Define *Free Speech* if you can... by pizmobeach

Free Speech is hard to define... I'd say its permitting speech even if it's offensive, so long as there's no threat of damage or harm in it, which is difficult to judge and can only be determined on a case by case basis.

Of course, the person who is offensive can, of course, be called on it or insulted by those who are offended, which is also protected by free speech. They can even ask the other person to shut up, as many of us would in real life, without it being censorship, assuming the offended doesn't have any influence by which to pressure the person in question to shut up.

For that reason, no one here on this board has yet violated free speech one way or the other. Being that we're all anonymous, it's impossible for someone to threaten someone else (without it being hilarious as opposed to serious), and none of us can censor or ban anyone. Or even really get anyone banned or be accused of banning anyone, because we don't have any moderators who could enforce that.

Quote:
Is hate speech protected under the umbrella of Free Speech? How about speech designed to insight violence, cause harm? Can a group/society set up boundaries and be trusted to know what those are? Do we really have free speech in ANY country?

1) Yes, unless it falls under fighting words.

2) That would be the DEFINITION of fighting words.

3) Not sure what you mean. I'd say within a group or microcosm of culture that this already happens. It's when someone comes from outside the microcosm that offense may be given or established unspoken rules not understood.

Do we want to prevent people from being lynched over differences? Of course. But we can't make people treat each other fair and we can't make people like each other. All a society can do is to try to encourage positive, diverse interaction, and eventually the negative stereotypes and feelings should go away on their own. Let's look at Affirmative Action: I actually like Affirmative Action, I think it's sped up this process, and I don't yet think it's finished repairing the damage it was set forth to address. The problem is, we're MAKING people treat each other fairly, which only increases their resentment of each other. It's a significant flaw that could and DOES increase violence against the groups it's designed to help.

So, do I think we should legislate boundaries on what people can and can't say? No, because I think it's counter-productive, and gets awfully close to thought crime.

4) Probably not, but it's something we should endeavor for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
What are the limits - any?

For the most part, far as I am concerned ?
None.

I've seen only one case in which I might take issue, and that would be airing a political documentary as an in-flight movie, since the audience is not exactly free to get up and leave.

But as a rule, I figure you can SAY anything, it's what you DO that counts - hate, racism, gender bashing, what have you, those are for the most part words, stupid words - but ones that can also be countered by hopeful words.

It crosses the line to DO - when you do it to a "captive" audience, your wife, your child, your students, when your intended recipient is not free to leave your company so they don't have to listen to you, or when you violate someones privacy by giving details WHILE issuing threats or exhorting violence, cause that is an ACT.

The tricky part is where the line between speech and intentional psychological manipulation is, and that's a topic imma hold comment on, for less than noble reasons.

But so long as the line between sayin and doin ain't crossed, meh, say what you like - but some folks (not talkin bout you, Pizman) should remember that when that torrent of hate, fear and malice comes flying out of their mouth, so too does every mental weakness they ever had, complete with little hints as to how to exploit them effectively.

-Frem
There always has to be a price.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:22 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?

Frem - ok then if someone expresses vulgar thoughts to children?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:41 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Under kosher hatespeech/hatecrime laws in UK and Canada, reading from the Bible sends preachers directly to jail.

Obama just signed that into law for USA, although children in USA were arrested before Obama and facing life in prison for reading from the Bible, thanks to dik-sucking pedophile rabbis.

Pedophilia is required for the kosher religion, and is now legal thanks to hatecrime laws.

Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.

All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:49 AM

If by vulgar you mean just cussing around them, I've done that. They're damn good at video games nowadays... >_>

If you mean someone saying sexually explicit stuff to children, that's all kinds of creepy. But I'm with Frem, unless they begin to try to ACT on what they're saying, it's offensive, but not really a criminal offense.

You'd hope that there would be some responsible adults around watching out for the kids, and that they'd tell the offender off or alert their neighborhood watch if they think the guy's really suspicious. Which, BTW, if the watch is actually organized, it's a great deterrent against ALL crime.

Quote:
How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?

All three, as well as movies, play-acting/theatre, television, and software programming. I note, however, that if any non-verbal media confess to or record actual crimes, then it's not so much the jurisdiction of free speech as it is evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:52 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Under kosher hatespeech/hatecrime laws in UK and Canada, reading from the Bible sends preachers directly to jail.

