NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear people time and again complaining about free speech. I'm wondering why.

Complaining what about it?
Are you talking about the people who claim their rights to free speech are being oppressed?
Or the people who think freedom of speech is a bad thing?
Or something else I missed entirely?

complaining that its being suppressed.

Free speach is a basic tenet of democracy and a free society. Generally when it is supressed it is to exert government control over the populace.

complaining that its being suppressed.
Ah, those people.
I don't know quite what they are complaining about either.

EDIT: Wait, are you talking about within the US like I blindly and stupidly assumed, or am I totally off-track here?

I've set here for about 15 min. puzzling on it and for the life of me, I can't not think of a single, good reason.

To Neo:Mainly the US. Sorry about my vagueness.

I've set here for about 15 min. puzzling on it and for the life of me, I can't not think of a single, good reason.

To Neo:Mainly the US. Sorry about my vagueness.
Hmmm. Maybe if your freedome of speech is removed you may appreciate it more.

I support near total free speech. That means that even hate speech bans are not on in my book.

Ah, those people.
I don't know quite what they are complaining about either.

EDIT: Wait, are you talking about within the US like I blindly and stupidly assumed, or am I totally off-track here?
Why do you Americans ALWAYS instantly assume everything is in the US? Like when I start a gay marriage thread, everyone assumes I'm talking about American right-wing Christians, as if it's not an issue anywhere else.

Look, I've moved the thread off-topic!

Hmmm. Maybe if your freedome of speech is removed you may appreciate it more.

What? I'm not the one complaining. Seems like a lot of other people are and I'd like someone to tell me why.

Why do you Americans ALWAYS instantly assume everything is in the US?
I dunno about all Americans, but I have an annoying tendency to do that that I can't seem to get over.
:(
Look, I've moved the thread off-topic!
Heeey! That's my job!
:D

I support near total free speech. That means that even hate speech bans are not on in my book.


Why do you Americans ALWAYS instantly assume everything is in the US? Like when I start a gay marriage thread, everyone assumes I'm talking about American right-wing Christians, as if it's not an issue anywhere else.

Look, I've moved the thread off-topic!

But the US is what i meant. I don't live in any of the those other countries, so I cannot attest to how free speech is viewed there. I'm not going to project my culture on someone elses, like so many readily do to the US.

PS: This is not an attack directed at you, please don't take it personally. I just wonder why there such a blatant double standard as far as this matter is concerned. The matter of cultural projection that is.

If we are talking about the U.S., there are several threats to free speech recently, including hate crimes laws, the bans on cross-burning in several states (upheld by the Supreme Court), the attempted deportation of left-wing journalist Roger Calero, the laws in many states against picketing abortion clinics, etc.

These complement threats to free speech in other countries, such as press censorship in Iraq, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie that continues to this day, and so forth.

These complement threats to free speech in other countries, such as press censorship in Iraq, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie that continues to this day, and so forth.
I'm rather surprised that's continued for this long.

If we are talking about the U.S., there are several threats to free speech recently, including hate crimes laws, the bans on cross-burning in several states (upheld by the Supreme Court), the attempted deportation of left-wing journalist Roger Calero, the laws in many states against picketing abortion clinics, etc.

These complement threats to free speech in other countries, such as press censorship in Iraq, the fatwa against Salman Rushdie that continues to this day, and so forth.

What do hate speech bans have to do with anything? I fail to see how encouraging random acts of violence against a race has any thing to do with free speech. Free spech only extends to the point that you aren't trampling on others rights. Honestly, I don't see how this affects you or why you would care.

Picketings clinics is detrimental to anothers business and they have a right to have you removed or prevent you from doing it in the first place. That being said I detest abortion.

What do hate speech bans have to do with anything? I fail to see how encouraging random acts of violence against a race has any thing to do with free speech. Free spech only extends to the point that you aren't trampling on others rights.
But is speaking about others in a negative light truly trampling on their rights?

free speech allowed people to talk about watever they want the goverment cannot as easyly opress information and u can complain about things with out a worry that anything is goin to happen to u but now with the 'patriotic law' or watever its called u say somtin bout the goverment they cancall u a terriost and then u can be off to jail without a trial or anything

If threatens their security, then yes. There is no problem with just saying that you hate a group of people and to my knowledge the only laws against hate speech are against the threatening kind. The kind that encourages people to go grab a shotgun and kill a (insert racial slur here)

free speech allowed people to talk about watever they want the goverment cannot as easyly opress information and u can complain about things with out a worry that anything is goin to happen to u but now with the 'patriotic law' or watever its called u say somtin bout the goverment they cancall u a terriost and then u can be off to jail without a trial or anything

The patroit act is kind of stupidass, but the only cases I've heard of where someone said something against the gov't and were hauled away were cases in which law enforcement was abusing their power. Perhaps, we should keep closer tabs on police, maybe.

But is speaking about others in a negative light truly trampling on their rights?
Speaking about it, no. But the question is, is there a difference between making your opinion known to all and sundry or purposefully antagonizing the targets of your speech in order to goad them to a course of action that may be in the eyes of the law... unwise.

