own ego with statements like this: “If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠Rocket+Surgery”
Just in case you really don’t know, you don’t get substantive responses from many people because we’ve tried that. There are too many examples to bother citing…many from me to you…where your are provided responses directly on point and counter to yours. And your response, invariably, is that you ignore the facts that you are presented with, or twist them in such a way that they appear to support your own position.
“If no one can cite the example, I win. n ≠Rocket+Surgery”
Most people aren’t playing with you anymore. You can’t win a game with someone who doesn’t want to play, because you either don’t follow the rules, or you outright cheat. Your intillectually dishonest, condescending, egotistical, and post in an overly obtuse fashion…which many people have called you on, yet you only recently have begun to change…and generally act like a jerk.
Just for the record, I’m not trying to say these things to be mean. I’m trying to point out your flaws, because, however slim I find it, I do see a glimmer of a decent conversationalist/poster in you. You’ve got a sense of humor that shows wit and intelligence that occasionally appears, and you clearly are fairly well-educated in certain areas. But you don’t play fair, you don’t play honestly, and that pìššëš people off. So long as you continue to do that, you’re going to be labeled a trll, called a šhìŧ and other names, and generally reviled by most in this community. And those are just the people that don’t outright skip over your posts by this point.
Mike (not, obviously, me):
Dude, thank you for disqualifying anything I’ve said in this thread as arbitrarily relentless, obnoxiously cruel, or — even your favorite aberration — abnormal.
I think you mean “dismissing” rather than “disquaifying”, and i’m still trying to figure out what you think “relentless” means in that context, but the “obnoxious” part certainly sounds about right.
“Abnormal”, OTOH, is something else again – your posts certainly aren’t “abnormal” for this sort of online discussion; people say all sorts of dumb things in a forum like this all the time.
It’s a wonder you simply don’t wait until I demonstrate one of those traits again, since you have an unshakable faith I will do so again, rather than some wishful need that I am any of those things.
No need to wait – well, not to wait any longer than until you make another post – to sort of paraphrase Mark Twain: “If Mike hasn’t said anything irrelevant and obtuse lately, wait an hour.”
PAD: “The criterion is narrow because the question is narrow. I’ve been asked to define my position as a First Amendment absolutist. That relates specifically to how the First Amendment is handled vis a vis Congress. The Imus situation had nothing to do with the specificity of the First Amendment; rather it had to do with the spirit of free expression.”
I had the impression — based on the context of the discussion — that you were discussing about free speech in general. I stand corrected.
PAD: “And I think Luigi is wrong. It’s not merely that *I’m* giving the distinction too much weight. The legal system gives the distinction that weight, as I noted. Suing someone for libel or slander is easy. Achieving prior restraint is a massive deal, and that is specifically because the former doesn’t tread on the First Amendment and the latter does.”
Yet we would probably consider it a violation of free speech and the 1st amendment to punish someone for burning a flag or calling the president an idiot, although the punishment would only take place after he exercised his 1st amendment right to burn the flag. We would not accept the claim that since he is only punished after the fact his 1st amendment rights were not infringed.
PAD: “Wait, back up. First you said that I was being too narrow…now you’re saying I’m being too broad?”
I felt one critirion was to narrow and another different one too broad. Similarly I might feel that Republicans apply the first amendment too narrowly and the 2nd too broadly.
PAD: “Also, I really appreciate your willingness to fine tune the thoughts in my head, but I’m pretty comfortable with the way they’re running now.”
I thought that by writing your thoughts in a blog you were opening them up for discussion and examination. If you prefer you could say that I’m try to fine tune in my mind for my self the ideas you presented. However, if you feel I’ve oversteped some boundary I will not hesitate to remove myself from this discussion or any other you feel might be necessary.
PAD: “Fortunately enough, I don’t have to. The law as it stands defines libel and slander. The law defines child pornography. Unfortunately, the law does a suck-ášš job of defining obscenity, and it shows in the wildly inconsistent away in which obscenity is prosecuted in this country.”
