FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[John W.]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> 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?


Again, you're conflating state action with private action.  Criminalizing
certain speech by calling it a "hate crime" would be state action, and is
very problematic constitutionally.  However, citizens applying pressure
(argumentation, the threat of a boycott, etc.) to a business establishment
to "censor" certain speech (or song lyrics, in this case) is perfectly
legitimate private action.

It took me a while, in law school, to get in the habit of asking myself at
the outset, when analyzing a legal issue, "Wait a minute.  Is this 'state
action' or is it not?"  It's a crucial distinction.

John Wason




>
> > --- 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090816/e2974fd3/attachment.html