U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 10:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 10:15 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  This is one area where I agree with the conservatives
...

The irony, of course, being that freedom of expression in its current form (post-Athens and Rome and shit) stems from both republicanism and liberalism...

Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
- the right to seek information and ideas;
- the right to receive information and ideas;
- the right to impart information and ideas

Quote:Milton's own beliefs were in some cases both unpopular and dangerous, and this was true particularly to his commitment to republicanism. In coming centuries, Milton would be claimed as an early apostle of liberalism.

I feel like I'm living in an Orwellian dystopia where The Republican™ party has become a non-hereditary monarchy (aka a tyranny) and The Conservatives™ extol classical liberal policies.

WTF?!?!?

Huh

I note Milton didn't include the right NOT to receive information or ideas - i.e. the presumption of a protection of one's innocence/ignorance. To me this bolsters the argument that when someone claims I have offended them with my criticism of their beliefs I am justified in asking, "So fucking what?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr. Boston's post
19-06-2017, 02:37 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2017 03:12 PM by Rockblossom.)
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:25 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I am on the fence on such decisions. Just like that it sounds great, but i would be interested in seeing the details underlying such judgement to see how it oder itself with the right to equity and the protection of minorities. I would also like to see how it will affect naming conventions. In many places, the court can refuse to allow parents to name babies with extraordinarly stupid or offensive names. The idea that the "free market of ideology" can regulate itself is about as stupid as the idea that the economical free market can regulate itself to produce a stable, equitable and free society.

For information, all SCotUS cases and the rulings are available to the public. There is normally a Majority Ruling and a Minority (or Dissenting) Opinion with the details. You can see how each Justice voted. In this case, there's no "Minority Report" because the ruling was unanimous.

The Court looked at 3 issues:
Quote:And at the outset, we must consider three arguments that would either eliminate any First Amendment protection or result in highly permissive rational basis review. Specifically, the Government contends (1) that trademarks are government speech, not private speech, (2) that trademarks are a form of government subsidy, and (3) that the constitutionality of the disparagement clause should be tested under a new “government-program” doctrine.

I think one of the key parts of the finding is in Justice Alito's write-up:
Quote: But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16...3_1o13.pdf

Current and scheduled: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2017/
All back to 1760: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court

I'm always happy when SCotUS reaffirms the scope of the 1st Amendment, and hope that the people who want to make it illegal to "desecrate" a Holy Book or burn the US flag will get the message and just STFU (of their own choice - not because there's some law ...) Big Grin


As for restrictions on what babies can be named in the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_in_...ted_States

I’ll be a story in your head, but that’s okay, because we’re all stories in the end. Just make it a good one, eh? Because it was, you know. It was the best.
The Doctor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rockblossom's post
19-06-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:33 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  The irony was that the "Redskins" name was not a disparaging comment against Native Americans. It was a reference to the body paint used by the warriors of the Beothuk, a tribe of what is now Newfoundland, leading the early settlers to reference the "red men". Later, in 1769, the Piankashaws used the word to refer to themselves (to differentiate from the white men on the other side of the treaty) as "redskins" during treaty negotiations with Col. John Wilkins. Finally, the term came into widespread use after J.F. Cooper lamented in his novel The Pioneers that the "red man" was all but extinguished on this continent.

Sadly, just before the start of the 20th century, the term began to take on a more sinister usage, and there were a number of quite awful things written by racists-- such as Frank Baum, of Wizard of Oz fame-- in the 1930s that made the term have a negative overtone.

But the word itself does not have an origin in bigotry, and the sports team was not trying to be racist... it's no worse than appropriating the term "Chiefs" for Kansas City's team and "Braves" for Atlanta's baseball team, et cetera, in terms of the treatment of Native Americans, however bad it may sound to the modern ear.

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2...of-redskin

As such, I concur that the government should stay out of the business of policing language (unless it is directly threatening, or as an element that must be proved during sentencing to demonstrate a crime was motivated by racial bigotry, in order to enhance that sentence).

That's interesting backstory on the term "redskins". Honestly, i think it might be forward thinking of them to change it, but I really don't think there should be any government interference to force that change. And this court decision is probably for the best. Even if someone creates a company with some label that I find offensive, they ought to be able to do so.

I'd just hope that their business fails miserably. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Emma's post
19-06-2017, 03:05 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 01:25 PM)epronovost Wrote:  In many places, the court can refuse to allow parents to name babies with extraordinarly stupid or offensive names.

Citation please -- in the United States.

There was the hubbub about the kid named Adolf Hitler and the bakery who refused to put the name on a cake. But I'm unaware of the courts approving baby names (I suppose if a parent disagrees that could be for the court to decide, but I dunno).

