The Borders of Things

I really agree with you paul. one that has been really hard for me to accept is that last week we had a right wing extremist baptist church from topeka, kansas come to missoula to protest because they said that we are on a path to hell because we advocate for rights of all sexual orientations. they had extremely hateful things written on signs and condemming gays to hell. on their website they said something about many gays being killed in sept. 11 so that it wasn't all bad. buit it is the same principle. do i hate them and do what i can t shut them up when they come into my town, or do i let them express their right and speak? well (as to be expected, perhaps) I did nothing. but i still respect their right to speak, just not to hate. sorry off the subject a tad bit... but all to say that i htink you are dead on

Regardless of what you believe happened on 9/11 and regardless of whether or not you agree with Churchill, I am confused as to why the government of CO. passed these resolutions. It is like they believe that if they say it, it will be true. If they say the victims are innocent than of course they must be. What is the point of passing these resolutions? (other than to try to limit Churchill's free speech, that is)

Meg, I don't think you're off the subject, because the real question is whether or not we will accept freedom of speech with ALL of the messy consequences. This implicates all of us, because there is always some one out there who will say something that terrifies or angers or hurts you. And chances are you are doing the same thing to someone else. In my mind, this is not about being nice to each other; this is about the ability to express thought freely and the social and moral implications of such an ability (which I believe are vast). I think we are on dangerous ground when we will make a move like the CO government is making, particularly when it is against a political position. In one sense, we limit the freedom of speech all the time (FCC) and have done so in the past (Joyce's _Ulysses_); but a political argument being condemned by a governing body is one step down the path of outlawing political dissent.
JLG, in one sense this kind of media frenzy lends itself to such moralistic air blowing, which, as you point out, is all these resolutions are. Which is why some people may say I am overreacting to a largely symbolic gesture BUT a) it's not so symbolic when the Governor calls for your resignation AND b) I think symbols can quickly grow fangs. (Incidentally, the "moral outrage" expressed by these bodies lends itself to dangerous non-thinking; someone rubs our basic presuppositions the wrong way and we believe that we don't have to listen to a word they say. But that is for another post altogether)

I really have no desire to get into the issues you've been discussing but I'll just cast out the old mantra; with freedom comes responsibility...perhaps both the CO leg. and this professor have failed on that one. I haven't read his article but I can probably build a decent Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress suit against him by some of the family members of those who died (were they to read and sustain harm from it). Which is an interesting discussion of its own (which makes me curious as to how the cts have dealt w/ this), Freedom of speech is very highly regarded by the Cts, but at what point does that give way when the speach becomes emotionally injurious to those connected w/ the subject of the speach? Is that professor allowed to say whatever he wants even if it violates others rights to be free from harm caused by another...we know this must not be true b/c it's illegal to yell "fire" in a theater for the very reason that people tend to get trampled to death when someone does. If you can't get IIED you might be able to get Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress but it's been too long since I studied this so I forget what the court has and has not allowed.

I also just wanted to make a quick note (this will probably piss off some of you and it is way off the subject) but a company might very well be able to fire someone for attending a political rally, Political orientation is not a constitutionally protected class...State law may disallow it Fed law doesn't. Is this a good thing, I think so. If I was PETA I don't think I'd want someone comeing to work wearing a mink coat, leather boots, and a veal sandwitch inside her suade purse. Likewise, if I was Haliburton I'd seriously call into question the ability of an Employee to do his job in furtherance of the companies interests if I saw him outside protesting everyday after work. But the government is not a company so my point has no real bearing on this discussion.

Timmy,

The actual legal possibilities in this situation are interesting and I am glad
you chimed in. I would imagine, however, that one could argue that there is a
fairly significant difference between a) yelling "fire" in a movie theater b)
mailing a threatening or otherwise emotionally disturbing letter to a particular
individual and c) writing an essay which portrays a specific group of people
(but not individuals per se) in an uncharitable light. I do agree that with
freedom of speech comes responsibility and, as I stated in my original post,
there are definite legitimate implications for your words that you should be
ready to accept. I don't think even symbolic legislative action is a legitimate
implication if we really support the idea of government non-interference in
citizen's speech. Also, while you are obviously right in terms of what can be done legally, I personally think the category of "hate speech" is a bad idea. It's messy and awful stuff, to be sure; but if a pastor offers the religious statement that some particular activity will end you up in hell, is this freedom of religion or hate? Could someone bring the type of lawsuit you are describing? If you want people to be able to practice and spread their religion, (ideology, political beliefs, etc.) you have to allow people to say things you despise. I can't see any way around it.

