Contemporary threats to free speech

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:48 am

Greetings Sam,
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:40 am
Exactly so. And just think of the fun to be had if your chosen pronouns were more overtly racist, sexist, and homophobic...
Fun, yes... and leverage. In inpatient settings involving the mentally ill, some will resort to any threats, accusations or signs of weakness available in order to intimidate others, manipulate situations and get their way.

I can only imagine how this will be abused in that context. Now the mentally ill can manipulate situations to game this perverse criminalization of speech.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Mr Man » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:31 am
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:22 am
What ideas or opinions are being suppressed?
Not being forced to pander to mental illness? The right to remain silent?

When I become mentally ill, my pronouns will be "m'lord" and "master".

8-)

If California mental health practitioners don't like that, it's off to the gulag for them.

What is the connection to mental illness here? & are mental health practitioners obliged to address individuals by any chosen pronoun?

p.s are "m'lord" and "master" even pronouns?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:14 am

Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:04 am
What is the connection to mental illness here? & are mental health practitioners obliged to address individuals by any chosen pronoun?
I think this has been explained by members and the article in question.
Mr Man wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:04 am
p.s are "m'lord" and "master" even pronouns?
The more relevant question is, "who is to say they're not?". Unless that question can be answered then the use of personally customizable pronouns can be insisted upon, by threat of imprisonment.

Now, imagine someone who is mentally ill saying they identify as gender-fluid... what's to stop them changing their preferred pronouns on a whim, minute by minute? Now they're God and bhante. Next minute they're Brahma and thera. Kowtow, or it's a thought-crime...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Mr Man » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:31 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:14 am
Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:04 am
What is the connection to mental illness here? & are mental health practitioners obliged to address individuals by any chosen pronoun?
I think this has been explained by members and the article in question.
I searched both articles for "mental" and couldn't find the word in either. Which other member referred to "mental health" (apart from you)?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 18525
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:36 am

Greetings Mr Man

I'm speaking specifically of mental health nursing, because that's the modality of nursing that I'm most closely aware of.

Others who know more about other modalities of nursing may be able to provide alternative perspectives.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead" - Thomas Paine

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:46 pm

Maybe it would be good if people saw what motivated this law....got an idea about what the situation is with these people's lives and an idea about how they are being treated in absence of this law:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20180SB219
An excerpt:
SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) In 2006, the California Legislature found that “lifelong experiences of marginalization place lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) seniors at high risk for isolation, poverty, homelessness, and premature institutionalization. Moreover, many LGBT seniors are members of multiple underrepresented groups, and as a result, are doubly marginalized. Due to these factors, many LGBT seniors avoid accessing elder programs and services, even when their health, safety, and security depend on it.”

(b) Recent studies confirm the state’s findings and provide evidence that LGBT seniors experience discrimination, including in long-term care facilities where residents are particularly vulnerable because they must rely on others for necessary care and services, and may no longer enjoy the privacy of having their own home or even their own room.

(c) According to “Stories from the Field: LGBT Older Adults in Long-Term Care Facilities,” a 2011 study published by the National Senior Citizens Law Center, these issues have gone unaddressed. In that study, 43 percent of respondents reported personally witnessing or experiencing instances of mistreatment of LGBT seniors in a long-term care facility, including all of the following: being refused admission or readmission, being abruptly discharged, verbal or physical harassment from staff, staff refusal to accept medical power of attorney from the resident’s spouse or partner, discriminatory restrictions on visitation, and staff refusal to refer to a transgender resident by his or her preferred name or pronoun. Eighty-one percent of respondents believed that other residents would discriminate against an LGBT elder in a long-term care facility, 89 percent of respondents believed that staff would discriminate against an LGBT elder in a long-term care facility, and 53 percent believed that staff discrimination would rise to the level of abuse or neglect. Though this was a national report, it included instances of severe discrimination within California.

