NationStates Jolt Archive

Post your views,
what is apropriate and what is not,
and any limits if any.

Post your views, what is apropriate and what is not, and any limits if any.

In order for speech to be truly "free" the only limitation I can think of would be on exposing children to things their parents believe would be bad for them, a difficult task at best.

This is a tough one, I would say all speech should be protected, but I know anytime one uses "all", one is generally wrong.

Freedom of Speech without question.

Unfortunatly it can't be absolute. For example, in times of declared war, speech has to sometime be curtailed.

In order for speech to be truly "free" the only limitation I can think of would be on exposing children to things their parents believe would be bad for them, a difficult task at best.

Exposing? As in TV?

Post your views,
what is apropriate and what is not,
and any limits if any.
Time place and manner restrictions (look 'em up) and a few content restrictions (defamation, commerical speech and obsenities)...thats it.

In order for speech to be truly "free" the only limitation I can think of would be on exposing children to things their parents believe would be bad for them, a difficult task at best.

That wouldn't be truly free, now would it? =)

Freedom of speech cannot be an absolute right any more than most of the rights people talk about. Basically, it must be curbed when speech of some sort can be seen as causing demonstrable harm (beyond "I was just offended" obviously). Thus, a reporter can be barred from revealing the location of a special ops mission, as that would directly put troops' lives in danger. Someone can be barred from saying "Go out and kill all the gays right now!" although they cannot be barred from saying "I wish all the gays would just die." Someone can be barred from lying about someone if that lie can be shown to affect their livelihood.

Those perpetrating speech that may be offensive to some should do so in a responsible manner. If someone wants to have a radio station or TV station that is constantly broadcasting things of a sexual or "obscene" nature, they should have frequent content warnings.

However, "that offends me" or "I don't want my children to see that and I refuse to take responsibility for keeping them from seeing it" is not an excuse to abridge freedom of speech.

With rights come responsibilities. As long as we remember that, we will all be ok.

However, "that offends me" or "I don't want my children to see that and I refuse to take responsibility for keeping them from seeing it" is not an excuse to abridge freedom of speech.


Of course. You can say whatever you want, and if others don't like it, then they have to protect themselves. The DNC wouldn't be stopped if Republicans didn't like it. The RNC wasn't stopped (even when protesters looked like assholes) because of some Dems.

i don't think that freedom of speech should be limited, we have ratings on movies, books, and video games, we have v-chips in the tvs, we have parents to teach their kids right from wrong. you can't blame the media for everything, you can only blame the parents for not putting it in perspective, or for not learning to use everything, due to the high level of stupidity here in America, and the rest of the world as well

freedom of speech is not the freedom to exploit peoples' bodies
it means printing (words people, words), writing, saying, singing, whatever we want
using words to express ourselves, not pictures, and videos
freedom of press covers the newsmedia videos
but porn, i dont think hosuld count as freedom of speech

......

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.

In order for speech to be truly "free" the only limitation I can think of would be on exposing children to things their parents believe would be bad for them, a difficult task at best.

I consider a "child" to be anyone 12 and under, going strictly by age. Though it really should be judged by maturity and not age. >.<

What a "child" is considered to be really affects that kind of thing. If it's anyone under 18, then any attempt at sheltering is totally pointless. Most people know more choice words than their parents by the age of 14.

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.



I consider a "child" to be anyone 12 and under, going strictly by age. Though it really should be judged by maturity and not age. >.<

What a "child" is considered to be really affects that kind of thing. If it's anyone under 18, then any attempt at sheltering is totally pointless. Most people know more choice words than their parents by the age of 14.
So infringing on other peoples rights (by, say, defamation) is okay?

So infringing on other peoples rights (by, say, defamation) is okay? do they have a brain? yes. can they speak their mind as well? yes. if they don't want to fend for themselves, then they deserve exactly what is said and believed about them

you people... please remember what the United States founding fathers went through to create a country like ours today. Remember what we have in those first ten amendments that so many people have died for all over the world. The only amendment possible would be to maybe revise the right to bear arms which is getting a little sily, but still any legitament american should be allowed to own damn gun he wants.

do they have a brain? yes. can they speak their mind as well? yes. if they don't want to fend for themselves, then they deserve exactly what is said and believed about them
Are you aware of how hard it is to rebut slander?

freedom of speech is not the freedom to exploit peoples' bodies
it means printing (words people, words), writing, saying, singing, whatever we want
using words to express ourselves, not pictures, and videos
freedom of press covers the newsmedia videos
but porn, i dont think hosuld count as freedom of speech

......

Where speech means not only spoken word, but also written, and as expressed through music and all art, porn would qualify.

