See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: NY State Senators Say We’ve Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
Source:
FederalJack
URL Source: http://www.federaljack.com/?p=119185
Published: Oct 7, 2011
Author: Popeye
Post Date: 2011-10-07 14:41:09 by bush_is_a_moonie
Keywords: None
Views: 298
Comments: 23
We’ve been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the “cyberbullying” banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a “jerk” online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone’s action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one’s right to free speech. In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming “protect the children!” as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about “bullying” than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it’s not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they’re trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously: Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated. Yes, that totally flips the First Amendment on its head. It is not a “more refined First Amendment.” It’s the anti-First Amendment. It suggests, by its very nature, that the government possesses the right to grant the “privilege” of free speech to citizens… and thus the right to revoke it. That’s an astonishingly dangerous path, and one that should not be taken seriously. Of course, given their right to speak freely, state senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky have every right to put forth that argument — but similarly, it allows others to point out their rather scary beliefs. If you’d like to see the full report (pdf), I warn you that it is almost entirely written IN ALL CAPS (for no clear reason, there are a few chunks that revert to normal capitalization — including a big chunk in the middle, that starts mid-section). I have no idea why so much of the paper is in ALL CAPS, but I’m kind of offended by it. Can we please remove their “privilege” to put out such things until they’ve learned to not maltreat capital letters? The paper attempts to list out various examples of types of cyberstalking and cyberbullying — some of which seem pretty ridiculous: LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS; “Improper”? Seem a little broad to you? Does that mean the next person who comments here about something off-topic is a cyberbully? “FLAMING” (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE); Whoo boy. An awful lot of you in the comments better watch out… “HAPPY SLAPPING” (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS); Holy crap. 2005 wants its silly “crazy children” meme back. Yes, there were a few instances of this extremely brief “fad” that came and went in like a month half a decade ago. Then the next internet meme came along. “TROLLING” (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS); Ooh, once again. Commenters beware. EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP). Seriously? If we don’t let you into the club, it’s now a form of cyberbullying? It makes you wonder what happened to these particular Senators when they were kids. The paper also attacks “anonymity,” again ignoring how anonymity can often be extremely helpful to kids who wish to discuss things and ask questions without revealing who they are. As for where they’re going with this? Well, you guessed it: they’re planning to introduce new laws to deal with cyberbullying (even though NY already has such a law). The plan is to extend two existing areas of law: “stalking in the third degree” will now include cyberbullying, and “manslaughter in the second degree” will be expanded to “include the emerging problem of bullycide.” This is basically a “Lori Drew” law. And it’s ridiculous. If I say something to someone and they then go commit suicide, should I be guilty of manslaughter? Do the folks behind this not realize that this doesn’t help prevent suicides, but it encourages them in giving people who are upset by something someone said extra incentive to kill themselves to “get back” at the person who was mean to them. The cyberstalking part is no less ridiculous. It’s ridiculously broad. It does not require that the person accused of cyberstalking initiate the activity, it does not require intent to harm or frighten, and a single message can be a cause of action. Think about that for a second. Someone could send you a message, you could do a single reply with no ill will or bad intent… and be guilty of the crime of cyberstalking. Damn. Do the folks writing this bill not realize how widely this will be abused? Hopefully no one is so offended in reading such a dangerous proposal that they go out and commit suicide. At least be comforted in knowing that it won’t allow for the authors to be accused of manslaughter until after the bill passes.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
YOU'RE BUSTED!!!!
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
You mean one of those useless, valueless pieces of green paper with the picture of that old guy with the funny white wig on his head?
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
Back when I wrote for LewRockwell I got all kinds of hatemail. I just hunted all of them down and beat them up. Problem solved.
Patriotism is a religion, the egg from which wars are hatched.” Guy de Maupassant
Wonder how many e-bucks it would take to acquire a coon-skin coat.
Gave his office a call and explained that addressing the problem, by setting/enforcing standards, was the only way to address this issue. Not making Laws that they will not follow anyway.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
you hear this a lot when it comes to driving, it's privilege not a right. Bullshit!
driving is a privilege as driving is a term of art dealing with transporting persons or property for hire. traveling and using ones property are rights which no government (city,county,state or federal) may require one to obtain a license to enjoy.
ok I'll go with that.
