- Location
- Canada
A lot of the_donald's posters come from 4chan. 4chan has some pretty strict cultural attitudes re: not being your personal internet army.
-
For all readers and writers
After much ado, our new tagging system is here and being rolled out to the userbase. Read more here!
Did you know the US First Amendment is evil?
- Thread starter Farmerbob1
- Start date
- Discussion
- Status
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
Other people have made attempts to engage your argument in good faith. In fact, they've gone above and beyond in trying to resolve your misunderstanding You have :
1) Constantly and deliberately misrepresented the argument
2) Tried to manipulate the discussion via cross-forum invasion
3) Tried to manipulate the discussion via cross-forum invasion
4) Been disingenuous in general.
- Location
- secret base
- Pronouns
- She/Her
*sigh* Here we go again.
Again, I agree.
I'll be honest here that actually sounds interesting. A savory whipped cream on a cheap steak would help had some nice body and a difference in texture to it.
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
Eh, the_donald has happily invaded other places on reddit.
Got so bad the admin's had to crack down on it, and even then they still do it.
Vyslanté
The self is a prison
- Location
- European Union
(yes I'm going to paste that until Bob answers)
- Location
- ?
What I'm getting from all this is that people are woefully undereducated on the culinary delights of cream sauces with steak.
Information: Official Staff Communication
- Pronouns
- He/Him
official staff communication
As this thread appears to be a critique of the Staff and neither News nor Politics as generally understood, I have moved it to the correct forum.
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
That's a bit different. Raids which happen organically as a result of discussion are fine in the 4chan mindset. If something starts in the comments of a thread about shit happening somewhere else, and multiple posters agree, and then a raid spools up from there, that's fine.
But when a new OP comes in specifically demanding a raid on such and such a person, the general response is "Not your personal army" followed by several chanspeak insults or expletives.
...I could probably write a psychology paper on this stuff. I spent way too much time on 4chan in my teens.
- Location
- secret base
- Pronouns
- She/Her
LITERALLY A SIN
samdamandias
Apprentice Plane Wizard
At the time it was drafted, it was actually a pretty revolutionary idea, espically combined with how american libel laws worked (The truth was not libel)
In implementation, it has, at best, been lacking.
Huh. So, by my reading of it, it looks like the Danish government can't pre-emptively stop someone from publishing a manifesto calling for genocide, but can fine them afterwards. Is this incorrect?
Also American, and something of an amateur linguist, I have never seen somebody use words the way farmerbob is using them. I might actually need to learn how to diagram sentences to properly show things. (Either that or try and do the Latin Lesson from Life of Brian)
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Not having the first amendment would not have stopped HUAC. Having the first amendment should have, but failed, to stop HUAC, but HUAC may have gone further without the law, and might not have stopped in the 70s as successfully. So it's hard to say that the first amendment was 'evil' here unless not preventing all injustice whatsoever is 'evil,' which seems like a term dillution that'd leave most of SV's membership as pretty evil people.
Notably, it was the Vietnam protests that ultimately brought down HUAC, and these were supported by the first amendment. Indeed, many attempts were made to limit the rights of protestors to assemble, or to act against the war, that were stopped successfully under the first amendment. Rather notably, the first amendment did come to trial in the Pentagon Papers case, and did uphold their publishing, so even during the tail end of the HUAC years, the first amendment was doing pretty remarkable good, and the court's decision was specifically reached under that law.
Now, if the argument is "not enforcing the first amendment enough has been evil" that's fine, and HUAC is a reasonable data point to use, but I doubt that "We totally need more first amendment" is what Squishy's suggesting there.
You shouldn't be using your free speech to spread such laktoseintoleranse
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH
- Pronouns
- He/Him
All of this food discussion has made me hungry. I have one response because of it making me hungry:
Farmerbob1
Rest in Peace
- Location
- Atlanta-ish
Why would I answer that question, it has no relevance to the statement made "in implementation essentially evil," with no qualifiers.
Almost anything can be used for evil. Very few things are inherently evil.
Is a gun evil? It can be used to hunt, or defend a home. It can be used to murder too, yes. What about cars? Knives? Fireplace pokers?
LordSquishy has had ample opportunity to clarify his statement but has not done so.
Information: Official Staff Communication
This digression is - and was when it was in the other thread - quite frankly entirely idiotic.
