Good News On The Free Speech Front

[halconero]

Free Speech is a freedom "from" Govt interference in our expression...

It is not freedom from objections and responses from non-govt entities that disagree with us, or even freedom from a govt. response expressing dissent to our speech.

The fact that society is objecting to some forms of speech or lifestyle statements, and that groups in society are expressing their discontent with such speech and life style statements via shopping preferences and other forms of capitalist and economic sanctions, is the result of a society where freedom of expression is a reality.

Religious freedom of speech is not under attack.

The substance of some forms of religious speech is under attack, but via legitimate means.

We don't have the right to live in a society and have our beliefs and ideas fully supported, but do do live in a society (assuming you live in one of a number of first world democracies) where such beliefs must be tolerated by the Govt. and the maximum legitimate response is other people telling us they disagree and some predictable shifts in capitalist market purchasing habits.

 

I'd argue that such is not the case in all areas. I posted an article up above where British Columbian private school is not being accredited by the Ontario Law Society due to its BYU-esque "covenant" that its students sign to abstain from sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. Those law students graudating from that school will not be recognized by the bar in Ontario. Those in favour of not accrediting the law school recognized that graduates from that school would have to have their curriculum evaluated by a commission before their credentials could be recognized, something which would happen, considering the law school teaches Canadian law curriculum. However, this does essentially put a "religious test" for legal recognition of a lawyer's credentials.

 

My views on same-sex marriage are rather distinct from most of those here, but regardless of anyone's views, I don't see how the government can deny a schools accreditation on the basis of religious policy if they are actually sticking to the curriculum. Heck, if there was an extremist Muslim school somewhere in Canada that was preaching death to the infidels, I'd be in favour of recognizing lawyers from there as long as their law school stuck to the provincially and federally recognized curriculum and standards. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by halconero

[frank_jessop]

Elder Oaks isn't a "Church celebrity." He's a senior apostle; I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are going to accuse him of "attempting to manipulate members politics." He was also a distinguished jurist. If there's any "confusion" about "free speech," I doubt that it is his.

Regards,

Pahoran

Can you state your position without resorting to a fallacy?

Edited April 28, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Bikeemikey]

I'd argue that such is not the case in all areas. I posted an article up above where British Columbian private school is not being accredited by the Ontario Law Society due to its BYU-esque "covenant" that its students sign to abstain from sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage. Those law students graudating from that school will not be recognized by the bar in Ontario. Those in favour of not accrediting the law school recognized that graduates from that school would have to have their curriculum evaluated by a commission before their credentials could be recognized, something which would happen, considering the law school teaches Canadian law curriculum. However, this does essentially put a "religious test" for legal recognition of a lawyer's credentials.

My views on same-sex marriage are rather distinct from most of those here, but regardless of anyone's views, I don't see how the government can deny a schools accreditation on the basis of religious policy if they are actually sticking to the curriculum. Heck, if there was an extremist Muslim school somewhere in Canada that was preaching death to the infidels, I'd be in favour of recognizing lawyers from there as long as their law school stuck to the provincially and federally recognized curriculum and standards.

Sure... and the actions of the Ontario bar are wrong and hopefully will overturned.

I am not in favor of the law school example and think the outline I provided actually resolves this sort of issue.

It would not however be wrong for private citizens to refuse to take their business to a law firm where the lawyers were graduates of the college.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Pahoran]

Sure... and the actions of the Ontario bar are wrong and hopefully will overturned.

I am not in favor of the law school example and think the outline I provided actually resolves this sort of issue.

It would not however be wrong for private citizens to refuse to take their business to a law firm where the lawyers were graduates of the college.

Private citizens are entitled to take their business wherever they like.

The fact that their choice in that instance would be motivated by bigotry should not be subject to government oversight.

But it would still be clearly wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Can you state your position without resorting to a fallacy?

Certainly.

In fact, I rather think I did.

Regards,

Pahoran

[halconero]

Sure... and the actions of the Ontario bar are wrong and hopefully will overturned.

I am not in favor of the law school example and think the outline I provided actually resolves this sort of issue.

It would not however be wrong for private citizens to refuse to take their business to a law firm where the lawyers were graduates of the college.

 

So you would agree that a complete declaration that "freedom of religion is not under attack" is fallacious, given this issue? I agree with you that a citizen's right to do or not do business with a someone is not attacking religious freedom, but it is clear that at least in Canada, the government is using political power to stifle religious freedom.

[Bikeemikey]

So you would agree that a complete declaration that "freedom of religion is not under attack" is fallacious, given this issue? I agree with you that a citizen's right to do or not do business with a someone is not attacking religious freedom, but it is clear that at least in Canada, the government is using political power to stifle religious freedom.

