An interesting piece of news has been brought to my attention by a friend that I wish to share. The full article from a local media outlet can be found here.
The article, for those who do not wish to read it, is concerning a pending court case where the plaintiff is a former school bus driver who was fired for displaying a confederate flag with the word "Redneck" emblazoned on it. The sequence of events begins with the superintendent of the school district spotting the flag hanging slack from the bus driver's CB antenna on his personal truck which was parked on school property. The superintendent contacted the bus company to inform them that "the flag violated district policy." And the bus company then fired the bus driver who is suing to get his job back based on a first amendment rights violation. The flag is still flying from his radio antenna.
This article poses a myriad of problems and questions. The most important issue I see is a question of private rights vs. public interest. The school district, as an agent of the government, is a public enterprise which is held to extremely high standards to protect individual rights. The bus company, on the other hand, is a private contractor and is held to much lower standards in general. However, as a government contractor the same rigorous standards of a public enterprise apply.
Now, if the bus driver was displaying the flag on the bus (his employer's property), and refused to take it down, I would understand and agree with him being fired. But that was not the case.
In this case, the public enterprise has overstepped its bounds. The offensive material was displayed on private property (the truck) and should have been beyond the authority of the school district. The bus company as a private enterprise should absolutely be allowed to make that judgement call but, by accepting public funding, they bind themselves to the same high standards as the government and cannot interfere with an individual's private expression of speech.
Can the confederate flag be considered offensive? Yes. But, as I have pointed out before, that does not give government the right to silence the individual.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Friday, February 10, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Hate Speech- a Consequence of Free Speech
So FF is at it again, less than 24 hours after his last posting. This time his initial posting was:
"If you can be detained and subjected to threats on your life upon release for stating your opinion, you are not living in a democracy."
He followed it up by the secondary comment of:
"Important exception: hate speech isn't free speech"
The first of these statements is mostly true. Whether you are stating "I like rap" or "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an anarchist" these are your opinions and you have the right to state them without fear of persecution. I don't think this ideal is guaranteed by living in a democracy (all governments are flawed), but I believe it is generally better practiced within democratic systems.
The second statement is completely illogical. By "important exception" could FF really be implying that it is acceptable to detain and threaten a person for hate speech? The presence of hate speech is a consequence of free speech and often times the only way to protect free speech is to defend some of the most vile words. Now, I make a very sharp distinction between hate speech and acts of hatred. You can say whatever you'd like as long as it does not interfere with my natural rights as defined by Locke to life, liberty and property.
Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to imprison you. When we allow the censorship of so called "hate speech" we get into the huge gray area of defining what hate speech is. Can the Catholic church say that someone who speaks out in favor of legalized abortion is exhibiting hate speech against the life of the unborn fetus and the beliefs of millions of Catholics? Can an atheist then claim a Christian is exhibiting hate speech by saying all atheists are going to hell? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, where will the government draw the line and will you wind up on the wrong side of it?
I understand that the vile filth that is published by people and groups such as the KKK is something we wish we could silence. But we must all realize that in the not so distant past Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the church deemed him a heretic for it. In many countries still today people are imprisoned for speaking out against their government or religion. In these cases the speech is judged as "dangerous" though it puts no one at risk of physical harm except themselves. The problem with government and authority is their tendency to strive for as much power as possible. If we allow for the censorship of "hate speech" we are opening the door to the censorship of anything the government finds distasteful or "dangerous".
As the old adage says, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
"If you can be detained and subjected to threats on your life upon release for stating your opinion, you are not living in a democracy."
He followed it up by the secondary comment of:
"Important exception: hate speech isn't free speech"
The first of these statements is mostly true. Whether you are stating "I like rap" or "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an anarchist" these are your opinions and you have the right to state them without fear of persecution. I don't think this ideal is guaranteed by living in a democracy (all governments are flawed), but I believe it is generally better practiced within democratic systems.
