What is free speech?

[Mauser]

Tonight, at a public university in my state (Wisconsin), Ward Churchill is going to speak.  He's the Colorado U prof who compared the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis because many of those who died work in the financial services biz.  He thinks those folks are responsible for evil in the world.  He also actively advocates violence against Americans, etc in order to end capitilism.  His speech is very controversial here.

I think he should be allowed to speak but not at anybody's expense, including the taxpayers.  Many are defending the speech saying that if nobody pays the speech won't be heard.  My question:  since when did "free speech" require payment?  Its one thing to be a maggot infested, spoiled, liberal standing on a street corner in a university town spewing garbage, but quite another to have students or taxpayers pay your airfare, hotel, meals, and a fee to hear you.  

I think one has a right to speak but that there is no right to be heard.  What say you?

[unspellable]

It's sad fact, but the value of your right to free speech depends on which side of the political spectrum you are on.  Sufficiently far to the left and it's obligatory for the tax payers to fund it.  Sufficiently far to the right and you'll be run out of town.

[ajj]

I'm reminded of my favorite "Crabby Road" cartoon where the little old lady says: "Maybe there's no such thing as a bad idea but there are a lot of stupid people who talk too much."
There is nothing new about people drawing attention to themselves by making calculated, outrageous statements. Some are ostensibly "liberals" and some "conservatives" and a lot of them figure out how to make a buck running their mouths. A high percentage seem to be college profs. Fred Reed has written some hilarious and accurate descriptions of these people. (The gist of his theory is that they know they haven't accomplished anything in life and aren't likely to so they make a lot of noise to get attention.)
The interesting question is why anyone would invite such a person to speak. The answer always seems to be that provoking thought and debate is good in and of itself and part of the education process. Maybe so, although I've got to wonder whether it's possible to educate anyone who pays the slightest attention to statements as stupid and hateful as those attributed to Churchill.
But bottom line, it's nothing new and nothing to get too excited about. Churchill is a two-year-old throwing a tantrum. I treat it as light comedy and then forget about it.

[FWiedner]

I think one has a right to speak but that there is no right to be heard.

Of what has been said thus far, this is the statement with which I most agree.

I have read things within these forums that I find infinitely more offensive than Mr. Churchill's poor opinion, and honestly, I support the folks who posted right to speak their mind.

Being an adult, I am fully aware that there are ideas out there that do not fall in line with my beliefs and expectation.

It's all about whether or not the speaker is preaching to the choir or to the congregation.  Some will bless your soul for the words, and the others will want your head for opening your mouth.

[Mauser]

Chruchill is anti American and anti capitilism.  He regularly calls for the abolition of the US and the killing of bankers, brokers and the like.  I'm not sure about the term, but he might be considered anti-globalist as I think those folks are against multi-naitonal corporations and the IMF, etc.

He was invited by a left-wing UW-Whitewater Native American student group to speak on campus.  It is my understanding that mandatory student fees and a university "slush" fund were used to bring him in.  

I have no problem with the guy speaking but using mandatory fees and a fund which contains tax dollars to pay him is wrong given the stuff he says.  People who have looked into it (not me so I can't verify) say the university never brings in white supremacists (which is good) and rarely conservatives to speak.  Why should we pay for a lefty hateful guy when we never have to pay for a right wing hateful guy?  

My issue is with paying him to speak with coerced money.  If I had a kid there I would withhold the student fees.  The guy has such a huge axe to grind that his work appears to be completely void of reason.  Why he has tenure at Colorado given his hate and incompetance is beyond me.

[BamBams]

At the risk of sounding like a moron, I'm just going to say that, yes, our constitution says we have a right to free speech.....but

There isn't any such thing.  I know, because I have tested this many times in my life.  What you say, and where you say it, can easily get you thrown into the slammer in this country.  If we have free speech in America, it is very limited at best.

Try this:  Stand across the street from an abortion clinic, and tell the lady who is about to kill her child that you will gladly take it and pay all the expenses to bring it to term.   Then look at your watch, because in 15 minutes, you are probably going to be hauled away.

[Shorty]

BamBams,
On your "try this", have you actually done this?  Have you actually been "hauled away"?  I find that to be hard to believe.

[BamBams]

Yes and yes.  I don't mean this in a sarcastic or snipey way, but if you find this hard to believe, you haven't gotten out too much lately.  I spent 12 hours in a seldom used, Washington, DC drunk tank for doing exactly what I said above.  And I hadn't been drinking either.  In this particular case, I was charged with "incommoding."  Look it up. If it wasn't so sad, it would be pretty funny actually.

I was eventually released on a $50.00 bond payable in 15 days.  To this day, I refuse to pay the bond, so I guess I'm still wanted there, but obviously not bad enough for them to fly me back?  If they would pay the expenses, I'd be delighted to appear in court.

