NationStates Jolt Archive

How are we to balance respect of others with free speech? What measures should government put in place to achieve this?

Absolutely none; respect should come from the person and should be based on the fact that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Government should play no role in regulating any kind of speech, even that considered libelous.

I suppose there are some instances in which measures need to be taken. The classic shouting "Fire!" in a theatre comes to mind, or simply lying about people - I'm afraid we witnessed that the media doesn't have a code of conduct.

But yes, respect has to come from the individual, not from the government.

Respect vs. Free Speech?

Free speech wins every time. You don't have a right to respect.

If its offensive, then you can call them a stupid fuckard. That's the beauty of free speech.

Respect vs. Free Speech?

Free speech wins every time. You don't have a right to respect.

What she said.

What they all said.

Respect vs. Free Speech?

Free speech wins every time. You don't have a right to respect.
w3rd

The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech, such as rallies, flag-burnings, and lynchings.

I don't have a problem with 2/3 of those (provided rallies don't become riots), but obviously, a line does need to be drawn.

Also, I think lying is a serious problem. You should be able to say whatever you wish, as long as you think that it is true.

The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech, such as rallies, flag-burgings, and lynchings.

I don't have a problem with 2/3 of those (provided rallies don't become riots), but a line does need to be drawn.

Also, I think lying is a serious problem. You should be able to say whatever you wish, as long as you think that it is true.

Since when does lynching have anything to do with free speech?

The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech, such as rallies, flag-burgings, and lynchings.

I don't have a problem with 2/3 of those (provided rallies don't become riots), but obviously, a line does need to be drawn.

Also, I think lying is a serious problem. You should be able to say whatever you wish, as long as you think that it is true.

Lynchings? What the fuck?

The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech, such as rallies, flag-burgings, and lynchings.

Well, lynching violates other laws unrelated to freedom of speech, much like a riot would; freedom of speech should only go as far as it doesn't pose an intentional threat to a person or group of persons, so rioting would not be allowed.

Lynchings? What the fuck?

After all, it's free speech, as long as he's black...:rolleyes:

Since when does lynching have anything to do with free speech?

"The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech"

That is how it relates. Lynch mobs often claim free speech.

After all, it's free speech, as long as he's black...:rolleyes:

Yeah. Black, Mexican, Chinese, Native American, Canadian, or Irish.

"The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech"

That is how it relates. Lynch mobs often claim free speech.

By killing people?

Killing people=/=Freedom of speech, no matter your definition.

"The problem with an unlimited right to free speech is that activities that aren't strictly speaking are often heralded as free speech"

That is how it relates. Lynch mobs often claim free speech.

People with brains don't listen to those fucktards.

Well, lynching violates other laws unrelated to freedom of speech, much like a riot would; freedom of speech should only go as far as it doesn't pose an intentional threat to a person or group of persons, so rioting would not be allowed.

So, there should be limits on the freedom of speech, those limits being the laws that we currently have (the ones that don't deal with free speech)?

People with brains don't listen to those fucktards.

That is true. But you can't just say "it's obvious that lynching are bad", you have to spell it out in laws. Hence limits on things that people may claim as free speech.

So, there should be limits on the freedom of speech, those limits being the laws that we currently have (the ones that don't deal with free speech)?

As long as they are enough to prevent direct harm to a person as a result of allowing that free expression to occur.

Perhaps it's just me, bit I'm not seeing the connection between violence and freedom of speech.

As long as they are enough to prevent direct harm to a person as a result of allowing that free expression to occur.

I agree completely.

Perhaps it's just me, bit I'm not seeing the connection between violence and freedom of speech.

The connection is that violent people often claim free speech gives them a right to commit violent acts, i.e. "demonstrations" and "rallies" gone bad.

Perhaps it's just me, bit I'm not seeing the connection between violence and freedom of speech.

The best way to explain it would be that freedom of speech is permissible so long as it doesn't present a directly "clear and present danger" to anyone in the area.

The best way to explain it would be that freedom of speech is permissible so long as it doesn't present a directly "clear and present danger" to anyone in the area.

Yes, I know that. I was just stating that I have never heard of anyone using the freedom of speech to justify violent actions.

Yes, I know that. I was just stating that I have never heard of anyone using the freedom of speech to justify violent actions.
Some have used it to justify psychological violence.