I would have to know much more about it before I would be able to make any judgement on it.

Inclusion or exclusion are not always the same as freedom or lack there of.

That said, the superficial amount of information presented on the subject does suggest there may be an issue.

As a general principle I do not believe religious freedom is under attack. I also do not believe that religious freedom is defined by our ability to have our institutions degrees accepted by every public body.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Private citizens are entitled to take their business wherever they like.

The fact that their choice in that instance would be motivated by bigotry should not be subject to government oversight.

But it would still be clearly wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sure, I was using wrong more in the legal sense... It would not be violating the law.

[Bikeemikey]

So you would agree that a complete declaration that "freedom of religion is not under attack" is fallacious, given this issue? I agree with you that a citizen's right to do or not do business with a someone is not attacking religious freedom, but it is clear that at least in Canada, the government is using political power to stifle religious freedom.

It appears the Canadian bar societies are not govt entities. As such the actions of the bar would be the actions of citizens dispensing economic sanctions against views and actions they don't like.

There is no promise of freedom of religion from not being liked or accepted - just from govt interference. We are also not free from the negative impact out beliefs generate in others or their rights to discriminate against us in their actions as we discriminate against others ourselves.

Please correct my understanding of the Canadian bar association if it is incorrect.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[halconero]

It appears the Canadian bar societies are not govt entities. As such the actions of the bar would be the actions of citizens dispensing economic sanctions against views and actions they don't like.

There is no promise of freedom of religion from not being liked or accepted - just from govt interference. We are also not free from the negative impact out beliefs generate in others or their rights to discriminate against us in their actions as we discriminate against others ourselves.

Please correct my understanding of the Canadian bar association if it is incorrect.

 

Bar societies are self-governing associations. That means that they set regulates itself through votes and set standards for their lawyers, paralegals, etc. It would be like the ministry of education, or the ministry of commerce deciding among themselves what rules or regulations to pass, rather than receiving their direction from the current governing party. This is to maintain their role to serve the "public interest." 

 

They were created however, through the Law Society Act, passed by the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. While still self-governing, their policies are affected by amendments to the Law Society Act by the government. While several of the benchers (governing body) are chosen from among the society, eight of them are appointed by the government. The Attorney General, the chief legal adviser to the Queen in that area, the head of the court system, and a senior member of the Executive Council in the province, is also a bencher. Legally, the entity also falls under the supervision of Ministry of the Attorney General.

 

In short, the Law Society is a somewhat autonomous (not autonomous from government, only autonomous in the sense of being mostly-independent from party politics) corporate-goverment-entity.

[Bikeemikey]

Bar societies are self-governing associations. That means that they set regulates itself through votes and set standards for their lawyers, paralegals, etc. It would be like the ministry of education, or the ministry of commerce deciding among themselves what rules or regulations to pass, rather than receiving their direction from the current governing party. This is to maintain their role to serve the "public interest."

They were created however, through the Law Society Act, passed by the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada. While still self-governing, their policies are affected by amendments to the Law Society Act by the government. While several of the benchers (governing body) are chosen from among the society, eight of them are appointed by the government. The Attorney General, the chief legal adviser to the Queen in that area, the head of the court system, and a senior member of the Executive Council in the province, is also a bencher. Legally, the entity also falls under the supervision of Ministry of the Attorney General.

In short, the Law Society is a somewhat autonomous (not autonomous from government, only autonomous in the sense of being mostly-independent from party politics) corporate-goverment-entity.

Can you provide a source for this, thanks.

[Stone holm]

Elder Oaks isn't a "Church celebrity." He's a senior apostle; I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are going to accuse him of "attempting to manipulate members politics." He was also a distinguished jurist. If there's any "confusion" about "free speech," I doubt that it is his.Regards,Pahoran

Yes, he is a Church celebrity, he is also an apostle, and he is also politically active with various politically active alliances. Free speech in America has to do with whether the government is actively engaged in suppressing speech, it has nothing to do with private economic reprisal. Whenever a person opens their mouth on a social or political issue publicly they subject themselves to potential private social and economic ostracization. That is how the system works. If a religious organization picks up the political sword to aggressively combat something, then it must be willing to expect that others may single it out and it's members out for social and economic reprisals out there in the world of public opinion.

[halconero]

Can you provide a source for this, thanks.

 

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90l08_e.htm

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/rules/

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=427

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/with.aspx?id=1136

[Scott Lloyd]

Does that mean you disagree with Stone's statement"

 

 

or are you just here to attack him.

It's not an attack. It's an observation that could be borne out by an examination of his posts in the past.

