Why on the one hand, do we abhor censorship that may be offensive to some

[spacelady]

people. Then approve removing references to other interest groups?
I do realize how this sounds, and I am sure it has been asked. Is it only censorship when we say it is censorship?

For example, The song "I Want my MTV" has a reference to a Faggot that has for the most part been removed from the version played on the airwaves but the term Chick remains.

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Because hate speech with the intent to incite is different than the

free flow of ideas.

[spacelady]

4. Excellent answer. Thanks. That can be a thin line sometimes.

[hyphenate]

23. But how do we define

"hate speech?" In essence, any comments made that are reprehensible to some are par for the course for others. The old saying "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it" is a great part of what civil liberties are all about. I'm sure that a lot of the Repuke rhetoric during Bill Clinton's terms in office was and could be considered hate speech, but he clenched his jaw and allowed it to pass. Why? Because he understood the need to maintain the first amendment rights of ALL people, even those who hated him enough to spout all their hatred 24/7.

We can always call something "hateful" that doesn't agree with our own points of view. We can all laugh, when we can, about what might be posted on other web boards with opposing views, but those who are true liberals also DO understand that they have as much right as they do to say anything they want to say. We might not find their views very much to our liking, but we can not and should not suppress it--it is only when we begin plans to stifle the exchange of independent thought that we are behaving much like the Soviet Union, fascist Italy, and repressed China.

Our constitution gives us that right--to be able to say whatever we want, whenever we want. And the guarantee that protects our rights in this area also protects those who we disagree with.

Hate speech, believe it or not, is the same thing. What is hateful to some is passion to another.

The only kinds of speech which are in any way limited are those which are spoken in the context of promoting riots. This means, the rather tired old adage about yelling "fire!" in a theatre (I don't know its origins, but perhaps the Coconut Grove fire is the source) is one of the examples one can say would do such a thing, or another is harassing people entering or exiting a building doing business therein, such as an abortion clinic or other such setting. Neonazis, for example used to have the right to march down main streets (including Pennsylvania Ave.) without obstruction, and up until this administration, protest groups have been allowed to gather in the same areas as their opposing numbers. Of course, WE all know about the protest zones under the current regime as being as far out of earshot as possible, but throughout our history, we (as a country) have been envied by many as to the degree our civil rights extend.

If something is abhorrent to us as individuals, we have the right to defend our own positions, but we also have the right to protest and either turn off or tune out the opposing voice. But the LAST thing we should ever try to do is silence it.

[Ariana Celeste]

25. Great reply.

:hi:

I agree completely.

[GalleryGod]

36. Schenck v. US: (1919)Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Every case since SCHENCK,in 1919, in which Holmes'landmark opinion helped limit free speech under the First Amendement, has helped to shape what is inflammatory and hateful speech. You can take it from there.
Leave your bluebooks by the door.
'Til I'm back in the Faculty Lounge:donut:
GG:smoke:

[hfojvt]

47. that is the origin of the "fire in a crowded theatre" phrase

The case being involved was that Americans, apparently, had no right to speak in opposition to American entry into WWI, because that was the practical equivalent of shouting "fire in a crowded theatre" which would likely lead to a stampede in which people would die.

[hyphenate]

51. Which is exactly what happened

at the Coconut Grove. But poor design of exits made the Coconut Grove a horrific place to get out of and that's what caused so many deaths.

[GalleryGod]

60. Sorry. The Schenck case was decided in 1919. The Grove Fire was 1942.

Read Schenck. It's available online. Holmes is at his very best.
A wonderful,landmark opinion, and not a tired old adage.

[spacelady]

46. truly could not have said it better, are thin skins a problem of

democratic unity?

[hyphenate]

53. I think the problem is less thin skins

and a misguided attempt to be more "sensitive" to those who might be offended by some things. It's part of why I think being P.C. is overrated--sometimes, you have to call something by its name, regardless of who is offended. For a less flammable example, I'm short. I'm NOT vertically challenged, and I absolutely abhor walking tiptoe around the most obvious choice of words. Once we start getting rid of these walkarounds, we can go back to the beginning, and define exactly what we are labeling along the way.

