Contemporary threats to free speech

[Justsit]

The law should be able to proscribe certain types of speech, but I can't think of any that might be used in the context of a care or health setting.

HIPAA is kinda a big thing in healthcare in the US, to put it mildly. It's taken very seriously and violations can lead to civil penalties, criminal penalties, and prison.

Most US healthcare settings have policies regarding professional behavior while on the job, including diversity and cultural sensitivity provisions, and penalties for violation can be swift and severe. Patients deserve respect regardless of sex, age, gender, race, etc., and unprofessional speech is not tolerated. A doctor, nurse. dietary aide, maintenance person, or any other employee who is overheard discussing "the faggot in 212" or "That chink in the ER" will quickly find themselves out of a job.
And agree, HIPAA is no joke here.

A quick aside, for those unfamiliar with terms:
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) is United States legislation that provides data privacy and security provisions for safeguarding medical information.

Someone upthread mentioned "lbjtq" or some such acronym. In the interest of accuracy, the common usage, in the US anyway, is "LGBT" for Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender. Sometimes "QIA" is added for Queer/Intersex/Asexual; there are a few other variations.

[Sam Vara]

The law should be able to proscribe certain types of speech, but I can't think of any that might be used in the context of a care or health setting.

HIPAA is kinda a big thing in healthcare in the US, to put it mildly. It's taken very seriously and violations can lead to civil penalties, criminal penalties, and prison.

Yes, I had to look it up, but we have something similar in the UK. I can see how it would raise anxiety levels. My point was that the types of speech that the law has an interest in proscribing would tend to be very infrequent in health and care settings; and in any case are better dealt with via local arrangements. For example, there is a law in the UK which makes it illegal to incite racial hatred such that people are put in danger by your words and actions. This is about ranting speeches advocating attacks, etc., and although it is rightly forbidden, it is unlikely to feature much in care and health organisations. If it does, it can be easily dealt with.

[chownah]

My view is that I reluctantly accept the criminalisation of certain types of speech...

For example?

The classic example is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. In that situation the risk of harm is great, and is a proximate result of the speech - which is not the case with respect to the CA regulation.

I agree with your example. There is however another idea which sam vera has mentioned which I think deserves some thought. It is the idea that there is a difference between criminalizing saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and criminalizing not saying what is required to be said. Put another way, telling someone to not say something allows them to be passive and does not force them to any action while telling someone that they must say something forces them to action.
chownah

[Sam Vara]

I'm not sure if this particular case has been mentioned on this thread before, but the outlines look interesting. One Dr. Bruce Gilley, of Portland State Uni, apparently submitted a paper to a scholarly journal, The Third World Quarterly. It was bound to be contentious, as it argued that European colonialism was on balance beneficial. From the abstract:

For the last 100 years, Western colonialism has had a bad name. It is high time to question this orthodoxy. Western colonialism was, as a general rule, both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate in most of the places where it was found, using realistic measures of those concepts. The countries that embraced their colonial inheritance, by and large, did better than those that spurned it. Anti-colonial ideology imposed grave harms on subject peoples and continues to thwart sustained development and a fruitful encounter with modernity in many places. Colonialism can be recovered by weak and fragile states today in three ways: by reclaiming colonial modes of governance; by recolonising some areas; and by creating new Western colonies from scratch.

The storm of protest, academic and otherwise, was only to be expected; lots of personal vilification, petitions, and attempts to end Gilley's career. What is particularly interesting, though, is the journal's stated reason for retracting the paper:

“Whilst the essay had undergone double-blind peer review, the journal editor has subsequently received serious and credible threats of personal violence. As the publisher, we must take this seriously. Taylor & Francis has a strong and supportive duty of care to all our academic editorial teams, and this is why we are withdrawing this essay.”

The Independent's coverage of this is interesting for its use of exclusively anti-colonial pictures, despite a balanced verbal account:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 96371.html
(The Indy always did seem to set more store by pictures than text...)

And David Reynolds is rather more partisan and trenchant:
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogs ... -mans.html

[pulga]

I don't want to entice anyone into a thoughtcrime, but Professor Gilley's essay is available -- at least for the time being -- online and downloadable.

The Case for Colonialism.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pulga,

I don't want to entice anyone into a thoughtcrime, but ...

Thanks.



Metta,
Paul.