 

Do I disagree with his statement? I think it ignores the broader context of the Oaks address.

 

And no, I don't think it manipulative at all -- any more than other discourse with the intent to persuade, including what you yourself practice on this very board.

 

That Stone Holm sees it as manipulative may very well be influenced by his general antipathy for Elder Oaks. Which goes back to my prior point.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

Hmmm... I wonder if Elder Oaks and those who lament the Mozilla incident are going to equally decry the attacks and violations of this man's freedom speech:

APRIL 29, 2014

Adam Silver issues lifetime ban, $2.5M fine to Clippers owner Donald Sterling

ADAM SILVER, DONALD STERLING, LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS

BY BEN GOLLIVER

Adam Silver (left) issued a lifetime ban and a $2.5 million fine to Clippers owner Donald Sterling. (Getty Images/2)

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has imposed a lifetime ban and a maximum $2.5 million fine on Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who was caught on tape making a series of racist remarks that became public on Friday.

After promising to grant “due process” to Sterling and to investigate the authenticity of the audio during a press conference in Memphis on Saturday, Silver handed down the punishment at a press conference in New York City on Tuesday.

“Effective immediately, I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA,” Silver said. “Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices. He may not be present at any Clippers facility. He may not participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team. He will also be barred from attending NBA Board of Governors meetings or participating in any other league activity.”

Additionally, Silver pledged to take steps to force Sterling to sell the Clippers.

“I will urge the Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force the sale of the team,” Silver said. “I will do everything in my power to ensure that that happens. … I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners.”

TMZ released audio of a conversation in which Sterling can be heard scolding V. Stiviano, his girlfriend, for bringing African-Americans to Clippers games and for posting photos of herself and African-Americans, including Lakers legend Magic Johnson, to her Instagram account.

Silver said the NBA was able to authenticate that it was Sterling’s voice on the tape and that Sterling acknowledged that it was his voice during the investigation. In a statement issued Saturday, Clippers president Andy Roeser had questioned the legitimacy of the recording.

“The central findings of the investigation are that the man whose voice is heard on the recording and on a second recording from the same conversation that was released on Sunday is Mr. Sterling and that the hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling,” Silver said. “The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful. That they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage. Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic league.”

Silver also issued an apology on behalf of the NBA for Sterling’s comments.

“I am personally distraught that the views expressed by Mr. Sterling came from within an institution that has historically taken such a leadership role in matters of race relations and caused current and former players, coaches, fans and partners of the NBA to question their very association with the league,” Silver said. “To them, and pioneers of the game like Earl Lloyd, Chuck Cooper, Sweetwater Clifton, the great Bill Russell and particularly Magic Johnson, I apologize.”

Silver said the $2.5 million fine was the “maximum amount allowed under the NBA constitution.” The funds will be donated to organizations that promote tolerance.

Prior to Tuesday’s press conference, at least 16 NBA owners hadissued public statements against Sterling.

Late Monday night, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, speaking as an adviser for the National Basketball Players Association, called on Silver to suspend Sterling and assess the maximum fine allowed.

United States president Barack Obama, NBA legends Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O’Neal and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, NBA stars LeBron James and Kobe Bryant, and NBPA representatives Chris Paul and Kevin Johnson have all expressed their opposition to Sterling, and the Clippers, Heat, Rockets and Blazers all participated in silent protests against Sterling by wearing their warm-up shirts inside out or donning black socks during their recent playoff games. Multiple companies announced Monday that they would suspend their corporate sponsorship agreements with the Clippers, and coach Doc Rivers said that he won’t necessarily return to the club next season, even though he is under contract. Even Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, distanced herself from the comments.

The Clippers will host the Warriors at the Staples Center on Tuesday night.

[USU78]

There seems to be some confusion on the part of Elder Oaks regarding free speech. Free speech has never been considered to protect a person from private economic reprisal, only from governmental suppression. Since that is a fairly basic legal concept, his comment would appear to be a rather willful example of a Church celebrity attempting to manipulate members politics. One can make legitimate arguments to defend anti SSM advocates , but this was not one of them.

 

When addressing such matters, I always find it useful to insert the word "Jew" whenever a substantive is called for.  It helps frame the issues for me.  Examples:

 

1.  An elderly Jew was roughed up and a religious object wrested from her grasp and desecrated in front of her right outside her place of worship by a mob of ill-wishers.

 

2.  The Jew[ish] director of a theater was hounded from office because of his unpopular religious motivated activity.

 

3.  The Jew[ish] CEO of a national company was hounded from office because of his unpopular religious motivated activity.

 

4.  The names of Jew[ish] donors to a religious motivated political action group were published, along with home addresses, in order to enable others to picket, harrass, threaten and, if possible, hound from their employment.

 

But that's just me.

[Pahoran]

Hmmm... I wonder if Elder Oaks and those who lament the Mozilla incident are going to equally decry the attacks and violations of this man's freedom speech:

I was wondering myself whether a silly racist rant -- in what was intended to be a private conversation -- really warrants the kind of official sanctions this got.

The fact remains, however, that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Proposition 8 defended traditional marriage. It was and remains a good thing, and those who say otherwise are calling evil good and good evil. An employee supporting it in his own time and with his own money is none of Mozilla's business. What Mr Sterling had to say about the majority of his employees in the LA Clippers is arguably the business of the NBA.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

It appears the Canadian bar societies are not govt entities. As such the actions of the bar would be the actions of citizens dispensing economic sanctions against views and actions they don't like.

There is no promise of freedom of religion from not being liked or accepted - just from govt interference. We are also not free from the negative impact out beliefs generate in others or their rights to discriminate against us in their actions as we discriminate against others ourselves.

Please correct my understanding of the Canadian bar association if it is incorrect.

 

It is my understanding that the Courts in Canada have ultimate disciplinary authority over members of the bar and that bench and bar are both involved in setting membership standards.  Since the gov't appoints and funds the bench, government is, directly or indirectly, involved in the bar.

[ERayR]

Stone holm has a rather caustic dislike for Elder Oaks, which he has been rather unguarded in expressing on occasion here on this board.

 

Does anyone know why?  Did Elder Oaks kick his dog or pull his cat's tail?

[Daniel2]

I was wondering myself whether a silly racist rant -- in what was intended to be a private conversation -- really warrants the kind of official sanctions this got.The fact remains, however, that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Proposition 8 defended traditional marriage. It was and remains a good thing, and those who say otherwise are calling evil good and good evil. An employee supporting it in his own time and with his own money is none of Mozilla's business. What Mr Sterling had to say about the majority of his employees in the LA Clippers is arguably the business of the NBA.Regards,Pahoran

And there's the answer for a least the second half of my query.

[Scott Lloyd]

Does anyone know why?  Did Elder Oaks kick his dog or pull his cat's tail?

You could search back and find the posts. Something about Elder Oaks visiting a stake conference and making comments that Stone holm, due to his own political and regional leanings, didn't like. There have been accusations about Elder Oaks making a "slur" about Vermonters. And there were insulting comments and comparisons about his personal mannerisms.

 

I'm fairly confident there is another side to the story that we, alas, will probably never hear.

 

Edited to add:

 

Examples here

 

Also, here. (Might be the same thread.)

 

Edited to add: No, two different threads.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

I was wondering myself whether a silly racist rant -- in what was intended to be a private conversation -- really warrants the kind of official sanctions this got.The fact remains, however, that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Proposition 8 defended traditional marriage. It was and remains a good thing, and those who say otherwise are calling evil good and good evil. An employee supporting it in his own time and with his own money is none of Mozilla's business. What Mr Sterling had to say about the majority of his employees in the LA Clippers is arguably the business of the NBA.Regards,Pahoran

Yeah, I am not sure why the racist rant of Sterling is getting this much attention given the fact that the more serious antisemitic comments of Billy Graham got so little media attention when disclosed.

[Stone holm]

 

When addressing such matters, I always find it useful to insert the word "Jew" whenever a substantive is called for.  It helps frame the issues for me.  Examples:

 

1.  An elderly Jew was roughed up and a religious object wrested from her grasp and desecrated in front of her right outside her place of worship by a mob of ill-wishers.

 

2.  The Jew[ish] director of a theater was hounded from office because of his unpopular religious motivated activity.

 

3.  The Jew[ish] CEO of a national company was hounded from office because of his unpopular religious motivated activity.

 

4.  The names of Jew[ish] donors to a religious motivated political action group were published, along with home addresses, in order to enable others to picket, harrass, threaten and, if possible, hound from their employment.

 

But that's just me.

 

Yeah preaching intolerance tends to result in things like that.  You do realize that anti-semitism was so strong in the U.S. that FDR actively suppressed release of information regarding the Holoacaust while the war was being waged for fear that he would not be able to keep up support for the war since Americans would not be willing to fight to defend the Jews.  We have unfortunately found political allies amongst regions and religious groups who were responsible for FDR's fears at the time back in the day.  Just like we unfortunately had people preaching against the Civil Rights Movement as being a Communist Plot back in the day.  Yeah, that kind of political rhetoric has this nasty habit of coming back in biting one in the behind.

[thesometimesaint]

The Constitution allows Mr. Sterling, and the rest of us, the right to make idiotic statements. It doesn't require it.