You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
NY State Senators Say We've Got Too Much Free Speech; Introduce Bill To Fix That
2011-10-05
We've been pointing out a variety of attempts to push back on the First Amendment lately. One fertile ground for such attacks are local politicians carrying the "cyberbullying" banner, in various attempts to magically outlaw being a "jerk" online, usually by making it illegal to offend someone online. Of course, making someone's action illegal based on how someone else feels about it is all kinds of crazy. It also would seem to violate the very principles of the First Amendment, which bar Congress (and local governments) from passing any laws that take away one's right to free speech.

In the past, lawmakers pushing these laws have tended to simply ignore the First Amendment issue, and focus on screaming "protect the children!" as loudly as possible (never mind the fact that kids seem much less concerned about "bullying" than all these adults seem to think). However, it appears that some state Senators in NY are trying a new line of attack: going directly after the First Amendment and suggesting that current interpretations are way too broad, and it's not really meant to protect any sort of free speech right. In fact, it sounds as though they're trying to redefine the right to free speech into a privilege that can be taken away. Seriously:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.


Yes, that totally flips the First Amendment on its head. It is not a "more refined First Amendment." It's the anti-First Amendment. It suggests, by its very nature, that the government possesses the right to grant the "privilege" of free speech to citizens... and thus the right to revoke it. That's an astonishingly dangerous path, and one that should not be taken seriously. Of course, given their right to speak freely, state senators Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky have every right to put forth that argument -- but similarly, it allows others to point out their rather scary beliefs.

The assault on free speech never ends. Remember, in the future talking mean about a politician could be construed as cyberbullying.
Posted by:DarthVader

#10  Andy Sinatra - I loved your song "Fly me to the Moon River"
Posted by: Frank G   2011-10-05 21:08  

#9  Quote from the full report pdf, page 10:
“FLAMING” (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES
INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);

It's spelled 'INCITE', but that's an 'insight' that eluded you, apparently.
Also the 'ALL CAPS' style is a godd*mn eyesore.
Posted by: Andy Sinatra1057   2011-10-05 17:45  

#8  Heck - according to their standard - [A conservative] telling someone that there statement is full is sh*t is hateful and violent and worthy of burning at the stake.

Of course it's perfectly alright and the highest form of patriotism if a liberal does it.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2011-10-05 16:32  

#7  Remind me, weren't the Tea Party people accused of cyperbullying [among other unnatural acts too viscous for mixed company]? I'm sure the excuse offered by the promoters to justify their actions didn't include the clear pattern of abuse of 'interpretation' of existing laws.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-10-05 16:29  

#6  country of feminized wimps.
Posted by: jack salami   2011-10-05 15:56  

#5  All state Senators sponsoring this need to be ridden out on a rail.
Punks
Posted by: newc   2011-10-05 13:15  

#4  Ok if you go to the link there is a link to the full report (pdf).

Its from the Independent Democratic Conference comprising NY State Sens. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci and David Valesky. ( you can guess the party).

Oh and they have a facebook page.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2011-10-05 12:44  

#3  No: totally believable.
Posted by: Secret Master   2011-10-05 12:22  

#2  This is my personal red-line. Cross it, and you lose all protections whatsoever.

If you abolish my right to speak freely, why should I be persuaded or convinced by what you say?
Posted by: Ptah   2011-10-05 12:21  

#1  Un-frickin-believable.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2011-10-05 11:56  

00:00