Be Revolutionary

Without entering into a moral discussion of Just War Theory flaws (I am a Catholic Worker), I do acknowledge that wars were fought and lives were sacrificed to eliminate some ideologies from the gene pool. Statues of Hitler are prohibited in Germany. However, I am not entirely convinced that Confederate Civil War monuments are without historical significance. It's the Neo-Nazis and KKK and relativists and ahistorical fundamentalists and special interest groups and partisan political pundits and politicians who misinterpret history and incite riots that may require public censure? 

I strongly disagree with the current antifa thinking that violence against racists is by definition self-defense. Both strategically and morally, that, too, is a mistake. This policy is a re-mix of an early Malcolm X position that Martin Luther King helped him to moderate at a 1964 meeting in Selma. King never took Malcolm X's biting criticisms of his nonviolence stance personally.

I am aligned with Jesus and Gandhi and King and Merton and Dorothy Day's philosophy of passive nonviolent resistance, mercy and forgiveness. Prayerful conscience or moral imperatives dictate where it may be necessary to peacefully cross the line and go to jail. I accept Pope Paul VI's moral dictum: "If you want peace, work for justice."

It's a slippery slope. You may ask the 1st Amendment question: "Who gets to decide what is offensive & hateful?" 

The answer is: community standards and constitutional limits, as defined by a preponderance of grassroots and media opinion, the consensus of democratically elected representatives and interpretation of laws within a constitutional framework by the Supreme Court. Community standards means that there is a civic responsibility to collectively (democratically) define the freedoms within the framework of the Constitution ... unrestricted free speech is a cop-out ... with freedom comes responsibility. There are limits to the constitutional right to Free Speech that have developed over time. 

Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection.

The Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".

• You have no right to insist that employers, investors, consumers or media not restrict your comments or that you have public broadcasting rights that may cause damage to a business. A "morals clause" in employment contracts, corporate communications policy, Google algorithms, advertising dollar spend, consumer boycott, stockholder resolution and stock divestment to ferret out hate speech are examples of limitations to free speech. Freedom of speech is about the government's ability to suppress your speech. These are business decisions that companies, investors and consumers are entitled to make. It's not censorship.
• You have no right to make false advertisements. Your right to advertise is limited. No cigarette advertisements on TV. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection. 
• You have zero right to free speech in a forum owned by someone else. They're entitled to kick you out, delete what you've said, change it, anything. Many forums publish and jury community standards of social conduct, journalist ethics, editorial guidelines, professional codes and scientific peer review standards.
• You may not defame someone else. In the US the definition of defamation varies from state to state. This is also called slander or libel.
• You are limited in your ability to publish obscene material of prurient interest that taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This includes line drawings or descriptions of child pornography even when no sexual abuse actually took place. This is governed by the Miller test.
• You may not claim military honors to which you are not entitled. This is governed by the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
• You may not incite others to criminal acts or to riot. Brandenburg v. Ohio is the relevant Supreme Court ruling, which sets the standard for what is permissible.
• You may not participate in a criminal conspiracy even if your only action was speaking or writing. Making an agreement to commit a crime is itself a crime.
• You may not reveal any classified information in writing or speech.
• You may not urge people to dodge the draft in wartime.
• You may not urge support for organizations that the government has designated as sponsors of terrorism, even if you disagree with that designation and give no money yourself.
• You may not make false or fraudulent claims in the course of business.
• You are required to reveal certain information about food, drugs, and chemical products that you sell. The government can force you to speak.
• You have a limited right to free speech in the military.
• You have no right to say anything you have contractually promised not to, such as in a non-disclosure agreement.
• You have no right of free speech in the workplace, except union organization, which is protected by law.
• Children have only a limited right to free speech in school.
• You have no right to threaten anyone with violence.
• You have no right to speak any time you want to in a courtroom or other public proceeding, and you can be evicted or found in contempt and jailed for disrupting proceedings.
• You have no right to hide facts that are material to insurance, loan, investment and credit decisions where full financial disclosure is required by law.
• You have no right to perjure your sworn testimony in a court of law.
• You have no right to sexually, racially, religiously or otherwise harass co-workers.
• You may not induce someone to break a contract they have with a third party. This is called tortious interference.
• You have only a limited right to peaceful assembly. Assembly Cannot Be Violent. Municipalities have a limited right to restrict permitting, and police may break up any gathering, that present a "clear and present danger" to innocent bystanders, or to members of your group. The law can restrict when you gather and where. Permitting is legal, as long as municipalities don't enforce the permit rule for one group but not another. If your group has a history of inciting violence in public gatherings, your right to peaceful assembly may be restricted. Private property is exempt.
• You have no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Most of these are just plain common sense. People who swear that they're First Amendment absolutists seldom really have thought it through.

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.

The Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact". However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood. 

The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected. There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability. Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, perjury, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances. Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation" or half-truths in cases where full disclosure is required by law—still could fall under this exception.

There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely. However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed. 

The use of fake news or hate speech to influence or manipulate a democratic election is testing the boundaries of 1st Amendment freedoms and responsibilities. As it stands, Presidents and politicians (with some exceptions), nonprofit political PACs, bombastic loudmouthed media pundits and irresponsible bloggers may hate and lie with impunity ...

... it's not yet clear if collusion with the agents of a hostile foreign government to acquire and disseminate stolen opposition memos, fake news and hate speech in an organized national political campaign is a violation of: (1) the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002; (2) the law against fraud; (3) a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling that bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate; and/or, (4) a general anti-coercion federal election law ...

... let the buyer beware.

Reality is greater than ideology. Perhaps "We the People" should, beginning at the grassroots, work together to develop a contemporary community consensus within the Constitutional framework that reflects American ethical standards of 1st Amendment freedoms and responsibilities, based upon accumulated historical wisdom and human kindness?

Everyone who died in the Civil War was an American, and we will never forget them. Most of the 718 Confederate monuments were erected in cemeteries during the decades following the Civil War for a variety of reasons, not least of which was to grieve. The Civil War did not end racism in either the North or the South. The Reconstruction era history is rooted in Lincoln's merciful prudential reasoning that rejected objectives more ideal than real. He held unity to be the guiding moral principle. Unity is the bedrock that set the stage to defeat Jim Crowe laws. Unity inspired Martin Luther King and millions to adopt Constitutional amendments and major civil rights acts. Unity continues to direct societal improvements that give rise to human dignity. Unity teaches us that the desires can not be based in an impoverished understanding of power as the replacement and domination of others. Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Perhaps Confederate Civil War monuments have historical significance.

=============

FROM BE REVOLUTIONARY:

SOME THOUGHTS FROM POPE FRANCIS

On Ideas and Realities

There also exists a constant tension between ideas and realities. Realities simply are, whereas ideas are worked out. There has to be continuous dialogue between the two, lest ideas become detached from realities. It is dangerous to dwell in the realm of words alone, of images and rhetoric. So a third principle comes into play: realities are greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.

=============