FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous ('murder music' as hate speech)

Stuart Levy slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu
Sun Aug 16 21:34:48 CDT 2009 

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 09:05:26PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> One can deplore such a thing and condemn it in all available places, but to 
> make such speech a crime is to allow the government to arrest and punish 
> people for the content of what they say (or sing).
>
> That would substantially expand the present US legal doctrine that 
> government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to 
> inciting, and likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

But don't we have an example of just that, with murder music?

> I don't think we want to expand the government's powers in that way.  --CGE
>
>
> Stuart Levy wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 05:23:26PM -0700, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>> Y're kidding, right?? If I were in charge of hiring and firing at CNN, I
>>> would indeed have the right to "stop something," specifically the
>>> continuation of Lou Dobbs on CNN. By exercising my own freedom of speech, 
>>> I
>>> am telling CNN that I want them to do exactly that. Again, it is my right 
>>> and
>>> responsibility to do this. I think Neil has already covered this very 
>>> well -- the difference betw
>>> totally silencing someone and refusing him a national platform.  
>>> --Jenifer
>> I heard today at ICJPE meeting of another variety of hate speech.
>> It's called "murder music".  A Jamaican musician, Buju Banton,
>> is touring the US, singing songs whose lyrics call outright for
>> killing gay and lesbian men and women.  Indeed, in Jamaica, it's 
>> especially bad news
>> to be homosexual -- many have been murdered in just the last few years,
>> targeted for their sexual orientation.  (Found this in the Wikipedia page
>> on "LGBT rights in Jamaica": Just after the 2004 murder of one Jamaican
>> gay-rights activists, a Human Rights Watch researcher found a crowd
>> celebrating outside his house.  She quotes them as singing slogans about
>> killing gays -- singing lines straight from Banton's and other music.)
>> There are of course nonlethal forms of persecution too.  Some LGBT people
>> have fled Jamaica and sought and been granted asylum in other countries,
>> specifically for being persecuted based on their sexual orientation.
>> Given a pattern like this, do we indeed want to say that we
>> should not recognize any such category as a hate crime?  Now, in the US, 
>> LGBT groups are using their free speech rights
>> to try to influence local venues to cancel their bookings with
>> this Buju Banton, including one at the House of Blues in Chicago.
>> If they succeed, he won't be able to perform there.  Does this
>> amount to censorship?  Do we call it an improper restriction on free 
>> speech?
>>  
>>> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>>> Subject: RE: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>> To: "'Jenifer Cartwright'" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>, 
>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 8:57 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are excused.  Freedom of speech does give you the right to request, 
>>> ask for, and even demand something; but it does NOT give you the right to 
>>> actually  prevent, ban, or stop something.  These are to very 
>>> distinguishably different things.   If you re-read my post you will see 
>>> that my point was addressing the fact that the two are analytically 
>>> distinguishable and different types of activities and the freedom of 
>>> speech does not extend to the actual physical stopping, banning, 
>>> preventing of anything (e.g., “Freedom of speech guarantees the right 
>>> to object true enough; but it does not guarantee the right to 
>>> prevent”).  In accordance with the Constitution, the actual physical 
>>> prevention, banning, or stoppage of another’s actions has to be done 
>>> under the color of law and usually via legislative, executive, or 
>>> judicial actions and not on the basis of citizen requests, demands, or 
>>> objections alone. Aside from making demands, requests, and statements of 
>>> objection, the only other direct courses of action available under the 
>>> Constitution available to individual citizens would be to personally shun 
>>> the offending individual or group, boycott them and or their goods and 
>>> services,  lobby
>>>  government officials, or elect officials who are sympathetic to their 
>>> positions.  The Constitution – especially the freedom of speech 
>>> provision – does not give the individual citizens the right to actually 
>>> restrain other’s (individual’s or corporate organization’s)trade 
>>> and communications so as to prevent them from acting I within the 
>>> strictures of the existing law in a lawful way.
>>>  
>>> From: Jenifer Cartwright [mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, 
>>> August 15, 2009 4:00 PM
>>> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
>>> Subject: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> S'cuse me, but freedom of speech does indeed give me the right to demand 
>>> that something be stopped -- choose yr own extreme example: slavery, 
>>> torture, child abuse... or a lesser one: book banning, prayer and/or 
>>> creation science in the public schools.... and also commercial programs 
>>> on the national airwaves that I object to. How the decision-makers 
>>> respond to my demands is something else again... but I do have the right 
