NJ Man Displays ISIS Flag in Front of Home

Well, let's picture this scenario: someone sees the ISIS flag, happens to be an Iraq veteran (or lost a son there), beats the guy who displayed the flag, and in court he's absolved because he was "provoked".


Scenario #2: I, a dirty europinko, go to the USA on vacation and at some point I throw a comment about how 9/11 was probably an inside job, some veteran overhears me and gives me a beatdown. Courts absolve him because "I addressed a sensitive topic for American society", and chances are I will get expelled from the USA for life.

In both cases, common opinion would be that the flag-flyer and me "brought this upon themselves".

I'm sure most yanks will be able to identify at least with scenario #2, and confirm that it's entirely plausible (if not actually happened already in at least one occasion). Where's the freedom of expression, if there are physical/legal consequences beyond simply talking back? Would anyone voluntarily restrain my assaulter yelling "Don't you trample on this man's freedom of expression!!!"?

The problem is, there shouldn't be any consequences beyond talking back. If you beat someone down because they said something you don't like, it's possible you'll be absolved of any wrongdoing because the court takes pity on you (because whatever they said was just so offensive, violence was the only possible response), but that's a flaw that exists with any crime, not limited to freedom of speech, and there's no real way to prevent that.

Strictly speaking, you beat someone for saying something you don't like, you SHOULD go to jail. Whether or not you actually do, because of circumstances like the ones presented, the law is theoretically on the side of the person being attacked. It's only because of bias and prejudice that someone could beat someone else up over freedom of speech and get away with it. It's not written down that, "If the person was being a douchebag and saying things you didn't like, you totally have the freedom to kick his ass."

Aliotroph? said:

That circular ISIS logo looks like a mission patch from a generic sci-fi TV movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486217/

geekmarine said:

It's not written down that, "If the person was being a douchebag and saying things you didn't like, you totally have the freedom to kick his ass."

That's where the so-called "unwritten laws" come into play. In general, if you expressed an unpopular opinion, pushed the "wrong" buttons or stroke an exposed nerve of society, you can't count on getting a fair trial or a neutral opinion/moderate reaction from your peers, practically nullifying the concept of "freedom of speech".

And that's coming from someone living in a country which has literally dozens of exposed nerves and sensitive topics, usually politically/ethnically/religiously charged as well.

There's still a world of difference between getting a beatdown over something you said and having the police administer that beatdown. And at any rate, I still think chances are pretty good you'll get treated fairly under the law, even if the potential for abuse exists. Yeah, someone could theoretically get a free pass to kick your ass over something you said, but I wouldn't say, for instance, that this happens on a regular basis.

At any rate, it's one of those gaps that really can't be filled. What's the alternative, pass a law making it illegal for the law to look the other way? Ultimately, regardless of what kind of society you have, there's always going to be situations in which the laws aren't enforced. That can't really be prevented.

Maes said:

Well, let's picture this scenario: someone sees the ISIS flag, happens to be an Iraq veteran (or lost a son there), beats the guy who displayed the flag, and in court he's absolved because he was "provoked".


Scenario #2: I, a dirty europinko, go to the USA on vacation and at some point I throw a comment about how 9/11 was probably an inside job, some veteran overhears me and gives me a beatdown. Courts absolve him because "I addressed a sensitive topic for American society", and chances are I will get expelled from the USA for life.

In both cases, common opinion would be that the flag-flyer and me "brought this upon themselves".

I'm sure most yanks will be able to identify at least with scenario #2, and confirm that it's entirely plausible (if not actually happened already in at least one occasion). Where's the freedom of expression, if there are physical/legal consequences beyond simply talking back? Would anyone voluntarily restrain my assaulter yelling "Don't you trample on this man's freedom of expression!!!"?

In the USA, you have freedom of speech to a certain degree; it's not unconditional. Here's a classic example, you can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater where there is none, just because you think you the freedom to do so.