I apologize in advance if the author already made this point in the article (haven't read it all yet), but the first amendment was not included in the Constitution to protect speech that everyone felt good about and never offended anyone. "...Its purpose is to protect speech that may be objectionable or obnoxious to the government, or to prevailing majorities who can exercise power, from censorship or prior restraint. Its principles, I believe, are to protect the market place of ideas by preventing majorities, and the governments who represent them, from making judgments about the permissible content of speech. Who is to say what speech is allowed? Instead of relying on the president or the mayor or the senator or the judge to decide what’s ok and what isn’t, the first amendment essentially says that no one should be making such judgments (“Congress shall make no law…”). Aside from the classical exceptions (like yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire), protection for all speech should be taken for granted. What is freedom of speech worth if every individual who speaks must check with each individual in her or his potential audience to find out first what offends them (or for that matter, what they approve of)?" Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein "...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
"Driving" is not the same as exercising ones right to travel. Driving means to operate a vehicle engaged in commerce (such as driving a truck or bus on the public highways for the purposes of gain). Not the same as going to visit friends or your grandmother in your car or on your motorcycle. I agree with you that it is NOT a privilege but the legislature(s) have declared that operating a vehicle for hire on public roads is a privilege and they want everyone to believe that any and all "operation of a motor vehicle" is included in the term drive.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein "...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
Excellent explaplanet! (explanation)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein "...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
The insanity accelerates at warp speed.
Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson granted this show deals mostly with texas traffic law but will give one a head start on going through their state traffic law and how it does not apply to the peoples not engaged in commerce. rule of law radio archives listen to the shows that are from mondays as that is traffic night on the show.
I think that all states are more or less the same since we all live under the tyranny imposed on us by the Uniform Commercial Code. They have made all of us items in commerce, or nearly all of us anyway.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Lord Acton The human herd stampedes on the fields of facts and the valleys of truth to get to the desert of ignorance. Saman Mohammadi The only difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Albert Einstein "...if the military is going to defend our freedoms, then we need freedoms to defend. Our freedoms must be restored before the military can defend them..." Lawrence M. Vance Você me trata desse jeito só porque eu sou preto. Junior (my youngest son)
they model state traffic law on federal traffic law which is all commercial, texas used to use words like commercial motor vehicle in their code. the practice today is to drop commercial in the text but look at the definitions and what does one find, motor vehicle means commercial motor vehicle. this is solely done to convince the masses that they some how need to have a driver license and must register their private property with the state in order to enjoy the use of that property.
ping If this law passes a whole hell of a lot of lp and 4um members are goingto be doing serious prison time lol
free and legal online poker site click here
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
#2. To: Eric Stratton (#1)
#3. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#2)
#4. To: Eric Stratton (#3)
#5. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#4)
#6. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#4)
#7. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
#8. To: Eric Stratton (#6)
#9. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
Albany Office Legislative Office Building, Room 304 Albany, NY 12247 United States Phone: 518-455-3595
#10. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#8)
#11. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#8)
#12. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege
#13. To: farmfriend (#12)
the most factual thing ever posted by buckeroo
I have no freaking' clue. buckeroo posted on 2010-07-24 21:33:00 ET
#14. To: IRTorqued (#13)
#15. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
#16. To: farmfriend (#12)
you hear this a lot when it comes to driving, it's privilege not a right. Bullshit!
#17. To: IRTorqued (#13)
driving is a privilege as driving is a term of art dealing with transporting persons or property for hire. traveling and using ones property are rights which no government (city,county,state or federal) may require one to obtain a license to enjoy.
#18. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#0)
#19. To: James Deffenbach, farmfriend (#16)
the most factual thing ever posted by buckeroo
I have no freaking' clue. buckeroo posted on 2010-07-24 21:33:00 ET
#20. To: IRTorqued (#19)
#21. To: James Deffenbach (#20)
the most factual thing ever posted by buckeroo
I have no freaking' clue. buckeroo posted on 2010-07-24 21:33:00 ET
#22. To: bush_is_a_moonie, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs*, *Humor-Weird News*, *The Fun Police* (#0)
#23. To: freepatriot32 (#22)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest