FIRE is on Fire in Anti-Abortion South Carolina!

Homepage Forums Small Talk FIRE is on Fire in Anti-Abortion South Carolina!

This topic contains 6 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 1 month ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44245

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Fellow Unbelievers,

    The pushback against Theocratic Tyranny has begun in the realm of ideas!

    Free Speech Group Launches Six Figure Billboard Campaign: “Speech About Abortion Is Free Speech”

    Free speech group launches six-figure billboard campaign: ‘Speech about abortion is free speech’

    #44246

    Autumn
    Participant

    It seems like the legislation doesn’t prohibits someone from talking about abortion; it prohibits them from providing material information on how to obtain one. It is, perhaps, closer to aiding and abetting in concept (though legally, I am sure, not equivalent).

    That doesn’t make the law less egregious. It’s just, this campaign could be making an argument that gets cut down a little too easily, especially if most people in the state lean pro-life.

    #44336

    Doug Hanlon
    Participant

    I think Autumn has hit the nail on the head.  In THIS instance, the anti-abortionists are not, technically, violating the principle of free speech.  From their point of view, prohibiting the provision of information about how to have an abortion would be like prohibiting posting where Salman Rushdie is hiding, or providing information on how to make a deadly poison from household materials. The ‘shouting fire in a crowded theatre’ exception.

    The good people at FIRE probably know this, but are desperate for an instance of rightwing violations of free speech, because they don’t wan’t to appear partisan. Their motives are good.

    Which, however, brings up an interesting question: today, it’s mainly the Left who don’t like free speech, and the Right who defend it.  However, it wasn’t always this way.  Go back fifty or sixty years, and  you’ll find the Right calling for the firing of professors who supported the victory of the NLF in Vietnam, or disrupting meetings where Communist Party members are speaking (personal experience).

    So we can suspect that the change here shows that partisans of both the Left and the Right don’t really believe in Free Speech — they only believe in it when it’s their side that is being inconvenienced or threatened by its absence.

    However, people can learn from events, and it would be nice if people on the Right were pushed to make a committment, in principle, to Free Speech — including for Communists, AntiFa’s, Muslims, Atheists.

    And to that end, perhaps it would be a good idea to catalog all the recent examples we can find, of Rightwing attacks on free speech.  (Note for hairsplitters:  ‘crowded theatre’, check; private institutions, check. We’re talking about classic Free Speech issues.)

    Closely congruent to this issue is the question of private institutions that are, in effect, public in nature. For many years, the Left complained — rightly — that newspapers, being privately owned, were inherently in favor of private ownership, and that this was a powerful force biassing the political process.  The Right’s reply was, start your own if you don’t like it.

    Now the shoe is on the other hoof.  For ‘newspapers’ read ‘social media’, which are owned by corporations which are ‘woke’, and pro-Democratic Party.  So Facebook deleted references to Hunter Biden’s laptop, because they might tilt the 2020 election towards Trump.  (And Sam Harris agreed that lying was justified in this case.)

    Now, some people on the Right are making the case that the Left did: Social Media are really public utilities, even if privately-owned, and should be subject to some sort of ‘equal time’ regulation, and/or prohibited from censoring people for their political statements.  (Personally, I think the Left was correct long ago, and the Right is correct now, even if they’re hypocrites.)

    #44386

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Doug,

    There are several point about you posts I need to reply to. I’ll start here:

    providing information on how to make a deadly poison from household materials.

    Actually, this is perfectly legal and justly so. Without the freedom to publish this information, you couldnt have the genres of Murder/Mystery, Police Procedural, and True Crime books, movies, television shows, or video games.

    More practically, you also couldn’t publish studies in Toxicology, Forensic Medicine, or Criminology, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for workplaces, First Aid and Survival/Emergency Preparedness books, or even product warning labels.

    The mere media “for information, educational, and entertainment purposes only” and possession of subtances is not the crime, only using them to initiate mayhem and murder is the crime.

