I was completely in accord with Professor Allen up to the last paragraph of his speech when he seemed to do a 180 degree turn or perhaps I am just too dense to understand him. Speech even very objectionable speech that falls short of threatening immediate violence should be protected including speech that advocates limiting free speech as his seems to do.
My understanding of his last paragraph is organizations can and do govern the speech of those in the organization. Prohibiting teachers and students from cursing on school grounds is an example. Employers and organizations can have speech and dress codes. Adults have the freedom to not join with a group that has codes they don't like.
That's how I understood it too. Private organizations make rules all the time that a abridge constitutional rights (like whether you can carry a gun on their premises, for instance.)
Diogenes: But if that “conduct” consists solely of speech no matter how vile, in the US no government can interfere with it. Do you agree? Finally, are private institutions like Harvard that receive millions of dollars in government funding and contracts subject to the requirements of the First Amendment to protect speech?
One thing maybe worth mentioning is that thought has to be reconstructed through action to prove something like premeditated murder since we don't (yet) have the ability to read minds. It's the same with hate crimes. The pattern of hate has to be reconstructed to prove the "hate" part of it. You can think all the thoughts in the world if they don't manifest into anything outside your head. I guess what would be worrying about policing thought would be that you would be constantly surveilled so that the powers that be could discern whether or not something you did was a hate crime after the fact, or in an even more nightmarish scenario, whether you were likely to commit a hate crime and needed to be detained before it happened.
My understanding of hate crime is in intent. Is the crime intended to communicate danger and fear to a larger group to which the victim belongs? Perhaps rather than “hate” and “protected group status” any identifiable group targeted, i.e., merchants paying protection to avoid arson by organized crime or neighborhood children regularly attacked by bullies should have provisions to increase punishment for intent to intimidate more than a single victim. Some crimes are personal; others are aimed at groups. Intent has always been a part of sentencing—manslaughter vs murder. Framing the law broader would allow increased punishment for demonstrable intent rather than “thoughts.” This way permits crimes designed to message and terrorize groups, whether anti-Semitic, racist, or targeting other recognizable group to have enhanced punishment without dividing us up into identity groups.
I’m old enough to remember when people started using the remonition of “That’s not politically correct.”
And, I can remember thinking at the time that we were going down a very slippery slope indeed…if we were going to be reprimanding others for saying things we did not like…there would be no end in sight!
Sigh.
And here we are today.
At the bottom of that slippery slope.
I enjoyed this article immensely and am thankful to have had the opportunity to read it…I rather enjoy reading over listening to a speech. I can re-read the parts I find intriguing and mull them over before moving onto the next bit of words. So, thank you for publishing this transcript.
I do hope we can have “open discussion and increasing enlightenment” again in the future…as the current climate of oppression of spoken or written words is for the birds and unAmerican.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion…reasons why people were attracted to America in the first place!
I was completely in accord with Professor Allen up to the last paragraph of his speech when he seemed to do a 180 degree turn or perhaps I am just too dense to understand him. Speech even very objectionable speech that falls short of threatening immediate violence should be protected including speech that advocates limiting free speech as his seems to do.
My understanding of his last paragraph is organizations can and do govern the speech of those in the organization. Prohibiting teachers and students from cursing on school grounds is an example. Employers and organizations can have speech and dress codes. Adults have the freedom to not join with a group that has codes they don't like.
That's how I understood it too. Private organizations make rules all the time that a abridge constitutional rights (like whether you can carry a gun on their premises, for instance.)
Thanks.
I think you are missing the key sentence:
>Thinking that slides into conduct ceases to be speech simply, free or otherwise, and is governable.
Diogenes: But if that “conduct” consists solely of speech no matter how vile, in the US no government can interfere with it. Do you agree? Finally, are private institutions like Harvard that receive millions of dollars in government funding and contracts subject to the requirements of the First Amendment to protect speech?
One thing maybe worth mentioning is that thought has to be reconstructed through action to prove something like premeditated murder since we don't (yet) have the ability to read minds. It's the same with hate crimes. The pattern of hate has to be reconstructed to prove the "hate" part of it. You can think all the thoughts in the world if they don't manifest into anything outside your head. I guess what would be worrying about policing thought would be that you would be constantly surveilled so that the powers that be could discern whether or not something you did was a hate crime after the fact, or in an even more nightmarish scenario, whether you were likely to commit a hate crime and needed to be detained before it happened.
Wow. What a piece.
My understanding of hate crime is in intent. Is the crime intended to communicate danger and fear to a larger group to which the victim belongs? Perhaps rather than “hate” and “protected group status” any identifiable group targeted, i.e., merchants paying protection to avoid arson by organized crime or neighborhood children regularly attacked by bullies should have provisions to increase punishment for intent to intimidate more than a single victim. Some crimes are personal; others are aimed at groups. Intent has always been a part of sentencing—manslaughter vs murder. Framing the law broader would allow increased punishment for demonstrable intent rather than “thoughts.” This way permits crimes designed to message and terrorize groups, whether anti-Semitic, racist, or targeting other recognizable group to have enhanced punishment without dividing us up into identity groups.
I’m old enough to remember when people started using the remonition of “That’s not politically correct.”
And, I can remember thinking at the time that we were going down a very slippery slope indeed…if we were going to be reprimanding others for saying things we did not like…there would be no end in sight!
Sigh.
And here we are today.
At the bottom of that slippery slope.
I enjoyed this article immensely and am thankful to have had the opportunity to read it…I rather enjoy reading over listening to a speech. I can re-read the parts I find intriguing and mull them over before moving onto the next bit of words. So, thank you for publishing this transcript.
I do hope we can have “open discussion and increasing enlightenment” again in the future…as the current climate of oppression of spoken or written words is for the birds and unAmerican.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion…reasons why people were attracted to America in the first place!
There is no other country quite like America.
We MUST keep it.