On Free Speech

Far too many people these days seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from being criticized, freedom from consequences, freedom from verbal retaliation. We need only look at the response of the two guys whose columns triggered the current kerfuffle over the SFWA Bulletin for an example of this -- apparently people criticizing their columns is censorship, oh noes!

One of my favorite quotes on this subject comes from Jim Hines, who said, "Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit." Everyone who's ever whined that their free speech was being curtailed because people responded by saying mean things about them needs to tattoo Jim's quote on their forearm or something, someplace where they can see it every day.

Tobias Buckell just linked to this great post by Ken White on Popehat, the legal blog. It's right on point and well worth reading. It starts like this:

Let's be clear — the right to free speech is the right to express oneself without state retaliation. It is not a right to speak without social retaliation. Speech has consequences. Among those consequences are condemnation, vituperation, scorn, ridicule, and pariah status. Those consequences represent other people exercising their free speech rights. That's a feature of the marketplace of ideas, not a bug.

Yet too many people seem to think that free speech includes not only a right to be free of consequences imposed by the state, but a right to be free of consequences imposed by other people. Therefore they attempt to portray criticism as a violation of their rights. This, of course, finds no support in the law, and is patently unsustainable as a philosophy besides — it nonsensically elevates the rights of the first person to talk over the rights of the second person to talk.

There's more; click through and check it out.

Angie

Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk and Charles Carreon

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

No Pledge of Allegiance

...until there actually is liberty and justice for all. That's what ten-year-old Will Phillips says, and he's acting on it, declining to stand for the Pledge at school because his family has gay friends who aren't being treated equally under the law -- who are being deprived of the right to marry, or to adopt children.

Predictably, Will is being harassed for his stance, first by a substitute teacher and (of course) by some of the more nasty and ignorant students at his school. (Although to be fair, this is only elementary school and I'd bet cookies that the students who are taunting and harassing him are just reflecting the views and behavior of their parents, so the shame is on them for not setting a better example.)

Will's parents support him, though, and got the school administration to admit that he's not required to stand for the Pledge, that he does have the right to sit through it.

And what about the substitute teacher who tried to bully him into participating, even threatening to get his mother and grandmother (whom she knew, although obviously not very well) on his case? Since he hadn't broken any rules in refusing to stand for the Pledge, Will's mother asked when they could expect an apology from that teacher. Well, the principal didn't see that as "necessary." Of course not. [eyeroll]

Will has an excellent sense of right and wrong, though, and I applaud his stand, and also his parents for supporting him in doing what's right. Read more about Will and the Pledge incident in this Arkansas Times article, and more commentary by John Brummett, a columnist with the Arkansas News. If nothing else, Mr. Brummett's suggested alternate Pledge is entertaining, and unfortunately apt.

Thanks to Indigene on The Phade for the original link.

Angie

Flailing Snobs, Offended Racists, and Some Really Cool People Ending Hunger

A quick compilation post because I have a story due tomorrow and a few thousand more words to go on it.

Rich Snobs in New York Blocking Children's Library Expansion

My husband sent me a link to this article in School Library Journal.

Library Director Dennis Fabiszak has said that the East Hampton Village Board of Zoning Appeals has expressed concern that an expanded children’s collection would lead to more library usage by those who live in the less affluent areas of Springs and Wainscott.

East Hampton Village is a posh area where a lot of rich people (like Martha Stewart, Katie Couric, Rudolph Giuliani) have summer homes. Certain residents are objecting to a 6800-square-foot expansion to the children's area (which last year was ranked last in available books per child, although the article doesn't say whether that was last in the state or the nation or what) for which private funds -- four million dollars -- have already been raised. The expansion will add ten thousand children's books to the library to go with all that floor space, and most libraries would be delighted with the project.

In fact, the library is delighted with it, and wishes they could get on with the implementation.

The problem is apparently that "The library serves not only the Village of East Hampton but also the less affluent communities of Springs and Wainscott." Ahh, there's the rub. Some of the locals (just enough, apparently) object to the expansion because one never knows what sort of child would come in to use the library if they actually acquired a decent children's collection.

I haven't done any demographic research on these areas (see above for time crunch) but I doubt very strongly that the people of Springs and Wainscott are, like, horribly poor or anything. One doesn't generally build a fashionable community for wealthy people's second (or third or fourth) homes right next to a slum. So my guess is that Springs and Wainscott are probably middle class. If anyone knows otherwise, please drop a note and I'll post a correction, but seriously, I doubt any of the people who live near enough to East Hampton to send their kids to its library are getting government cheese, you know?

Which means that the people objecting to the expansion are horrified at the thought of having to pass actual Middle Class People in the halls of their public library. The horrors! O_O One has to wonder, if they'll fight this hard to keep children who aren't actually rich out of their library, just how much empathy or compassion these people have for those who are actually poor.

---

Racists Criticized For Racist Remarks Cry Censorship

No, really. Jim Hines posted a thoughtful, down-to-earth entry about freedom of speech and censorship and the consequences of being a jerkwad, in response to this open letter on the Carl Brandon Society site, which went up in response to this series of posts/incidents and particularly the third one. The original incident is over and done, since someone explained to Mr. Ellison that he'd been misled and he apologized (sort of) and Ms. Bradford accepted (see the fourth link) but the basic principle being discussed applies to any discussion and Mr. Hines discussed it in a more general context. The core of his point:

* People disagreeing with you is not censorship.
* People stating that they don’t like your cover art and think its racist, sexist, or whatever, is not censorship.
* People banning you from their blogs is not censorship.
* For the writers out there, an editor rejecting your story for his/her publication is not censorship.
* People saying they don’t like something you said is not censorship.
* People telling you racial slurs are unacceptable is not censorship.
* People criticising, mocking, or insulting you for choosing to use racial slurs is not censorship.