>>> -- the responsibility, in fact -- to speak up in these cases.
>>>
>>>  --Jenifer   
>>> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>>> Subject: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 11:27 AM
>>>
>>>
>>>    Duh, Jenifer.  Freedom of speech guarantees the right to object true 
>>> enough; but it does not guarantee the right to prevent.  There is a 
>>> subtle difference, that must have escaped you, between speech or 
>>> expression and the consequences of taken actions and conduct.  It is one 
>>> thing to object to something and it is another thing to demand that it 
>>> prevented or stopped.  We all object to various contents of what has been 
>>> said; but that is very different from  demanding that the source be shut 
>>> off or shut up.  Again the difference is in the subtle nuances which 
>>> tends to be lost when one views things as either good or evil, right or 
>>> wrong, moral or immoral, etc.
>>>  
>>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Jenifer 
>>> Cartwright
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:57 AM
>>> To: 'Neil Parthun'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
>>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Duh, Laurie. Freedom of speech guarantees the right to object to garbage 
>>> being nationally televised, regardless of who "owns" those particular air 
>>> waves.
>>>
>>>  
>>> Right on, Neil, Well said!
>>>
>>>  --Jenifer
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 8/15/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>>> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>> To: "'Neil Parthun'" <lennybrucefan at gmail.com>, 
>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 10:36 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Whether or not one is engaged in censorship in this case appears to 
>>> depend on one’s referent level being addressed.  Your point about Lou 
>>> Dobbs, the person, may have some merit vis-à-vis the difference between 
>>> censorship and access to the exulted platform of radio & TV; however if 
>>> you move the level of reference up to the radio/TV station level, then 
>>> one might be seen as engaging in the censorship of the station and its 
>>> broadcast content.
>>>  While no one guarantees the right to have a nationally televised show, 
>>> no one guarantees anyone the right to prevent someone from having such a 
>>> show or, for that matter prevents someone from having such a show.  In 
>>> the case of radio/TV, the air waves allegedly belong to the public to 
>>> license to actors for use.   The radio/TV stations and networks are among 
>>> those actors; and within legally prescribed restrictions they are free to 
>>> air whatever content they see fit,  independent of what the public or any 
>>> portion of the public might desire although in this country that decision 
>>> is driven by the market (audience share and advertising money).  
>>> Obviously, if one wants to alter the legal restrictions, one needs to go 
>>> through the process of changing the legal framework , statutes, and 
>>> administrative rules pertaining to the conditions of licensing.
>>>  If one moves up a level to the ownership and control over the air waves, 
>>> which belong legally to the public, then I am afraid that those who wish 
>>> to see Dobbs shut down are going to lose for now and in the near future 
>>> since they do not compose a majority of the public – or enough to force 
>>> a change in the licensing requirements for the stations and their 
>>> personnel as to the sorts of content that they can air and when.  Like 
>>> the other right-wing talk commentators, his station and he appear to have 
>>> strong national following that support and demand him be given air time 
>>> and are willing to put their money where their mouths are...  That cannot 
>>> be said for the progressives, the left, or even the moderate reformers.  
>>> If they comprised a significantly large population and if each 
>>> contributed $5 or $10 each per year for purposes of buying advertising on 
>>> the stations that carry Dobbs, they could probably use that as leverage 
>>> to get the stations to either reel
>>>  him and other in or take them off the air.  But it seems that the 
>>> progressives, the left, liberal and moderate reformers would rather hold 
>>> on to their money  or spend it elsewhere and exercise their lungs 
>>> shouting and crying about him and his content instead.
>>>  
>>>
>>> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
>>> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Neil 
>>> Parthun
>>> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:13 PM
>>> To: C.G.Estabrook
>>> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous
>>>  Banning speech and requesting that such speech does not have a 
>>> hyper-exulted platform to amplify it are two very different things...
>>>
>>>  
>>> Nobody is saying Lou Dobbs doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants. 
>>>  He has that right.  However, no person is guaranteed the right to have a 
>>> nationally televised show to promote their views and perspectives on any 
>>> topic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Solidarity,
>>>
>>>   -N.
>>>
>>>  
>>> Neil Parthun
>>>
>>>   IEA Region 9 Grassroots Political Activist
>>>
>>>   Writer/Facilitator for Champaign-Urbana Public i
>>>
>>>  
>>> "Early in life I had learned that if you want something, you had better 
>>> make some noise." - Malcolm X
>>>  
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>  
>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>  
>>>
>>>       _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list