
When Dissent Became Treason - hprotagonist
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/world-war-i-when-dissent-became-treason/
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Everyone in favor of banning certain speech based on its content should
consider this article. When you open the door to banning speech based on
content, the government will happily define something speech it does not like
as "treason" or "hate speech" or whatever the favored term is.

People "shouting fire in theater" is not protected speech as a way to say that
free speech protections are limited with respect to certain content. This
phrase comes from Schenck vs United States
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)
that ruled that it was Constitutional to arrest someone for distributing anti-
draft fliers. So be very careful what you wish for with regard to limits on
free speech, you just might get it.

~~~
leggomylibro
What are you talking about? There are obvious and practical limits on 'free
speech'. In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a "fighting words"
doctrine ensuring that speech which is by its nature injurious or likely to
cause breach of the peace is not protected.

An excerpt from the 9-0 decision makes a pretty concise case, especially the
latter part:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute
at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has
never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd
and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-
those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an
immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances
are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight
social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them
is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to
epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of
information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as
a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' [Cantwell v.
Connecticut]"

[https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findl...](https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findlaw.com/US/315/568.html)

We can argue about definitions of 'obscene', 'likely to cause a breach of the
peace', etc. But to treat freedom of speech like an unassailable, all-or-
nothing fundamental assumption is not helpful.

~~~
icebraining
_Chaplinsky_ is quite outdated. It's not clear that the Fighting Words
doctrine even still exists at all, but to the extent it does, it requires a
physical presence inviting to an altercation by being directed at someone.
Prohibitions based purely on content of speech are not constitutional. (IANAL
and this is not legal advice, of course)

~~~
leggomylibro
Yeah, the Wikipedia page on 'fighting words' goes on to describe how the
doctrine has since been limited. Shouting 'you are a fascist' at a cop
probably wouldn't pass muster as unprotected speech these days (if you managed
to make it to court alive and weren't preaching gibberish to a large crowd
that was blocking traffic at the time.)

Still, speech isn't somehow inherently harmless or different from other
actions that we take. It's bad to take someone's things with a knife, but I'd
say that it's even worse to take someone's humanity with a word.

~~~
ebcode
But you can't _actually_ take someone's humanity with a word. That's
hyperbole. Knife-point robbery is not.

"You cannot, sir, take from me anything that will not more willingly part
withal – except my life, except my life, except my life." \-- William
Shakespeare

~~~
leggomylibro
Well no, _I_ can't.

But a demagogue sure can. I guess it would be more accurate to say that they
take humanity from a lot of people who belong to certain classes with a lot of
words, but that's a messier metaphor.

------
shadowmore
This is what Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) refers to when he says that our
society is split down the middle, watching two different movies on the same
screen.

Some see:

"As our newspapers and TV screens overflow with choleric attacks by President
Trump on the media..."

While others see:

"As our corporate, left-aligned media powerhouses overflow our news feeds with
biased/false statements about President Trump..."

Ultimately, this just goes to show that the media has become a protected
class, which -- just in case it isn't evident -- is a bad thing.

The news outlets that Trump attacks are not independent little offices run by
scrappy street journalists, but enormous corporate behemoths with clear cut
political alignments and agendas, with goals so identical that you literally
see the exact same wording in politicized headlines across several major
networks. This goes for both the left and the right (though the proportion is
lopsided to the left).

The real journalists are the ones being demonized by the media and government
alike (that's how you know they're reporting something actually being hidden
away from the people), some of whom are living out their lives locked up in
embassies.

~~~
txcwpalpha
> The real journalists are the ones being demonized by the media and
> government alike (that's how you know they're reporting something actually
> being hidden away from the people), some of whom are living out their lives
> locked up in embassies.

There's a subtle implication here that the likes of Julian Assange are "real
journalists" and are somehow noble, which is laughable. Assange (and
WikiLeaks) have just as much political alignments and motives that all other
media organizations have. Just because he's stuck in an embassy and doesn't
have hordes of cash behind him doesn't mean he isn't just as biased.

Quite frankly, WikiLeaks as a whole is no more trustworthy than CNN or Fox,
and may be even less so. One of the most powerful (and hard to detect) ways to
be biased in reporting isn't by printing attack articles against your enemy,
but rather by _not_ printing attack articles against your "friends". WikiLeaks
does this every time they choose not to publish evidence damning people they
support, which I'd be willing to bet happens more often than we all know.

