This ridiculous Chik-fil-A controversy has been stirring up a lot of debate about free-speech and 'hate-speech'. As much as leftists ostensibly espouse the First Amendment, it seems that they often ravenously attack those who step out of line from their collectivist-moralist dogma, branding the offenders as some form of 'hate-filled bigots' and a drain on progressive society.
Surprisingly, from what I can tell in landmark cases, the Supreme Court has been consistent in upholding the right to 'hate-speech' precedent.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm
What do you guys feel about the state of 'Freedom of Speech' in America and the oft-raised objections to it (riotous speech, inciting "imminent lawless action", inspiring fear of bodily harm, "FIRE" in a movie theatre)?
Thanks
Am I right that this whole stupid thing basically revolves around the owner of the restaurant saying that he didn't support gays because he was a Christian? I really don't care enough to look up into the issue but is this correct?
Anyway, I think that threats are a violation of free speech because they impede upon ones feeling of safety, just as putting a gun in one's face or threatening to tax them does. Anything less then a serious threat and is guaranteed by freedom of speech.
pretty much. More along the lines of he's a christian and he believes marriage is between a man and a woman rather than he doesnt support gays.
... And so people are really boycotting a restaurant because the owner has an opinion that is different than their own, when this doesn't effect how the restaurant treats customers?
yep, but there is the conservative counter though. I guess today was some kind of support christian values day/free speech day (i dont really know) at Chikfila to counter the democrats boycott. Lines are out the door and every chikfila is packed. ive seen about 300 pictures of people taking pics of their chikfila bag on facebook today. So chikfila is probably coming out way on top.
Yea. If I get the chance I'm going to go there... And debate a liberal.
Sorry about hijacking this thread, I'm done now... Carry on.
In response to the OP, I have been heavily influenced by Rothbard when I say that there's no such thing as a "right to free speech" that is somehow distinct from property rights. I can say whatever I want in my own home, not because I have the right to say whatever I want, but because it's my own home. It would be absurd to claim your first amendment rights if you were screaming in my ear while trespassing in my bedroom in the middle of the night. But it is important to see why that would be absurd - it isn't because there are "exceptions to every rule" or because "the common good sometimes outweighs personal liberties". No, you would be wrong by virtue of being on my property without my permission.
Same analysis for the common "fire in a theater" thing. I would indeed be wrong if I falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, but not because there are limits to some hallowed freedom of speech. Rather, it is because, no matter who I am, I am violating property rights by doing so. If I am a patron, I am on the theater owner's property under strict stipulations, most likely printed on the back of my movie ticket. Yelling fire violates the terms of my being there. If I am the owner or an employee of the theater, I am violating the property rights of all the patrons who paid to see a movie, not to have me yell and interrupt it. And if I am neither, then I am trespassing and violating property rights by being on the premises in the first place, let alone yelling things.
As for riotous speech...eh. In order for there to be a riot, there must be rioters. As long as they weren't threatened into rioting, they should be held responsible for their actions, not somebody who tried to persuade them into rioting.
As for inspiring fear of bodily harm, that too is a violation of property rights (self-ownership), and therefore is against the NAP.
Stephen, that makes sense to me. To extend that line of reasoning, if the protestors decide to have some sort of "kiss in" in a privately owned Chik-Fil-A, then the owner has every right to remove the protestors from his property, forcibly if necessary. We will see how well that goes over though...
Agreed. Probably would never happen though, as it would be horrible for PR.
I just can't believe the blind hypocrisy of the left wing on this issue. If the roles were completely reversed, if Chickfila were pro-gay marriage and there were some fundamentalist mayor of a large city (yeah I know let's take a moment to chuckle at the thought) that took a stand and said "I will not allow CFA to open any restaurants in my city because of my beliefs!" then they would clearly be up in arms. They would be protesting and calling for impeachment and blah blah blah. Yet this shows that the left doesn't care about "civil" "rights". The left cares about furthering its own agenda, and they happen to enjoy using state violence to muscle out anybody that doesn't fall in line.