It's easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the "Innocence of Muslims" video, or Pamela Geller's "Draw Muhammad" contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).How many of those have you heard recently? Read the whole piece to see how those are woven into the anti-free-speech web.
But it's harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.
Fortunately, this ain't rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media's pro-censorship tropes. I've collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I'll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes...
Trope One: "Hate Speech"...
Trope Two: "Like shouting fire in a crowded theater"...
Trope Three: "Not all speech is protected"...
Trope Four: "Line between free speech and [questioned expression]"...
Trope Five: "Balancing free speech and [social value]"...
Trope Six: "This isn't free speech, it's [category]"...
Trope Seven: "Fighting words"...
Trope Eight: "[Professor] explained . . . ."
Trope Nine: "This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing"...
Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
How To Spot The Wolves In The Free Speech Sheep Attire
This article is spot on:
I agree with you … but just because people misuse the 'fire' argument doesn't mean that there are cases … and the frat guys are one. If they kept it to themselves, every right. But given that it was an obviously much used song whose purpose was to honor discrimination (as exhibited by the fact that they did not have any black members), and they were doing it as a University sanctioned group? Obviously not criminal, but I think T had every right to discipline them.
ReplyDelete