OMG - Most powerful free speech statement ever (political)

[Roxanne Appleby]

The former head of the Women's Health Division of the FDA resigned in protest over the Bush administration's censoring and distortion of health studies on the safety of a morning after contraceptive.

I believe the head of NASA recently went public to protest the way administration lackies blue-penciled NASA climate reports that supported global warming.

Over all, in journals such as Science, the record of the Bush administration in censoring, distorting, and witholding scientific findings that don't suit its political agenda is without precedent in the history of the US science.

Take your pick on google. Here's one: http://http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/report-alleges.html

That's not censorship, Mab - it's management of the organization. No individual has a right to a job in any organization. The managers of an org - duly elected/appointed ones in these instances - set the agenda, and employees can either choose to work there or not. It's only censorship when a private citizen outside the org is prohibitted or punished for dissent, or for any kind of political speech.

You may disagree with the agenda set by those managers - you are free to do so. You may claim the agenda violates the law - you're free to sue. An employee may claim the same thing - she's free to file a whistleblower suit. Maybe the lawsuits succeed, maybe not, but unless enjoined the duly elected/appointed managers have the duty to manage the org as they see fit. If they're not breaking the law and you don't like it, run for office (or support a sympathetic candidate). IOW, it's a political matter then, not a legal one, or a "censorship" case

 

[Oblimo]

That's not censorship, Cant - it's management of the organization. No individual has a right to a job in any organization. The managers of an org - duly elected/appointed ones in these instances - set the agenda, and employees can either choose to work there or not. It's only censorship when a private citizen outside the org is prohibitted or punished for dissent, or for any kind of political speech.

In the US, positions in public organizations are held with (and held to) different standards than private. As for employment law in general, the US jurisdictions hold that you can be terminated for any reason -- or no reason at all -- as long as it is not a bad reason (retaliatory termination being one of them).

 

[cantdog]

That's not censorship, Cant - it's management of the organization. No individual has a right to a job in any organization. The managers of an org - duly elected/appointed ones in these instances - set the agenda, and employees can either choose to work there or not. It's only censorship when a private citizen outside the org is prohibitted or punished for dissent, or for any kind of political speech.

You may disagree with the agenda set by those managers - you are free to do so. You may claim the agenda violates the law - you're free to sue. An employee may claim the same thing - she's free to file a whistleblower suit. Maybe the lawsuits succeed, maybe not, but unless enjoined the duly elected/appointed managers have the duty to manage the org as they see fit. If they're not breaking the law and you don't like it, run for office (or support a sympathetic candidate). IOW, it's a political matter then, not a legal one, or a "censorship" case

You quoted Mabeuse, not me.

 

[cantdog]

That's not censorship, Cant - it's management of the organization. No individual has a right to a job in any organization. The managers of an org - duly elected/appointed ones in these instances - set the agenda, and employees can either choose to work there or not. It's only censorship when a private citizen outside the org is prohibitted or punished for dissent, or for any kind of political speech.

You may disagree with the agenda set by those managers - you are free to do so. You may claim the agenda violates the law - you're free to sue. An employee may claim the same thing - she's free to file a whistleblower suit. Maybe the lawsuits succeed, maybe not, but unless enjoined the duly elected/appointed managers have the duty to manage the org as they see fit. If they're not breaking the law and you don't like it, run for office (or support a sympathetic candidate). IOW, it's a political matter then, not a legal one, or a "censorship" case

The citations in the quote from Mabeuse are one and all actions of the executive branch of the United States government. Pay attention.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You quoted Mabeuse, not me.

D'oh!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The citations in the quote from Mabeuse are one and all actions of the executive branch of the United States government. Pay attention.

Right - the executive branch was managing employees or agents acting on its behalf - a legitimate management responsibility. The executives weren't saying "you can't say those things;" they were saying "you can't say those things as our employee or agent," or perhaps, "not if you want to be our employee/agent." That's not censorship. Those people's right to say those things is not infringed. There is no "right" to those jobs, however.

 

[Pure]

urls

http://ezralevant.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant

http://westernstandard.ca/website/index.php

I'm not sure mr levant's arguments are going to 'fly' in Canada.

[[NOTE: because of my unfamiliarity with mr levant's statements, and the publications [including the cartoons] of his far right publication, i cannot say at this time whether he has in fact gone over the line into 'hate speech,' legally defined, though much of his speech is rather hateful-- see his website.]]

the relevant legislation reads:

Discrimination Re: Publications, Notices
3(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental
disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family
status of that person or class of persons.
(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
--

I would note that the limitation on 'hate' speech is in several democratic countries besides Canada, e.g. Germany, Holland. These countries have some experience with the effects of that practice.

See the Cdn Supreme Ct decision re Keegstra in the next post, on 'free speech' as not including 'hate speech.'




