Comments on: AAEC to NAACP: Don’t censor New York Post

By: Tom Wood

Tom Wood — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:34:45 +0000

I’m reminded of this speech by Christopher Hitchens about free speech:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

By: Joe Rank

Joe Rank — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:31:17 +0000

One has a right to cry “fire” in a crowded theatre, if there is a fire.

The Schenck case ( which was really about distributing anti-war pamphlets in time of war ) was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio . That case defined speech ‘pur curiam’ as that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is inciteful of imminent lawless action.

Brandenburg is the standard on freedom of speech issues.
It is interesting to note that the most ardent advocate on the Court for liberal speech values; Wm. O. Douglas, considered that “falsely” crying fire in a crowded theatre would be a case of “speech brigaded with action”, and the only instance of which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

Do not make the mistake of confusing criticism with censorship.

I have thought about this long, and have other ideas…but will restrain my own considerable ability for speech for the time being!

By: Ted Rall

Ted Rall — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:23:53 +0000

Actually, you DO have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater. Look it up: the Supreme Court case that contained Oliver Wendell Holmes’ comment about said shout was later overturned.

First Amendment rights have no meaning if people are routinely threatened with dismissal whenever they say something other people don’t like.

By: Wiley Miller

Wiley Miller — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:55:23 +0000

You do know that your First Amendment rights protecting you from censorship only applies to the government, don’t you? Restricting the language used here, or in your living room, isn’t a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.

By: Gregory Howard

Gregory Howard — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:40:20 +0000

Carl… the same would apply when certain things are said, draw or implied when it comes to a woman and you consider the struggles they have had to overcome by our democracy in the works.

We displayed our ignorance after 9/11 by profiling our people who had those rights and most of the people on this board would have found away to justify having people removed from a plane just because.

Hispanics will go through the same thing.
And if you don’t think there is anything worth crying over then do the same thing to another commmunity like the Jewish community with regard to their struggles and you’ll get the same out cry.

By: Gregory Howard

Gregory Howard — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:35:28 +0000

You guys kill me with this censorship mess.

All of you are involved in it daily.

Go into a court and talk over the judge and he will tell you “Quiet in the court!”

And you respect it as you should because it is about order.

What was posted was also about order.
And to try and link it to the another story was about as lame as you can get.

Heck if that is the case then if that story wasn’t out then link it to one of our nature shows that just happened to be focused on a chimp sometime that week.

By: Gregory Howard

Gregory Howard — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:32:02 +0000

Awww… the cry of the FIRST Amendment. I love it when my fellow citizens cry or use this and others as an excuse for actions.

Joe Rank… you explained it best. It is not an ABSOLUTE right. So there are boundaries and it seems like we keep trying to expand it when it seems fit for us rather than truly represent what it really means.

Interesting… this is what I found when setting up to post here. lol

“PLEASE NOTE: Please use your first AND last name when posting a comment. Please refrain from swearing. It’s one of the rules that I enforce strictly. Thanks.”

By: P.S. Mueller

P.S. Mueller — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:07:26 +0000

I agree with both Wiley and Ted. Censorship is never the way to go, and any editor can and should be fired for the results of bad business decisions. (Surely the cartoon in question can be seen as one of those.) Editors are let go all the time for refusing to gut content anyway.

By: Joe Rank

Joe Rank — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 03:29:12 +0000

Of course, with the freedom of press and speech are also concommitant responsibilities. The 1st amendment is not absolute, as people are not free to cry “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or to incite to riot.

There are numerous statutes now on the books in the wake of 9/11. This is a fairly unexplored area of criminal jurisprudence, but people that feel aggrieved will use them.

It will be the feelings of reduced revenues by Post management that will make an economic decision ( Wiley’s point ).

Some may argue with NAACP’s position; but they have broken no laws and have every right to state what they have. To attempt to stifle THEM would be an abridgement of THEIR 1st Amendment guarantees.

By: Carl Moore

Carl Moore — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 01:54:29 +0000

Your letter is on the nose, Ted. The NAACP position is clearly an over reaction and way out of proportion to the controversy. What this dispute has made clear is that any use, no matter how obscurely or indirectly, of a chimp, an ape, a gorilla or any simian used in an editorial cartoon critical of Obama is verboten, taboo, outlawed, prohibited, out of bounds, unacceptable, and, yes, unthinkable. It is also a testament to the nutty times we live in and the hysterical political correctness that still, unfortunately, afflicts too many.