Free Speech Legislation in Wisconsin

[Doc Savage Fan]

*facepalm*

Yeah, it pretty much is.

You're wrong.

http://volokh.com/2011/09/23/uc-irvine-students-convicted-for-disrupting-speech/

 

[First]

You're wrong.

http://volokh.com/2011/09/23/uc-irvine-students-convicted-for-disrupting-speech/

You didn't read the link carefully. Try harder.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand and support what I perceive to be the intent of the bill. However, I do believe it's too broad as written.

That's not what your OP said.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's not what your OP said.

A couple comments in this thread helped me to "refine" my expressed opinion. Imagine that!

 

[fskimospy]

A couple comments in this thread "refined" my opinion. Imagine that!

Glad to hear it! I'm fine with a bill that can expel people for violence or disorderly conduct as that removes the blatantly unconstitutional parts, but then again you could already be expelled for those things so it's hard to see why this bill matters anymore.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You didn't read the link carefully. Try harder.

Can you be more specific as to your exact point please.

 

[First]

Can you be more specific as to your exact point please.

Assuming you read it, you should feel free to cite why you think a case that didn't get tested at the SCOTUS somehow proves your point. Notice it's the CA SC, not SCOTUS, and notice how the author speculates that perhaps they got the call wrong at the end.

In any case, being "belligerent" is in most cases a subjective decision, and certainly shouting is constitutionally protected with rare exceptions.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Assuming you read it, you should feel free to cite why you think a case that didn't get tested at the SCOTUS somehow proves your point. Notice it's the CA SC, not SCOTUS, and notice how the author speculates that perhaps they got the call wrong at the end.

In any case, being "belligerent" is in most cases a subjective decision, and certainly shouting is constitutionally protected with rare exceptions.

There are disturbing the peace laws in most States, if not every State. And the common theme among them is that "free speech" that substantially impairs or disrupts the conduct of a lawful public meeting is not protected speech. Are you actually saying that these laws are unconstitutional?

 

[First]

There are disturbing the peace laws in most States, if not every State. And the common theme among them is that "free speech" that substantially impairs or disrupts the conduct of a lawful public meeting is not protected speech. Are you actually saying that these laws are unconstitutional?

The interpretation of those laws may be unconstitutional, absolutely, because "belligerent" folks disturbing the peace are often quite subjective.

But as I said in my OP in this thread, not all speech is protected. There's nothing controversial about that.

 

[Roflmouth]

If anything, that should be a badge of shame if you identify with the red cartoons in that image.

Or, back in reality, a badge of honor after spending even five seconds looking into the embarrassment of college campuses these days.

 

[Moonbeam]

I understand and support what I perceive to be the intent of the bill. However, I do believe it's too broad as written.

As I see the issue, what you are saying here can't actually be possible. The intent of the bill cannot be separated from or used to rationalize the real effect the wording of the bill which is what implies that intent. I am assuming the bill would be ruled unconstitutional so in fact the intent has to be looked at as unconstitutional and therefore, assuming you believe in the constitution as interpreted today regarding that bill, has a bad intent. What you are saying, then, in my opinion, is that your moral values are offended by students not allowing guest lecturers to speak, and this evokes in you an authoritarian reflex, the same kind or reaction you would have gotten from your elders growing up if you were disruptive and spoke out of turn. So the intent that you seek is that people act with decorum and fairness to others when they speak. I believe this is a good and the point at which authoritarians become bigots, the focus on a Good as a justification to bring that Good into being by force, free speech must be protected by the denial of free speech.

The problem I have with that, of course, is that morality can't be moral when force is used to enforce it. That creates a society of rebels and authoritarian masters whose task become the application of fear to enforce the rules of the system. I call that, thanks to Hayabusa Rider, reaching for the One Ring. This, in my opinion also, the inevitable result of self hate, a disease that is universal.

The principle that liberals, real liberals in my opinion recognize is that the real basis for morality is love, the presence of empathy that wishes for others, the divine nature inherent to any self loving being. Free speech is imperative if we are to be able to communicate our moral positions and values to others.

We have all been silenced by authority and that has made us blind. It has divided us into three camps. Those who buy into authority and those who oppose it. Both these camps are driven by fear and hate. One seeks the Good by the application of force and the other the Good by using force to bring down force. This is the yin and yang of things, the endless wheel of Karma.

In the integration of opposites a door opens to a third way.

 

[Amused]

Let me make this perfectly clear for those whose bias is outstripping their logic. You do not secure freedom of speech by using government to limit the speech of others.

Our First Amendment guarantee of free speech protects us from one thing, and one thing only: Government prosecution. It does not guarantee that others will not shout you down, or disagree with you. It does not guarantee a forum in which to speak, or force others to provide one for you.

This law is actually not a preservation of free speech, it is a violation of it.

Using government force to limit the speech of others so you may speak unopposed is not freedom gained, it is freedom lost.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me make this perfectly clear for those whose bias is outstripping their logic. You do not secure freedom of speech by using government to limit the speech of others.

Our First Amendment guarantee of free speech protects us from one thing, and one thing only: Government prosecution. It does not guarantee that others will not shout you down, or disagree with you. It does not guarantee a forum in which to speak, or force others to provide one for you.

This law is actually not a preservation of free speech, it is a violation of it.

Using government force to limit the speech of others so you may speak unopposed is not freedom gained, it is freedom lost.

Right, but what is it when you use your own free speech to drown out the voices of others by shouting them down with the volume produced by a mob? Isn't this guaranteeing speech by mob size? Do you have a right to make others deaf because you don't want some distasteful message delivered? Wouldn't free speech have to come with some sort of guarantee that people who want to can listen?