If threatens their security, then yes. There is no problem with just saying that you hate a group of people and to my knowledge the only laws against hate speech are against the threatening kind. The kind that encourages people to go grab a shotgun and kill a (insert racial slur here)
I'm against racism, but people have responsibility for their own actions. You can't blame someone else when some idiot kills a black man. That said, I think people who scream racist slogans in the faces of black/brown/yellow/white/whatever people should be arrested. That is crossing the line IMO.

The main point of this thread is that I've heard so many complaints about free speech but always in dealing with someone else. No one has ever given me an example of how their free spech is being oppressed. I also wonder why people constantly cite these twenty or so odd cases of people being held w/o habaes corpus as proof of a negative nationwide trend. I'm soryy if my psots are a little less than coherent. Its late and I'm very tired, indeed.

Alright, say I go tell someone to get a gun and kill you. They go get a gun and kill you. And I'm not infringing upon you in any way. I realize the brunt of the fault must lie with the perp, but encouraging acts of violence against someone is threatening their security IMO, and therefore infirnges on their rights.

Alright, say I go tell someone to get a gun and kill you. They go get a gun and kill you. And I'm not infringing upon you in any way. I realize the brunt of the fault must lie with the perp, but encouraging acts of violence against someone is threatening their security IMO, and therefore infirnges on their rights.
Then you'd be an accessory to murder.

There was a case of a small child, who made "anti-american" comments (something about wishing all Marines would die). His parents were grilled for a few hours to discover how he got such "anti-american" ideas in his head.

The Patriot Act has lead to the infiltration of the anti-war movement on a par to the CoIntelPro scheme of the sixties.

Re: Freedom of Speech - true freedom of speech allows me to call you all sorts of nasty words, and you to call me some back. Or ignore me. Or get some friends together and be rude about me louder than I can be about you.

And cross-burning is not freedom of speech. It's freedom of expression, or freedom of action, or similar. Freedom of speech would be being free to advocate cross-burning, or writing about cross-burning, or drawing a picture of a burning cross.

Re: Freedom of Speech 2 - the corporate media in the US is predominantly right-wing (look at Fox news) due to the massive costs in producing a nationwide media outpoint. This cost is half payed by the owner and advertisers. The advertisers wish to sell products, and therefore want their products to be associated with a certain image. They buy advert time in programs which best reflect that image. They buy less time in programs which do not reflect that image. The owners (and programmers), in a bid to maximise profit, naturally put on more programs which reflect the advertisers image.

The media may be "liberal" in that it is not red-baiting. It must be as inclusive as possible in order to maximise its audience. But the overall output is slanted towards its ultimate purpose: advertising. This includes news, which has ad-breaks.

Tied into this is the increasing reliance on government spokespersons. It is easier to quote a government spokesperson than a radical person. Given that the average length of a broadcast has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years, the media is more likely to rely on one source than a variety. Once an approach is accepted (for instance, Saddam threw out the weapon inspectors) it is very simple to repeat it. It is "accepted truth".

Now along comes Joe Radical. He believes something else. He is given a 30 second slot on the news to explain. Now he has to demonstrate conclusively to a hostile interviewer that not only is the information that they have been stating for a considerable period of time is wrong, but that his information is correct. This tends to take longer than the time allowed, especially where the interview is a two-hander, with, say, a governemental spokesperson there to denounce his views.

Then you'd be an accessory to murder.
I'm not sure idf the law counts verbal dircetion as an acessory to murder. But if it doesn't maybe it should. Probably ought to be taken on a case by case basis.

Alright, say I go tell someone to get a gun and kill you. They go get a gun and kill you... I realize the brunt of the fault must lie with the perp

In this case you would be equally liable. Inchoate offences are not freedom of speech. They are conspiracy or incitement.

Known as the "let 'im have it" situation.

There was a case of a small child, who made "anti-american" comments (something about wishing all Marines would die). His parents were grilled for a few hours to discover how he got such "anti-american" ideas in his head.


This is my point though, A case. As in one.

In this case you would be equally liable. Inchoate offences are not freedom of speech. They are conspiracy or incitement.

Known as the "let 'im have it" situation.
Is it conspircay if I didn't aid or help plan it in anyway? Are there any lawyers here which can clue us in?

This is my point though, A case. As in one.

And the rest of my post demonstrated the restrictions on free speech inherent in an entire system.

Is it conspircay if I didn't aid or help plan it in anyway? Are there any lawyers here which can clue us in?

I am a law student. It's incitment if you tell someone to do it.

There was a case of a small child, who made "anti-american" comments (something about wishing all Marines would die). His parents were grilled for a few hours to discover how he got such "anti-american" ideas in his head.

The Patriot Act has lead to the infiltration of the anti-war movement on a par to the CoIntelPro scheme of the sixties.

Re: Freedom of Speech - true freedom of speech allows me to call you all sorts of nasty words, and you to call me some back. Or ignore me. Or get some friends together and be rude about me louder than I can be about you.

And cross-burning is not freedom of speech. It's freedom of expression, or freedom of action, or similar. Freedom of speech would be being free to advocate cross-burning, or writing about cross-burning, or drawing a picture of a burning cross.