(d) Even more recently, in 2013, the San Francisco LGBT Aging Policy Task Force commissioned a report by Professor Karen Fredriksen-Goldsen of the University of Washington, “Addressing the Needs of LGBT Older Adults in San Francisco: Recommendations for the Future,” based on information collected from over 600 LGBT seniors residing in San Francisco, including nearly 140 LGBT seniors of color. This report found that nearly 60 percent of the study participants lived alone, and of the 15 percent of the study participants who had children, 60 percent reported that these children would not be available to assist them. Many reported poor physical and mental health with nearly one-third of all respondents reported poor general health, close to one-half reported having one or more disabilities, and one-third of male participants reported that they were living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). These results indicate that, as compared to seniors in San Francisco generally, LGBT seniors have a heightened need for care, but often lack family support networks available to non-LGBT seniors. Further, LGBT seniors’ fear of accessing services is justified. Nearly one-half of the participants in the San Francisco study reported experiencing discrimination in the prior 12 months because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

(e) While state and local laws already prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and HIV status, the promise of these laws has not yet been fully actualized in long-term care facilities. The purpose of this act is to accelerate the process of freeing LGBT residents and patients from discrimination, both by specifying prohibited discriminatory acts in the long-term care setting and by providing additional information and remedies to ensure that LGBT residents know their rights and have the means to vindicate them.
It seems that these people have suffered alot in their lives and that in the absence of this law their lives in care facilities has given them no respite.
Do we want some hannity like character to be showing them disrespect daily in the course of their care?.....could it get so bad that a facility could use this kind of harrassement to more or less force the patient to leave? In a private care facility in the absence of this law there is nothing that says that the administration would fire the disrespectful employee and in fact they might encourage this behavior if they wanted to rid their facility of lbtjq people. I don't think that a law can mandate the firing of an employee. Maybe this law can help to mandate some modicum of respect.

I don't see this as a free speech issue....those who do are severly lacking in perspective in my view.
chownah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:59 pm

chownah wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:46 pm
Maybe it would be good if people saw what motivated this law....got an idea about what the situation is with these people's lives and an idea about how they are being treated in absence of this law....
I don't see this as a free speech issue....those who do are severly lacking in perspective in my view.
chownah
Thanks for posting this contextual information. I've read it and I think I understand it, yet still think that the proposed law is to do with free speech. That's because it places restrictions upon how people can express themselves. In thinking this, I might be lacking in perspective, but could you explain how, and what that perspective actually is?

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:40 pm

There is more than one way that a lack of perspective can be arrived at. I will mention what I think is the most important.

The issue with this law is how to provide quality care to elderly lbqtj people. It seems that in the absence of this law they by and large can not get quality care. Further the issue with this law is to help these people to be treated with dignity and respect as is given to others.

When someone says "please call me martina" then being a polite person I call them "martina" and I don't call them "martin". If anyone says "please call me (whatever)" then I will call them "whatever" even if I can see no reason for doing so except as simply a matter of being polite and willing to accept another's simple request for what makes them feel at ease. Feeling at ease is an important part of health care. It is important for care givers to do what they can to help the patient/client to feel at ease....this is not a joke....it is a real and pretty much universally understood concept.

Clearly the issues addressed in this law have nothing to do with free speech....and it is only rude and callous people who would fall afoul of this law and needlessly stress these seniors.

People whose free speech issue is speaking disrespectfully to sick defenseless elderly people should choke on their words.

chownah

User avatar
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:44 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by PuerAzaelis » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:59 pm

And now for being rude or callous, you will be jailed for a year.
And nobody in all of Oz. No Wizard that there is or was.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:13 pm

chownah wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:40 pm

When someone says "please call me martina" then being a polite person I call them "martina" and I don't call them "martin". If anyone says "please call me (whatever)" then I will call them "whatever" even if I can see no reason for doing so except as simply a matter of being polite and willing to accept another's simple request for what makes them feel at ease. Feeling at ease is an important part of health care. It is important for care givers to do what they can to help the patient/client to feel at ease....this is not a joke....it is a real and pretty much universally understood concept.

Clearly the issues addressed in this law have nothing to do with free speech....and it is only rude and callous people who would fall afoul of this law and needlessly stress these seniors.
chownah
All of this may well be true. In fact, I think some of it is true. But have you considered that in order to legislate for this politeness, avoidance of stress, feelings of ease, and eradication of rudeness, it would be necessary to curtail freedom of speech? That's why I am saying that it is a free speech issue. I'm not denying (yet!) any of the things you say. I'm just pointing out that any law which prevents people from saying what they want - calling someone "Martin" when that's not their preferred appellation, or even using the vilest racist, sexist, or homophobic words imaginable - is a law which curtails free speech.