Among the staff, we discussed whether I should even bother to reply. There were some who suggested that it merely legitimized your nonsensical opinions, @Farmerbob1, by gracing them with a response. This, I suppose, is something like the rationale behind previous American presidents refusing to meet with the leaders of North Korea: that by meeting with them on even ground, you give off the impression that murderous dictators are legitimate, recognized members of the international community.
That being said, on reflection, I have always found that logic unconvincing. The purpose of international institutions, in my mind, is to 'bring them in from the cold' - it's to create investment in the international order even in those leaders (and countries) who we find problematic. Refusing to meet with countries whose behavior is abhorrent - and refusing to engage with them - just means they have no incentive to ever change.
So here we are.
What I said, for the record, was this:
Now, I am certainly not going to retract that statement. Nor am I going to apologize for it. Both suggestions are, quite simply, entirely ludicrous. More importantly, however, I think they serve as important evidence which actually support my statement: the First Amendment is simply bad law, and using it as the basis for policy is bad policy.
Let's begin with generalities.
First, the First Amendment - and I speak here only of the freedom of speech clause - is inartfully drafted. It refers to "freedom of speech, or of the press", but this language - likely based at least in part on the English Bill of Rights in 1689, though Madison's original draft is rather more wordy - is both awkward and unclear. The freedom of speech in the English bill of rights specifically referred to the freedom to speak in parliament, and in that context, the meaning of the phrase 'speech' is perfectly clear. The meaning of the word 'speech' in the First Amendment, however, is not so clear.
The result - as I think most of us familiar - has been an endless tsunami of cases debating the meaning of the word 'speech'. Is money speech? Is falsely wearing military medals speech? What about things which certainly fall within any meaningful dictionary definition of the word speech but which were, even at the time in the United States, unlawful - things like giving unlawful testimony, defamation, or fraud?
Even within the lifespan of the founders, there was substantial debate over what precisely the language meant. And this is not surprising. As scholars have noted, the "...founders did not have the occasion to think deeply about the proper understanding of freedom of speech in 1787 and 1788, because the freedom was enjoyed in practice and ensuring its security was not the reason for calling the Federal Convention." (Murray Dry, Civil Peace and the Quest for Truth, pp 72).
Madison, for example, took the position that the First Amendment denied Congress the power to regulate speech absolutely, on the grounds that that power - such as it was - would be reserved to the states. The States, he argued, would be responsible for, among other things, creating laws to provide "...a remedy for injured reputations..." (i.e., defamation, and presumably, by the same logic, things like perjury, fraud, and so on). Others did not agree. John Marshall, for example - who would later go on to be Chief Justice of the United States - accepted the common-law definition of freedom of speech applicable in England at the time, which allowed the government to restrict "those acts, which are criminal in themselves, and which obviously lead to and prepare resistance" - i.e., offenses against the state, such as seditious libel.
This leads naturally into the criticism that the First Amendment was poorly considered. Evidence from the period shows that the founders did not think particularly hard about what precisely they were doing, but - like much of the Constitution - the language alone demonstrates it.
The First Amendment shows no meaningful consideration of its scope. We have already seen this in the debates between Madison and Marshall and the language itself. But consider the alternatives, some of which were contemporaneous - and clearly show that such language could have been used.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, adopted in France in 1789, uses the following language in Article XI:
(This can roughly be translated as "the free communication of thoughts and of opinions is an extremely precious right of man, and citizens may speak, write, and publish freely except where such is an abuse of the liberty under the law").
You will note the framing clause - the "free communication of thoughts and of opinions" - is drafted broadly. It provides context to the nature of what, specifically, it intends to protect. It also makes clear that the communication of opinions and thoughts may be abused, and that such communication may be restricted by law.
Or consider a more modern formulation, as in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Again, note the use of terms other than speech: terms like "opinion" and "expression". Terms which clearly indicate that what is to be protected is not speech generally, but a specific kind of speech.
And it matters. Set aside cases like Citizens United, even, and ask yourself this question: should the FDA be allowed to regulate drug labeling? Drug companies say no. After all, they say, we are "speaking" with our labels.
Was this the intent of the drafters of the First Amendment?
Well, it's hard to say. As far as we can tell, they just didn't really think about it.
Now it seems your primary area of objection is that I said that the First Amendment was "in implementation, essentially evil". It seems you took offense to that. In fact, it seems you took such offense that you demanded a retraction or an apology.