It is insufficient for the purposes of this discussion (assuming I am permitted to participate in it) to simply point to the law as defining the limits of free speech. Laws change in response to changes in society. Some people would like to make laws that place limitations on flag burninng and adult pornography. If that were to occur I assume that you would say the laws are wrong. As citizens of democratic countries our laws are the result of legislation by representatives of the people — the people in effect are the ones making the laws, so we have to understand the principles behind them.
Moreover, doesn’t he 1st amendment exists (if I’m not incorrect) to prevent just that, but it too is subject to interpretation and is merely and articulation of a principle (as Bill Myers showed us).
That’s why we can’t just say that the law defines the limits of free speech, but understand the principles and logic behind botht the constitution and the laws that justify limiting free speech in one case but not in another.
PAD: “And, again, I think my definitions, which are consistent with the way the law distinguishes between what is and is not covered under the First Amendment, is coming in just fine.”
You can chalk it off to a lack of understanding on my part.
————–
Bill, thanks for the link. Apparently the term absolutist has an exact meaning iun the context of this discussion.
Peter David: “I am not sure if it was Black or not.”
I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that another SCOTUS justice might have said something similar. Black, however, is the justice most closely associated with the concept of “First Amendment absolutism.”
Peter David: “But reading up on that link, I can tell you that the details of his views do not match up with mine.”
Yes, I know. I was trying to point out, in a non-confrontational way, that your stated views bear little resemblance to the definition of “First Amendment absolutism” generally accepted in legal and academic circles.
If one Googles “First Amendment exceptions,” one will find a myriad of articles from credible legal and academic sources that describe laws regulating libel and slander, “fighting words,” obscenity, and other forms of speech as “exceptions” to rather than limitations implicit in the First Amendment. Some of those exceptions are rooted in British common law, others in legal theories about the Founding Fathers’ “intent.”
You stated, “The law itself recognizes the differences that I am delineating.” Yes, it does. But in the realm of jurisprudence, those delineations are indeed termed “exceptions” and are antithetical to “First Amendment absolutism” as the term is generally defined.
I am not questioning your free speech “street creds.” Your bona fides as a champion of that cause are unassailable, and your advocacy has had a great influence on me. I simply felt a need to speak up and clarify what is generally meant by “First Amendment absolutism.”
Yet we would probably consider it a violation of free speech and the 1st amendment to punish someone for burning a flag or calling the president an idiot, although the punishment would only take place after he exercised his 1st amendment right to burn the flag. We would not accept the claim that since he is only punished after the fact his 1st amendment rights were not infringed.
Yeah, but you’re missing the point. First off, libel and slander laws are steeped in common law that predates the First Amendment by centuries. So the notion of incorporating existing common law into after-the-fact remedies for misuse of free speech makes perfect sense to me. The example that you’re putting forward now would require–if criminal penalties were to be incurred–brand new laws to be created that forbid flag burning or forbid calling a public figure an idiot. Since that would require Congress to make laws abridging freedom of speech, obviously that presents a problem. As it stands now, not only would it be a violation of free speech to prosecute someone for burning a flag or namecalling the President, but there exists no laws under which charges could be filed. So your examples are completely moot.
I thought that by writing your thoughts in a blog you were opening them up for discussion and examination. If you prefer you could say that I’m try to fine tune in my mind for my self the ideas you presented. However, if you feel I’ve oversteped some boundary I will not hesitate to remove myself from this discussion or any other you feel might be necessary.
I suppose it’s the way you phrased it that I reacted to. Saying that it “needs to be fine-tuned.” As if, once I have accepted your adjustments, only then will my thoughts be acceptable.
PAD
I am not questioning your free speech “street creds.” Your bona fides as a champion of that cause are unassailable, and your advocacy has had a great influence on me. I simply felt a need to speak up and clarify what is generally meant by “First Amendment absolutism.”
Fair enough. Perhaps the term “First Amendment absolutist” should be allowed the same range of subtleties and philosophies as, say, “feminist.” I think the majority of feminists, for instance, would disagree with the notion that all men are potential rapists simply because they possess the necessary equipment.