I'm happy with the legal curtailment of some kinds of speech. My issue here is that thinking that this is an issue of free speech is not, as you claim, evidence of a "lack of perspective". I think it's an issue of free speech not because I lack a particular perspective, but because I think that the concept of the infringement of freedom of speech is analytically derivable from the concept of a law which penalises people for saying what they would say had the law not been there.

I'm happy to express an opinion on whether this law seems to be a good one or a bad one. But first there is the matter of clearing up the misunderstanding between us as to what practices can be said to be infringements of speech. In saying that my claim that this law is such an infringement, you make me think that you have misunderstood what I am getting at. I can say why I think that some restrictions on speech are justified while others are not, but there is no point while you are misunderstanding the point I made.
People whose free speech issue is speaking disrespectfully to sick defenseless elderly people should choke on their words.
That's probably the realm of kamma-vipaka, rather than legislation. I'll set that aside for now.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:00 pm

chownah wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:40 pm
There is more than one way that a lack of perspective can be arrived at. I will mention what I think is the most important.

The issue with this law is how to provide quality care to elderly lbqtj people. It seems that in the absence of this law they by and large can not get quality care. Further the issue with this law is to help these people to be treated with dignity and respect as is given to others.

When someone says "please call me martina" then being a polite person I call them "martina" and I don't call them "martin". If anyone says "please call me (whatever)" then I will call them "whatever" even if I can see no reason for doing so except as simply a matter of being polite and willing to accept another's simple request for what makes them feel at ease. Feeling at ease is an important part of health care. It is important for care givers to do what they can to help the patient/client to feel at ease....this is not a joke....it is a real and pretty much universally understood concept.

Clearly the issues addressed in this law have nothing to do with free speech....and it is only rude and callous people who would fall afoul of this law and needlessly stress these seniors.

People whose free speech issue is speaking disrespectfully to sick defenseless elderly people should choke on their words.

chownah
:goodpost:

As Sam says, the last admonition is unlikely to be legislated. However, it seems clear that the Buddha would not approve of speaking disrespectfully to sick, defenceless, people, and I can't see why anyone would think such behaviour would be a good thing, or why it would be taking away a care-givers right to free speech to require them to not speak disrespectfully to patients. The logical conclusion of this argument would be that it would be fine to swear at them: "Hey, you old ****, get back to bed you stupid ****! What? You don't want me to say **** and **** to the old ****? You PC ****! Just **** off!

Are people missing the point that we are talking about the workplace behaviour of caring professionals, not about addressing someone in a bar, where "Hello you old ****" might be perfectly acceptable...

:heart:
Mike

binocular
Posts: 4041
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by binocular » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:18 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:00 pm
Are people missing the point that we are talking about the workplace behaviour of caring professionals, not about addressing someone in a bar, where "Hello you old ****" might be perfectly acceptable...
I think it's instructive to watch American reality tv from time to time. From what I see there, it seems that at least the Americans in those shows tend to disregard context and demand to be free to say and do anything they want, at any time, anywhere.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:41 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:00 pm

Are people missing the point that we are talking about the workplace behaviour of caring professionals, not about addressing someone in a bar, where "Hello you old ****" might be perfectly acceptable...

:heart:
Mike
Speaking personally, I don't think I'm missing that point. Of course, there is no condoning that type of harsh speech towards vulnerable people, particularly when there is no reason other than heedless self-assertion on the part of the person uttering it. What I'm saying is that invoking the law on this issue (other, say, than self-restraint, or even standards of professional conduct) is an issue of free speech.

Some legal infringement of speech I hold to be entirely justified. This particular instance I happen to think is unjustified, for reasons which I am happy to provide. But in no sense am I saying that workplace abuse of vulnerable people in receipt of care is right.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:22 pm

OK, thanks for the clarification.