The second statement is completely illogical. By "important exception" could FF really be implying that it is acceptable to detain and threaten a person for hate speech? The presence of hate speech is a consequence of free speech and often times the only way to protect free speech is to defend some of the most vile words. Now, I make a very sharp distinction between hate speech and acts of hatred. You can say whatever you'd like as long as it does not interfere with my natural rights as defined by Locke to life, liberty and property.
Just because I don't like what you say doesn't mean I have the right to imprison you. When we allow the censorship of so called "hate speech" we get into the huge gray area of defining what hate speech is. Can the Catholic church say that someone who speaks out in favor of legalized abortion is exhibiting hate speech against the life of the unborn fetus and the beliefs of millions of Catholics? Can an atheist then claim a Christian is exhibiting hate speech by saying all atheists are going to hell? Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, where will the government draw the line and will you wind up on the wrong side of it?
I understand that the vile filth that is published by people and groups such as the KKK is something we wish we could silence. But we must all realize that in the not so distant past Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth revolved around the sun and the church deemed him a heretic for it. In many countries still today people are imprisoned for speaking out against their government or religion. In these cases the speech is judged as "dangerous" though it puts no one at risk of physical harm except themselves. The problem with government and authority is their tendency to strive for as much power as possible. If we allow for the censorship of "hate speech" we are opening the door to the censorship of anything the government finds distasteful or "dangerous".
As the old adage says, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
The Sanctity of Marriage
Below is another wonderful picture from Facebook.
This one I approve of. Unfortunately FF (Former Friend- see previous post) has once again flaunted his lack of logic in being angered by the above photo. Here is his comments:
Preface to posted photo: Dear Mr. Hass: You're missing a critical premise in your argument, and just for your information, your surname means "Hate" in German.
Your counterargument hinges on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text. I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ, and thus, you will fail to encourage any change not achieved by a flamewar or a fistfight.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone
Comment 1: I like to stimulate many things, including discussion.
I also like when people who are employing some sort of logic, to rebuke other people's arguments, actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it.
I had a whole conversation about this very same photo yesterday, in which I made it quite clear, someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred. Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night. It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all.
Comment 2: Here's a more reasoned rebuttal of the claim that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage:
Marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions.
Therefore, marriage outside of the Judeo-Christian religions is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage within, any more than Islamic marriages, Hindu marriages, Sikh marriages, or atheist marriages are.
I would like to begin my rebuttal by discussing why I approve of the above image. Mainly, I appreciate the creator of this image showing linguistically how the argument "it violates the sanctity of marriage" is a religious argument and as such can not be used as a legal justification. He does not make the claim that gay marriage is good or bad, he simply points out that by our Constitution this particular argument is invalid. The opposition is welcome to present any other arguments they deem prudent but this particular one is void by our first amendment rights.
The problems I have with FF's comments I will explain chronologically:
1) Pointing out the meaning of the image creator's last name- this is irrelevant and is intentionally derogatory towards the creator. Its only aim could be to cast the creator in a negative light right from the start. Not a good foot to start out on.
2) "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"- whatever an individual believes is a "higher authority" (a phrase that has religious tones in and of itself) is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of law. The US was formed, in part, by a body of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have the first amendment and it's preservation of freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the penultimate standard by which all secular laws are judged. Whether a particular church chooses to accept gay marriage or not is up to their religious laws but the US Government is not allowed to make that judgement as it is discriminatory against some segments of society.
3) "you will fail to encourage any change"- I missed where the image was implying a change. But, embracing FF's assumption, it is not necessary for every individual to embrace gay marriage. What matters in this argument is the actions and consequences of the government.
4) "flamewar or a fistfight"- I'm sorry, is FF honestly encouraging or at the least excusing the use of violence as the only way to achieve his ideals?
5) "Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone"- Like point 1, this comment is irrelevant and it's only aim seems to be to create a positive image of FF in the mind of the reader.
6) "someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred."- Exactly, but the whole point of the image is trying to separate this, the religious argument, from the legal argument for/against gay marriage. Religious belief and legal action must be treated as two separate animals.
7) "Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night."- I've already said that the image does not make an argument for or against gay marriage, it just refutes one argument against. Additionally, the image is only dismissing the sanctity of marriage as a legal argument, not an individual's ideas/belief about the sanctity of marriage.
8) "It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all."- Just to clarify, the original argument for this image was whether legalizing gay marriage "violates the sanctity of marriage". It was not about whether gay marriage is sacrilegious or trying to establish marriage as a solely secular practice. The argument made by the image is very narrow and must be seen as such.
9) Comment 2- I actually agree with the argument made in this comment. It is addressing a conflict quite different from that of the image, but it is still a valid argument.
I think FF is the one who should "actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it."
This one I approve of. Unfortunately FF (Former Friend- see previous post) has once again flaunted his lack of logic in being angered by the above photo. Here is his comments:
Preface to posted photo: Dear Mr. Hass: You're missing a critical premise in your argument, and just for your information, your surname means "Hate" in German.
Your counterargument hinges on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text. I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ, and thus, you will fail to encourage any change not achieved by a flamewar or a fistfight.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone
Comment 1: I like to stimulate many things, including discussion.
I also like when people who are employing some sort of logic, to rebuke other people's arguments, actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it.
I had a whole conversation about this very same photo yesterday, in which I made it quite clear, someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred. Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night. It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all.
Comment 2: Here's a more reasoned rebuttal of the claim that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage:
Marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions.
Therefore, marriage outside of the Judeo-Christian religions is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage within, any more than Islamic marriages, Hindu marriages, Sikh marriages, or atheist marriages are.
I would like to begin my rebuttal by discussing why I approve of the above image. Mainly, I appreciate the creator of this image showing linguistically how the argument "it violates the sanctity of marriage" is a religious argument and as such can not be used as a legal justification. He does not make the claim that gay marriage is good or bad, he simply points out that by our Constitution this particular argument is invalid. The opposition is welcome to present any other arguments they deem prudent but this particular one is void by our first amendment rights.
The problems I have with FF's comments I will explain chronologically:
1) Pointing out the meaning of the image creator's last name- this is irrelevant and is intentionally derogatory towards the creator. Its only aim could be to cast the creator in a negative light right from the start. Not a good foot to start out on.
2) "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"- whatever an individual believes is a "higher authority" (a phrase that has religious tones in and of itself) is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of law. The US was formed, in part, by a body of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have the first amendment and it's preservation of freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the penultimate standard by which all secular laws are judged. Whether a particular church chooses to accept gay marriage or not is up to their religious laws but the US Government is not allowed to make that judgement as it is discriminatory against some segments of society.
3) "you will fail to encourage any change"- I missed where the image was implying a change. But, embracing FF's assumption, it is not necessary for every individual to embrace gay marriage. What matters in this argument is the actions and consequences of the government.
4) "flamewar or a fistfight"- I'm sorry, is FF honestly encouraging or at the least excusing the use of violence as the only way to achieve his ideals?
5) "Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone"- Like point 1, this comment is irrelevant and it's only aim seems to be to create a positive image of FF in the mind of the reader.
6) "someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred."- Exactly, but the whole point of the image is trying to separate this, the religious argument, from the legal argument for/against gay marriage. Religious belief and legal action must be treated as two separate animals.
7) "Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night."- I've already said that the image does not make an argument for or against gay marriage, it just refutes one argument against. Additionally, the image is only dismissing the sanctity of marriage as a legal argument, not an individual's ideas/belief about the sanctity of marriage.
8) "It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all."- Just to clarify, the original argument for this image was whether legalizing gay marriage "violates the sanctity of marriage". It was not about whether gay marriage is sacrilegious or trying to establish marriage as a solely secular practice. The argument made by the image is very narrow and must be seen as such.
9) Comment 2- I actually agree with the argument made in this comment. It is addressing a conflict quite different from that of the image, but it is still a valid argument.
I think FF is the one who should "actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)