But I certainly consider "evil" an implementation that permits the harassment of criminal suspects who have not been proven guilty. I certainly consider "evil" an implementation that allows the wealthy to outrageously dominate elections. I certainly consider "evil" an implementation of the law which allows - and encourages - those with hatred and bigotry in their hearts to spread it and to encourage it in others without repercussions.
Edmond Burke's trite "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is apropos, but insufficient. Standing by and allowing evil to occur is itself evil. In practice, the First Amendment not only allows evil; it encourages it. It is, by any reasonable standard, evil.
I am not going to apologize for the fact that that is not our policy on Sufficient Velocity: that we are willing to stand up to what we see as evil. Like your behavior during the course of this thread. As I was writing this post, it was brought to my attention that you went on Reddit - to The_Donald specifically - and asked "...a few thousand folks to stop by Sufficient Velocity and politely advise them that an apology might be appropriate".
And you know what? That kind of behavior is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from stopping you from getting together 10,000 of your friends to bombard someone with complaints. It certainly protects your right to dogpile others, even where - by any reasonable measure - that behavior crosses the line into harassment.
But I - and we at Sufficient Velocity - think that behavior is wrong. I'm all for free speech. But I think the purpose of free speech is to build a better community, by freely and openly discussing politics, creating artwork, and talking about issues. As that XKCD says, if the strongest justification for your opinion you can muster is "well it's not technically illegal"...that's not good enough for me.
Let me be very, very blunt. I will not tolerate any attempt to brigade Sufficient Velocity. You might think I'm doing this because I disagree with your opinions. You might think I'm doing this because I don't feel I can debate with you and so I need to press the "I win" button. You might think I'm doing this because you've showed me up or embarrassed me.
But the truth is, I'm doing this because all free speech has limits. Even speech can be abusive: to individuals, to communities, to groups, to the public. There's nothing abusive about debating the merits of the First Amendment. But, just like standing on a street corner and exhorting passers-by to beat up people you don't like is abusive and intolerable, going to a virtual street corner and exhorting your virtual friends to harass people you don't like is also abusive and intolerable.
Goodbye, Farmerbob1. I can't say it's been fun, but it certainly has been... interesting.
Among the staff, we discussed whether I should even bother to reply. There were some who suggested that it merely legitimized your nonsensical opinions, @Farmerbob1, by gracing them with a response. This, I suppose, is something like the rationale behind previous American presidents refusing to meet with the leaders of North Korea: that by meeting with them on even ground, you give off the impression that murderous dictators are legitimate, recognized members of the international community.
That being said, on reflection, I have always found that logic unconvincing. The purpose of international institutions, in my mind, is to 'bring them in from the cold' - it's to create investment in the international order even in those leaders (and countries) who we find problematic. Refusing to meet with countries whose behavior is abhorrent - and refusing to engage with them - just means they have no incentive to ever change.
So here we are.
What I said, for the record, was this:
Now, I am certainly not going to retract that statement. Nor am I going to apologize for it. Both suggestions are, quite simply, entirely ludicrous. More importantly, however, I think they serve as important evidence which actually support my statement: the First Amendment is simply bad law, and using it as the basis for policy is bad policy.
Let's begin with generalities.
First, the First Amendment - and I speak here only of the freedom of speech clause - is inartfully drafted. It refers to "freedom of speech, or of the press", but this language - likely based at least in part on the English Bill of Rights in 1689, though Madison's original draft is rather more wordy - is both awkward and unclear. The freedom of speech in the English bill of rights specifically referred to the freedom to speak in parliament, and in that context, the meaning of the phrase 'speech' is perfectly clear. The meaning of the word 'speech' in the First Amendment, however, is not so clear.
The result - as I think most of us familiar - has been an endless tsunami of cases debating the meaning of the word 'speech'. Is money speech? Is falsely wearing military medals speech? What about things which certainly fall within any meaningful dictionary definition of the word speech but which were, even at the time in the United States, unlawful - things like giving unlawful testimony, defamation, or fraud?
Even within the lifespan of the founders, there was substantial debate over what precisely the language meant. And this is not surprising. As scholars have noted, the "...founders did not have the occasion to think deeply about the proper understanding of freedom of speech in 1787 and 1788, because the freedom was enjoyed in practice and ensuring its security was not the reason for calling the Federal Convention." (Murray Dry, Civil Peace and the Quest for Truth, pp 72).