Fred Phelps and other such idiots, for example. The Ku Klux Klan, and all those morons. I hear stories about bigots justifying racism/sexism/homophobia and hate on the grounds of freedom of speech frequently.

Fred Phelps and other such idiots, for example. The Ku Klux Klan, and all those morons. I hear stories about bigots justifying racism/sexism/homophobia and hate on the grounds of freedom of speech frequently.

That is justified. It doesn't make it right, respectable, or moral, but it is free speech and deserves full protection under the law...what actions individuals do to shield themselves from it are another matter, but the government should do nothing about it other than protect the protestors from crimes being committed against them.

Some have used it to justify psychological violence.

Fred Phelps and other such idiots, for example. The Ku Klux Klan, and all those morons. I hear stories about bigots justifying racism/sexism/homophobia and hate on the grounds of freedom of speech frequently.
And they're right to do so in those examples. I have never heard anyone try to justify a lynching on the grounds of free speech.

How are we to balance respect of others with free speech? What measures should government put in place to achieve this?


The government should stay out of it as long as you aren't guilty of slander, libel or treason (defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not as criticizing stupid government actions.)

.. justifying racism/sexism/homophobia and hate on the grounds of freedom of speech frequently.The government ... slander, libel or treason different countries have a different legal definitions for "freedom-of-speech"

giving aid and comfort to the enemy
And what would that look like?

That is justified. It doesn't make it right, respectable, or moral, but it is free speech and deserves full protection under the law...what actions individuals do to shield themselves from it are another matter, but the government should do nothing about it other than protect the protestors from crimes being committed against them.
Well, I'm glad Canadian laws disagree. My personnal take on freedom of speech is that it ends where the others' basic rights to life, equality and freedom begins.

And, I also support a limit on freedom of speech according to libel laws. One should not be able to legally and deliberately present a lie as thruth and expect to get away with it because it's free speech.

Heck, if we listenend to some of you I could claim any sort of atrocity were committed by people I don't like, no matter how false and damaging to those person's lives my assetions were. That is just unacceptable.

The government should stay out of it as long as you aren't guilty of slander, libel or treason (defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not as criticizing stupid government actions.)

I would exclude slander and libel as well, since they seem to be vessels to stop legitimate criticism and satire of the rich, famous, and powerful.

And what would that look like?

In my opinion, actions or words that would actually harm the U.S. and it's citizens in a significant, tangible way. Dissent does not equal disloyalty.

defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy..like when some woman says "the vietcong are rigth, we are wrong". ???

And what would that look like?
Putting a band-aid over your enemies' wounds and supplying them with pillows?

I would exclude slander and libel as well, since they seem to be vessels to stop legitimate criticism and satire of the rich, famous, and powerful.
Slander and libel laws are much more protective of the non-rich-powerful-famous, at least in the US. In the US once you make a decision to put yourself in the public eye your pretty much fair game. Ask Jerry Falwell.

..like when some woman says "the vietcong are rigth, we are wrong". ???

I repeat, dissent does not equal disloyalty. Define it as you will.

I repeat, dissent does not equal disloyalty. Define it as you will.
What about good old Jane Fonda? She went to Vietnam, and she had a look at both sides. The pictures of her talking to North Vietnamese officials and officers went around the world.

Is that "giving comfort"?

treason (defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, not as criticizing stupid government actions.)
Speech has never been held as treason. In order to commit treason you actually have to give them real aid and comfort. Not words, but like weapons or shelter.

What about good old Jane Fonda? She went to Vietnam, and she had a look at both sides. The pictures of her talking to North Vietnamese officials and officers went around the world.

Is that "giving comfort"?

She didn't just talk to them, she took message that were from POWs to their families, and gave those to the North Vietnamese officials. The result of that was harm to the POWs involved. That is treason, if it can be proven.

she took message that were from POWs to their families, and gave those to the North Vietnamese officials. Bull Shit

She didn't just talk to them, she took message that were from POWs to their families, and gave those to the North Vietnamese officials. The result of that was harm to the POWs involved. That is treason, if it can be proven.
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Bull Shit
Well, that's credible evidence countering someone's argument if I've ever seen any *rolls eyes*

She didn't just talk to them, she took message that were from POWs to their families, and gave those to the North Vietnamese officials. The result of that was harm to the POWs involved. That is treason, if it can be proven.
Yeah, Imma need to see some back up of that. I've heard all the Hanoi jane stories and this is the first I've ever heard of that.

... credible evidence.. I say my Gov committed War crimes in Vietnam. Am I now a traitor? Do you think you now have enough credible evidence?

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Please note, I qualified my statement, somewhat awkwardly I admit, with the phrase "if it can be proven"

I say my Gov comited War crimes in Vietnam. Am I now a treator? Do you think you now have enough credible evidence?
*watches as his sarcasm flies WAAAAAAY over your head*

What I meant to say is that in order to counter his claims, you had to elaborate just a little bit more than simply saying "Bull Shit".

Please note, I qualified my statement, somewhat awkwardly I admit, with the phrase "if it can be proven"note that I immediately qualified your statement as not-quite-the-truth..

edit *replaced Bull-shit with not-quite-the-truth*

note that I immediately qualified your statement as Bull-shit.. also note that I didn't even offer to prove you wrong.

One can express disagreement without being rude, although I give you points for keeping it short.

Please note, I qualified my statement, somewhat awkwardly I admit, with the phrase "if it can be proven"
You did, but now you know that next time, you won't have to use that point.

Fact is that simply saying something is not treason. Simply visiting the NVA isn't treason either. Being photographed for the NVA isn't treason. Hell, even working for the NVA isn't treason IMHO. That's just choosing a side.

The only thing I can feasibly accept to be treason is when you actively try to harm your own countries' war efforts without saying so.

And even then, personally, I think an individual's conscience and their decision takes precedence over "national interest". But then, I'm from Germany, and our greatest national heroes are "traitors".

One can express disagreement without being rude.
Seconded.

One can express disagreement without being rude.hmm ok.. I offer you my apology for being rude.

And even then, personally, I think an individual's conscience and their decision takes precedence over "national interest". But then, I'm from Germany, and our greatest national heroes are "traitors".
Good point. If simply admitting that your own government is commiting war crimes, or trying to undermine your own government's war efforts in what you know to be an unjust war is treason, then I guess all those sensible German who opposed the Holocaust and Hitler's madness are traitors.

We need more traitors like that, that's for sure.

hmm ok.. I offer you my apology for being rude.

Accepted. I enjoy debate as long as it remains civilized, heated, but civilized. And I will never claim that I'm always right, especially if you can actually show me, with facts, where I'm wrong.

*watches as his sarcasm flies WAAAAAAY over your head* I also say that my Supreme-Court elected President has committed (and/or is committing) War Crimes in Iraq.
Am I now a traitor?.. Do you have enough credible evidence.

You did, but now you know that next time, you won't have to use that point.

Fact is that simply saying something is not treason. Simply visiting the NVA isn't treason either. Being photographed for the NVA isn't treason. Hell, even working for the NVA isn't treason IMHO. That's just choosing a side.

The only thing I can feasibly accept to be treason is when you actively try to harm your own countries' war efforts without saying so.

And even then, personally, I think an individual's conscience and their decision takes precedence over "national interest". But then, I'm from Germany, and our greatest national heroes are "traitors".

I have stated previously that dissent does not equal disloyalty. You might also be interested to know that I agree with Thomas Jefferson's (I think it was Jefferson, it could have been Franklin) assertion that every country needs a revolution now and then. I am not a knee-jerk follower of the reactionary herd, but I think that some things Jane Fonda did were, if not treason, dangerously close to it. That is an opinion, for the record, not a statement of fact.

I also say that my Supreme-Court elected President has committed (and/or is committing) War Crimes in Iraq.
Am I now a traitor?.. Do you have enough credible evidence.
So your point is that anybody who alleges that his own government is commiting war crimes is a traitor? Whether or not this is true?

Again, what about those german soldiers who witnessed the holocaust and denounced it? Are they traitors? Should they be punished?

My version of free speech:

You have the right to say anything you want unless you know it to be a lie and/or it tramples on another person(s)'s rights (as said before, you have no right to respect and have no right to be free from offensive messages), and unless your expression of free speech results in the death(s) and/or injury(ies) of one or more of your country's citizens.

I think that covers all...

