Re: [Leica] Freedom of speech and political correctness (off topic)

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

Walter,

Permit me a few corrections:

Any discussion of the First Amendment must first stress that it, like the
rest of the Bill of Rights, limits 'government' action (federal, state and
local), but not necessarily private action - such as the actions of a
private employer. There are often avenues of redress available against
private entities, but they are not directly based on the Bill or Rights.

"Speech that provokes an
immediate danger to others (such as advocating violence or a riot)
is not guaranteed.  As many have stated before, yelling "fire" in
a crowded building is NOT free speech, as other may be immediately
injured by the chaos that results from such action.  Other than
such irresponsible actions, tho, freedom of speech/expression is
pretty much guaranteed."

This is not entirely true. There are many other areas which receive lesser
First Amendment protection or no protection at all. For instance, commercial
speech (that which proposes a commercial transaction) has been afforded a
lesser degree of First Amendment protection by the U.S. Supreme Court than,
say, political or religious speech. Obscenity receives a lesser protection
as does child pornography. Then, of course, there are the matters of slander
and libel - where First Amendment protections have wide application, but are
not absolute.

The generally accepted test for regulating speech which inspires lawless or
dangerous activity is that the speech must (1) be directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action; and (2) it is likely to incite or produce
such action.

And remember, even protected speech can often be subject to reasonable time,
place and manner restrictions.

"Add to this fiasco the fact that trial attorneys in our country
are anxious to take on lawsuits anytime there is money to be made,
and you have a very dangerous situation.  "

Yes, I am an attorney (in addition to being a long-time Leica user). I'm
used to the slurs that are often directed at my profession (although I
practice criminal law exclusively and have never ventured into the civil
arena). But often these insults are based on plain misinformation. First
Amendment litigation is probably the LEAST economically productive form of
work for a lawyer that I can think of.

Yes, lawyers are eager to take on what for them could be a profitable job.
Just like contractors, insurance agents, engineers, consultants,
programmers, etc. But what seems to generate the hostility are contingency
fee cases. When is the last time that a doctor offered to foot the bill for
your treatment and only charge you or your insurance company if you were
cured?

Sorry if I've gone on too long. I have pretty thick skin, but every so often
I have to vent.

First Amendment protections are very complicated and should be of great
concern to anyone - let alone photographers.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Freedom of speech and political correctness (off topic)


>Hello, Mikiro (pardon spelling if I messed up)
>
>I hope you don't have the wrong impression of the US....
>
>There is a difference in courtesy/consideration of others and
>"political correctness".  I live in a state that is the butt of
>many jokes, as are some surrounding states.  If you came to
>Denton, Tx.,  I feel sure that you'd be treated with consideration
>and respect, just as you have in Europe, and just as I'd expect
>if I went to Asia.  BY MOST PEOPLE.
>
>"Political Correctness" is a much abused term (by me/others)....
>When a local entity (city, state, employer, school) tries to
>limit speech/thought that is considered "offensive", it limits
>the free exchange of ideas.  Even though the offending thought/speech
>may be "wrong", by your standards and mine, the freedom to express
>such thoughts is guaranteed by an amendment to our national
>constitution.  Such guarantees are not universal around the world.
>
>There are limitation on free speech.  Speech that provokes an
>immediate danger to others (such as advocating violence or a riot)
>is not guaranteed.  As many have stated before, yelling "fire" in
>a crowded building is NOT free speech, as other may be immediately
>injured by the chaos that results from such action.  Other than
>such irresponsible actions, tho, freedom of speech/expression is
>pretty much guaranteed.
>
>In the late l970s thru 90s, there has been a trend in this country
>for local entities (local governments, schools, employers, media
>providors) to impose restrictions on speech (spoken/written) and
>behavior (smoking, wearing certain types of clothing) that it deems
>"unacceptable".  This is usually NOT by the passing of laws, as
>such laws are sure to be deemed unconstitutional, but by coming down
>hard on people who express "unsatisfactory" speech/behavior.  By
>threatening people with disciplinary action, one can alter behavior
>that isn't actually illegal.
>
>While one can defend the restriction of "unacceptable" behaviors,
>who's to say what is offensive?   If I'm a vegetarian, your eating
>of a hamburger might be offensive to me.  If I'm deaf, your
>having a conversation that I can't understand might offend me. (not
>true of a very fine friend of mine who is also deaf).  It simply
>becomes ridiculous.  We all are "offended" by something, and
>tolerance of such things is what makes us human.
>
>Add to this fiasco the fact that trial attorneys in our country
>are anxious to take on lawsuits anytime there is money to be made,
>and you have a very dangerous situation.
>
>I think you'd find people in the U.S. or Texas to be about as
>friendly as where you live, if not more so.  If you're assaulted,
>we'll be there to defend you.  If someone steals your things,
>we'll help you find them, if possible.  If I'm dining, sit at
>my table and I'll feed you.  But if the asshole at the corner
>shouts something offensive, ignore it an walk on.  I do.
>
>Human consideration for each other knows few limits, if left
>alone.  99% of us will take you in and teach you and learn from
>you.  But deny the 1% their right to free expression, and we'll
>all chew on your ass.  That's what "freedom" means to us.
>
>This group represents a TINY minority of folks in this fine country, and
>they are not as "representative" as they'd like to think.  They
>are better educated, better mannered, and in a higher income group
>than "average".  They'll blast me for this one, but it's true.
>(to fend of the deluge of posts, do not respond to this unless
>you post you gross l998 income -- $25,700 BTW)
>
>But the guarantee of free speech ALSO extends to the garbage man
>and the guy at the corner store with the sixth-grade education.
>(he's my brother :)-)
>
>If you don't believe P.C. exists, ask the guy who was fired or
>has a lawsuit against him because of his words -- NOT his actions.
>Shouldn't be hard to find one.  (but don't look in the white house
>:)
>
>Sincerely,
>Walt
>
>