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

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.