If a person took it upon themselves to beat the crap out of this guy for flying his flag. The assaulter will definitely go to prison, and probably for a hate crime.

There are in fact a lot of people within the United States that think 9/11 was an inside job (I'm not one of them). They are protected by the law to believe that. You can't assault someone, for their beliefs. Even if you have a judge dumb enough to take the side of the attacker, you can appeal it to a higher court, all the way up to the Supreme Court. By that point, the battered person will more than likely have a ton of media attention, and freedom of speech advocates backing him, they he would certainly win. The minute you physically hurt someone, even if they absolutely deserve it; you lose.

Here was a group of Pro-Islamists that are based right in NYC. I'm sure there were a ton of people that want to hurt them. But they were protected by the police, and had the right to their beliefs under the Bill of Rights. They were only closed after they discovered they were threatening people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Muslim

Kontra Kommando said:

In the USA, you have freedom of speech to a certain degree; it's not unconditional.

Exactly my point. From the moment you start annexing conditions, hitches and catches to it, it ceases being freedom by definition, as it means that there are de-facto limitations in place.

How do you tell apart a situation where there's a nominal (but conditional, mostly based on unwritten laws) "freedom of speech" from a condition where freedom of speech is not granted ("anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden"), but there are some explicit concessions made (e.g. about the weather or mostly harmless topics)?

This is a similar question to a scenario of a de-facto limited democracy (which is what most democratic countries seem to tend to) vs a de-jure relatively permissive authoritarian regime (which is what most authoritarian regimes also seem to tend to). Is one of them better than the other? Are they the same thing by another name? Does one of them sound better than the other?

The lines between the two can be very thin, and by many verses you might be better off (or at least more sure of your steps) in a condition where anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden, rather than incriminate or get yourself in trouble for overstepping your supposed "freedoms".

Maes said:

Exactly my point. From the moment you start annexing conditions, hitches and catches to it, it ceases being freedom by definition, as it means that there are de-facto limitations in place.

How do you tell apart a situation where there's a nominal (but conditional, mostly based on unwritten laws) "freedom of speech" from a condition where freedom of speech is not granted ("anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden"), but there are some explicit concessions made (e.g. about the weather or mostly harmless topics)?

This is a similar question to a scenario of a de-facto limited democracy (which is what most democratic countries seem to tend to) vs a de-jure relatively permissive authoritarian regime (which is what most authoritarian regimes also seem to tend to). Is one of them better than the other? Are they the same thing by another name? Does one of them sound better than the other?

The lines between the two can be very thin, and by many verses you might be better off (or at least more sure of your steps) in a condition where anything not explicitly permitted is forbidden, rather than incriminate or get yourself in trouble for overstepping your supposed "freedoms".

You're right about the USA, (and most other Western Nations) being a de facto limited democracy. There needs to be some semblance of authoritarian order, or else who will protect smaller groups from the tyranny of the masses? There are many cases where the majority want to crush the minorities; but because the authorities hold all of its citizens to the same standard is what protects them. In order for the authorities to have this control, it has to set limitations, and like Max Weber said, "have the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence". Or else you'll have vigilante groups targeting who ever they see fit.

There needs to be some limitation on freedom of speech or else people may feel they have the right to the following examples:

Outright lie to people, and mislead them for their own gain.

Threaten people verbally without consequence. Call up schools, government, and private institutions claiming they are planning to kill everyone. Then use their right to freedom of speech as a reason why they said such a thing.

Or this forum for example. What would happen if there were no mods here to stop people from bombing this board with troll posts, porn and malware links? There is freedom of speech here on DW, but with some stipulations.

The way the law works in the USA is that it is intentionally vague in order to be interpreted by the courts to meet the needs of certain situations. This is also why appeals are essential to our legal system. Because if you feel that the court's interpretation was unfair, you have the right to dispute it to a higher court.