Madison, for example, took the position that the First Amendment denied Congress the power to regulate speech absolutely, on the grounds that that power - such as it was - would be reserved to the states. The States, he argued, would be responsible for, among other things, creating laws to provide "...a remedy for injured reputations..." (i.e., defamation, and presumably, by the same logic, things like perjury, fraud, and so on). Others did not agree. John Marshall, for example - who would later go on to be Chief Justice of the United States - accepted the common-law definition of freedom of speech applicable in England at the time, which allowed the government to restrict "those acts, which are criminal in themselves, and which obviously lead to and prepare resistance" - i.e., offenses against the state, such as seditious libel.
This leads naturally into the criticism that the First Amendment was poorly considered. Evidence from the period shows that the founders did not think particularly hard about what precisely they were doing, but - like much of the Constitution - the language alone demonstrates it.
The First Amendment shows no meaningful consideration of its scope. We have already seen this in the debates between Madison and Marshall and the language itself. But consider the alternatives, some of which were contemporaneous - and clearly show that such language could have been used.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man, for example, adopted in France in 1789, uses the following language in Article XI:
(This can roughly be translated as "the free communication of thoughts and of opinions is an extremely precious right of man, and citizens may speak, write, and publish freely except where such is an abuse of the liberty under the law").
You will note the framing clause - the "free communication of thoughts and of opinions" - is drafted broadly. It provides context to the nature of what, specifically, it intends to protect. It also makes clear that the communication of opinions and thoughts may be abused, and that such communication may be restricted by law.
Or consider a more modern formulation, as in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Again, note the use of terms other than speech: terms like "opinion" and "expression". Terms which clearly indicate that what is to be protected is not speech generally, but a specific kind of speech.
And it matters. Set aside cases like Citizens United, even, and ask yourself this question: should the FDA be allowed to regulate drug labeling? Drug companies say no. After all, they say, we are "speaking" with our labels.
Was this the intent of the drafters of the First Amendment?
Well, it's hard to say. As far as we can tell, they just didn't really think about it.
Now it seems your primary area of objection is that I said that the First Amendment was "in implementation, essentially evil". It seems you took offense to that. In fact, it seems you took such offense that you demanded a retraction or an apology.
But I certainly consider "evil" an implementation that permits the harassment of criminal suspects who have not been proven guilty. I certainly consider "evil" an implementation that allows the wealthy to outrageously dominate elections. I certainly consider "evil" an implementation of the law which allows - and encourages - those with hatred and bigotry in their hearts to spread it and to encourage it in others without repercussions.
Edmond Burke's trite "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" is apropos, but insufficient. Standing by and allowing evil to occur is itself evil. In practice, the First Amendment not only allows evil; it encourages it. It is, by any reasonable standard, evil.
I am not going to apologize for the fact that that is not our policy on Sufficient Velocity: that we are willing to stand up to what we see as evil. Like your behavior during the course of this thread. As I was writing this post, it was brought to my attention that you went on Reddit - to The_Donald specifically - and asked "...a few thousand folks to stop by Sufficient Velocity and politely advise them that an apology might be appropriate".
And you know what? That kind of behavior is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from stopping you from getting together 10,000 of your friends to bombard someone with complaints. It certainly protects your right to dogpile others, even where - by any reasonable measure - that behavior crosses the line into harassment.
But I - and we at Sufficient Velocity - think that behavior is wrong. I'm all for free speech. But I think the purpose of free speech is to build a better community, by freely and openly discussing politics, creating artwork, and talking about issues. As that XKCD says, if the strongest justification for your opinion you can muster is "well it's not technically illegal"...that's not good enough for me.
Let me be very, very blunt. I will not tolerate any attempt to brigade Sufficient Velocity. You might think I'm doing this because I disagree with your opinions. You might think I'm doing this because I don't feel I can debate with you and so I need to press the "I win" button. You might think I'm doing this because you've showed me up or embarrassed me.
But the truth is, I'm doing this because all free speech has limits. Even speech can be abusive: to individuals, to communities, to groups, to the public. There's nothing abusive about debating the merits of the First Amendment. But, just like standing on a street corner and exhorting passers-by to beat up people you don't like is abusive and intolerable, going to a virtual street corner and exhorting your virtual friends to harass people you don't like is also abusive and intolerable.
Goodbye, Farmerbob1. I can't say it's been fun, but it certainly has been... interesting.
official staff communication
Farmerbob1 has been permanently banned under Rule 1.
- Status