[spacelady]

55. depends on whether the definition of "short" is short. Ha!

[Elidor]

54. One small point

Excellent post, but I believe Clinton was not terribly concerned with the need to maintain 1st amendment rights so much as he just wanted to be proactive politically and not get caught in a defensive posture. No matter how far back into the corner they forced him, he tried to avoid looking like a hunted animal, and probably felt that complaining about hate speech would only weaken his position without noticeably furthering his cause. Like all the aggressive republicans, he tried like hell to turn it around or change the subject, to deflect charges and parry thrusts.

Not that Clinton doesn't care about 1st amendment rights, but this was a political knife-fight for his life and was far too grim and serious for altruistic ideals.

[wtmusic]

56. here's how

And it has absolutely nothing to do with rights.

We can all acknowledge that free speech is a pretty good idea. But hate speech is not the same as free speech. It is speech that is offensive to another person. This is not something which can be legislated--it requires compassion. It requires being aware of what others might be offended by, and not thinking that because we're free to say whatever we like, we should. Big difference.

This goes for burning the flag. Though I would fight tooth and nail for the right to burn the flag, I would never do it. I have deep respect for those to whom it would bring offense.

[spacelady]

58. a little something called civility. Is it in short supply?

[Arkana]

57. Right. We may hate what the other side says, and it may be wrong as hell,

but they have the right to say it.

[Kerrytravelers]

61. I never said to silence anything.

I simply gave a quick definition as I have always understood it. Having an opinion in what I would consider hate speech and then moving to silence or censor it are two completly different things!:)

I personally think mel gibson saying anyone who isn't Catholic will burn in hell is insightful, although no one ever acted on it. I don't watch gibson movies any longer. I think my wonderful :eyes: governor arnold insights hatered for homosexuals when he throws around derogatory comments like "girlie men," but hell, let him keep running his mouth I have no desire to silence him, I just don't listen to him or watch any of his stupid movies.

[wtmusic]

2. Is the name "Dixie Chicks" offensive?

I gotta know.

[hyphenate]

52. No,

but "Chick Tracts" might be.

[Pithlet]

3. This isn't a free speech issue

It's a commercial issue. We don't have a problem with not shopping at Wal Mart because they support abhorrent political practices. So, why should we have a problem with complaining about DU taking money from a company with offensive material?

I'm not sure this was a deliberate act on the admins' part as they probably contracted with an agent who actually picks and places the ads, but at the same time I completely understand and back up everyone who's against those ads. I feel the same way.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Apparently the admins were duped

by this advertiser. It was merely a new type of freeper invasion. No one here is raising money for anyone's health care these days, so they had to come up with a new idea.

[Ariana Celeste]

5. It's all relative to the person.

What's offensive, that is. I don't think anything should be censored. But then again, nothing really offends me, with the exception of direct personal insults. Even still, it is a conscious decision to be offended.

[arwalden]

6. GOD HATES FAGS!

Yeah... it's all relative. I see what you mean.

[Ariana Celeste]

8. I didn't say it makes it right.

:eyes:

Freedom of speech or freedom from speech? You take your pick.

[arwalden]

12. Where do you draw the line?

"WHITE POWER!"
"KILL ALL NIGGERS!"
"RUN THE DYKES OUTTA TOWN!"

Freedom of speech? Encouraging, supporting or inciting violence? Threats? Fear mongering? What's okay with you?

I guess it all depends on whose ox is getting gored, eh?

:eyes: back atcha.

[Ariana Celeste]

24. It's not up to me to draw the line.

Listen, the OP asked a question, and I answered the way I see it, in reference to the example she/he gave.

I didn't say that I agreed with how some people use free speech.

As far as what you are going off about, when it comes to statements such as those, they should be condemned. It isn't right to threaten someone or incite violence.

*But* I do not agree with censorship.

If I don't like what I hear somebody saying on the radio, I shut it off or change the station. If I don't like something on TV, I change the channel or shut it off. If I don't like what is on a website, I leave the website. If I don't like what's on a tshirt, a mug, a mouse pad, whatever, I won't buy it, I won't look at it, I move on. That is how I am.