Maes said:
Is one of them better than the other? Are they the same thing by another name?

The difference is that if the authoritarian regime is better in any way you're mostly being lucky, while any betterments through democratic means are more your doing. In many ways, the means are the ends, so deciding mechanisms become essential in the long run.

Many of the limitations on democracy have to do with imperialism/colonialism. In one case because the interests of a foreign power are imposed on a smaller nation, in the other because most of the inhabitants of the world power are pretty much colonized by elites that use the power they gain overseas to restrict or dominate them.

Maes said:

I'm sure most yanks will be able to identify at least with scenario #2, and confirm that it's entirely plausible (if not actually happened already in at least one occasion).

Actually, no, not at all. Such a legal precedent would ultimately become a defacto ban on confederate iconography among other things. That ain't gonna happen.

dew said:

Second of all, I strongly doubt it represents his religion.

This.
For what it's worth many Muslims denounce ISIS, and have said that they're not real Muslims because the way they treat innocent civilians "goes against the Koran"... soooo, basically, yeah, it represents a faction and not a religion.

Kontra Kommando said:

There needs to be some limitation on freedom of speech or else people may feel they have the right to the following examples:

Outright lie to people, and mislead them for their own gain.

Threaten people verbally without consequence. Call up schools, government, and private institutions claiming they are planning to kill everyone. Then use their right to freedom of speech as a reason why they said such a thing.

Only that in those examples, the government also has a clearly established right and duty to intervene (e.g. through consumer protection laws, through homeland security laws etc.). So yeah, might be free to say that you want to kill everyone...only that by law X comma Y slash Z, I, the State, also have the right to kick down your door and let my agents have a bit of fun with you, before giving you your "fair and speedy trial".

Kontra Kommando said:

Or this forum for example. What would happen if there were no mods here to stop people from bombing this board with troll posts, porn and malware links? There is freedom of speech here on DW, but with some stipulations.

I get the example, but DW is really a unique case. Besides, internet forums are not democracies. Most of them are ruled with a system close to what political scientists would call an "enlightened tyranny", which can also choose to be quite permissive. Only when someone steps out of line you really get a reminder that certain things are not meant to be talked over.

Kontra Kommando said:

The way the law works in the USA is that it is intentionally vague in order to be interpreted by the courts to meet the needs of certain situations.

OTOH, this can pave the way to selective application of the Law, which is one of the "deadly sins" for any organized state.

Kontra Kommando said:

This is also why appeals are essential to our legal system. Because if you feel that the court's interpretation was unfair, you have the right to dispute it to a higher court.

Only that in most cases, the appeal process is designed in such a way as to take such a long time and such expenses that most people won't be able to take advantage of it. Also, depending on the legal system, appealing might not automatically guarantee a suspension or at least a mitigation of the sentence you're appealing against, which means that e.g. monetary fines will still have to be paid in full at the established time, prison terms will still have to be served etc. in which case, appealing won't prevent the appealer's monetary or social ruin.

I think pointing to the Confederate flag is an excellent precedent. Personally, I can't stand the Confederate flag or anything it stands for. I think it's repulsive and a disgrace that some people embrace it, fly it in their yards, paint it on their trucks, whatever. At the same time, however, regardless of my personal feelings, they absolutely have the right to display that flag, even if it means nothing more to me than a symbol of slavery and bigotry. And while there have been cases of the flag being banned at say, schools and universities, and controversy over flying it in public places like government buildings, the right to fly it in your yard or paint it on your truck has never been in question (well don't quote me on that, I'm sure there's an example of it being brought to court, but by and large, the right to display it has been preserved - there's certainly no law against it).

And the point is this - the threat to our freedom that would be created by banning the Confederate flag is far greater than any perceived threat from actually flying the flag. If the government were to be able to ban the flag - what else might the government ban because others find it offensive? And after all, history has shown us time and time again that when governments have power which allows them to silence criticism, they embrace it.