Children should be carefully raised however, and just the same as it would be wrong for them to have an extremley unhealthy diet, or to bring them to Iraq and view up-close horrifying images of war, which could be permanentley damaging to anyone, we should not encourage kids to watch pornography at an early age. But just as we can be raised to understand war, hatred, and other similar things, I think that there is so much more that we could do to help kids find out about sex, rather than just shutting it out universally and calling it all evil. It's more of an art than anything in the world. Back to sex as a form of media/entertainment, that IS expression, and ought to be allowed.

I don't think censorship is the answer to protecting our children. I think raising them in a smart responsible way that lets them firmly grasp a solid understanding of where it all fits in the world, is much better.

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.

I would have to disagree here. Allowing a journalist to publish the whereabouts of troops that are planning an attack would be like murdering them outright.

What a "child" is considered to be really affects that kind of thing. If it's anyone under 18, then any attempt at sheltering is totally pointless. Most people know more choice words than their parents by the age of 14.

Sheltering is just fine - but let the parents do it. If they aren't responsible enough to do so, they shouldn't have children.

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.

I would have to disagree here. Allowing a journalist to publish the whereabouts of troops that are planning an attack would be like murdering them outright.



Sheltering is just fine - but let the parents do it. If they aren't responsible enough to do so, they shouldn't have children.



Publishing whereabouts is not a question about free speech. Its a question about common sense. They should keep in mind that revealing exact whereabouts is bad but general location is iffy.

And no it is not murdering them outright.

Publishing whereabouts is not a question about free speech. Its a question about common sense. They should keep in mind that revealing exact whereabouts is bad but general location is iffy.

If the press actually cared about what was common sense instead of what gets good ratings, this might be a point.

And no it is not murdering them outright.

Yes, it is. If a man walks up to you with a gun in his hand and says "Where is your father, I want to kill him" and you say "He's hiding under the bed in the third room from the back," you have effectively murdered your father.

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.

I consider a "child" to be anyone 12 and under, going strictly by age. Though it really should be judged by maturity and not age. >.<

What a "child" is considered to be really affects that kind of thing. If it's anyone under 18, then any attempt at sheltering is totally pointless. Most people know more choice words than their parents by the age of 14.

Heh! True. The only problem with trying something like "maturity" is that it's very subjective. What I might call maturity, you very well might call "immaturity." I don't think there's any real way to measure such a thing objectively.

Exposing? As in TV?

No. You can easily turn the TV off or change the channel if there's something on you don't particularly want your children to see.

Are you aware of how hard it is to rebut slander?

Slander, libel and defamation of character are fairly well defined in common law.

Sheltering is just fine - but let the parents do it. If they aren't responsible enough to do so, they shouldn't have children.

Not easily done. One of the reasons there is such a large movement in the direction of home schooling is that many parents feel their children are being exposed to things in public schools to which they would rather they not be exposed.

Slander, libel and defamation of character are fairly well defined in common law.
Well done, but it is still a restriction on freedom of speech (one of the very few content restrictions)

Where speech means not only spoken word, but also written, and as expressed through music and all art, porn would qualify.

Children should be carefully raised however, and just the same as it would be wrong for them to have an extremley unhealthy diet, or to bring them to Iraq and view up-close horrifying images of war, which could be permanentley damaging to anyone, we should not encourage kids to watch pornography at an early age. But just as we can be raised to understand war, hatred, and other similar things, I think that there is so much more that we could do to help kids find out about sex, rather than just shutting it out universally and calling it all evil. It's more of an art than anything in the world. Back to sex as a form of media/entertainment, that IS expression, and ought to be allowed.

I don't think censorship is the answer to protecting our children. I think raising them in a smart responsible way that lets them firmly grasp a solid understanding of where it all fits in the world, is much better.

Do you have children?

Censoring something and dodging the subject doesn't help a child in any way. They grow up ignorant about the subject, or with an incomplete view. Or in the case of reverse psychology, do what they're told is wrong. However, this would require people to actually raise their children with the ability to think and understand for themselves and protects them only to a certain point from some things. Porn, that's not useful for a kid at an early age. It'll raise questions, but it's nothing they need on their mind. Especially pictures of torn up bodies. That is something that needs a warning, but perhaps not censorship.

Then again, by the time I was in second grade I knew what sex was and the two main organs involved so maybe I'm just raised a little differently.

Oh yes, as an inclusing the libel laws need to be kept for things that are considerred factual. If it's an editorial which states the person is expressing their opinion and no one elses, then I really don't feel that libel laws should be applied. However in news which is supposed to be objective and merely a reporting of the facts, libel laws should definetly be in place.

Not easily done. One of the reasons there is such a large movement in the direction of home schooling is that many parents feel their children are being exposed to things in public schools to which they would rather they not be exposed.

And home schooling their children is the choice they make when they are worried that their children might actually learn science or tolerance of other's beliefs. While I disagree with their views, at least they take the responsibility upon themselves instead of trying to force the government to raise their children for them.