:heart:
Mike

DooDoot
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by DooDoot » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:44 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:09 am
I do understand such a thing being a sackable offence, but I cannot fathom on what basis it ought to be deemed a criminal offence. The blurring of these two domains is a concern...
Indeed. Criminal law means you have a criminal record, are prohibited certain freedoms, may serve prison time & can be fined statutory penalties, which can often be the same regardless of the degree of the offence.
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:41 pm
Some legal infringement of speech I hold to be entirely justified.
There is a difference between 'civil law' & 'criminal law'. 'Criminal law' is the gulag for the subjective assessment of thought crimes.
The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.

Examples of criminal law include cases of burglary, assault, battery and cases of murder. Examples where civil law applies include cases of negligence or malpractice.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_ ... iminal_Law

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:55 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:44 pm
retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:09 am
I do understand such a thing being a sackable offence, but I cannot fathom on what basis it ought to be deemed a criminal offence. The blurring of these two domains is a concern...
Indeed. Criminal law means you have a criminal record, are prohibited certain freedoms, may serve prison time & can be fined statutory penalties, which can often be the same regardless of the degree of the offence.
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:41 pm
Some legal infringement of speech I hold to be entirely justified.
There is a difference between 'civil law' & 'criminal law'. 'Criminal law' is the gulag for the subjective assessment of thought crimes.
The difference between civil law and criminal law turns on the difference between two different objects which law seeks to pursue - redress or punishment. The object of civil law is the redress of wrongs by compelling compensation or restitution: the wrongdoer is not punished; he only suffers so much harm as is necessary to make good the wrong he has done. The person who has suffered gets a definite benefit from the law, or at least he avoids a loss. On the other hand, in the case of crimes, the main object of the law is to punish the wrongdoer; to give him and others a strong inducement not to commit same or similar crimes, to reform him if possible and perhaps to satisfy the public sense that wrongdoing ought to meet with retribution.

Examples of criminal law include cases of burglary, assault, battery and cases of murder. Examples where civil law applies include cases of negligence or malpractice.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_ ... iminal_Law
Indeed. My view is that I reluctantly accept the criminalisation of certain types of speech, but think that this particular example of proposed legislation (as far as I understand it) should be vigorously resisted.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6373
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by Mkoll » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:18 pm

In California, people are used to the rollout of these kind of nanny-state laws. There's really no "vigorous resistance" to them AFAIK, unless you include people complaining but not doing anything about it in this category. Mostly on the internet. I'm pretty certain that most people I encounter IRL would see this as no big deal.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

DooDoot
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by DooDoot » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:08 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:55 pm
My view is that I reluctantly accept the criminalisation of certain types of speech...
For example?
Last edited by DooDoot on Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15230
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:29 pm

No, opining that someone that one disagrees with is PC, alt-right, or other similar name-calling, is a matter of free speech:
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Demanding certain standards of behaviour in work situations, and so on, seems to me to be quite different, on a par with complying with health and safety legislation.

I would agree that it should be the employer, or the professional body, who manages such issues, rather than courts, but perhaps that's how the US system functions...

:heart:
Mike

chownah
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Contemporary threats to free speech

Post by chownah » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:34 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:13 pm
I'm happy with the legal curtailment of some kinds of speech. My issue here is that thinking that this is an issue of free speech is not, as you claim, evidence of a "lack of perspective". I think it's an issue of free speech not because I lack a particular perspective, but because I think that the concept of the infringement of freedom of speech is analytically derivable from the concept of a law which penalises people for saying what they would say had the law not been there.
My view is that to think that the issue of free speech is that people should be free to say whatever they want to whom ever they want when ever they want and where ever they want is a perfectly fine presentation of the issue of freedom of speech within a personal context.....that is to say if this is what freedom of speech means to an individual then considering it is rational and reasonble and if pondered can possibly yield fruits worth considering.

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.

I think that from the legal perspective the concept of freedom of speech being anything, to anyone, anytime, anywhere is a non starter. I am claiming that what you have posted while being just fine for one's personal perspective does not account for the legal perspective which is after all what this new california law is about.....the law.
chownah
p.s. Note that I have not said much about how I view whether this is a good law or not in our discussion.....I've been talking about the free speech issue and whether that is actually something to be considered with respect to this law.
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexander____ and 19 guests