This is an interesting subject. On the ACB Chat list, there is a
fellow who insists that we all have equal opportunity. So what does
that have to do with freedom of speech? Just this, it's all in how we
each define it.
Freedom of Speech exists only if you never step outside the Box. You
can say anything you want to say, so long as you know the limits. A
popular Shock Jock on a Seattle channel told his listeners that he was
free to say anything he wanted to say. He never felt his employers
were controlling his speech. To this day he continues to praise his
wonderful government and the open democracy, and our willingness to
put our boys at risk so they can spread democracy around the world.
And sure enough, he's never been called on the carpet for his speech.
But the fellow who used to hold down that time slot, a much more
profound thinker not given to wild shouting and flag waving, was moved
to the early mornings, despite his popularity. So how do we know that
the ratings slipped for the more thoughtful fellow? Perhaps listeners
prefer being yelled at, rather than mentally challenged. Perhaps
sponsors felt they were not getting the same bang for their buck as
they did with the hyper Jock.
There are so many variables impacting whether both have an equal
exercise of their freedom of speech, that it becomes very difficult to
sort out.
Nonetheless, I am convinced that our freedom of speech is becoming
more and more limited. Like a person with Glaucoma. They lose more
and more of their field of vision without knowing it. Then one day
they realize that they see nothing from the side. Glaucoma has robbed
them of much of their vision. So it is with our perception of free
speech. Bit by bit the fences are being moved in, controlling what we
can say and what we can think. Alter what a person thinks and you
change what they can say. Like my friend over on ACB Chat, he has
become conditioned to believe that all American citizens have equal
opportunity. And he has stored up many samples of people exercising
their equal opportunities. So what does he say about some of the
glaring counter conditions? The huge numbers of people existing hand
to mouth? He ignores them. He has a thousand reasons why they really
do have equal opportunity, but fail to exercise it.
Like the person with Glaucoma, he has allowed his field of awareness
to become narrowed, while he continues to believe he still sees the
big picture. Freedom of Speech, Equal Opportunity. It makes me
wonder just how messed up our heads really have become. And just how
much of who we are is conditioned, and how much is programmed
genetically?
Carl Jarvis
On 1/5/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Where's the Line on State-Sponsored Censorship?
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
04 January 19
Americans have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech. Right? That's
what we're taught in school, at least. That's what a lot of us believe. But
we don't really have a completely uninhibited right to freedom of speech.
The conventional wisdom is that Americans are free to say anything they
want
(short of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) except with very specific
exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that one exception is
"advocacy of the use of force when it is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action." You can thus advocate violence, just not violence
to begin right now. Other exceptions include obscenity, child pornography,
encouraging suicide, and (commercial) speech owned by others.
What happens, then, when a person vents on Facebook or in the comment
section of a newspaper's website? There's no threat of immediate violence,
so it's legal, right? It's not legal, according to two of America's police
departments.
Look at example number one. James Ross, 20, is a gun control supporter and
is active on Facebook. One day a friend of his posted a meme on Facebook
entitled, "Why I Need a Gun." Below the title were photos of various
firearms and an explanation of what each could be used for. The shotgun,
for
example, was for "burglars and home invasions;" the rifle and scope were
for
"putting food on the table;" and the assault rifle was for "self-defense
against enemies foreign and domestic, for preservation of freedom and
liberty, and to prevent government atrocities." Ross didn't like the meme,
so he wrote in the comment section, "Which one do I need to shoot up a
kindergarten?" He then went to bed.
The original poster deleted Ross's comment and the post, but not before a
Facebook friend forwarded it to another friend who happened to be a cop.
That cop in turn forwarded it to two more cops who, without conducting any
investigation whatsoever, showed up at Ross's place of employment the next
day and arrested him for "disturbing the peace," a misdemeanor. Ross
attempted to explain himself, but the police were having none of it. They
read him his Miranda rights and locked him up for four days.
The county prosecutor quickly dropped the charges, but Ross sued the
police,
saying that his civil rights had been violated. He hadn't posed any threat
to anybody and the police knew it. A federal district court judge, however,
threw the suit out, writing that the police had "qualified immunity" that
prohibited private citizens from suing them while they were in the process
of carrying out their duties. An appeals court, however, recently reversed
the district court, saying that the officers could not have qualified
immunity because Ross's post was not a "true threat" and the police had not
carried out even "minimal investigation." It was a close call for Ross -
and
for the rest of us.
The basis of the judgment was the First Amendment. Ross had not met any of
the criteria for controlling his freedom of speech. It was as simple as
that. The cops knew it, but charged him anyway. The judge did the right
thing.
Similarly, Robert Frese, 62, of Exeter, New Hampshire, had an ongoing
problem with one local police officer after being arrested and convicted of
purposely running over a highway construction flagger. He allegedly shouted
at the man, "If you don't move out of my way, I'm going to run over you,"
before doing just that. He was convicted of felony assault and sentenced to
two-to-four years in prison, with all but 67 days suspended. He was later
accused of stalking the officer who arrested him and, later still, of
rummaging through a private garbage dumpster, apparently looking for
information on the cop.
When the officer retired, a story that was carried in the local paper,
Frese
took to the online comment section and wrote, "Chief (William) Shupe
covered
up for a dirty cop." Frese was arrested the next day and charged with
"criminal defamation of character," a class B misdemeanor. Frese maintained
that the police just wanted to silence him because even a misdemeanor
conviction would send him to prison for the remainder of the two-to-four
years on the assault charge.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) saw the case in a completely
different way. Two weeks ago, the ACLU filed a federal suit against the
Exeter Police Department arguing that the criminal defamation law violates
the First Amendment. The suit says that the Supreme Court recognized in a
landmark 1964 decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, "the profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be
uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement,
caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public
officials." Indeed, the Court added, the complaints didn't even have to be
true to still be legal.
So there it is. We Americans can pretty much say whatever we want, within
very clearly defined (yet few) limits. It may not stop the cops from
harassing us. It may not stop the FBI from surveilling us. But tough luck
for them. We're going to keep on fighting.
Email This Page
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior
investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the
sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the
Espionage
Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a
result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work.
Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner