NationStates Jolt Archive

Having been involved in the mud wrestling match that is the debate on this forum about the cartoon controversy, it has occured to me that a lot of people here really have no idea what free speech means in regards to its philosophical underpinnings. By this I mean that people fail to understand why it is so important and why western countries consider its protection so important. Well, I'm an American so I have no idea what laws in other countried restrict or support free speech, but I do know a bit about why it is important here. Rather than listen to me, however, I tought I would defer to more accomplished writers to explain it.

''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''

"Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press" and "To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government."

"In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,'"

''we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.''23 And in 1969, it was said that the cases ''have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.
(Before all you apologists say, "The cartoons DID incite lawless action," the speech has to call for it. In other words, if I take a picture of a crucifix in a bottle of urin and a bunch of Christians start burning buildings as a result that's not me inciting them to riot. If I publish a paper asking all Christians to kill every doctor that works at an abortion clinic and they do it, that's inciting to violence.)

It's not really freedom when it's freedom to say anything one wants except for the things you don't like.

It's not really freedom when it's freedom to say anything one wants except for the things you don't like.
That's why true freedom doesn't exist under a government. Without regulations, government couldn't function.

Just thought I would also mention that it is the protection of freedom of speech that makes this place possible. :) I like this place. I like debating matters of social and political import without fear of maybe being prosecuted if I post something that might offend someone. If you do not protect speech as absolutely as possible, you leave the door open for a world to emerge where a place like this, with debates like this, are not possible.

Just thought I would also mention that it is the protection of freedom of speech that makes this place possible. :)

There is no freedom of speech here....what there is is freedom to talk about what Max Barry and the mods let you talk about.

Which is generally a wide range of things.

There is no freedom of speech here....what there is is freedom to talk about what Max Barry and the mods let you talk about.

Which is generally a wide range of things.
Sure, it's privately owned, but the government can't prosecute you for what you type here. At least mine can't.

Sure, it's privately owned, but the government can't prosecute you for what you type here. At least mine can't.You're probably right there, but that probably has something to do with the server and its contents being in the UK and subject to UK law and not US law.

I just had a thought, could Muslim clerics launch a lawsuit against the cartoonists for Libel or something?

Historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the "Red Scare" of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers.

Today, the creators, producers and distributers of popular culture are often blamed for the nation’s deep social problems. Calls for censorship threaten to erode free speech.

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.
More on free speech...

Sure, it's privately owned, but the government can't prosecute you for what you type here. At least mine can't.
Neither can most, but to say you have freedom of speech here isn't really correct.

Neither can most, but to say you have freedom of speech here isn't really correct.

That isn't what was said. The post said that freedom of speech is what allows this place to exist at all. If freedom of speech wasn't allowed, how many governments would want its citizens debating the pros and cons of different government structures, for instance?

Do you think that China allows NS as one of its allowed sites?

You're probably right there, but that probably has something to do with the server and its contents being in the UK and subject to UK law and not US law.

I just had a thought, could Muslim clerics launch a lawsuit against the cartoonists for Libel or something?
We talk about this stuff on my website all the time and the government can't do anything about it. Hell, there's a group of people who follow our president around wherever her goes yelling at him and calling him a baby killer and all kinds of vile crap and nothing ever happens to them

As for a libel suit, sure, but they'd lose. You need to prove three things:

1. You were the personal subject of a published attack.
2. The attack was malicious, meaning that it was not used to spread an idea or to attack a political idea you espouse but to hurt you personally because of emnity.
3. It could or has caused you financial harm such as preventing you from getting or keeping a job. For exemple, accusing a day care owner of child molestation.

You're probably right there, but that probably has something to do with the server and its contents being in the UK and subject to UK law and not US law.

I just had a thought, could Muslim clerics launch a lawsuit against the cartoonists for Libel or something?

They most probably could if they would stop burning buildings and throwing rocks and try to come up with positive solutions. I realize that most Muslims are rational people who have nothing to do with the isolated incidents shown on television, but it seems to me that if those in power within the Muslim community did a better job at preaching messages of peaceful protest instead of inciting the radicals to violence or merely standing by, this whole controversy would work out more smoothly.

We talk about this stuff on my website all the time and the government can't do anything about it. Hell, there's a group of people who follow our president around wherever her goes yelling at him and calling him a baby killer and all kinds of vile crap and nothing ever happens to them

As for a libel suit, sure, but they'd lose. You need to prove three things:

1. You were the personal subject of a published attack.
2. The attack was malicious, meaning that it was not used to spread an idea or to attack a political idea you espouse but to hurt you personally because of emnity.
3. It could or has caused you financial harm such as preventing you from getting or keeping a job. For exemple, accusing a day care owner of child molestation.I'm not sure of free speech laws in the US, but sounds like your friend could be exposing themselves to a slander law suit, but the administration can't be bothered.

It might be quite easy to show evidence of point 3 considering the amount of animosity that the cartoons have provoked among non-muslims towards muslims. (though you could probably counter that most of those feelings stem from the Muslims reactions to the cartoons).