In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Low and behold, when she insisted they looked it up in the book of names and had to approve it.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 03:29 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:05 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 01:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Citation please -- in the United States.

There was the hubbub about the kid named Adolf Hitler and the bakery who refused to put the name on a cake. But I'm unaware of the courts approving baby names (I suppose if a parent disagrees that could be for the court to decide, but I dunno).

In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Low and behold, when she insisted they looked it up in the book of names and had to approve it.

How odd. That wouldn't have been an issue in the USA... one of our first European colonists, here, at the Plymouth Colony, was named Miles Standish. (It's usually spelled with a y, as Myles, though.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 03:57 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 01:25 PM)epronovost Wrote:  I am on the fence on such decisions. Just like that it sounds great, but i would be interested in seeing the details underlying such judgement to see how it oder itself with the right to equity and the protection of minorities. I would also like to see how it will affect naming conventions. In many places, the court can refuse to allow parents to name babies with extraordinarly stupid or offensive names. The idea that the "free market of ideology" can regulate itself is about as stupid as the idea that the economical free market can regulate itself to produce a stable, equitable and free society.

The market can certainly regulate itself. The problem with conservatards is that when the market wants to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" they lose their fucking shit and claim they are being "repressed." If a business wants to be inclusive and you don't like it, go shop at KKK-Mart or some other fascistic store which caters to your particular ideology.

Free speech works both ways.... and THAT is what the conservatards can't stand.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
19-06-2017, 03:59 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:29 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 03:05 PM)Dom Wrote:  In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Low and behold, when she insisted they looked it up in the book of names and had to approve it.

How odd. That wouldn't have been an issue in the USA... one of our first European colonists, here, at the Plymouth Colony, was named Miles Standish. (It's usually spelled with a y, as Myles, though.)

Miles Davis Drinking Beverage

When our kids were born we filled out the birth information at the hospital. The only they said was double check the spelling.

There was a joke that when Grace Slick had her daughter, she proclaimed she was going to name her god -- because she was so perfect. A nurse overheard it and reported it to San Francisco columnist Herb Caen, who wrote about it.

It was a joke, they named her China.

But Frank Zappa did legally name his children Dwezzle, Moon Unit, Ahmet, and Diva.

Meh...


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
19-06-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 10:15 AM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  This is one area where I agree with the conservatives that the "free market" which to my mind includes the marketplace of ideas, should really rule the day. Go ahead and name your restaurant, sports team, band, movie, TV show, etc. any disparaging insulting low-class name you want. The government shouldn't stop you. They also shouldn't stop your critics and naysayers. If the end result is the free market decides it wants nothing to do with your product or service and your business or organization goes under - that's on you.

In an ideal world, but time change and power shifts over time. I doubt you would be saying that back in the 50s if a food join was named "Hate N' er BBQ". Of course that would not play well now no, but I would not say that it is always bad for government to step in to protect minorities.

The funny thing when the right cries "free market" then we on the left do things like put an anti LGBT bakery out of business by boycotting them, then they cry they are being persecuted.

I am for the free market, but not a free for all market, and no, bigots should not have free reign. Laws are not made by one party or one group. The First Amendment does allow for free speech yes, but you cannot yell fire in a theater or use speech to advocate violence toward's others.

I hope nobody would do it, but considering this ruling, I wonder if it some KKK nut will now have the legal right to put the N word on his licence plate?

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2017, 04:20 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:59 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(19-06-2017 03:29 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How odd. That wouldn't have been an issue in the USA... one of our first European colonists, here, at the Plymouth Colony, was named Miles Standish. (It's usually spelled with a y, as Myles, though.)

Miles Davis Drinking Beverage

When our kids were born we filled out the birth information at the hospital. The only they said was double check the spelling.

There was a joke that when Grace Slick had her daughter, she proclaimed she was going to name her god -- because she was so perfect. A nurse overheard it and reported it to San Francisco columnist Herb Caen, who wrote about it.

It was a joke, they named her China.

But Frank Zappa did legally name his children Dwezzle, Moon Unit, Ahmet, and Diva.

Meh...

Miles Colby. Big Grin
Weeping

http://sharetv.com/shows/the_colbys/cast/miles_colby

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-06-2017, 04:40 PM
RE: U.S. Supreme Court free speech ruling
(19-06-2017 03:05 PM)Dom Wrote:  In Germany - many moons ago - a friend of mine wanted to name her son Miles. They were making fun of her in the office - kilometers, hahaha!

Miles is actually an old name well known in the Roman Republic. It means "Soldier" in Latin.

I’ll be a story in your head, but that’s okay, because we’re all stories in the end. Just make it a good one, eh? Because it was, you know. It was the best.
The Doctor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rockblossom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: