Politics: A new beginning

[rufus leeking]

[

from Sgt. Club:
And how did I suddenly become a right basher?

much love, much love.... you just seemed to let them hang this limiting free speech mantle on us, and I question its accuracy.

Cite please? What I did say was that the right is willing to put limits on the 1A for national security purposes. I think the left is too, but the issue is what type of speech raises a national security risk. I believe that the right (rightly so) has a quicker trigger on this.

you cite please. what nat'l security issues? I thnk we're giving up on the "right is limiting freedoms" question. I really just don't see it, and when asked for specifics the left can't supply any.

And it is not just the FMA. What about the cause against porn and strip clubs? Is that not speech? The right has been on a crusade for decades now on that.

well sure the religous right, and those that live in the neighborhood, around me the neighbors trying to shut the clubs/shops down tend to be black people, and if they follow trends, largely democrats.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But through history there have been a number of important attempts to infringe on first amendment protections. Some are on the left, but more are on the right. The right has to answer for McCarthyism, the Palmer raids, and any number of attempts at silly laws or prosecutions in Vietnam era days. The left has to answer for the original Federal Elections Act (declared unconstitutional in Buckley v. Valeo) and for some silly laws attempting to regulate hate speech. My conclusion from this -- in times of peace when people are satisfied, there are elements of the left who chip away at free speech in an attempt to regulate conduct and limit views the left finds unpalatable; in times of hot or cold war when people are riled up, large elements of the right (the yahoo right, if you wish, but the right none-the-less) not infrequently attempts to strike at the heart of the first amendment.

Ugh. Your right to free speech is subject to environmental variance. I generally agree with what you say about the private restrictions though there are a lotta places I wouldn't say a lot of things. However, state action that is directed to ensuring that we can confront and defeat our enemies is a much more important interest than just about any other factor, IMHO.

Which is why I'm 100% in favor of things like nonviolent antiwar rallies etc., where people can stand up and be counted. However, encouraging people to avoid a (lawful) draft, or to burn down the local ROTC building etc..., somehow lessens the ability of our military to fight a war that we, the population, got them into. So its not necessarily that the "people are riled up". Its that marxist murder marchers must be prevented from organizing local Uncle Joe fan clubs.

But believe me, on principle alone, I will attend almost any peaceful antiwar rally in my town (don't snicker if you know generally where I live), just so that someone's voice is heard. Just as long as they aren't trying to tide the hand of, e.g., the military from achieving whatever mission the government and public have assigned.

My conclusion? Your "heart of the first amendment" ends right at the doorstep to my right not to be murdered by marxist marchers.

Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ugh. Your right to free speech is subject to environmental variance. I generally agree with what you say about the private restrictions though there are a lotta places I wouldn't say a lot of things. However, state action that is directed to ensuring that we can confront and defeat our enemies is a much more important interest than just about any other factor, IMHO.

Which is why I'm 100% in favor of things like nonviolent antiwar rallies etc., where people can stand up and be counted. However, encouraging people to avoid a (lawful) draft, or to burn down the local ROTC building etc..., somehow lessens the ability of our military to fight a war that we, the population, got them into. So its not necessarily that the "people are riled up". Its that marxist murder marchers must be prevented from organizing local Uncle Joe fan clubs.

But believe me, on principle alone, I will attend almost any peaceful antiwar rally in my town (don't snicker if you know generally where I live), just so that someone's voice is heard. Just as long as they aren't trying to tide the hand of, e.g., the military from achieving whatever mission the government and public have assigned.

My conclusion? Your "heart of the first amendment" ends right at the doorstep to my right not to be murdered by marxist marchers.

Hello

Sorry, Rufus, you've now got multiple posters from the right on this board saying they'll limit first amendment rights to protect national security.

While I suspect Mr. Ashcroft would love to have his own equivalent of the Palmer raids, I will say I am impressed at the restraint shown by the right in imposed on civil rights and the first amendment in the name of security these days. Frankly, while I oppose some of the provisions in the Patriot Act, for example, I don't think they strike at the heart of the first amendment. So in general, today, Rufus is right that the right isn't out there trying to do damage to the first amendment, and I might take the current threats from the left more seriously.

But I know that when push comes to shove, it's the right that I have to fear gutting the thing.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because (see above) otherwise it's a totally circular argument. The freedom of private association is somehow less valid than the freedom of speech? I insult you by asking this question (please forgive), but do I have a "right" to address your dinner parties on all matters of my choosing? Does my support of your right to kick me to the curb mean I value "free speech" less than someone who thinks I should be given a dessert and a cup of coffee?

The only thing I was bringing up was the fact that, yes, public colleges do still maintain speech codes. I'm still nto sure why you think finding some connection to "state action" w/r/t free speech is necessary or relevant to the discussion of what "righties" or "lefties" think about it. Except, I do know why - it's because you're a lawyer, so you think about "free speech" in a rather strict, legal/constitutional framework rather than as a more amorphous social good. I was seeing the "[XX] likes free speech and [YY] likes curbing it" discussion as being rather detached from legal/constitutional analysis and more a statement of general cultural values.

