TV & the print media are overwhelmingly liberal

By ‘liberal’ you mean they don’t goosestep and “Sieg Heil” Bush? Get a grip, dude. Unless you’re talking about Link TV, you’re talking out of your arse.

Just an FYI, OW. The magazine article case isn’t being adjudicated in the U.S. It’s in Canada, where the laws are slightly different*. From this lone case some of us might get the impression that Canadians are a bunch of totalitarians. But don’t forget that the Underground Railroad led out of the land of ‘free speech,’ not into it. And, last I heard, the Canadians don’t have “free speech zones” (unless Bush or Cheney visit, maybe).

*And just because the case was heard doesn’t mean it will be decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

TV & the print media are overwhelmingly liberal. Will the Fairness Doctrine be imposed on them too?

Yes. This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

I am absolutely no expert on Rwanda, but perhaps the problem there was not enough free speech, not too much free speech.

the government-funded station RTLM broadcast vitriolic attacks against Tutsis and Hutu moderates.

Ordinary citizens were called on by local officials and government-sponsored radio to kill their neighbors

If anything Rwanda seems to indicate more of a need to keep government out of the “speech policing” business.

I try to draw the line at what folks think vs what they do. Which is why hate crimes laws tend to bother me. I realize motivation does often play a large part in determining penalty (hence, first vs second degree murder). But even that distinction has more to do with how intent the person was on committing the act, rather than why. And I don’t think the why should make much of a distinction when there is a specific actual act that can be judged.

Speech, as protected as it should be, is an overt act and I’m okay with some restrictions being put on it or (better still) some consequences being attached to it.

Well, yeah, there’s that.

Which is kind of my point…your latter example is a staple of the propaganda machines found in genocidal apparatuses.

If a radio personality says certain people deserve to die and then one of that personality’s listeners goes out and stomps one of those people to death, are we satisfied knowing that the radio personality suffers no consequences for his words?

Again, I’m not sure. It makes me uneasy to discuss free speech limitations, but this particular facet of the debate gives me pause.

Spider, there are laws on the books already to prosecute people who incite criminal actions, but it has to be pretty clear cut. If I say to a crowd of people, “Go out and kill _____ people!” that’s not protected free speech. But if I were to say, “______ people don’t even deserve to live!”, is that an overt act?

Hate speech laws leave too much open to interpretation and abuse.

We saw what Hutu Power Media helped to create in Rwanda; declaring all hate speech laws complete anathema means that such people would face no culpability in the crimes committed by those who were influenced.

Kors and Silverglate wrote “The Shadow University, the betrayal of liberty on america’s campuses” It could be frontpagemag stuff, but if you examine these guys’ background, and the other cases they have been involved in, and examine the quality of their arguments, you’ll see it ain’t so.

On many liberal blogs over the past year or so, I have asked how is it that so often on the left, we have ceded free speech and other civil rights issues to the right, and usually told that free speech isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

If you’re interested in following this, check out FIRE, thefire.org, “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.” They are admittedly a group that seems hard to get a handle on. Formed by several ACLU founders and board members who have taken many free speech cases to the Supreme Court, they have in fact gotten funding from a couple of conservative groups (I forget which at the moment.)

Their domain is predominantly free speech in Universities and restrictions on speech against students and professors.

If you don’t follow them at their website, two of their members, Wendy Kaminer and Harvey Silverglate blog at the freeforall, http://thephoenix.com/TheFreeForAll/. Kaminer is a free speech zealot AND feminist, which means that unlike many modern radical feminists, she does not believe in forced speech restrictions.

Their blog is frustrating, because most of the time I’ll agree with them, and then there will come a very principled post that I just want them to take back. But damn it, it’s principled and well argued, so what can you do?

I didnt want to make an assumption, just because you are liberal.

Respectfully,
The Squid

There are many restrictions on the FA. Take for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire which gave us the Fighting Words doctrine, which is the basis for hate crime law.

I would imagine this would be upheld under the standard of Miller v California. Local standards dictating definitions of obscenity.

Respectfully,
The Squid