From "Readers React" in the NYT today

[Dick Whitman]

"Free speech is a privilege."

Uh, nope.

 

[YankeeFan]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

 

[Stitch]

The comment is probably written by the same type of people who hold "Get government out of Medicare" signs.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Many people, deep down, hate freedom and democracy. They like being told what to do, and they LOVE watching other people being forced to do things. They've been polling this since polls began, and nothing in the Bill of Rights ever gets majority support.

 

[Azrael]

Rights are not absolute.

 

[Stitch]

Rights are not absolute.

To say a right is a privilege shows a vast ignorance of what rights are.

 

[YankeeFan]

Rights are not absolute.

For example, the right to free speech doesn't include the right to pitch tents and sleep in a (private) park/plaza.

 

[Azrael]

Rights are not absolute.

To say a right is a privilege shows a vast ignorance of what rights are.

I'm quoting Mayor Bloomberg's statement yesterday.

"No right is absolute . . ."

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/15/michael-bloomberg-statement-zuccotti-park

 

[rpmmutant]

Fortunately, the right to peaceably assemble is in the Bill of Rights. I believe that includes pitching tents in a public park to protest a sense of oppression.

 

[Azrael]

There's the rub (in part) - Zuccotti Park is privately owned public space.

 

[Stitch]

Fortunately, the right to peaceably assemble is in the Bill of Rights. I believe that includes pitching tents in a public park to protest a sense of oppression.

By that argument, it would be illegal to kick out a homeless person from a park if they are just sleeping or loitering.

 

[Dick Whitman]

So Bloomberg is correct. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The Supreme Court writes that same sentence into almost every First Amendment decision it renders. For example, there are hearsay restrictions in a Court of law. That's a restriction on free speech. You can't picket behind the president during the State of the Union address. That's a restriction on free speech. You can't price-fix. That's a restriction on free speech.

But that is a loooooooooong way from calling it a "privilege."

It is not a privilege.

It is a right.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

Does it matter?

 

[BrianGriffin]

You have the right to free speech.
So long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Calling it a "privilege" just jangles every civic-minded nerve in my body. Because it is a short stop from "privilege" to, "Free speech is fine as long as I agree with the speaker."

Which, as Michael_Gee points out, most Americans polled agree with anyway. Which is why the First Amendment has to be a Constitutional right. Tyranny of the majority, etc., etc.

 

[YankeeFan]

Fortunately, the right to peaceably assemble is in the Bill of Rights. I believe that includes pitching tents in a public park to protest a sense of oppression.

By that argument, it would be illegal to kick out a homeless person from a park if they are just sleeping or loitering.

No. They're not expressing "speech" with their actions. They just want to get some sleep.

They're not like us. We don't even want them here with us, even if, like in D.C., they were living in the park before we set up camp.

We're educated liberals. We're expressing an opinion with every action we take. Everything we do is "speech", so you can't regulate any of our activities.

See, it's in the mindset.

The homeless guy? He's not smart enough to express political thoughts while sleeping. We're always thinking politically -- even in our dreams.

 

[YankeeFan]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

Does it matter?

Not so long as it's in our Constitution and the courts and our elected leaders respect it.

But, if it's granted by our Government, then it can be taken away by our Government.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

Does it matter?

Not so long as it's in our Constitution and the courts and our elected leaders respect it.

But, if it's granted by our Government, then it can be taken away by our Government.

By Constitutional amendment.

 

[YankeeFan]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

Does it matter?

Not so long as it's in our Constitution and the courts and our elected leaders respect it.

But, if it's granted by our Government, then it can be taken away by our Government.

By Constitutional amendment.

Yes. Not easy.

 

[Dick Whitman]

A right granted to us by our government, or is it an inalienable right, bestowed on us by a benevolent Creator?

Does it matter?

Not so long as it's in our Constitution and the courts and our elected leaders respect it.

But, if it's granted by our Government, then it can be taken away by our Government.

By Constitutional amendment.

Yes. Not easy.

To me, all rights derive from law. I don't believe in inalienable rights that are extra-Constitutional. Now, from a moral/societal standpoint, there are rights that SHOULD be granted, without exception, by all governments. Life and liberty among them.

But what I'm getting at is that because free speech is a government-granted right, conferred by the Bill of Rights, that doesn't make it a lesser right. Because I don't think rights come from the sky or Jesus to begin with.