    More to come…

    #44389

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Doug,

    Which, however, brings up an interesting question: today, it’s mainly the Left who don’t like free speech, and the Right who defend it. However, it wasn’t always this way. Go back fifty or sixty years, and you’ll find the Right calling for the firing of professors who supported the victory of the NLF in Vietnam, or disrupting meetings where Communist Party members are speaking (personal experience).

    This is true and it was Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians who also brought laws against blasphemy, obscenity, and pornography. If this were ever brought back into enforcement, this could produce all kinds of shutdowns in Cyberspace.

    Along this time in the Sixties also came Marxist Herbert Marcuse who held that free expression was a Bourgeoisie tool to keep the Proletariat masses down, “Repressive Tolerance” he called it. Then also came Radical Feminists Andrea Dworkin and Susan Brownmiller who held that all sex is rape and that pornography was the propaganda for it.

    By the Eighties, the Rad-Fem Left and the Religious Right converged on pornography and made an Indianapolis city ordinance classifying consensual pornography as a “violation of the civil rights of women” and attempted to spread it to cities nationwide. While the laws were either outvoted by voters or overruled in the courts, it shows what movements are still out there as threats to free expression.

    So we can suspect that the change here shows that partisans of both the Left and the Right don’t really believe in Free Speech — they only believe in it when it’s their side that is being inconvenienced or threatened by its absence.

    Very true. There are far too many of Paine’s “fair-weather friends and sunshine patriots” out there. Fortunately, I think FIRE is pretty even-handed. They did defend an actual peaceful BLMer and an actual peaceful PETA member (versus “mostly peaceful”) who fell afoul of campus speech codes. If FIRE keeps up the good work, they will be all right with me.

    Now, some people on the Right are making the case that the Left did: Social Media are really public utilities, even if privately-owned, and should be subject to some sort of ‘equal time’ regulation, and/or prohibited from censoring people for their political statements. (Personally, I think the Left was correct long ago, and the Right is correct now, even if they’re hypocrites.)

    I don’t even support the whole idea of “public utilities,” let alone making Cyberspace media companies into “public utilities.”. New York’s Consolidated Edison should be free to build power plants and compete with Duke Power in North Carolina and vice-versa.

    Besides, if Cyberspace media companies were “public utilities,” government would be issuing orders to boil water whenever something went wrong with the data cables. After all, “The Internet is a series of tubes…”. 😁

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Ones letter too many
    #44391

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Right. Let’s have different line voltages, train tracks different sizes, any old airplane can fly anywhere with any old equipment. Hell, let’s make all roads private. BTW, our road is a church and requires you to be a christian to use it. Private companies are gonna enforce easements through private property, right? Let’s put 5 or 6 or 22 water pipes to each house and let them compete. Let’s go! It’ll be just great!

    #44396

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Robert,

    It wouldn’t work that way at all. Railroads already have standard size rails and would would have it no other way if they are sharing track. (As long as we are using late-18th Century technology to haul freight, that is.)

    The Culligan Man and the Aquafina, Dasani, Le Bleu, and Voss dealers all can come through the same door and/or would park next to the same tank or cistern when replenishing homes. (The water from a certain Bentonville, Arkansas retailer tastes way better than my City’s water that wafts of Chlorine from a few feet away.) Britta, Pur, Mohr, and British Burkefield all provide water purifiers that already serve millions. Cloud-seeding services and well-diggers can provide for outliers who want to subscribe or pass the hat.

    Generac already serves customers regardless of State lines with clean, safe, natural gas-fueled stationary emergency home generators. What’s to say that these couldn’t be interconnected to larger grids for added resilience and redundancy ever better than existing utilities?

    As for roads, developers and brick-and-mortar and online businesses equally want people to have access to their wares, so all would equally want their thoroughfares to be orderly, well-maintained, and accessible. Even churches would be shooting their membership rolls in the foot by not supporting this.

    Yes indeed. Bring it on and more!

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.