Obama just signed that into law for USA, although children in USA were arrested before Obama and facing life in prison for reading from the Bible, thanks to dik-sucking pedophile rabbis.

Pedophilia is required for the kosher religion, and is now legal thanks to hatecrime laws.

Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.

All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.

Pizmo: See above.

THAT is "free speech". It's wrong, it's offensive, it's vulgar (there ARE children who come here), it contains not one single iota of fact or truth to it...

But it's allowed.

How do you deal with it? How do you combat it? By banning? Jailing? Killing?

Nope. You point out the errors, and you mock incessantly. You combat offensive free speech with TRUTH.

Is Rush Limbaugh an asshole and a fascist? Yup. GlenBeck? Ditto. But I wouldn't censor them. Better just to mock them or ignore them, call them on their bullshit and point out their hypocrisy. PN is no different - it's just that his audience is smaller. Same brand of batshit, smaller storefront that he's selling it from.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:27 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Frem - ok then if someone expresses vulgar thoughts to children?

No, not OK.

But just because it is not OK doesn't mean it should be illegal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:30 AM

I'll give ya one that *I*S*N*'*T" free speech, even though they're arguing it on that basis in the Supreme Court: making political contributions. That ISN'T speech-- it's spending money.

Speech is saying something with your mouth or publishing a public document-- newspaper or book or web page. Speech is, just barely, carrying a picket sign with a slogan on it.

Giving money to a candidate, any candidate, is a legalized bribe. Government financing of campaigns is not free speech. A candidate could use that money for free speech, but giving the money isn't.

Acme Medical could take out an ad saying, " We support Candidate X, who voted for us." That's free speech, even for a corporation. Just giving him cash, to do with what he wants is not.

And another point-- the essence of free speech is public-- you can't support an initiative, like, say, opposing gay marriage, by giving money to it, and then claim that you can give it anonymously, and that your support is protected by a right of privacy, unless you leave the cash on the doorstep in a brown bag...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:37 AM

Quote:
Giving money to a candidate, any candidate, is a legalized bribe. Government financing of campaigns is not free speech. A candidate could use that money for free speech, but giving the money isn't.

Wow, knocked that one out of the park.

I also hate it when a corporation or candidate uses their money to flood the airways with some piece of PR or politics influence attempt or to drown out the other voices in a debate. It seems dishonest to me, but you're right, that is free speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:
How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?

All three, as well as movies, play-acting/theatre, television, and software programming.

Jeez, I missed those... though acting/theatre/television all rely on stuff ya speak with your mouth, and text is either published word or electronic- software counts as text publishing , in a special form. Art is maybe not speech, but it is expression, close enough to the same thing, and covered as free expression.

" What about mime, NOBC? No spoken words, no text. Or dance? Or a symphony?" Yeah, those too... The simple definition gets a little sloppy with exceptions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:51 AM

Can we call it "any non-criminal form of verbal, non-verbal, and artistic expression"?

EDIT: I put the non-criminal in there because I could imagine someone responding "I just murdered someone... ARTISTICALLY!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:59 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.

Sounds like you are suggesting that lawyers and courts should determine our Free Speech rights... I must be mistakened.

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.

That's the truth - does that suggest that folks too skeert have no rights?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:03 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you mean someone saying sexually explicit stuff to children, that's all kinds of creepy. But I'm with Frem, unless they begin to try to ACT on what they're saying, it's offensive, but not really a criminal offense.

You sound somewhat innocent the way you phrased that Byte. Yeah, there's all kinds of *creepy* out there - creepy with bad intentions and responsible adults can't always be around. If boundaries aren't set then limits will be tested by The Creepy.

ETA ('cuz I forgot) - I am a fan of deterrents in general. They can bring out the best in people, but it's dangerous ground and people are still scared of the dark - "what's next?"

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:15 AM

I have an uncle... Well, everyone kind of has THAT uncle, don't they? But there's a difference still between creepy and acting on said creepy.

His ass is toast if he ever does, and he knows it. And we WILL find out.

Those kind of boundaries should be set, as I said, by parents, and enforced by them, and if anyone ever wants to see wrath, just get a parent angry with this kind of behaviour.

Parents have kids, then they should also be responsible about it. I know far too many parents who need to get a friggin' CLUE.

And maybe we also need to do something about the people who are creepy enough to hit up kids, because they've definitely developed some kind of unhealthy problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Can we call it "any non-criminal form of verbal, non-verbal, and artistic expression"?