[chownah]

I don't want to entice anyone into a thoughtcrime, but Professor Gilley's essay is available -- at least for the time being -- online and downloadable.

The Case for Colonialism.

Then it appears that those who would thwart free speech have themselves been thwarted. Gilley's ideas are now free to the public.

I think that with the technology that we have now it is impossible to deny someone free speech. No longer is anyone dependent on a public venue or publisher as thier avenue for having their speech freely available to the public.

chownah

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Chownah,

Then it appears that those who would thwart free speech have themselves been thwarted. Gilley's ideas are now free to the public.

Not only that, but as per the blog entry linked to above...

So it seems that we have another version of James Damore on our hands. Dr. Gilley’s article is, or at least has the potential for being, another Google memo. It’s certainly a worthy sequel. It could have been entitled “Academia’s ideological echo chamber: how bias clouds our thinking about colonialism.” And as with the infamous Google memo, I have little doubt that many times as many people will read “The case for colonialism” now as a result of its being anathematized as heresy, as would have read it if the hysterical PC thought police had had the emotional maturity to leave it alone, contenting themselves with the harder work of actually refuting its claims. (I certainly would never have heard of it, or of the Third World Quarterly, if it hadn’t elicited yet another hysterical leftist sh!tstorm commented upon by conservative and libertarian bloggers.)

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Off-topic meta-discussion removed.


Mike

[chownah]

Greetings Chownah,

Then it appears that those who would thwart free speech have themselves been thwarted. Gilley's ideas are now free to the public.

Not only that, but as per the blog entry linked to above...

So it seems that we have another version of James Damore on our hands. Dr. Gilley’s article is, or at least has the potential for being, another Google memo. It’s certainly a worthy sequel. It could have been entitled “Academia’s ideological echo chamber: how bias clouds our thinking about colonialism.” And as with the infamous Google memo, I have little doubt that many times as many people will read “The case for colonialism” now as a result of its being anathematized as heresy, as would have read it if the hysterical PC thought police had had the emotional maturity to leave it alone, contenting themselves with the harder work of actually refuting its claims. (I certainly would never have heard of it, or of the Third World Quarterly, if it hadn’t elicited yet another hysterical leftist sh!tstorm commented upon by conservative and libertarian bloggers.)

Metta,
Paul.

So.....is this good or is it bad....I can't tell.
chownah

[Cittasanto]

Greetings Chownah,

This statement of freedom of speech, however, is not consistent with a legal perspective on freedom of speech. For example, if Sally stands really close to Alice and shouts expletives in Alice's face and Alice strikes Sally rendering her unconscious it is unlikely (unheard of?) that Alice would be charged with violating Sally's right to free speech but she will probably be charged with aggrevated assault I think....and in pursuing personal damages if Sally's attorney claimed that Sally's rights of free speech were violated the judge might just laugh and dismiss although I don't know for sure.

Also, if someone is at work and someone becomes beligerent and berates people and refuses to stop then a common result is that the employee will be removed from the premisis and probably fired from their job.......claiming a violation of freedom of speech would not fly in a court of law.

These kind of thought experiments needlessly conflate the "right to free speech" with the non-existent "right to injure people" or the equally non-existent "right to keep my job, regardless of my speech".

Metta,
Paul.

It is also worth noting that freedom of expression /speech refers to governments limiting speech without warrant ie advocating violence.
Kind regards
Cittasanto

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Metta,
Paul.

[Sam Vara]

Greetings,

Metta,
Paul.

Yes, nothing on MSM here. On digging around a little, I found that Sturzenberger has been given a suspended sentence, rather than imprisonment. But the message here is crystal clear. I was intrigued to know whether it was the criticism of Islam which riled the state, or the depiction of Nazis. According to some accounts, it is both! Particularly poignant was the prosecution claim that the casual reader of Sturzenberger's blog would not immediately know that the photo was an actual historical document. It appears that posting anything which could allow people to make up their own narrative is culpable!
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/germa ... ced-prison

[Mr Man]

Greetings,
-
Metta,
Paul.

Paul. Is this true?

Here is something about Peter Sweden

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2017/08/0 ... -revealed/

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mr.Man,

Paul. Is this true?

Yes, see Sam Vara's comments and link.

Here is something about Peter Sweden

Interesting how you seem to imply that smearing the messenger will somehow negate the message. Good luck with that.

Metta,
Paul.