When it comes to certain situations like this advertisement that was on DU, everyone who was offended did the right thing- they condemned it and used *their* right to do so. And it made a difference. The ad is gone.

[arwalden]

27. "The ad is gone."

Yes... the ad is gone. It was censored! That must make you pretty angry, huh?

<< If I don't like what is on a website, I leave the website. >>

That's very wise.

<< If I don't like what's on a tshirt, a mug, a mouse pad, whatever, I won't buy it, I won't look at it, I move on. That is how I am. >>

Like I said... it all depends on whose ox is getting gored and who it is that's being degraded, objectified, humiliated, dehumanized, or threatened.

But hey... as long as it's not you... no problem, ignore it. Just look away, move on. That's how you are. -- Lucky you.

[Ariana Celeste]

39. Ok.

That's not censorship. The owners of this website have the right to choose when, where, who, and how they get their money.

I value free speech. That is something I will always fight for. I don't like what a lot of people have to say, but I would rather live in a society where they have the right to say it than live in a society where somebody chooses what's right and what's wrong in regards to people's opinions and ideas.

I'm not going to argue this any further if you want to put words in my mouth and twist my statements.

Have a good night, and I know we will find agreement elsewhere. :)

[arwalden]

59. The Klan, Phelps, Neo-Nazis, & The Peddlers Of Hate, Fear, and Violence...

<< but I would rather live in a society where they have the right to say it than live in a society where somebody chooses what's right and what's wrong in regards to people's opinions and ideas. >>

... sure are fortunate to have you sticking up for their right to incite. That must be an awfully satisfying feeling for you.

While you're casually "looking the other way"... I'll be fighting it.

<< Have a good night, and I know we will find agreement elsewhere. >>

I can't imagine.

[efhmc]

7. Because it always okay to be offensive to women.

[johnnie]

13. Since when?

[efhmc]

16. For the thousands of years that men have been in control of this globe.

[johnnie]

18. That doesn't make it OK

There are many of us men who do not think it is OK, but it seems to not matter as long as generalizations are accepted around here.

[efhmc]

20. Sure as heck seems to make it just fine in a very broad, general

sense of the world, no matter how enlightened and different you and a few others might be. I am happy that you are that way but the truth is that you are definitely in the minority.

[spacelady]

29. Yes, Johnnie, Once again an example of payback,

tell me what's wrong with that and I will probably agree.

[immoderate]

9. The T-Shirts are offensive. So what?

I have mixed feelings. There are some there I would wear. Mostly I want a pocket.

--IMM

[spacelady]

11. Pockets are important.

[efhmc]

21. Are you really that insensitive to other people?

[immoderate]

38. I'd love to say yes but....

I wouldn't wear most of those T-shirts. I'd ignore them if I saw them and wouldn't think much of the people who do wear them. I guess that's it. The shirts don't bother me, but people who would wear them, I'd have no use for.

Mostly, I don't wear T-shirts with writing on them. I have two: One says "No Smoking Dogs 2004" (a party) the other: "Jawbone Canyon Store." They both have pockets.

--IMM

[Kat45]

10. They remove the word "faggot" from "Money for Nothing"?

Wow! The lyrics aren't calling anyone a faggot, they are quoting a couple of guys talking--and making fun of the guys. It's a great song--and video. I used to really enjoy it on MTV back when the song was out (and MTV played videos).

[spacelady]

14. There was a verse with this reference,

but it was not on the radio versions I have heard in past years.

[Kat45]

41. Wow! I guess things have changed a lot through the years.

When that song was out in the eighties, nothing was deleted. :shrug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. It all has to do with intent, I'd say.

If the intent is specifically to offend and incite, then I'd say it's right to condemn the offensive speech. Not necessarily to censor it, mind you (I personally think it can't hurt for idiots to spout their prejudices and show the world how stupid they are), but to point out the denigrating and harmful nature of certain forms of speech.

I'd argue that there ARE some contexts where things normally considered "offensive" can be used in a constructive manner, to provoke thought about the nature of such words and their power over us, but by and large that isn't the case (and most certainly isn't the case w/r/t the t-shirts that sparked the controversy this evening).

Tolerance of the opinions of others extends only to the point where those opinions become harmful, and in most cases "tolerance" is no substitute for respect and civility.