And speaking of dìçkš…one final swing at trying to get Mike to understand…well…anything:
Imus’s actions did not violate any of the legally defined misuses of speech. Yet a group of people took it upon themselves to punish him themselves. Nice job of support, huh.
The same can literally be said of he whom you had disemvoweled and you.
Ohhhh, nice try! But no banana.
As far as I’m concerned, nameless trolls who show up purely to hurl personal insults, piss people off, and offer no contribution to an actual exchange of opinions fall outside of First Amendment protection because such actions constitute “fighting words.” To quote from that same handy source that Bill provided:
“The Court concluded that “fighting words,” which “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” (p. 572), have no important role in the debate of public issues.”
So no. When I choose to have a mindless troll disemvoweled, it is not a decision that runs afoul fo the First Amendment, either technically or in spirit.
Feel free, of course, to ignore the above refutation of your position, as you so typically do with everyone else.
PAD
I think that Peters & Luigi’s entire issue is simply with the way the word “absolute” is being used. I believe that Peter, and correct me if I’m wrong here, believes that absolute free speech means that you have the freedom to say whatever you want without government restrictions, but not the ability to have a free pass from punishment irresponsible use of that freedom. Luigi’s hang up with this is, like with some people I know, that the saying you have absolute freedom of speech means that there are no penalties at all for anything you say. The simple idea that you can be punished for speech, and thus possibly deterred from speaking something publicly, means that you have no “absolute right” to free speech in American society.
Yeah, there is a fundamental difference in those views, but it’s not one that would effect anything that the both of you seem to jointly believe in upholding. I doubt that it would stop either of you from agreeing that someone was rightly being prosecuted for falsely declaring in public that someone was pedophile or that someone shouldn’t need to fear being imprisoned for selling an “adult” comic book to someone who was 18 or over.
If you were both lawyers or arguing the purely legal point of the wording, I could see this debate going somewhere. As it stands, it’s a bit like arguing what “warm” is. I think that warm is 70 to 75 degrees. My wife thinks that “warm” involves the heat causing meat to fall off of the bone. Since neither of us are weathermen, I can’t see our interpretations of “warm” affecting anybody unless they swing round for a visit. Not that you can’t debate it. It was certainly more interesting than the troll topic.
And, Peter, I think that you’re trying too hard with the examples that you’re giving Mike. Discussing “fighting words” and such will only open you up to him stating that Imus’s words could be argued to have been fighting words to the NABJ. There’s a far better explanation of why this thread in no way relates to the NABJ and Imus.
Your standards for your blog are just that. They’re your standards for how we can conduct ourselves here in your “home” as it were.
But you draw those lines of conduct at the edge of your home. You only request that we guests in your home abide by the standards and rules of or host. You do not act as a guest in other peoples home and then demand that they do it your way.
You don’t go to Aint it Cool News or even to Mike’s site and demand that they accept your rules for conduct. Quite the opposite actually. You’ve actively defended the rights of others to say things, do things, print things or act in ways that you yourself would not.
You certainly don’t demand that they do it your way or else.
The NABJ went to someone else’s home and demanded that they do it the NABJ’s way or else. They didn’t remove a member of their own group for violating the NABJ’s standards. They went to others and threatened them with financial punishment unless they did it the NABJ’s way and ousted Imus.
Even your own expression of disagreement with the NABJ didn’t compare to their actions. They used their freedom of speech to threaten with financial harm others for the exercise of their freedom of speech. You merely exercised your freedom of speech to express dismay with their actions without attaching threats of any sort.
No comparisons at all between you and the NABJ, their actions vs your actions or this thread and that one. Seems clear as day to me. Likely seems clear to everybody else. Might not seem that clear to The Wall.
PAD: “I suppose it’s the way you phrased it that I reacted to. Saying that it “needs to be fine-tuned.” As if, once I have accepted your adjustments, only then will my thoughts be acceptable.”
You perceived in my words a confrontational tone that was not there. You presented your thoughts. I presented my opinions on them in the interest of discussion, and vice versa. Isn’t that the purpose of internet discussions? Maybe not. Unlike certain others, I don’t exppect my opinions to be viewed as anything but opinons; surely not as some kind of objective or authoritative decision as to what constitutes an acceptable thought. And I am not going to declare myself a winner if someone’s thoughts differ than mine. Nor am I in the habit of being confrontational in internet discussions unless attacked.
