Comments on: The Folkloric First Amendment

By: Lemmy Caution

Lemmy Caution — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:23:11 +0000

More facebook dumbassery that will lead to someone losing a job:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/lindsey-stone-facebook-photo-arlington-national-cemetery-unpaid-leave_n_2166842.html

By: Lemmy Caution

Lemmy Caution — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:47:46 +0000

That woman is a dumbass, but folk theories of the first amendment are perfectly reasonable. If you want to allow for a free exchange of ideas you have to protect speech from more things than just government interference. Things like being fired for what you say on Facebook. Stronger informal cultural norms protecting free speech are a good idea.

By: LFC

LFC — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:15:13 +0000

I think the post could be clearer on a basic point: the First Amendment has nothing to do with this b/c the First Amendment does not affirmatively give anyone a right to say anything. The First Amendment prohibits government from restricting most (not all) speech. If there is no ‘state action,’ to use the legalese, there’s no First Amendment issue. For example, if a hypothetical private university that received no money from state or federal govt instituted a code prohibiting students from saying anything critical in public or private about the university’s president, that rule would not violate the students’ First Amendment rights. It might violate some general philosophical “right to free speech,” but it would not violate the First Amendment.

By: greglas

greglas — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:09:16 +0000

Perhaps blame the commercialization of discourse? For many, I think, “freedom” is primarily understood today as “freedom from consequence,” rather than freedom to act in ways that create consequences. I can’t help but think that has something to do with a price-related understanding of “free.” Compare to the F/OSS world, which emphasizes the difference between free speech and free beer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre) — the confusion here is in understanding the two usages as essentially identical.

By: Withywindle

Withywindle — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 06:02:32 +0000

“I feel X, and you can never contradict or critique me because my feelings are mine and deep and sincere and blah blah blah.”

I don’t particularly see why “Randian” is a necessary description; it’s the tweenerizing of America, ongoing for at least a generation. Even, dare I say it, among some lefty Swatty students in my classes in the way-back. I suppose I could make a polemic saying it’s part of the Left Corruption of America; but I don’t feel much enthusiasm for that argument, since it seems to be a universal failing by now.

Although I was just reading an article about how Socrates’ rational persuasion generally fails to work on his designated [victims/interlocutors], which suggests that people haven’t been terribly good at taking their arguments seriously for a good long time now.