[usedtobesick]

19. beautiful answer!

thank you

[Pithlet]

22. I agree, good answer. n/t

[spacelady]

32. This seems to be a subject to discuss, great post!

Those opinions become harmful, Oh, so that's why the pot leaf on my shirt is blanked out. Not confronting, just exampling.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. Um...

well, as an example, I'd say that's not one. T-shirt with cannabis leaf = bad, Budwesiser or Jack Daniel's t-shirt = good? That's a double standard, nothing more. Of course, it also has to do with what one CONSIDERS offensive. I see a cannabis leaf as fairly innocuous, personally (but then I actually happen to be aware of the actual facts about cannabis, and not just the DEA propaganda on the subject).

[blondeatlast]

44. Nicely nailed! civility is a quality in way too short of supply lately. nt

[derby378]

17. "Chicks" are here to stay

In fact, I think chicks rock.

[Montauk6]

26. Great point, spacelady but I'd like to offer another example

Ebay.

I don't know if this is still the case but I learned a couple years ago that they have/had a policy against selling any German WWII militaria due to the association with Nazis and anti-semitism. Yet, if anyone wants to sell slave chains, "FOR COLOREDS ONLY" signs, sambo salt shakers, and other supposed "Black Americana," Happy Auctioning! I say ban 'em all or allow 'em all, take your pick.

[spacelady]

28. Another great example of a double standard.

[sendero]

31. I believe in free speech..

... and that includes speech I disagree with or find offensive.

The flap over the tshirts, well I don't get it. If DU is getting paid per impression or click-thru, what a deal. How many DUers are going to buy those (not only awful but frankly un-funny shirts. I can get better at Target) stupid shirts?

Nobody, that's who. So basically this outfit is paying to get a demographic of customers that are almost certain to have no interest in their product.

Who's zooming who?

[Rabrrrrrr]

33. Because a lot of people, especially liberals, believe that "my emotional

response" is the same thing as "my reasoned, thought out, well-read subjective analysis".

[spacelady]

35. Thoughtful yet enigmatic, care to expand? n/t

[sendero]

37. I'm just looking for..

.... some kind of consistency.

You are either for free speech or not. If something offends you, then don't buy it, support it, whatever - when you start censoring it you are no better than the "fascists".

Assuming people are too stupid to be trusted with offensive memes is offensive. You cannot enforce your point of view with censorship. You either believe in free speech, or you don't.

[Ariana Celeste]

42. "You either believe in free speech, or you don't."

Exactly. :hi:

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. Nicely said!

That's exactly it - as I see it.

Which is why, as much as I would love to have Ron Howard and Thomas Kinkade executed fcor crimes against humanity because of the paucity of integrity in their "art", I don't really mean it.

They need to have their voice, just like the KKK needs their voice, the ACLU, PETA, GreenPeace, churches, muslims, jews, republicans and democrats, and whoever the fuck wants to talk.

EVERYONE has a right. And I will NEVER trample on someone's right to free speach, even the shit I disagree with. Yeah, I'll try to offer the ALTERNATIVE voice, and sway the assholes who think that white people are God's finest creation, but I would never try to legislate their voice out of existence.

And I'm not immature enough to play the "you're with me 100% percent, or you are against me" bullshit card.

[spacelady]

48. You are giving me the vapours with that response, I'm taking it to heart.

legislation is the key--they are trying to legislate whatever they can get away with. When can they be stopped?

[Pithlet]

49. It isn't censorship

I don't have to patronize/associate with anyone or anything that expresses a message I don't agree with, or that offends me. To say that if a person, or business, or any entity, doesn't stop their offensiveness, I will leave/refuse to do business/ignore them is NOT censorship.

Every single person who is accusing those who were offended of censorship better never have boycotted a damn thing in their life.

[VelmaD]

40. And other DUers believe if your response doesn't agree with mine...

then you must be "emotional" and not "rational". :eyes:

[Maddy McCall]

43. DU us a privately owned entity. That's why.

It's really as simple as that.

[spacelady]

50. That is a good wrap-up. A call to get on the same page while

acknowledging our differences.