EDIT: I put the non-criminal in there because I could imagine someone responding "I just murdered someone... ARTISTICALLY!"

Trouble with that is: I'm Adolf Hitler, and I get a law passed, or issue a decree, that saying anything nice about a Jew is a crime.
Or NOBC gets a law passed criminalizing Rush Limbaugh.
The "right" depends on the government NOT passing laws criminalizing any form of speech.

Some speech *S*H*O*U*L*D* be criminalized: libel ( on the "reckless disregard for the truth" criteria):, clear and present danger ( Fire in a crowded theatre.) if it actually results in an injury or damage; some National security information ( "Where do we keep the H-bombs? When do the guards patrol? How can you back a truck up to the loading dock?"); exposure of some government secrets ( "What is the name and address of the CIA's largest asset in Tehran?" " How do you make a suitcase A-bomb that works?" What does Joe Wilson's wife Valerie do for a living?'); and actual incitement to violence or the violent overthrow of the government ( "Let's all go burn down the IRS office" or " We oughtta riot in the streets and firebomb police headquarters" " Let's go right now and shoot Obama.")

But I'm not sure I trust *MY*S*E*L*F*, let alone you ( "you", generally, of course, not just Bytemite.) , to judge or decide those cases. I think " I know it when I see it", but I ain't sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM

No no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that a crime like murder, rape, or torture can't and shouldn't be considered an act of artistic expression. There might be other crimes among there as well.

Though I concede the danger of the possibility of criminalizing something that previously WAS the jurisdication of free-speech with how I phrased that. Originally, I didn't include the non-criminal part, then I debated with myself whether it was responsible not to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There are many aspects to free speech. This is just what comes off the top of my head:

Content, context, access, harm, honesty.

Tackling the most important idea first, I think the primary limiter of free speech is the harm you might cause. That's why you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why you can't threaten people (in CA that's called assault), and why you can't falsely call someone a sexual predator. But what about constantly belittling your child, or "blowing up" in his/her presence many times a day? They're not old enough and independent enough to shrug and think "Sticks and stones..." What about publishing someone's name and address on the inet and calling him a baby-killer who deserves to be shot? What about running cigarette ads geared towards children, "swift-boating" a candidate, or claiming to have inside knowledge of a company's demise which causes their stock to plummet? Aren't you invading someone's privacy, or causing financial and personal harm?

IMHO it's clear that there are limits to "free speech". All we're doing here is figuring out what those limits should be. IMHO there is one type of free speech which must always be honored: Freedom to criticize or support institutions- government, schools, churches, businesses or the media. The REST of it? It needs to stand up to scrutiny on the basis of honesty. If you're belittliing your kid, or libeling your neighbor, or pitching some toxin it's personal or commercial but it's not free speech. (Kinda reminds me of what my folks use to say: High minds talk about ideas, smaller minds talk about things, and petty minds talk about people. But that's another story).

The other big concept is access. Sure, you may be free to spout your spiel on a streecorner... or in a free speech zone three miles from anything... but do YOU have access to people's living rooms every day? Because that access is power, pure and simple. Free speech is MEANINGLESS without free access. IMHO, if you (or anyone) has to PAY for access to the media, that content should be treated as advertising. And then, let's get those truth in adertising laws going.

And I see NOBC touched on those issues while I was typing!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was saying that a crime like murder, rape, or torture can't and shouldn't be considered an act of artistic expression. There might be other crimes among there as well.

Those are ACTS. Those are outlawed as ACTS. I agree, I don't see any way the ACT of rape, murder, etc, can be justified as an act of artistic expression.

Conversely, the artistic depiction of rape, murder, etc., is and should be legal.. Or else we have to prosecute Joss ( and/or Nathan ) for shooting Dobson in the Pilot.

This artistic depiction walks a very fine line right to the edge: at the point where it becomes advocacy or incitement, it becomes a problem.

Another case that walks right to the edge: prosecution of producers/ actors in hard-core porn for prostitution. The distinction between engaging in sex for money and engaging in sex for money as entertainment is a very narrow distinction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:41 AM

Quote:
Those are ACTS. Those are outlawed as ACTS. I agree, I don't see any way the ACT of rape, murder, etc, can be justified as an act of artistic expression.

Conversely, the artistic depiction of rape, murder, etc., is and should be legal.. Or else we have to prosecute Joss ( and/or Nathan ) for shooting Dobson in the Pilot.