Re: Freedom of Speech 2 - the corporate media in the US is predominantly right-wing (look at Fox news) due to the massive costs in producing a nationwide media outpoint. This cost is half payed by the owner and advertisers. The advertisers wish to sell products, and therefore want their products to be associated with a certain image. They buy advert time in programs which best reflect that image. They buy less time in programs which do not reflect that image. The owners (and programmers), in a bid to maximise profit, naturally put on more programs which reflect the advertisers image.

The media may be "liberal" in that it is not red-baiting. It must be as inclusive as possible in order to maximise its audience. But the overall output is slanted towards its ultimate purpose: advertising. This includes news, which has ad-breaks.

Tied into this is the increasing reliance on government spokespersons. It is easier to quote a government spokesperson than a radical person. Given that the average length of a broadcast has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years, the media is more likely to rely on one source than a variety. Once an approach is accepted (for instance, Saddam threw out the weapon inspectors) it is very simple to repeat it. It is "accepted truth".

Now along comes Joe Radical. He believes something else. He is given a 30 second slot on the news to explain. Now he has to demonstrate conclusively to a hostile interviewer that not only is the information that they have been stating for a considerable period of time is wrong, but that his information is correct. This tends to take longer than the time allowed, especially where the interview is a two-hander, with, say, a governemental spokesperson there to denounce his views.

This last case, I believe has little to do with the government. It is however an increasing problem. Our media ideally, is supposed to be free of prior restraint. But instead it seems as if it is just the news corps who are doing the restraining. This is a pretty big problem w/o a ready solution. Mainly I think its just up to us as viewers to demand better from our media.

I am a law student. It's incitment if you tell someone to do it.
Well that settles that then. How is it really that much different when one guy tells a mass of people to murder and some do it vs. when someone tells one person to do it and he does it.

How is it really that much different when one guy tells a mass of people to murder and some do it vs. when someone tells one person to do it and he does it.

It isn't really that different. In the first instance, in the UK at least, they would be prosecuted for Inciting Racial Hatred. In the second, for Incitement.

This last case, I believe has little to do with the government. It is however an increasing problem. Our media ideally, is supposed to be free of prior restraint. But instead it seems as if it is just the news corps who are doing the restraining. This is a pretty big problem w/o a ready solution. Mainly I think its just up to us as viewers to demand better from our media.

The biggest problem is the un-willingness of the media to challenge the government line, in part due to the complexities inherent in arguing against it (mention in my original post).

Let's look at the Abu Graibh (sp?) situation. The US media discovers a few photos of US soldiers torturing prisoners. The government calls the soldiers "a few bad apples". It argues that Abu Graibh was the only instance of this mis-treatment. The media, it implies, got very lucky, getting its hands on the only photos of the only instance of torture. At no point did anyone commit acts without the presence of cameras.

This rather ludicrous situation was accepted pretty much wholesale by the media, both in the US and abroad. There were few dissenting voices, arguing that the likelyhood of soldiers who know that they are breaking with the official line feeling comfortable enough to photograph themselves doing the forbidden act.

Then came the congressional enquiry, and the reported 1000s of photos. This was dismissed rapidly, which resulted in the whole debacle to slip under the radar. Those people arguing contrary to the official line found it increasingly harder to obtain airspace, as people did not want "our boys" reputation to be tarnished by "a few bad apples".

It isn't really that different. In the first instance, in the UK at least, they would be prosecuted for Inciting Racial Hatred.
Well not unless they were telling people to kill members of a specific race they wouldnt.

Well not unless they were telling people to kill members of a specific race they wouldnt.

I fail really to see the difference between telling someone to kill Joe Blow vs. telling someone to go kill a Hispanic and Joe Blow happening to be the one he killed.

I hear people time and again complaining about free speech. I'm wondering why.

I don't complain about it, I'm a big fan. I might complain about people who don't like it though.

This is my point though, A case. As in one.

The suppression of one person's free speech is a danger to us all. We should endeavor to make sure it happens to no one. The Patriot Act is too easy to abuse. Any law that can be abused in that way needs some serious study. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

The suppression of one person's free speech is a danger to us all. We should endeavor to make sure it happens to no one. The Patriot Act is too easy to abuse. Any law that can be abused in that way needs some serious study. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Theoretically, I know it should be "one person's rights being suppressed is too many" but the real world is not that idealistic unfortunately. I have mixed feeligns of the Patriot Act. I'm not sure if it should be repealed so much as revised to cover these potentially exploitable loopholes.

I hear people time and again complaining about free speech. I'm wondering why.

Yea. i heard. The mods are too stringent. :(

I hear people time and again complaining about free speech.

Yeah ... I had to pay for mine ... the bastards that get it free - usually by downloading it from the internet - piss me off.

Yea. i heard. The mods are too stringent. :(

I think you mean "astringent", which tends to draw together or constrict tissues. Like a nice facial cleaner.

:D

My point is, it seems like if we lived in a gov't that truly restricted free speech, about half of us on NS would be hauled away overnight. Maybe their are a few minor problems, but I don't think there are any really serious threats otherwise, I probably would be pretty pissed.