I think I wil step out of this discussion now.
I find Mike’s idea that he can ‘win’ an objective victory in these discussions to be absurd. He present his take on a certain issue, say Imus. PAD or someone else replies. Mike does not accept the reply, and the other person or persons don’t accept his take on the issue. It is either an unresolved disagreement or an inability of either side to understand or be understood by the other. Whatever the case may be, there is no way to ‘win’. The only things you can win here are knowledge, wisdom and the respect of others. Mike seems to have lost on all three counts.
“When I choose to have a mindless troll disemvoweled, it is not a decision that runs afoul fo the First Amendment, either technically or in spirit.”
So, I take it you were on Cap’s side during Civil War?
Your blog allows people to anonymously post under names (fake or real) or pseudonyms.
One could argue that you could just as easily require users to register the way many forums do.
You would then have total control over who was/was not a troll….
The argument could be made that you ‘like’ having the trolls occaisionally invade because:(1) They provide occasional ‘entertainment’ (2) They provide an innate controversy that otherwise might not be seen in a blog about one single individual. (3) maybe controversies such as this are a way to keep your own creative juices flowing???
Just some thoughts…
Sorry for not writing this weekend…Halloween is big weekend for us nudists…its about the only time we actually DO care about what we’re going to wear…
As to those who felt as though one has to look like an adonis to be a nudsit…sigh…I’m sorry that you don’t get it. I mean, you guys do get it that you don’t have to be a writer or an artist to be a comic book fan…oh well…agree to disagree again…although I have to tell you, not having to follow dictates of modesty did lend itself to some really, really interesting costume designs that would NEVER have been allowed at a comic convention…e.g. my costume consisted of alternating bands on black and white bodypaint–I called it “naked as a jailbird.”
“As to those who felt as though one has to look like an adonis to be a nudsit…sigh…I’m sorry that you don’t get it.”
Sorry, Dan, no offense meant. I should have thought to phrase that in a way that you, being unfamiliar with my humor here, wouldn’t catch the wrong way. It was a joke. I’ve know a few nudists and I am aware of the ideas behind it. My joke was in no way a poke at your lifestyle and with no more malice then when I joke all the redheads in my and my wife’s families with South Park’s “gingers” routine. And, actually, if you look at it again, you’ll see where it was more a setup to take a poke at myself then it was to take a poke at nudists.
Mike –
If no one can cite the example, I win.
Mike, you’re a šhìŧ.
Now *I* win. Ha!
Ok, I’m done channeling Mike.
Dan Taylor –
The argument could be made that you ‘like’ having the trolls occaisionally invade because
Dan, do you get on a lot of different internet forums? Mailing lists, newsgroups, blogs, message boards.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that most people loathe trolls. Considering the crap PAD has to put up with from time to time just to keep this forum running (trolls, spambots, etc), why anybody would want to waste their time on troublemakers is apparently well beyond me. So, to suggest that PAD enjoys trolls is rather silly.
Imus didn’t issue fighting words because the NABJ said so. Imus issued fighting words because Imus and NBC News said so. As the NABJ press release said, NBC News already issued an apology for what Imus said, and Imus apologized 2 days after insulting the Rutgers team.
If Imus and NBC News weren’t sorry, then it would totally fall on the NABJ. But they said they were sorry, and the NABJ simply challenged them to demonstrate it.
Banana™
You inference is not actionable.
Peter is literally wrong. After 48 hours, no one can find an example of that which he claims he reiterated Repeatedly.™
You don’t even seem to be saying I’m wrong on that. For that there isn’t anything for me to do other than to thank you.
Well, I see Mike is back with the long quoted sections. As I didn’t bother to read it, I have a question.
Did he say anything new?
{{yawn}}
What’s new in my post is flushed to the left. If you feel like simply going to my point, you can read those short comments, challenging as they are to you. The quoted sections are only why the new content is true.