Again, what about those german soldiers who witnessed the holocaust and denounced it? Are they traitors? Should they be punished?What about those Italian soldiers who figured Hitler was evil.. and decided to change sides? Are they traitors?

What about those Italian soldiers who figured Hitler was evil.. and decided to change sides? Are they traitors?

Changing sides is treachery. In this case, you're betraying the evil side to join the good side, but you're still a traitor.

Changing sides is treachery. In this case, you're betraying the evil side to join the good side, but you're still a traitor.


Unless the good guys win, then you're resistance

Changing sides is treachery. In this case, you're betraying the evil side to join the good side.Who was the evil side in the Vietnam War?

We need more traitors like that, that's for sure.
This guy was, whatever criterion you choose, a traitor. But every year people have a day of rememberance in his honour, and the German Army singles him and a few others out as guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauffenberg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3897885.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1271174,00.html

This guy was, whatever criterion you choose, a traitor. But every year people have a day of rememberance in his honour, and the German Army singles him and a few others out as guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauffenberg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3897885.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1271174,00.html


I've read about Stauffenberg. An admirable man, maybe a traitor to Hitler, but not to the human race.

Changing sides is treachery. In this case, you're betraying the evil side to join the good side, but you're still a traitor.
I disagree strongly. If anything, those Italians joined the armed forces to protect their countries, not commit genocide. It's their superiors, and their political leaders who are traitors for abusing their power to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And, what about those conscipted soldier? They never asked to join the military, and yet they should blindly obey orders because to do otherwise would make traitors out of them?

This guy was, whatever criterion you choose, a traitor. But every year people have a day of rememberance in his honour, and the German Army singles him and a few others out as guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauffenberg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3897885.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1271174,00.html
When I was in film school I had an internship as a ripper. A ripper is a person who reads scripts for talent agencies and agents and such. Most of them sucked. The best one I read was based on a book written by the son of the woman who was basically the secretary for that conspiracy. It was a fantastic story and I would encourage anyone to read the book. Last I heard the script was optioned by Columbia which is now defunct. Sony probably owns it. Ang Lee was set to direct, but that was seven years ago so I dont' know if it will ever get done. I really hope it does because it felt to me like I was holding the script to a Best Picture winner.

Who was the evil side in the Vietnam War?

Frankly, I don't know.

But I was making a point that it doesn't matter whether you're switching to the good side or the bad side, technically you are a traitor either way...

It just so happens that people(1) regard traitors against their(1) enemies as good and as "Anti-Social Darwinism" said, resistance.

Absolutely none; respect should come from the person and should be based on the fact that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. Government should play no role in regulating any kind of speech, even that considered libelous.
With the proviso that people can still sue each other over percieved wrongs, I agree. :)

I disagree strongly. If anything, those Italians joined the armed forces to protect their countries, not commit genocide. It's their superiors, and their political leaders who are traitors for abusing their power to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

They WERE going against their countries. Since their countries were controlled by leaders who wanted genocide of Jewish people, then going against the genocide of Jewish people would be going against your country. Going against your country is treachery.

Maybe they were noble people, not betraying the human race, but they were betraying their countries.

And, what about those conscipted soldier? They never asked to join the military, and yet they should blindly obey orders because to do otherwise would make traitors out of them?

Where did I say that being a traitor is automatically a bad thing? They were betraying the evil side, and I don't see that as a bad thing. That still means they were traitors. Maybe the opposite of traitors to humanity (repeating myself), but traitors to their evil countries.

They WERE going against their countries. Since their countries were controlled by leaders who wanted genocide of Jewish people, then going against the genocide of Jewish people would be going against your country. Going against your country is treachery.

Maybe they were noble people, not betraying the human race, but they were betraying their countries.

Well, my take on thing is that it's their country that was betraying them, and not the opposite.

Slander and libel laws are much more protective of the non-rich-powerful-famous, at least in the US. In the US once you make a decision to put yourself in the public eye your pretty much fair game. Ask Jerry Falwell.

I don't know, I've seen Scientologists use it pretty heavily...

Who was the evil side in the Vietnam War?
Both sides.

You need to understand that "treachery" only exists within the context of a particular government. It carries no moral weight at all. It's not much of an insult really. The American Revolutionaries were traitors to the government they happened to live under at the time.