So, it appears to me that the unspoken underlying point you and some others are making here is better stated as: the only limitations on free speech that should be considered in determining if someone is for or against limiting free speech are state-sponsored or imposed restrictions, not social, cultural or private restrictions. Or: free speech is a narrow constitutional concept where the only relevant question is what the state can restrict or what non-state actors can restrict while accepting state funding. Which is fine & dandy, particularly on a lawyer board. I was just thinking of "free speech" in a much more loose manner, since I don't believe most "righties" or "lefties" are lawyers, and therefore don't think about "free speech," or even what is important and American about the first amendment, in that way.

BR(and you forget, I'm a new yorker, having my fellow citizens' speech rights intrude themeselves upon my dinner parties (and work, sleep, reading, sex and other recreation) is an everyday experience when all my windows are a few feet from a major thoroughfare)C

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Sorry, Rufus, you've now got multiple posters from the right on this board saying they'll limit first amendment rights to protect national security.

While I suspect Mr. Ashcroft would love to have his own equivalent of the Palmer raids, I will say I am impressed at the restraint shown by the right in imposed on civil rights and the first amendment in the name of security these days. Frankly, while I oppose some of the provisions in the Patriot Act, for example, I don't think they strike at the heart of the first amendment. So in general, today, Rufus is right that the right isn't out there trying to do damage to the first amendment, and I might take the current threats from the left more seriously.

But I know that when push comes to shove, it's the right that I have to fear gutting the thing.

Ironically, if I listed 3 or 4 things under the guise of potential civil rights violations, all of which relate to safety and security, I'd imagine we'd almost all be susceptible to the same opinion on each.

e.g., monitoring attorney/client communications, so long as the attorney is warned that the communications will be monitored?

I'lll wait to see if the Supreme Court says there was ever a right to engage in private communications with a lawyer, or if the right was to maintain in confidence those communications which you have been led to believe were private. Whatever they say, I'll buy, but for now I'm comfortable with the government's assertion that, in some cases, there is no absolute right to engage in so much as a single private communication with an attorney. I hope I'm making the distinction clear.

My interest in the question is for a purely historically supported justification. But, if its there, then I'd argue its always been there and nothing has changed.

There are others too. Heck, I would have been content to see half of the Vieques protesters shot on sight; or, at least Luis Gutierez and/or whichever Jackson or Sharpton was there. There are lots of so-called "rights" that I'm perfectly comfortable telling people they simply do not have. And its certainly not tearing out the heart of the 1st amendment, if it was never part of the 1st amendment.

Similarly, the flag burning amendment was total bullshit. However, I would leave public flag-burning displays just as unprotected as, e.g., public leaf burning. Furthermore, if someone is, e.g., disorderly, when publicly burning a flag at Michigan and Congress, I'd feel comfortable having them nabbed for unauthorized burning and disorderly conduct. Its the equal treatment we care about, and not the special care for shrill jagoffs, right?

Any examples come to mind that you don't think we can adequately answer on behalf of the right?


Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The only thing I was bringing up was the fact that, yes, public colleges do still maintain speech codes. I'm still nto sure why you think finding some connection to "state action" w/r/t free speech is necessary or relevant to the discussion of what "righties" or "lefties" think about it. Except, I do know why - it's because you're a lawyer, so you think about "free speech" in a rather strict, legal/constitutional framework rather than as a more amorphous social good. I was seeing the "[XX] likes free speech and [YY] likes curbing it" discussion as being rather detached from legal/constitutional analysis and more a statement of general cultural values.

So, it appears to me that the unspoken underlying point you and some others are making here is better stated as: the only limitations on free speech that should be considered in determining if someone is for or against limiting free speech are state-sponsored or imposed restrictions, not social, cultural or private restrictions. Or: free speech is a narrow constitutional concept where the only relevant question is what the state can restrict or what non-state actors can restrict while accepting state funding. Which is fine & dandy, particularly on a lawyer board. I was just thinking of "free speech" in a much more loose manner, since I don't believe most "righties" or "lefties" are lawyers, and therefore don't think about "free speech," or even what is important and American about the first amendment, in that way.

BR(and you forget, I'm a new yorker, having my fellow citizens' speech rights intrude themeselves upon my dinner parties (and work, sleep, reading, sex and other recreation) is an everyday experience when all my windows are a few feet from a major thoroughfare)C

One note: I found your earlier post interesting, and setting aside the 1st amendment issues, I agree that looking at both whether and what restrictions on speech are imposed by private actors is also important. However, that web site was severely out of date in several places, so you have to drill down into the college's individuals web sites to see if those restrictions are still there. Urbana was an example of a place that had changed many (but not all) of its restrictions (it appeared that there were annual rounds of changes to its policies in 2000, 2001 and 2002). For example, it changes its sexual harrassment policies to essential say "if it's sexual harrassment under the law, it's forbidden, and here's some discussion of what the law does or may say".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
e.g., monitoring attorney/client communications, so long as the attorney is warned that the communications will be monitored?