===
Incidentally, the Boissoin decision, against which Levant speaks is at

http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/legislation/Panel_Decisions/panel_decisLund.pdf

the decision held that statements like the following, from Xain pastor Boissoin, in a letter to the editor of an Alberta paper, crossed over the line of licit free speech, into the area delimited above

1. “Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.”
2. “My banner has now been raised and war has been declared, so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume.”
3. “Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage you have caused.”
4. “It is time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness...”

Perhaps this decision, and the similar issue in the US--Xian pastors' statements against gays-- deserves its own thread.

 

[Pure]

note to rox,

You [pure] have missed the point that makes this case salient: It's a completely unambiguous instance of government censorship of political speech.

those who persist in disagreeing with rox are generally found--by her-- to be 'missing the point.'

this is an example of rox's inability to apply the 'principle of charity' in a debate. it could NOT be that an opponent sees her points and disagrees; rather the suggestion is that he's too ignorant or foolish to comprehend them and see their validity.

in fact it's rox's unfamiliarity with Canadian law which makes her arguments have purely abstract validity, i.e. that 'free speech' is a fine thing.

apparently the point i'm alleged to be missing is that free speech is an essential value in a democracy. no doubt the Canadian Supreme Court likewise missed the point understood so clearly by the insightful ms. rox. the key decision is the Keegstra one, which I doubt ms rox has read, or perhaps even heard of. it upheld a limitation on 'hate speech,' as being consistent with Canadian free speech values and guarantees.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs3-697/1990rcs3-697.html

 

[Pure]

note to rox:

on the free speech issue:


"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity."

Eric Hoffer

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

on the free speech issue:


"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity."

Eric Hoffer

Indeed, which is why Levant clearly laid out the specific grounds on which limiting of free speech is justified.

Giving the government the power and discretion to limit political speech so as not to hurt some individuals feelings is not one of them. Not even close. For reasons that you can articulate as well as I.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There's a two-thread conversation going on here between Pure and I, the other one being Jenny Jackson's "Does anyone else see problem?" about the use of "unconventional" criminal justice processes with regard to individuals conspiring with foreign enemies to commit terrorist acts on American soil or against American citizens.

As I understand it, Pure will not admit any conditions whatsoever that could ever warrant compromising habeus, no matter how clear, present and monstrous the danger. However, here he is apparently willing to sell the freedom to engage in political speech down the river if the government in its discretion judges that the political speech has hurt someone's feelings.

As I have said many times, I think context matters.

If I have mis-stated your views please correct me, Pure.

 

[Pure]

Indeed, which is why Levant clearly laid out the specific grounds on which limiting of free speech is justified.

unfortunately mr levant's theories as to the limitations of free speech do not quite comport with Canadian law and the Charter of Rights, nor the equivalent guarantees and laws of other countries such as Germany, Holland etc.

you have never addressed this point, roxanne. i'm forced to assume it's out of ignorance. i've supplied some text and links, should you ever care to inform yourself, instead of being the one-person legislative body and supreme court for the whole world.

---
RA As I understand it, Pure will not admit any conditions whatsoever that could ever warrant compromising habeus, no matter how clear, present and monstrous the danger

one of rox's wild imaginings. see my post, #44, in Jenny's thread a few mins ago.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=566782&page=2

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Indeed, which is why Levant clearly laid out the specific grounds on which limiting of free speech is justified.

unfortunately mr levant's theories as to the limitations of free speech do not quite comport with Canadian law and the Charter of Rights, nor the equivalent guarantees and laws of other countries such as Germany, Holland etc.

you have never addressed this point, roxanne. i'm forced to assume it's out of ignorance. i've supplied some text and links, should you ever care to inform yourself, instead of being the one-person legislative body and supreme court for the whole world.

I'm glad to address it. I am much less enamoured of legalistic arguments than you, as we found back when you were defending the Kelo decision with such arguments. In this case the relevent "law" is intrinsically contradictory, subjective and arbitrary:

the relevant legislation reads:

"(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate or is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt because of race, etc.

"(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject."

Hah! That is rich indeed. Orwell would be pleased. We infringe political speech by making it a potential thought crime, but the same statute assures "no interference in free expression on any subject." It's been decades since I read 1984 but I'm sure there are several perfectly apt New-Speak slogans that apply.

I share Levant's hope that they throw the book at him, so he can take this to the highest court in the land. And if they throw him in the slammer I predict that Canada will experience a "Kelo moment" in which the citizenry is forced to confront the reality of fascistic government overreach and conclude, "WTF?!"

 

[Pure]

I share Levant's hope that they throw the book at him, so he can take this to the highest court in the land.

the limitations on 'hate speech' have already been tested in Canada's Supreme Ct. [url supplied], and probably some others, though i won't do your homework for you.