This artistic depiction walks a very fine line right to the edge: at the point where it becomes advocacy or incitement, it becomes a problem.

Another case that walks right to the edge: prosecution of producers/ actors in hard-core porn for prostitution. The distinction between engaging in sex for money and engaging in sex for money as entertainment is a very narrow distinction.

Yes, I agree absolutely. Thanks for being more precise than me today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:49 AM

Sig, good points. I think you address some important issues, such as childhood abuse and libel as it harms livelyhood, and we should keep those in mind.

I do think maybe you have a looser definition than I do of childhood abuse, I don't think yelling at your kids is necessarily abuse... I think sometimes kids don't listen if you don't raise your voice. I know I was like that.

And I also don't know if gossiping about your neighbor can be considered slander/libel.

I don't think we can make laws to prosecute people who yell at kids or gossip about their neighbors, either. I think there's a level of triviality that may need to be involved here. Otherwise particularly bitchy people can sue other people for minor offenses.

Also, unfortunate as it is, "swift-boating" a candidate has to be allowed because that gets into a commentary about whether or not a person or a group of people feel the candidate is a good political appointee. Swiftboat Veterans For Truth may have lied their asses off, but they wouldn't have done so if they didn't just plain not like John Kerry and didn't want him to be president.

A certain amount of toxin, even personal toxin, has to be expected and allowed when it's a discussion about real world issues IF it's can be construed as relevant to the discussion. In the sense of logic and fallacy, personal attacks aren't relevant, but in regards to the issues, they can be.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

A lot of what happens as a result of "free speech" winds up in civil court, where the motto is "no harm, no foul".

Gossiping about your neighbor (online or otherwise) is one thing, but what about if a potential employer is doing a background check, and you just cost this person a job? There has to be SOME standard on which to decide these cases.

And have you seen the movie "Precious"? That's what belittling your child day and night can do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:12 AM

I looked it up on wikipedia... Looks to me like the sexual abuse was the bigger issue there.

I guess maybe some people might be more sensitive to being belittled as children...

The thing is, it has an impact, I do know that, but I think a lot of it is inadvertent, things that come out when parents were arguing with you. Might even internalize some of it. Maybe most of it. But to prosecute them for that, to call it abuse when it wasn't on purpose, I don't like that.

Quote:
Gossiping about your neighbor (online or otherwise) is one thing, but what about if a potential employer is doing a background check, and you just cost this person a job? There has to be SOME standard on which to decide these cases.

If there's harm, then yes, although we have to be very careful about that. My brother, as he's been working with some law firms on internships, he's known people who have gotten fired for things they did over the weekend that got posted on facebook/mypage etc, stuff that was wild but not illegal. I think that beyond personal references given BY the interviewee, that employers have to be careful about invasion of privacy issues. If they're digging deep enough to uncover bitchy neighbor out to get even with annoying interviewee, well, that starts to blur the lines a bit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:15 AM

Quote:
I don't think yelling at your kids is necessarily abuse...

What about when it comes at you day and night, from every single person in your family - father, mother, brothers, sister, etc.?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:19 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are many aspects to free speech. This is just what comes off the top of my head:

Content, context, access, harm, honesty.

Tackling the most important idea first, I think the primary limiter of free speech is the harm you might cause. That's why you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why you can't threaten people (in CA that's called assault), and why you can't falsely call someone a sexual predator. But what about constantly belittling your child, or "blowing up" in his/her presence many times a day? They're not old enough and independent enough to shrug and think "Sticks and stones..." What about publishing someone's name and address on the inet and calling him a baby-killer who deserves to be shot? What about running cigarette ads geared towards children, "swift-boating" a candidate, or claiming to have inside knowledge of a company's demise which causes their stock to plummet? Aren't you invading someone's privacy, or causing financial and personal harm?

IMHO it's clear that there are limits to "free speech". All we're doing here is figuring out what those limits should be. IMHO there is one type of free speech which must always be honored: Freedom to criticize or support institutions- government, schools, churches, businesses or the media. The REST of it? It needs to stand up to scrutiny on the basis of honesty. If you're belittliing your kid, or libeling your neighbor, or pitching some toxin it's personal or commercial but it's not free speech. (Kinda reminds me of what my folks use to say: High minds talk about ideas, smaller minds talk about things, and petty minds talk about people. But that's another story).