While we're on the topic, WikiLeaks also commits some pretty atrociously
biased editorializing whenever they post new material. They used to just be a
site that posted raw information ("here are the emails that were leaked"), but
now they also add their own silly commentary to it ("here are the emails and
this is what you should think about them"), often with hilariously bad
analysis.

~~~
stale2002
Fortunately, I can read wiki Leak's actual source documents and decide for
myself what to believe.

Their commentary on what they release is inconsequential. What matters is the
actual, real, documents that they release.

~~~
FilterSweep
Leak chooses which source documents to show you, therefore shifting the
narrative you interpret.

~~~
stale2002
Facts are facts and the truth is the truth. Nothing you said changes the
reality that the documents are real.

If other people have a different opinion on what the narrative should be then
they should release documents of their own.

But that still doesn't change the truth of the previous documents.

~~~
txcwpalpha
Just because something is "real" doesn't mean you should blindly put your
trust in it.

Document 1 says: "President ABC bombed a school in Syria today, killing 50
people."

Document 2 says: "This action was carried out after President ABC learned that
the school was being used as a base for terrorists, and only terrorist
combatants were killed during the bombing."

Both documents are real, but only releasing document #1 and keeping document
#2 secret is a very easy way to shift the narrative against President ABC.

------
dkhenry
I think this is a good article to remind us of how fast hate can spread, but I
don't think it applied to Trump and the alt-right. By far they are a fringe
movement, whose impact is grossly exaggerated. When I look around for the
"popular" uprising looking to censor speech I don't see Trump and alt-right
racists. I see the antifa and massive amounts of liberal activists that are
justifying censorship, violence, hate, racism, and bigotry. I think this is a
warning, but its a warning of whoever comes next. We need to be vigilant to
make sure when trump is ousted he isn't replaced by a group who is even worse
and has the backing of a frothed mob.

~~~
mikeash
The sitting President of the United States is a fringe movement? How does that
make any sense?

~~~
dkhenry
Its only the most sound proof of echo chambers that someone thinks everyone
who voted for Trump is a member of the alt-right, and a fascist.

~~~
mikeash
Sure, but you included Trump himself in that, and with ~63 million votes, he's
definitely not a fringe movement.

~~~
dkhenry
I see what you mean now, you are correct there are parts of the Trump movement
that are more mainstream, but this article and others try to lump all 63
million voters, and anyone who supports any of his policies into the extreme
fringe of hate groups that also support him ( which he hasn't distanced
himself from enough )

------
ShabbosGoy
> In a strikingly Trumpian fashion, President Wilson himself helped sow
> suspicion of anything German.

Trump is tame and politically correct compared to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was
an unabashed racist, who screened "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, a
pro-KKK film that portrayed the Klan as a heroic force to control hordes of
savage black males that wanted to rape white women.

~~~
pavlov
Birth of a Nation is a restrained work of art compared to the ceaselessly
flowing vitriol of Breitbart and Infowars — and those people have the highest
levels of endorsement from Trump.

Steve Bannon’s film career was directly inspired by Leni Riefenstahl,
according to his former colleagues. Watching Birth of a Nation in the White
House is tame compared to making the propaganda director the chief strategist.

~~~
stryk
I can't speak on Breitbart, but as far as Infowars goes -- he makes a killing
on those supplements he schleps out, and apparently there are a _lot_ of
people who buy them[0]. Sure he acts like a wackjob conspiracy theory nut --
but my guess is, judging by 'former employees' cited in articles and
especially by the episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast with author Jon Ronson
(both know him personally), he doesn't believe most of the nonsense coming out
of his mouth, but that's his character/persona niche; catering to those that
would be entertained by it.

0: [https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-
infowars-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-infowars-
supplements-are-overpriced-mundane-vitamins-watered-down/)

~~~
pavlov
I’m not sure how commercial intent makes him any more palatable? Trump chooses
to listen to him regardless.

------
tj-teej
I think there's a hubris to the idea that one can "ban speech" \- you only ban
the speech in the forum you can ban it in.

Banning speech in public only drives it underground and reduces the
possibility of argument.

------
yahna
> German measles “Liberty measles.”

odd thing to rename.

reminds me of freedom fries.