Also this: Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.

Amen.

---

And to wrap on a positive note:

Brazilian City of Belo Horizonte Ends Hunger with a System That's Working

This Yes! Magazine article describes a system in which the government, the farmers and the citizens of the city all work together to end hunger, and all benefit. Usually programs to end hunger end up messing someone over. You can only live on government cheese and civil defense crackers for so long before the nutritional deficiencies become clear, and hunger programs based on government hand-outs both diminish the dignity of the beneficiaries and become an ever-greater burden on the taxpayer. Producers are often abused for the benefit of the poor, which drives the former producers into poverty themselves.

Belo Horizonte has figured out a way of making their program work for everyone, though. The poor have access to fresh produce at a reduced price, and the farmers are making more money selling their produce direct to the customers.

A farmer in a cheerful green smock, emblazoned with "Direct from the Countryside," grinned as she told us, "I am able to support three children from my five acres now. Since I got this contract with the city, I’ve even been able to buy a truck."

The improved prospects of these Belo farmers were remarkable considering that, as these programs were getting underway, farmers in the country as a whole saw their incomes drop by almost half.

One of the prime gauges of hunger in a population is the infant mortality statistics.

In just a decade Belo Horizonte cut its infant death rate—widely used as evidence of hunger—by more than half, and today these initiatives benefit almost 40 percent of the city’s 2.5 million population. One six-month period in 1999 saw infant malnutrition in a sample group reduced by 50 percent. And between 1993 and 2002 Belo Horizonte was the only locality in which consumption of fruits and vegetables went up.

Sounds to me like it's working. Major kudos to the people and government of Belo Horizonte.

There's more -- definitely read the article. They've got something here; it'd be great to see it spread to other areas.

Angie

Freedom of Speech? What Freedom of Speech?

This is just whacked, to say nothing of unconstitutional. But hey, it's been a while since our constitutional freedoms had much to do with lawmaking in this country.

South Carolina is trying to pass a bill which would make it unlawful to swear in public. No, seriously, check it out.

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-370 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO COMMUNICATE PROFANITY IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION; BY ADDING SECTION 16-15-430 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR AND PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-305, RELATING TO DISSEMINATING OBSCENITY, SO AS TO SPECIFY BOTH ORAL AND WRITTEN PUBLICATIONS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 16-15-375, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF MORALITY AND DECENCY OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE OFFENSE OF DISSEMINATING PROFANITY TO A MINOR.

Well, that's rather inclusive, isn't it? And notice how they're waving the "Think Of The Children!!" flag; that has to be good for a few votes at least. Also, throwing in the "minors" mention doubtless brings up mental images of playgrounds, zoos, and movie theaters showing the latest Little Foot movie, but note that it says "IN A PUBLIC FORUM OR PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION." That means anywhere in public, including places where children are unlikely to be or are actually banned. Bummer for the comedy clubs of South Carolina.

And before you imagine that it's just about not swearing on the street, or in restaurants or amusement parks or whatever, note this:

wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available [Bolding mine.]

So, if this passes, how long do you think it'd be before they started smacking on web sites and blogs, since anything you or I or anyone else posts with a naughty word in it is obviously made available through any computer in South Carolina with an internet connection, including internet cafes and public libraries. Where children go! [cue gasps of horror]

There's precedent for people operating online to be sued in an out-of-state court for something they said or did, even if they live in a jurisdiction where their activities are legal -- see the third paragraph in the link above -- so it's not as though no one's ever tried to pull this before.

But then, "community standards" is such a wishy-washy concept, isn't it? It can be tough to pin down. If this law goes through, South Carolina won't have to bother with community standards, though -- they'll have an actual law letting them sue anyone they want, whether it's a porn site or a raunchy humor site or just a blog where someone got really worked up and typed out a profane word.

This isn't a misdemeanor, either; they want to make it a felony.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Oh, and for those of you following along in the handbook, this is what the First Amendment says on the subject:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech

That specifically refers to the government. If Blogger decides to enact a PG-13 only rule, they can do that because this is a privately owned service and they can make their own rules, and as customers or users our choice is to use the service and obey the rules or decide we don't like the rules and go elsewhere; the first amendment doesn't forbid that. Most issues which get a "First Amendment" label slapped onto them in arguments are no such thing. It might be stupid for Blogger to make such a rule, and it'd be publicity poison, but they're legally allowed to do it. The government is very specifically not allowed to abridge our freedom of speech. I guess no one told the South Carolina legislature.

I'm hoping very hard that this garbage doesn't pass. If any of you are from South Carolina, you might want to contact your state congress people about it.

[sigh]

Angie

Freedom of Speech Means Freedom for ALL Speech

Or, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."

That sort of thing.

Except, as usual, Neil Gaiman says it much better.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't.

Popular speech doesn't need defending. The speech (fiction, art, whatever) that makes you cringe and snarl and want to hit something is what needs defending, and we all need to defend it or next time it'll be our speech or fiction or art which makes someone else cringe or snarl or want to hit something, and we'll be left blustering about how our writing is different.

No. It's not. To that other person out there, my writing and your writing is just as objectionable as that other stuff you or I consider disgusting or obscene. It's all the same to someone, and that someone might well be trying to get re-elected. So we need to defend it all, simple as that.

Angie