YourValentine wrote:
I think there is basically no disagreement here with your thoughts at all. Of course there are excesses and each time we have to re-evalutae which legally protected rights we have to make a priority and of courseother cultures have every right to make other priorities.
There might be quite a bit of disagreement in the United States. I don't think I would reach first for the the term 're-evaluation' in discussing America and the concept of the place of free speech. It seems to me that all the major cultural forces from the structure of governance through America's self image and self definition to it's larger system of beliefs is predisposed instead to reaffirmation. A deceptively subtle distinction.
When the fetish crush videos were ruled protected speech the government had argued for the societal costs to be balanced against the right of free expression. Justice Roberts guaged that position to be a "a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage", something "startling and dangerous". The law the government was defending was ultimately struck down by the Court because it was ruled too broad to be constitutional. It could theoretically be used to criminalize hunting images, for example. When the government replied that it only intended to use the law against depiction of extreme animal cruelty the withering response was that a law deemed unconstitutional would not be held up because the governement promised not to misuse it.
As it so often is with America it is a position of hawk-like vigilance; the 'slippery slope' argument focused at least as much on what could happen and has happened as it is on what is happening right now. While history and the nature of power does give credence to that, other democracies like Canada have been more willing to wade into the messy present with what could certainly be termed free floating tests of freedom, with all their uncertain outcomes and inherent risks. I'm not holding that out as better. In fact it is the system's very vulnerabiltity to error, to overstepping, or understepping, the potential to have both great achievements and emarassing mistakes in the same week that keeps the debate urgent and self doubt sharp. When it comes to its concepts of freedom the last thing America seems plagued by is self doubt. You'll find many who grit their teeth over freedom's underbelly but very few who don't 'know' it's the best system in the best country in the world. In so many ways America is a great country, a fascinating country. But when you look at what gets dumped into the culture in the name of freedom and its protection, and you look at other western democracies who don't for the most part suffer the same thing in the same way, and yet sustain societies arguably every bit the equal of the United States in practical and meaningful freedoms, it's hard not to conclude that what is given up is not fully returned.
Finally, do you think the great roar from vast swaths of the United States that have savaged "apologies for our values" delivered by government and it's emissaries is truly consistent with a broad American acknowledgement that other cultures have other priorities, and that that principle perhaps even is due some kind of limited, relative respect?
YourValentine wrote:
You say that ".... and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay." Of course that is not what the judges decided and you know it. No judge said that anybody "needs" the Westboro fanatics to keep tyranny at bay - they decided that the actions of the fanatics were protected by the 1st amendmend and therefore the court could not sanction these actions...
Yes, my phrasing was a bit flip and perhaps it should not have been, but it was deliberately so because I found the decision and it's practical outcome completly absurd. The Court found that that Mr. Snyder could not seek tort compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the Phelps gang's speech was protected because it was on matters of public concern, on a public street and did not flow from a personal grudge. Nothing I could craft would adequately capture Justice's Alito's passionte dissent. The upshot was that what was done was a calculated vicious personal attack on a private person for private gain, and not in fact on matters of public interest, and that their speech did not serve public interest or qualify for First Amendment protection. All facts I find utterly self evident. I think everybody in the world probably finds them utterly self evident on some level.
When counter protesters showed up at Phelps pickets they often organized deliberate human walls to shield the grieving from the vicious antics. Sometimes, more menacingly, they formed human walls around the Phelps family. Their actions are the actions of people who believe a terrible, outrageous and completely unacceptable personal attack is happening. That is what their human wall is protecting funeral goers from, isn't it? They rejected in essence the Phelps' rights to their legal speech by physically blocking their signs from the view of others by surrounding them, or they stood in between the Phelps and their intended targets and created a visual and aural barrier that blocked the message from being delivered. They were essentially the living embodiment of Alito's dissent, yet how many would have grudgingly affirmed the ruling in the same moment? On some level it was simply not rational. It's like the classic body language betrayal when you're saying yes and shaking your head no, or swearing you didn't do it with a nod. The Phelps gamed the system the whole way and won at the highest court in the land. I will always think of it as an utter travesty.
This discussion has risen up around the film, but it's makers and it's content have little import with regard to freedom of expression to me. That movie is neither what the freedoms were meant for nor what meaningfully threatens them. He/they have legal protection, as they should, and that won't change. There has been an international impact and a tough dynamic has resulted that needs some thoughtful handling and deserves public attention, but as far as the domestic discussion goes I wouldn't spend 30 seconds defending Mr. Innocence of Muslims' rights to do anything if I were American. Or bothering to find a creative array of derogatory words to describe the thing. I'd just go have a hot chocolate or something instead. Buy a nice CD. Anything but sit around crediting crap as something my freedom hinges on, truth, or not.
PS. Don't yell at me for anything! I'm a bit traumatized. I lost about 2/3 of that reply hitting a rogue button on my mouse. Undoubtedly my first attempt was much more cohesive, correct, grammatically sound, had better points and superior spelling, and definitely no sandwich crumbs on the keyboard which I can't truthfully claim for this one. Please refer to it if you find yourself in serious disagreement. :)
