In Which I Touch On Something Vaguely Political

[debka_notion]

There are a wide variety of political posters on campus of late- ok, not such a wide variety, but wide enough: more than one option. Not a big deal- that's what democracy is about. What bothers me is that there are a bunch of people who go around tearing down or otherwise defacing the other groups' posters. This comes off, to me at least, as a real contradiction to the idea of freedom of speech. QUite likely it isn't, in a legal sense or whatnot, but well- what's the point of being able to put up whatever you want if other people will immediately take it down? I mean, hate speech is another story, but political posters? Sure, I disagree with most of the ones being torn down, but still: this is no real democracy if people can put up posters for both sides and have them equally respected. Part of being a democratic citizen is respecting that other people don't always agree with you. The fact that college students don't respect that really irks me.

Comments

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Removal of posters with which one disagrees is an exercise in expression of disagreement with them. And that expression is safeguarded by the first amendment. :)

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I know. My logic isn't really straight there- but the point stands in my mind: it isn't respectful of other people's rights, or their opinions, or the spirit behind the law. I'd say that putting another poster up next to that one is a more respectful and reasonable way of questioning what the poster is saying.

Posters

[yemeknight.livejournal.com]

I totally disagree with person #1's argument.
If I really hate someone, is it my freedom of speech & expression to badger them everywhere and shout at them when I see them?
Is it my right to toilet-paper someone's house?

And just beacuse it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
And it isn't right. Just picture yourself living in Alabama, and the situation reversed. You'd be singing a different tune. Something like that they are silencing your right of free speech. Something like defacement of property.

I know a lot of Bush-supporters here, particularly, oddly enough, among the Jews. Maya (not you, Maya), Jesse... other people I know less well... They're not as adamant as we Bush-fearers are, but they're pretty supportive of Bush, all right. And I would hate to see them being given such treatment. I'm totally in agreement with Maya on this, from a moral standpoint.

Re: Posters

[yemeknight.livejournal.com]

Example: There's this horrible guy who stands in front of McGill's main gates several hours a school day, with a 6-foot high sign saying in small print stuff accusations against Jewish General Hospital... sexual harassment, something he claims happened to him, and on the other side, in even smaller print, is an evangelical message about how the gradual conversion of all Jews into Christianity is inevitable, etc etc.

Some Jewish kids came and assaulted him with megaphones or whatever. Saying silly insults into them. I thought that was crude. Mostly people just ignore him.
But the Red Herring, a McGill joke paper, took a picture of his sign, removed all the words, and replaced them with "I'm wearing pink panties". Now THAT was funny. And proper. And freedom of speech. And mocking him, like everyone does. Do as the Billionaires for Bush do.

Re: Posters

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Hi yemeknight. I'm Naomi. Although from a legal perspective, I think my argument is good, I'm not actually advocating that a bunch of grass-roots vigilantes go around removing "enemy" posters -- I think that in most venues, everyone's posters, advertisements, etc, should be left alone, since free exchange of information protects a society from tyranny. (I feel differently if posting, advertising, etc. simultaneously defaces property not belonging to the advertiser. That is vandalism.) And you're absolutely correct: just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral.

There is a fundamental difference between badgering/intimidating someone and removing posters. In the former case, one is launching a personal attack. In the latter, it's a statement about my beliefs, not a personal attack on the person who put up the posters.

The challenge to protect free speech and protect people from acts of hatred is one of the most challenging legal and moral questions facing the United States (in fact, the world.) In the end, it is frequently some subset of difficult and dangerous to legislate morality, hence we need to rely on people to do what is moral, not what is legal. And sad to say, some people pervert free speech to propagate hatred, confusing morality with legality.

(And then, we could discuss what "moral" is....it's a never-ending conversation.)

Re: Posters

[thevortex.livejournal.com]

I would point out, nuqotw, that freedom of speech and freedom of action differ greatly. Yemeknight (cool name!), you question whether or not you have the "right" to t-p someone's house. You have the right to do that, yes. And, if/when you are caught, you also have the right to remain silent...

The right to free speech is the right to SAY what you think, not to tear down posters. That is defacing property, and is not protected by the First Amendment.

As to college students' disrespect for other opinions, I will leave it for now that this does not surprise me in the least, even at Brandeis.

Huzzah!

The Vortex

Re: Posters

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

Defacing property is tricky to argue. At Brandeis (and other places) there are designated venues where posting is acceptable. Posting on other places is not (the owner of a property determines what is permissible, e.g. posting) and handbills are subject to removal. Posting on private property belong to someone other than oneself without permission is defacing property. In that case, the owner of the property is within his/her rights to remove handbills and possibly pursue the poster for damages. In certain public areas, posting handbills is defacing property, and such handbills are not protected. We will leave this aside. The real question is what actions constitute speech, since it is certainly those actions that are protected.

When and whether the United States legal system differentiates between freedom of action and freedom of speech is a problem tackled in many forms. "Freedom of speech" has frequently been been interpreted to mean freedom of expression in many forms other than speech - including cross-burning and the right to wear a swastika. Are these acts *moral*? No. But they have been protected as free expression. Flag burning is protected because under the first amendment. It is not speech in the literal sense, but it is expression that falls under the purview of this amendment.

I am not sure what the US Courts would decide (I searched the ACLU site briefly. I couldn't find a precedent.) but there is a tenable argument that removing a poster is an act of speech. Removing the poster says that the views expressed, organization promoted, etc. are so antithetical to what the remover believes that he/she acts to oppose them. Removing the poster is speaking against whatever it promotes. To remove a handbill does not interfere with the poster's right to post.

The difference here is subtle. If posting handbills supporting opinion X is banned, it is censorship. However, if posting the handbills is permitted, then the act of removing them must be equally protected. Removing them might be juvenile, cowardly, and immoral, but it is still protected.