<font color=orange>This is a spin off topic from the GUNS topic. We ambled into some freedom of speech topics and were chastized by the mods for getting off topic. So I thought I'd start one here.

Should any Government by allowed to curb what people say and think, (I'm not talking about weither the government should have the right to say someone can't yell fire in a movie theater) just because they don't like or agree with the message?

A rule before we get started. KEEP IT NICE. If you get mad at a commit, walk away from the computer for a while, formulate your reply and then come back.</font>

It depends on what they are restricting. Epona was saying in England its illegal to publish an incitement to racial hatred or holocaust denial.Things like that dont seem that bad. If a government knows it can not be questioned though it could lead to corruption.

[ 05-27-2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

<font color=Red>

*big head mode on*

[an extract from one of my essays]

It is well to remember that in spite of the valid criticisms which can be made of the way western societies have allowed governments to place restrictions upon freedom of speech, it virtually pales into insignificance when a comparison is made with the countries which lie between the Elbe and the China Sea. One vivid example is the care which the leader of the Polish trade union Solidarity, Lech Walesa, has had to employ in any "statement" which he makes about the problems confronting that country. It is all the more of concern because it seems clear that it is only the threat of criticism from the international media which has prevented this episode from being dealt with in the usual way. A similar problem has been shown recently in the USSR by the controversy surrounding the health of the Soviet dissident, Sakharov.

This association of restrictions with socialism and freedom with capitalism, is no matter of chance. Capitalism is, with all its faults, a pluralist system. Power within it is dispersed and various, and it is this pluralism which is the necessary though not sufficient condition for freedom's existence and continuance. Socialism, on the other hand, is a highly centralized system, with political and economic power concentrated in very few hands. Freedom of speech in the Socialist bloc is all the more restricted where all causes must bend to the Communist doctrine.

*big head mode off*

Well thats my 2c

Could?? Name at least one governemnt that doesnt have at least a little bit of corruption and I'll say "Wake up Dorothy. Youre back in Kansas now"

I think an individual should be able to say what they want without fear of persecution from the government, or, the person they insulted through judicial means. For example (and this is just an exaple not intended to be a flame or anything) if I were to say "Caleb you're a swine, you stink. Go take a bath." Of course Caleb I hope you DIDNT take that personally and sue me for it [img]smile.gif[/img]

You can sue me for that???? How rediculous. Thats not much freedom if I can be sued for something that was pretty insignificant. I realise what slander and deformation of character are but thats a pretty weak excuse for a lawsuit. Friends cut eachother down all the time. People get in bar fights because one insults another. Only the truly wimpy sue someone else for name calling.

uh very interesting debate,in order for any society to work you must have a degree of control,not a death grip but some control.common sense and curtisee(?) should dictate the rest,i mean like how you feel at the moment your about to do something,and it bothers your,than chances are its wrong,maybe just moralely or judically,you should know the right times a government body doesn't have to control your way of thinking,but you should

I think that the government should have the right to put some restrictions on the freedom of speech.

for instance - the banning of internet sites which suppurts the killing of people (f.x. abortion doctors, anti-nazi's, jews)

And I also that you should be punished for making untrue (for lack of a better word) comments about others. (the PIG example above is relatively minor - how about "thief, drug-addict, rapist etc)

i think i know in which direction this thread is going.

Speech is only free as long as you say what people want to hear. Even if there are no governmental controls there are definately societal pressures.I can use this forum as an example. Look at the "should you smack your children" thread in this forum. Almost the entire first page was people posting that you should never hit your kids. Now there were some people who posted a counter opinion but I am sure that some people felt a little bit of pressure to go allong with the group. The point I am trying to make is, that even though the government may not restrict speech your peer group does.I will say though that here at IW its a LOT more polite than the real world , mostly thanx to the mods. I can say that I am pro abortion,pro death penalty,anti religeous or anything else I want to according to the government , but if I do that here I might get banned by a mod or chastized by other IW members. If I do it in my daily life I could get fired from my job or someone could take it personal and try to beat me up. With that hanging over my head , I have to ask , is my speech realy free?

