Free Speech Imperiled

...... quote ......

A Massachusetts Democrat is pushing a bill that would make it a crime to maliciously call someone a "bitch" within the commonwealth.

Foul-mouthed individuals who are found guilty under a bill introduced by Democratic representative Daniel J. Hunt would face a $150 maximum fine for the first offense, while repeat offenders would face up to six months' imprisonment, a $200 fine, or both. If enacted, "bitch" would be the only word in the English language to receive such special consideration in Massachusetts.

... endquote ......

And so it begins, . . . the assault on free speech.

And, no surprise to poor old DonDiego, the beginning-of-the-end for free speech commences in the "most liberal"  State within the country.

Luckily, although it does suggest an anti-Constitutional encroachment on poor old DonDiego's speech, . . . there's pr'bly more   synonyms  for that word than just about any.

Dont be silly, DonDiego - censorship began a long time ago.     

Florida (arguably the state most suspectible to rising oceans) had its Newspeak auditors remove all references to the phrases "climate change", "global warming", and "sustainability" from its official DEP documents as ordered by the governors office.      Science is overriden by Rick Scott's politics

But it didn't stop there.    Florida had so much success censoring scientists that conservatives shot it up to the Federal level where The Trump administration did the same thing

But here is the most eggregious example.   The president DonDiego voted for actually drafted an executive order to censor the internet - specifically those silican valley social media sites that have such massive "anti-conservative" bias       Trump wants to censor the internet !     (He really hates those memes)

Readers should judge what actions on this thread represent the biggest threats to our Bill of Rights.   And I left lots of space below for DonDiego to show his disgust.   

DonDiego shows no originality in repeating the standard Republican line: "It's OK if our side does it."

He also shows astonishing ignorance of the fact that free speech is not and never has been absolute. That includes malicious speech, which is the specific focus of the bill he so deplores.

In contrast, the terms "climate change" et al. offend no one and restriction of their use is nothing less than censorship for political purposes. I expect DonDiego to, in accordance with his noble principles in defending free speech, express outrage about that.

I am not, however, holding my breath.

Goodness ! ! !

Poor old DonDiego raises an objection to a State Government censoring use of a word by its citizens, and immediately posters jump up and claim:

__ DonDiego has no objection to a State Government "censoring" state documents.

__ DonDiego's wants the President to censor the internet.

It is just not so.

For the record, poor old DonDiego would oppose the Governor of a State censoring the content of a State-produced document for political purposes, e.g. if the comments within the document were otherwise pertinent and accurate.

Nonetheless, he supposes the Governor has the power to alter documents which he signs; that's one reason there are elections.

For the record, DonDiego would object to the Federal Government censoring the internet.  Oh, and President Trump is not solely "DonDiego's President"; he is the President of all American citizens.

DonDiego would not object to limitations on the internet to protect the very young or otherwise vulnerable, but he recognizes the practical difficulty of implementing such limits.  He would not object to, say, schools prohibiting access to inappropriate websites based on age.  Otherwise, he can only hope parents and guardians are responsible.

DonDiego trusts his response will satisfy those bitches PJStroh and Kevin Lewis.

Then we can assume that DonDiego doesn't know that a Governor does NOT have the power to alter a document before signing (ratifying) it. He can refuse to sign it, but he can't change it and THEN sign it--any more than you or I could alter a contract, sign it, and expect it to be binding.

DonDiego also doesn't know that Trump, or any President for that matter, is not President "of all American citizens." He is the chief executive of the American government. There's a difference. He cannot tell me, or you, what to do. He cannot enact laws--his job is to enforce existing laws. If he is President of anything, it is of the government.

DonDiego's ignorance is further revealed by his mischaracterization of the bill he so deplores. The bill refers to malicious use of the word--and hate speech and other forms of speech meant to harm and insult are not protected by the First Amendment. So the Trumper meme, "Hillary is a corrupt bitch" would not be allowed (though the restriction might not apply to public figures), but "Trump bitches about Nancy Pelosi" would be fine.

I am actually not in favor of the restriction of such speech, however, because I think that allowing any kind of vile spew from Trumper mouths helps us to identify and avoid them. Also, Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, etc. are perfectly free to make bushel baskets of money by lying and calling people names. It's their right.

However, I do believe that hate speech, as in rhetoric deliberately meant to incite bigotry and hatred dorected against a person or group, should be restricted--not completely censored, but controlled. DonDiego is using (by implication) the tired old argument that restrictions on absolute freedom of speech lead directly a la slippry slope to totalitarianism. Like all slippery slope arguments, that is flawed and fallacious.

I didnt ascribe any opinion to DonDiego....I simply informed him there are in fact far bigger and earlier examples of the war on free speech.    Which is to say ones that actually occurred instead of just being proposed.  And we are currently living under a Federal presidental administration that repeatedly calls our free press the enemy of the people.    Perhaps that would be a good start for DonDiego to engage his crusade to defend the Bill of Rights.   Just sayin.

Oh - and for the record - anti-profanity laws were not invented by liberal lawmakers in Massachusetts.  Conseratives in South Carolina not only proposed such a law as in DonDiego's example - they actually enacted one.    You better not swear near a church in South Carolina .    Someone did and they got arrested.....not written up, mind you, arrested and taken downtown.    (Might be a good second stop on DonDIego's crusade.   Ya know, since DonDIego really cares about this topic and isn't taking tribal shots at Democrats)

In celebration of anti-censorship, I will recite this little ditty I learned when I was 15 years old while working on a landscaping/groundskeeping crew.

Coca Cola, Pig's ass hola

Someone shit in my Victrola.

Piss, shit, scrumptious snot.

Twenty Seven assholes tied in a knot.

Yea, rah! 

As I understand it, this ditty originated in the early 1920s and there are quite a few variations.  However, the first line seems to always start with Coca Cola and the second line always seems to reference a Victrola that has been contaminated with fecal matter.  The word scrumptious is often replaced with corruption a comma and then something like a bowl of snot but this is the regional variation I learned. 

Oh, I almost forgot twenty-seven and twenty seem to be used interchangeably in line four. 

So, . . . Kevin Lewis writes: "DonDiego is using (by implication) the tired old argument that restrictions on absolute freedom of speech lead directly a la slippry slope to totalitarianism. Like all slippery slope arguments, that is flawed and fallacious."

DonDiego has reported that a Massachusetts legislator has proposed a monetray fine and imprisonment if one employs the word "bitch" maliciously.  i.e. "namecalling"  employing the term "bitch" will become criminal. 

DonDiego opposes this legislation.  

Indeed, DonDiego does suppose there are plenty of citizens who would apply this precedent to other terms which they find offensive.

Why, . . . even poor old DonDiego has been called, f'rinstance, a "weenie" !  But he does not call for criminalization of the word.

DonDiego suggests that in the event of a person being called a "bitch", the correct response would be a snappy comeback, . . . maybe something along the lines of "asshole !" or "shithead !", or even "son-of-a-bitch !", OR WORSE, . . . as opposed to legislation imposing fines and imprisonment.

Like many instances of so-called "political correctness," I applaud the sentiment but consider the actual measure unworkable.

It should not be framed, however, as DonDiego has done, as an attack on free speech. Free speech is not and never has been absolute. The most seminal restriction on free speech, going back to ancient Greece in fact, is that speech that is malicious (meant to harm) or directly harmful should be restricted. The language in the bill DonDiego so deplores makes it clear that the prohibition sought is on a form of malicious speech.

But the First Amendment can be a real bitch sometimes.