I'm not sure of free speech laws in the US, but sounds like your friend could be exposing themselves to a slander law suit, but the administration can't be bothered.Nope. We're allowed to say just about anything we want. We can critize the government all we want. watch:

George Bush is undoubtedly the stupidest president the United states has ever had. His administration will go down in history as the most inept, damaging administration this country has ever seen.

There. No one will come and get me. I can wear that on a shirt outside the White House and have a sign with a picture of George Bush with his hat shaped like a bomb and no one would arrest me.

It might be quite easy to show evidence of point 3 considering the amount of animosity that the cartoons have provoked among non-muslims towards muslims. (though you could probably counter that most of those feelings stem from the Muslims reactions to the cartoons).
Proving one does you no good. You have to prove all three.

That isn't what was said. The post said that freedom of speech is what allows this place to exist at all. If freedom of speech wasn't allowed, how many governments would want its citizens debating the pros and cons of different government structures, for instance?

Do you think that China allows NS as one of its allowed sites?

Fair enough.

And yea...I do remember seeing a member here from China. Name was Sino or something.

Fair enough.

And yea...I do remember seeing a member here from China. Name was Sino or something.
Start a convo about Tein An Men Square and see hwo long anyone from China is allowed in here.

Fair enough.

And yea...I do remember seeing a member here from China. Name was Sino or something.

A "member from China," or a "member in China"?

Considering that google in China is supposed to block any search for any governmental system other than communism - by bringing up the "China's Communism rocks!" page instead, I highly doubt that this would be an allowed site.

A "member from China," or a "member in China"?

Considering that google in China is supposed to block any search for any governmental system other than communism - by bringing up the "China's Communism rocks!" page instead, I highly doubt that this would be an allowed site.
Yeah. It must be much like living in a Muslim country.

A "member from China," or a "member in China"?

Considering that google in China is supposed to block any search for any governmental system other than communism - by bringing up the "China's Communism rocks!" page instead, I highly doubt that this would be an allowed site.

In China, as far as I know. And I remember seeing a couple of others as well.

I don't remember who said it but I remember an old saying...

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will die defending your right to say it"

If only more people thought that way.

I have a MS in Speech-Communication. I'm all for freedom of speech and press. But, at the same time just because you have a RIGHT to do something doesn't mean that you should have no compassion, morallity, or love for your fellow human.

No, the cartoons should not be censored by a government. The author should have every right to express their opinion. But the author should not be honored. The author showed a cold blooded disregard and disrespect for the beliefs of 1/3 of the people of the world. A people who's beliefs are under constant attack from their enemies. Enemies that blatantly attack their land and work to destroy their beliefs.

I hear the "religious right" of the Christian movement rally their troops by saying Christianity is under attack. It is obvious that if Christianity were truely under attack (rather than actually being in a position of great strength) they would send the believers into the streets.

This is ironic, because any reading of the NT as to how a Christian is to treat others of other beliefs shows that Christians are to treat those of other beliefs with compassion and love. Christians are told by Paul, that if something is ok to do for a Christian, BUT it is not ok for your neighbor, Don't do it, yield to the beliefs of others.

It's not a government saying don't do it. The government should give as many freedoms as possible. It should be people that limit themselves through love of their fellow mankind.

I don't see how anyone's freedom of speech has been violated by the reaction to these cartoons

Nobody's freedom of speech was violated by making the cartoons. It's when people try to stop them from making the cartoons that infringes on freedom.

Freedom itself is defined as the ability to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't conflict with somebody elses' freedom.
In America, I can pretty much say whatever I want, as long as it doesn't prevent someone from saying what he or she wants to say.

What did the cartoons look like anyways? Does anybody have a link to them?

I don't see how anyone's freedom of speech has been violated by the reaction to these cartoons
It hasn't. To the contrary, it's brought up a debate over whether free speech went too far this time. It goes to show that you can have free speech, but in turn, there will always be consequences to your freedom.

No one's arguing that Muslims don't have the right to express themselves. My argument is that we need to be careful not to give up our right to free expression in the face of threats and intimidation. There are people in other threads actually calling for prosecution of people who publish these cartoons. That's just stupid.

What did the cartoons look like anyways? Does anybody have a link to them?

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

Nobody's freedom of speech was violated by making the cartoons. It's when people try to stop them from making the cartoons that infringes on freedom.


'People'? or the government?

I don't remember who said it but I remember an old saying...

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will die defending your right to say it"

If only more people thought that way.

Voltaire said something similar :)

I just had a thought, could Muslim clerics launch a lawsuit against the cartoonists for Libel or something?

No, slandering a class of people is not actionable. Muhammed could launch at suit. But he is dead. So you can say what you like about him.

A "member from China," or a "member in China"?
From China. Sino lived "in the west," but was still extremly nationalistic with very fascist leaning.

Another poster who was on here for a while was Dragonsomething or other. He lived in Hong Kong, though, so the internet may not be as restricted for him. He was also extremely nationalistic and socially conservative, though much less than Sino.

That's why true freedom doesn't exist under a government. Without regulations, government couldn't function.

In my opinion this shouldn't be the case. The government should simply make it a more profitable course of action to do what they wish. Tecnically lawless, in fact there would be pathways that the majority would take, because it is more profitable. Capitalist government!