Now if you still find this "hard to believe" then I encourage you to contact a guy named Jay Sekulow who represented me in this matter and got me bailed out.  Tell him that I said there is nothing finer than having a great Jew lawyer on your side when you plan to visit our nation's capital.  That should spark his memory very well! *smiles*

Here's his website:

http://www.aclj.org/

[JPSaxMan]

Hmm...ima think I'll try that and see wut happens...altho I must be insane to think I can do it and get a different result. Bams, I tip my hat to you for a voice of reason, not only in proving speech really isn't free, but making the woman who was aborting think twice, for even a split second.

Now here's my :money:. You can talk politics till the day ya die and not get thrown in the slammer. IE: John Kerry doesn't know his rear end from his elbow and I hate his guts etc. etc. That's a given. How about in the school systems, is that free speech? No. If students talk at any given time, they will be punished. Even though an authorative figure is present. But define 'authorative' in this instance. What authority does this teacher have besides a degree from a college? Other than that and the school's word that they are in charge, if a state trooper or an active armed forces officer walked into that room, THEY would have full control regardless of the teacher. That was part rant. Sorry. I dealt with it when I was in school and my son has to deal with it every day. Ggrrr :evil: . But that's not free speech by no means.

Walk up to a group of Goths and say, "Ya kno, you guys are stupid and I hope all of you rot in ****!". You'll either be arrested for aggravated assault (verbal assault?) or incommoding like Bams was accused of. That's a sad fact. Very sad.  :cry:  :cry:

 

[BamBams]

Glad I caught your post before I go to work Fish. Are you trying to get me into more trouble?  If you follow my lead, you could get me cited with "inciting a riot."   I was charged with that one in Baton Rouge, LA.  Those charges were dropped since only the police actually rioted.  I'm pretty sure it was the megaphone that got me canned there. *smiling*

I USED to think we had free speech in America also.  Today, I know better.

[Mauser]

Interesting article but it doesn't really respond to at least two criticisms aimed at Churchill.  

First, in at least one speech that was taped and that I heard played on the radio, he does advocate that "establishment" looking people arm themselves and take "action" against the establishment.  He says this is necessary because Arab or Native American looking folks would be stopped.  He routinely calls for future action and does not limit himself to justifying past action.

Second, the biggest beef about his free speech is not that he shouldn't get his salary at Colorado, but why should other universities pay him to come there, especially when they don't give any where near equal time to points of view from the other side of the political spectrum.

[JPSaxMan]

Of course I'm not tryin to get ya in trouble... :roll: . But you are joking about that, right? I mean, me doing what you did in suite is considered inciting a riot? Joy.  

[big medicine]

Wasnt some head of Harvard or one of those Ivy schools back east on the burner for comments about asking if women were as good as men. Now it sounds that people want his head and his job. Guess it is ok for some to offend but not others.

[BamBams]

Of course I'm not tryin to get ya in trouble... :roll: . But you are joking about that, right? I mean, me doing what you did in suite is considered inciting a riot? Joy.  

Yes, I was joking.  Our previous discussion reminded me of how our government can try to blame a person's actions on something else someone said - hence - inciting a riot.

So if one hundred people agree with me that picketing an abortion clinic is a good thing to do, our government can blame me and hold me personally responsible for that.  Free speech is often a complete fallacy in America.

Sometimes, the only difference I can see between the U.S. and China, in regard to free speech, is that we go about silencing voices of dissent in our country very quietly and convertly, with trumped up charges, instead of just being open about it like the Commies are.  The same levels of control over people are there, but they are merely enforced differently.

[Haywire Haywood]

This isn't exactly on topic, but......There's a fine line to be drawn here.  Your rights end where mine begin.  There is no overlap.  Your right to protest ends where her right to get a perfectly legal abortion begins.  Do you get to harass her for exercising her legal right to a legal abortion?  No.  If you want change, harass your congressman or senator.  They can make the changes you want.

I consider myself a moderate.  I vote Republican almost exclusively over the 2nd amendment rights issue.  BUT...I think that 1st trimester abortion should be a perfectly legal procedure.  2nd and beyond should be a medical measure to protect the life of the mother in extreme cases..   It's a hard issue though.  Whether the mother is in enough medical threat to warrant it would have to be a judgement call by... whom?.. personal doctor?  That opens up the door for a doctor with liberal leanings to authorize a third trimester abortion for a woman with chronic worts, a cold, etc.  It would be very hard to define.

Back to the subject of the thread...  I think that Free Speech is like any other right.  It can be abused.  I can't stand in your front yard and scream obsenities at you without fear of arrest.  I can sit in a public bar and talk politics with no problem.  Now, that isn't to say that you can say anything you want in any environment without the fear of getting your butt thumped.  As with any right, it comes with the inevitable responsibility of wielding it properly.

Ian