The other big concept is access. Sure, you may be free to spout your spiel on a streecorner... or in a free speech zone three miles from anything... but do YOU have access to people's living rooms every day? Because that access is power, pure and simple. Free speech is MEANINGLESS without free access. IMHO, if you (or anyone) has to PAY for access to the media, that content should be treated as advertising. And then, let's get those truth in adertising laws going.

And I see NOBC touched on those issues while I was typing!

I was about to address most of your same list but deleted my post - glad I did because you said it better. It is about drawing conclusions and distinctions as a group - we do limit free speech and we do punish for certain kinds of speech - so at least let's not hold "Free Speech!" up as some kind of absolute that can't be modified. We're already past that. The ideal is great - I believe in the ideal, but the pesky real world doesn't care.

You also touched on the internet and how it's opened up a whole new universe for slander/libel (yes, both). Spam? Some people would suggest it is free speech!

I like your suggestions for what should be protected.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:22 AM

I don't know. To me, that still sounds like it's unintentional, and the family is largely unaware of how they pile on their black-sheep/scape goat.

I think abuse has to be intentional. However, this can be unintentionally traumatizing, which is something that should be addressed, but again, not something I think can be prosecuted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think you guys are taking the whole concept of "free speech" waaaay beyond what it was intended by the FF. "Free speech" wasn't mean to imply that you can say anything that pops into your head under any circumstances. It's my understanding that the concept of "free speech" was that you couldn't be prosecuted by the government for criticizing the government. It doesn't apply to what you might say about your neighbor, OR about the company you work for- which will fire your *ss so fast you won't even know what happened if you should even breathe a hint of criticism about it.

MY definition of "free speech" goes farther than what the FF intended. If we could just get to THAT point, it would be great.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:40 AM

TRAVELER

It does not have to be yelling. You can tell children, everyday, that they are useless without yelling. There are plenty of parents who practice this.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:
MY definition of "free speech" goes farther than what the FF intended. If we could just get to THAT point, it would be great.

I'm not sure it would, I think it'd just be more ways to prosecute people under a broken judicial system and also to force people to conform to a mainstream mentality.

But rest assured, I don't particularly like the founding fathers either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
It does not have to be yelling. You can tell children, everyday, that they are useless without yelling. There are plenty of parents who practice this.

And minus any specific cases I can look at as to whether just "belittling" a vulnerable child (or adult) can be abuse, I still am inclined to call it likely inadvertent for the most part. But I concede that damage is done that maybe does need to be addressed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nobody has addressed the problem of access. Free speech is great, but if you can't get your voice heaqrd its meaningless. Whereas we're bombarded every blinkin' day about how buying this or that product will make us happy, glamorous and sexy. (WHich BTW immediately presupposes that those are all worthwile goals in and of themselves)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:30 PM

Advertising bombardment doesn't work anymore, companies have been forced to find new, unobtrusive advertising styles using the internet.

Pretty soon, it won't be a competition with commercials, but competition between many voices that will make it difficult for anyone to be heard.

You could always try hacking into analog television airways, of course your audience is still likely to be tiny and you might receive some undue interest from the military and police who are now using that technology for communication.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:36 PM

N/M

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:01 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nobody has addressed the problem of access. Free speech is great, but if you can't get your voice heard its meaningless. Whereas we're bombarded every blinkin' day about how buying this or that product will make us happy, glamorous and sexy. (WHich BTW immediately presupposes that those are all worthwile goals in and of themselves)

Nowadays, with the Interwebs, everyone has a voice, but being heard is still largely about money. Don't know how you change that other than banding together into a group, adding more voices. Maybe you need a more obtainable standard for "being heard."

"Whereas we're bombarded every blinkin' day about how buying this or that product will make us happy, glamorous and sexy."

There's also Freedom From Speech. The Mute Button is one of the great inventions of our time.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:04 PM

Quote:

There's also Freedom From Speech. The Mute Button is one of the great inventions of our time.

As are the DVR and the iPod. No radio, no commercials on TV. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You can also refuse to look at billboards, buy magazines or newspapers, or screen out the popups?