Total unquestioned free speech. Yes, even in war. A nation should NOT compromise its own tenets at any time, especially not during war. If it does, the enemy (whomever that may be) has already won.



I consider a "child" to be anyone 12 and under, going strictly by age. Though it really should be judged by maturity and not age. >.<

What a "child" is considered to be really affects that kind of thing. If it's anyone under 18, then any attempt at sheltering is totally pointless. Most people know more choice words than their parents by the age of 14.

Free speech during war can be good, but what happens when a news station broadcasts that "America will be attacking the city of ______ tomarrow with 3000 troops, including light tanks." well, i think that free speech would be good, as long as it does not include details such as troop numbers or movements. anything else is free game.

Free speech during war can be good, but what happens when a news station broadcasts that "America will be attacking the city of ______ tomarrow with 3000 troops, including light tanks." well, i think that free speech would be good, as long as it does not include details such as troop numbers or movements. anything else is free game.

It isn't good if the attack is supposed to be a surprise attack, nor is it good if they say "... and they are currently all stationed at XXX coordinates."

Do you have children?

I am the oldest in a family of 8. You probably didn't take time to notice that in my post I specifically argued that young kids shouldn't see the stuff, because it can be damaging to them.

you people... please remember what the United States founding fathers went through to create a country like ours today. Remember what we have in those first ten amendments that so many people have died for all over the world. The only amendment possible would be to maybe revise the right to bear arms which is getting a little sily, but still any legitament american should be allowed to own damn gun he wants.


Off topic.

I suppose the whole libel issue is really about contrasting rights. Yes, you have the RIGHT to make false, unjustified statements about me in public. However, I have the RIGHT to, say, initiate a civil lawsuit against you for defamation. In an ideal world, I would provide proof to rebut your statements. And then nobody would take you seriously.

And, people, if you don't like pornography, don't watch it. Simple as that.

I don't think censorship is the answer to protecting our children. I think raising them in a smart responsible way that lets them firmly grasp a solid understanding of where it all fits in the world, is much better.

Agreed.

Absolute Freedom of Speech for all!

Do you have children?

I must say it is, in my opinion, the PARENT'S job to raise the child, not society's. My folks made it very clear what was acceptable in our home and what was not, despite what I might have seen and heard outside the home.

When a parent abdicates that responsibility and depends upon agents of the State to be the moral educator of their child, they have no right to be angered at the values the child is taught or the freedoms that may be curtailed in adults as well as children.

For an excellent discussion of this idea of the state's morality being taught to children, I suggest you read Red Scarf Girl.

Your rights extend out to the point where you infringe upon another's rights.

I must say it is, in my opinion, the PARENT'S job to raise the child, not society's. My folks made it very clear what was acceptable in our home and what was not, despite what I might have seen and heard outside the home.

When a parent abdicates that responsibility and depends upon agents of the State to be the moral educator of their child, they have no right to be angered at the values the child is taught or the freedoms that may be curtailed in adults as well as children.

For an excellent discussion of this idea of the state's morality being taught to children, I suggest you read Red Scarf Girl.

Solid point

If the press actually cared about what was common sense instead of what gets good ratings, this might be a point.



Yes, it is. If a man walks up to you with a gun in his hand and says "Where is your father, I want to kill him" and you say "He's hiding under the bed in the third room from the back," you have effectively murdered your father.

Your second point cannot be proven in any court of law.

However your first point is reasonable. Sometimes news stations care about money/ratings, but what would change that? The Right makes Fox biased toward right, and says all others are "Liberal". Since other stations can't get rid of title some say Screw it and become left.

But in general news tries to fair, not objective because we have natural inclinations, but fair.

But in general news tries to fair, not objective because we have natural inclinations, but fair.

Fair is not necessarily intelligent. Fair would be to accurately report the locations and plans of both sides in a war, but that would be a pretty stupid thing to do and would likely result in even more lost llives.

I am the oldest in a family of 8. You probably didn't take time to notice that in my post I specifically argued that young kids shouldn't see the stuff, because it can be damaging to them.

Yes, I noted that. I was just interested in whether you were a parent or not. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression by asking that. My bad.

I must say it is, in my opinion, the PARENT'S job to raise the child, not society's. My folks made it very clear what was acceptable in our home and what was not, despite what I might have seen and heard outside the home.

When a parent abdicates that responsibility and depends upon agents of the State to be the moral educator of their child, they have no right to be angered at the values the child is taught or the freedoms that may be curtailed in adults as well as children.

For an excellent discussion of this idea of the state's morality being taught to children, I suggest you read Red Scarf Girl.

Excellent, excellent post! My congratulations! :)

"Freedom is Slavery"

Democracy creates nazis, repbulicans, and Klansmen.

Yes, I noted that. I was just interested in whether you were a parent or not. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression by asking that. My bad.

sorry