In terms of your second claim, I concede to your superior
legal knowledge, and I see your point (in part). On the other hand, if I
happened to attend a particular party gathering and was fired because of it,
could this not be construed as an interference on behalf of my employer in the
politcal process? I wasn't arguing that political orientation was a protected
class, but I do think that political expression is different than political
orientation. If I were fired from my job for
attending such a rally, would I have a legitimate lawsuit? I would think so,
but I'm not a lawyer . . .

hey paulie just stopping in to see that you are keeping a clean house. Take it easy buddy

I'm glad you brought up the issue of whether a pastor can be sued for preaching that people may go to hell. Remember to take everything I say w/ a grain of salt b/c I've made no in depth study of this (just basic tort study back in my first year), but if I remember right there is some case law which would seem to provide precedence if one wanted to make such a suit. My professor posed this same hypothetical in class, and I think she said that the no courts have decided on similar facts...so it's up in the air still. My suspicion is that the freedom of speech would be extremely hard to overcome. Also note, some states don't even have IIED and others tend to give it a very narrow definition.

As for the "fire" example, yes, there is a big difference. I was only using it to illistrate that there are places were one's rights must concede or they will invade and swallow up everyone elses; where one's end and another's begin is not always easy to define. And when dealing w/ a group you have to consider how ascertainable the group is from everyone else; is it easy to point out the individuals that make up that group therefore pointing them out as individuals? And how big of a group is too big for it to matter anymore? In certain employment discrimination cases (disparate impact), one individual can bring suit on a class discrimination basis b/c they are a member of that class no matter how big the class may be. By speaking to a whole class of people, that professor could just be expanding his liability rather than making the comments too general to result in any liability.

Please note, I'm just playing devil's advocate, I really hold no strong opinion b/c I still haven't read the article he wrote and I feel no pressing desire to do so. Even if I did read it, I think I'd probably agree w/ you to a large extent...I merely try to temper, or perhaps balance, the discussion by pointing out what I do.

Well, it's been fun. I usually don't get involved in discussions unless 1) someone makes a statement which is so painfully false that I cannot, in good conscience, let it slip by or 2) it has some interesting issues in it somewhere and I have the current mental disposition to cast my lot (which is rare). Yours was number 2. Again, it was good chatting w/ you briefly (as always).

Timmy,

I enjoy it as well. Don't feel the need to actually read the article, since I'm not trying to defend its content. But it was great getting a far more informed legal perspective than my own. Keep well.

The left after losing the battle of ideas has stopped debating and now only engages in rhetorical guerilla warfare. The naive assumption that framers of the Constitution made when supporting free speech was the idea that each speaker actually believed what they said and was doing their best to explain their views. Debate is impossible if your opponent holds the truth in contempt and treats every exchange like a joke. It isn’t that Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky hold unpopular views the problem they refuse to engage in any dialogue at all. Churchill continues to tell lie after lie. He is famous for is deliberately his lying about the US giving Indians blankets containing smallpox. Noam Chomsky on the other hand simply makes meaningless statements that sound like criticism of the US but when examined are nothing but double talk devoid of assertions of fact and lacking in any logical coherence. Chomsky, an expert on language, who rightly, complained year after year about the used of double talk by politicians. Then he seemed to snap began to imitate their language style. The left wing academy rewards their member who tells the most outrageous lie about the United States. It is considered better to lie then to tell the truth even if the truth would make the US look even worse.

We have no common language with left. The result is we can neither communicate nor negotiate with them. I share more in common with a dog or a horse and can communicate with them far better them I can with a member of the left. Every discussion with a member of the left starts with them telling lie after lie like “Hitler was elected as the result of a fair election” and then after those ideas are refuted I am ridiculed and accused of being a Nazi my self. Trying to communicate with the left is like Charley Brown and the football, the left-winger pretends to want to debate then ends up playing games and hurling insults. At this point it is demeaning to continue to expose one self to ridicule in the pursuit of a common dialogue. We have come to the point where saying anything is a mistake and force can be the only method of settling disputes.

James,

I agree with you that there are pundits who do nothing but manipulate the discourse. But I would say that there exists on both sides of the political spectrum who hurtle insults and make meaningless pseudoclaims. Debate should always be intelligent and sincere and unfortunately that occurs too rarely in our culture. (Although, incidentally, I would say that even hypocrites can be right. There motives may be wrong but the things they say might be useful.)

However, I believe that you are expressing the classic formula of demonization. That is to say, you have created a category ("The Left") and have reduced them to less than "a dog or a horse." Demonization occurs whenever we assign the label "EVIL" to another individual and use that to justify eliminating them from the discourse. This appelation could result from rhetorical evil, moral evil, social evil, whatever. The point is that it ends, as your post ends, in force not civil society.

I think that words like "Right" and "Left" are fast and easy ways to demonize. I wish these words and the accompanying rhetorical moves would be dropped from our public debate because they have become useless and inflamatory. I think that people on the "Left" have important things to say and so do people on the "Right." But if all we want to do is shut them up, we are going to lose out.

Well put Paul.