Why don't you just admit we're saturated with advert? Everything is about advert. Which shows get picked for TV and which get cancelled (ouch), the so-called "news" (gotta keep that audience tuned for yet another chance to sell! sell! sell!!), which search engines are gonna make it and which aren't, and it has nothing to do with the content itself and everything to do with advertising dollars. Because its all geared to that demographic which spends thoughtlessly (males age 19-45). So everything we see... or don't see... is about avert... gotta be flashy and quick, have happy endings (or gory ones, look at the crap that Wulf comes up with), and mostly it has to make you NOT THINK. Because thinking is anathema to advert, dontcha know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:38 PM

Quote:

You can also refuse to look at billboards, buy magazines or newspapers, or screen out the popups?

Not sure I can tune out billboards, but I try not to pay much attention to them. I *can* refuse to buy magazines or newspapers, and I definitely block popups. :)

But I get your point. We are bombarded, 24/7. That's why I make an effort to block what I can.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, my question is... why do THEY get so much "free speech"?

I mean, Christ, if TV was blaring the wonderfulness of the government nonstop, or a call to prayer (or church bells, your pick) was being broadcast 24/7, we'd be pretty quick to call it propaganda and damn if the loudpeakers in the minaret (steeple) wouldn't be shot out right quick. So why do we just unthinkingly accept the ubiquitousness of advert? Every time my hubby looks at the magazines in the rack at the grocery store he just kinda grimaces and says I see they're still selling tits and ass. I wonder how much they go for?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:46 PM

Because, while they're annoying, it's impossible to prove that they cause harm to anyone... Even the ones promoting making ourselves happy, glamourous, and sexy that probably are a major contributor to eating disorders.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:01 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Man Fired Over Gay Marriage Comment

A retail manager lost his job after telling another manager that he is uncomfortable with her homosexuality, according to Fox News and a statement the fired employee posted on YouTube.

Peter Vadala, 24, worked as a deputy manager at a Brookstone gifts store at Boston's Logan Airport until August, he said. A woman visiting from another store mentioned her female fiance. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts.

"As a Christian, I think that's bad stuff," Vadala said in his video. The co-worker warned him she would speak to human resources, he said.

"HR, buddy, keep your opinions to yourself," he said he was told.

In the YouTube, Vadala says the Bookstone training video indicated an employee could be fired for resisting homosexual overtures.

Brookstone's president and CEO said in a statement that company officials do not discuss personnel matters publicly, and that a "thorough and fair investigation" had been completed.

730 plus Comments

www.henrymakow.com/httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvbwxokoc.html

Hatecriminal!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it's impossible to prove that they cause harm to anyone

Erm... not true.

Anyway, I'll be out for a while. I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:32 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Banned to Troll country for screenshot from V of Morena's passport sayin she's a man:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=15&t=40738

That explains the butch haircut.

Seems mos hate free speech. Alien or terrestrial.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Banned to Troll country for screenshot from V of Morena's passport sayin she's a man:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=15&t=40738

That explains the butch haircut.

Seems mos hate free speech. Alien or terrestrial.

That would make you a 'mo, then. You seem to really hate that Haken has the "free speech" rights to send your bullshit to troll country. And since it's his site and he pays the bills, you should be glad that's ALL he's done.

Tell me, legal genius - Were you banned? Was your thread locked? Have you been warned by Haken not to post anything like this again? No?

Then how has your "free speech" been muzzled?

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:27 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Why don't you just admit we're saturated with advert? Everything is about advert. Which shows get picked for TV and which get cancelled (ouch), the so-called "news" (gotta keep that audience tuned for yet another chance to sell! sell! sell!!), which search engines are gonna make it and which aren't, and it has nothing to do with the content itself and everything to do with advertising dollars. Because its all geared to that demographic which spends thoughtlessly (males age 19-45). So everything we see... or don't see... is about avert... gotta be flashy and quick, have happy endings (or gory ones, look at the crap that Wulf comes up with), and mostly it has to make you NOT THINK. Because thinking is anathema to advert, dontcha know.

Admit? Oh yeah, big time, totally admit and completely agree with that stance. I love Children of Men for the chilling look at the future of 'adverts' with the giant video screens all over the fronts of buildings ("love" as in, "brilliant, they so got that right"). That they cover up the architecture (art) is a bonus and telling metaphor.

You are familiar I assume with Noreena Hertz? I'm just catching up on her work, looks interesting.
It's kind of a runaway train though, stopping it from getting to CofMen stage is... I lay odds it's impossible. In fact, I bet there are advertisers out there salivating over those images from that movie - if they hadn't already thought of it, "just waiting for the technology and we'll cover the world with screens... retna scans to tell how many eyeballs have looked at each ad for how many milliseconds..."

As to your other question, I think you made the distinction earlier; they're not buying free speech, they are buying access.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Content, context, access, harm, honesty.

Boiled down to 5 words, those are correct, and the best listing of the criteria for judging the issue I have ever seen.

Quote:

The other big concept is access. Sure, you may be free to spout your spiel on a streecorner... or in a free speech zone three miles from anything...

That is exactly an improper restriction of the right. Free speech on public property, or even private property used in a public manner, should not be abridged to benefit the government or a private entity. The convention parking lot may be private property, rented by the XX Party to convene and present its message, but that doesn't give them exemption from the right of others to oppose. Conversely, inside the convention hall is , pretty much, a private area, where the party can control what is expressed. But all of what is expressed, and that which is suppressed, and how, should be reportable.

Quote:

And I see NOBC touched on those issues while I was typing!

Great minds running in the same channel...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you guys are taking the whole concept of "free speech" waaaay beyond what it was intended by the FF. "Free speech" wasn't mean to imply that you can say anything that pops into your head under any circumstances. It's my understanding that the concept of "free speech" was that you couldn't be prosecuted by the government for criticizing the government. It doesn't apply to what you might say about your neighbor, OR about the company you work for- which will fire your *ss so fast you won't even know what happened if you should even breathe a hint of criticism about it.

MY definition of "free speech" goes farther than what the FF intended. If we could just get to THAT point, it would be great.

You are correct on both fact and your improvement on it. Restriction of government response to free speech is the essence of the right. They are the folks who can put you in jail or have you executed for what you just said. But even that restriction is not absolute, there are some limits to what is acceptable.
Similarly, there should be some limits to private or corporate response to free speech: Enron is gonna fire you if you blow the whistle on Ken Lay, but should not be able to. If you blow the whistle on your employers' defective product, illegal activity, or publicly expose serious violations of its own safety or quality policies that public harm or injury, you should be protected.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:30 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

There's also Freedom From Speech. The Mute Button is one of the great inventions of our time.

As are the DVR and the iPod. No radio, no commercials on TV. :)

ahhh the DVR... that should be a right protected by the constitution.
Has this ever happened to you? You're NOT watching tv and something happens and you aren't quite sure what you just heard or saw and you instinctively reach for the rewind button?? Scary.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:41 AM

DREAMTROVE

Still not here, but ghosting:

No limits to free speech. This is not a matter of what should or shouldn't be said, that is a matter that should be developed by a functional society. Limits on free speech, all of them, regardless of topic, medium, etc, are about power: It's all about who gets to say what can be said.

Govt. is probably the closest thing to evil that I have seen in world, some govts. more than others, but if you want to see death, suffering, slavery, environmental destruction and general dehumanization, the front runners will always be govts. Given this, what fool would trust the power of who can say what to a govt, knowing full well what govt. wants, and that it will use any power given to it to get what it wants: to eternally cling to ultimate power, a machiavellian infinite loop.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:48 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, here's what I found. From Wikipedia:

Quote:
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.

Interpretations contain: Commercial Speech--

Quote:
Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is speech motivated by profit. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. Restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny.

Restrictions include:

Quote:
Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.

There's a lot of complexity involved, and it appears that the courts have a lot of room to maneuver and interpret what constitutes legal "free speech".

Also, what I don't think I saw mentioned is that it's not free speech and not covered by the First Amendment if it's done in a magazine, newspaper, web site, etc., which is privately owned; one of the complaints here by PN and others is that their rights to free speech are constrained and it's illegal. It's not; whoever OWNS the medium upon which the speech is expressed has the right to censor anything on their owned media.

Carrie Prejean has been bitching and moaning about her free-speech rights having been infringed, but that's bullshit. Nobody has stopped her saying anything, BUT I believe the Miss USA pageant would have had the RIGHT to censor her remarks that "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage [which of course isn't true; dumb blonde]. And you know what, I think in my country [not ours, you understand, but HERS], in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman [she "thinks" she "believes"...I wonder what she really believes?]." There's nothing wrong with the statement, it's her opinion, but she didn't have the "right" to say it if those who paid for the pageant chose not to let her.

It's a very complex issue from what I've been able to find, and one that is ever changing. Personally, I go along with Wikipedia's definitions. Beyond those, I don't like to see free speech limited, however it may offend ME personally...tho' getting Fox off the air or making them tell the TRUTH...oh, well, one can dream...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:38 PM