I'lll wait to see if the Supreme Court says there was ever a right to engage in private communications with a lawyer, or if the right was to maintain in confidence those communications which you have been led to believe were private. Whatever they say, I'll buy, but for now I'm comfortable with the government's assertion that, in some cases, there is no absolute right to engage in so much as a single private communication with an attorney. I hope I'm making the distinction clear.

This is one of those things I don't support but am not convinced is unconstitutional.

So the constitutional rights involved are (1) the right to have assistance of counsel to defend in a criminal trial; and (2) the due process clause. I think the due process clause is actually the more likely one to have been abridged by this language. Any constitutional scholars want to take a crack at this one?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm still nto sure why you think finding some connection to "state action" w/r/t free speech is necessary or relevant to the discussion of what "righties" or "lefties" think about it.

The reason I drew the distinction is that it's impossible to figure out any overarching pattern to who values private free speech. If you don't draw the line at state action, all you get is a measure of which private groups' viewpoints are valued, not an overarching philosophy of "I like/don't like free speech."

I'm opposed to the government saying, "We will punish you for saying X." I'm opposed to some private groups saying, "You're not welcome here if you say X," even if it's not a 1AD violation. For example, I think it's stupid for an institution supposedly dedicated to rational debate to place some topics or viewpoints off the table. The best example is a college, but there are others.

On the other hand, I'm not opposed to numerous other private groups regulating speech. I don't think a church is required to give a podium to persons who consistently and vocally espouse heterodoxy. (And this is where I think most on the Right would agree; obviously they value free speech, but they don't value disruption of private association either.) I'd like my employer to stop allowing employees to shill their little fundraisers, community theater tickets, etc. Where does that put me on the continuum? Am I not a free speech absolutist because I don't want the KKK interrupting my church service?

I helped run a college magazine for a while, and I got tired of explaining to hippies that the fact we weren't running their articles didn't give them a civil rights case. I'm a state action purist.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If you don't draw the line at state action, all you get is a measure of which private groups' viewpoints are valued, not an overarching philosophy of "I like/don't like free speech."

I think you might get an overarching philosophy, or 3, but I don't think it breaks down in terms of right or left. This is one of those things where the ACLU, Cato and the Institute for Justice join hands and sing Kumbaya. I think the overarching philosophies you might uncover would be more like principles vs. preferences, and the vast majority of both righties and lefties fall firmly into the camp of believing in their own preferences.

[sgtclub]

Sounds like something that may have already been discussed on the FB, but a detective in the KB case testified that the alleged victim's panties contained pubic hair and sperm that did not belong to KB.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sounds like something that may have already been discussed on the FB, but a detective in the KB case testified that the alleged victim's panties contained pubic hair and sperm that did not belong to KB.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Shockingly, it was discussed on the FB. Based on a FoxNews story that claimed that the underwear with the non-Kobe gunk in it was the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack, or something. Apparently "she was slutting around" is seen as an affirmative defense to rape by some FBers. It's an attractive stance.

I am still confused about what underwear is what.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Apparently "she was slutting around" is seen as an affirmative defense to rape by some FBers. It's an attractive stance.

Just so we're clear that you didn't take that to be my stance, I observed that the law quite sensibly allows a defendant to explain away certain physical evidence with contemporaneous sexual activity that might have caused the same evidence to exist. If the evidence isn't offered, the "it's not mine" defense doesn't apply, and the sting of this has lessened somewhat now that DNA means that the fact her Tuesdays were soaked by the entire Utah Jazz doesn't really present any reasonable doubt about the signficance of a perfect Kobe match in her Wednesdays.

To the extent they take this to the press, where the Rules of Evidence are somewhat less circumspect, that's indeed reprehensible.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Shockingly, it was discussed on the FB. Based on a FoxNews story that claimed that the underwear with the non-Kobe gunk in it was the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack, or something. Apparently "she was slutting around" is seen as an affirmative defense to rape by some FBers. It's an attractive stance.

I am still confused about what underwear is what.

BTW, how does gunk on the underwear equal her having sex.

There are other explanations for how it got there.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Just so we're clear that you didn't take that to be my stance

I didn't.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Shockingly, it was discussed on the FB. Based on a FoxNews story that claimed that the underwear with the non-Kobe gunk in it was the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack, or something. Apparently "she was slutting around" is seen as an affirmative defense to rape by some FBers. It's an attractive stance.

I am still confused about what underwear is what.

I think the point the defense is making is shown by the following quote from the chicagotribune.com:

>>"The accuser arrived at the hospital wearing panties with someone else's semen and sperm in them, not that of Mr. Bryant, correct?" Mackey asked.

"That's correct," Winters responded.<<

So this was the next day. She goes in for a rape exam wearing underwear with the traces of someone who is specifically not the person she is accusing of rape.

I'm not sure if it shows she was ever lying or even if it shows she tried to avoid presenting the actual evidence. But, it sure doesn't help show Kobe raped her.

Hello