Are Freedom of Speech Issues Off Limits Here?

[sepiareverb]

The recent Denver thread has me wondering why so many threads dealing with freedom of speech get closed or locked. This seems a valid topic for photographers to discuss does it not?

 

[Roger Hicks]

it's because someone always gets inflamatory

For a given value of 'inflammatory'. Some people are so thin-skinned that they take offence at everything.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

I didn't read anything in that thread terribly offensive. Sure some comments could be taken as a touch rude, but that is normal whenever politics comes up is it not? The thread was more on-topic than many.

 

[jmkelly]

Bob, you are not on my ignore list, but every time I make the mistake of looking in on a thread like the Denver "discussion", someone else ends up on it.

I am as interested as the next person in the evolution of fear and loathing on our society, as reflected in how power treats journalists - photographers included. But I don't come to RFF to read ill-conceived political rantings - there are plenty of other sites out there for that sort of thing, some of which I have been known to visit.

But when a thread here at RFF devolves into partisan bickering and name calling, to me that is the equivalent of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. And that is not protected by the First Ammendment.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But when a thread here at RFF devolves into partisan bickering and name calling, to me that is the equivalent of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. And that is not protected by the First Ammendment.

At the risk of going off-topic, 'partisan bickering and name-calling' are precisely what is protected by the First Amendment, and such activity bears no relationship at all to shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.

I do not dispute for an instant that there was partisan bickering and name calling in the Denver thread. But your analogy fails completely, both on the ground given above and on the irrelevance of the First Amendment, which is designed to prevent the government interfering with a free press, and has effectively no bearing upon what the free press itself chooses to print (or broadcast), save statements than can lead immediately to actual harm as a result of panic or hysteria: hardly the case here.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[sepiareverb]

I am as interested as the next person in the evolution of fear and loathing on our society, as reflected in how power treats journalists - photographers included. But I don't come to RFF to read ill-conceived political rantings - there are plenty of other sites out there for that sort of thing...

But a little bit of political ranting sort of comes with the territory when this kind of thing comes up. One side says "whoa wait a minute this is against the law" and one side says "homeland security trumps the law as it used to be known" (or whatever they say 😉 ). It is hard to talk about issues that politics are woven into without bringing up politics. And ill-conceived rantings are certainly not limited to things political around here- any "which 50mm" thread should bear this out.

At the risk of going off-topic, 'partisan bickering and name-calling' are precisely what is protected by the First Amendment, and such activity bears no relationship at all to shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.

I do not dispute for an instant that there was partisan bickering and name calling in the Denver thread. But your analogy fails completely, both on the ground given above and on the irrelevance of the First Amendment, which is designed to prevent the government interfering with a free press, and has effectively no bearing upon what the free press itself chooses to print (or broadcast), save statements than can lead immediately to actual harm as a result of panic or hysteria: hardly the case here...

Gotta agree with Roger on this part- what got me wondering was how the thread was locked as soon as any trace of partisan feeling came into it.