<font color=Orange>I agree with you, Hunter. Theres nothing really left to say.</font>

In the USA (and many other countries Im sure) if I created a website that incited someone to murder another person I would be held responsible and accountable. If I said something like "Whites should go out and kill ____ (fill in the blank with Whites, Jews, Blacks, Polish, use your imagination) because they dont have the same views that WE do..... blah blah blah...

I would be charged with Accessory to Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. If I had offered, say, $50 for every person they killed .. "send me the ears of your kills and Ill send you a money order"

Id be charged With Accessory to Capitol Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Capitol Murder.

Rightly so.

In the ideal situation, every individual should have the freedom to say what he or she wants, provided that he or she speaks responsibly (ie based on facts).

If what is said cannot be backed by fact or evidence, then obviously the person must be prepared to be sued... be it by the Government or by any individual who feels maligned by the perceived accusation.

If you start saying that it is good that the governments ban certain things, then where do you draw the line?

::agrees and nods his head::

<font color="lightblue">I would say that it depends on what type of government they claim to be...
A capitalist government would have no right to do anything of this sort, as it is entirely against their policy; and since they can be voted out...

On the other side of things; a communist government would have this right, to an extent. They have the right to restrict what you say against, say, your neighbour so long as you have not based your opinion on obvious facts.

I think. :D </font>

The epitomy of free speech can be found here...

> :0

[ 05-28-2002, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: /)eathKiller ]

No the ultimate in free speech is HERE http://www.zombo.com "The only limit is your imagination"

The power of words is undeniable. To give total freedom of speech is a hell of a risk

Personally, I would say that it should be fine to limit someone who, for instance, was trying to start an insurrection or a riot

You could not POSSIBLY stop people talking about how they think their government is crap. Whatever system you use, there will always be a lot of people doing that

I do think that a lot of limitations go too far, though. There have been a number of issues which people can no longer discuss just because others thought it distasteful. I vehemently disagree with that kind of limitation

Hmm I guess that freedom of speach as a word in it self means you have the right to say anything you like regardless of the truth or fact behind it. The trouble with this is that you can go spread alot of lies and destroy peoples lives. I think that a healthy deabte is good enough and that people shuld be able to say what they believe and want to, but they must also be ready to face the responsibility for doing such. No man can cry freedom without having to bear responsibility IMHO. If I want to say anything I like, I better be ready to listen to anything.

So this is smelling Kansas for me (Alice is a great book by the way! ;) ) So I would have to say that freedom of speech has to follow the democratic lines of freedom. You have to keep to realism, and can´t go around spreading lies or freely speak of things that will hurt people.

But I don´t think people should ban the difficult toppics, I think that rather then banning them, keep it controlled and only let them surface in discussions where people can answer them. Hmm, still smelling Kansas here..

It´s a difficult topic since the nature of freedom of speech and beliefs is apart of Democracy, the very core some would say.

Freedom is good, but responsibility must exist, and since we are not that resposible on a generlising aspect, (ie we still have courts, lawyers, prisons etc etc) I think we still need to have a couple of lines.

Oh good I thought I was the only one who noticed [img]smile.gif[/img]

HAIL THE KING BABY! :D

<font color = lightgreen>In one sense, most definitely. A persuasive speaker spouting some sort of hate rhetoric has, history shows, the ability to sway a mob into all sorts of less-than-desirable behavior. Do you want a mob being targeted against you?

However, the government shouldn't curb what people think simply because the government doesn't like the message. Besides, you can't control or limit what people think, only what they may print or say in public.

Most of the time, though governmental control is not needed. If you don't like (or get offended by) what someone is saying, then don't listen to them.</font>

Caleb, Azurewolf...if your only contribution to this thread is to spam things up, I'd suggest you leave and let others discuss things seriously here. I'm sure you can find other threads to propagate your spew in.

-Sazerac

[ 05-28-2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sazerac ]

i feel that freedom of speach should be allowed, but gets out of control. people use the constitution, and its freedom of speach, to talk bad about the government that GAVE them the freedom of speach. i get crap from people in Oregon all the time, because im in the military. well, if it werent for people like me, the whole world would be german right now. seriously, guys like me ALLOWED the constitution to be created, thus the freedom of speach to be created. to ABUSE that freedom, like so many people do (not to pick on anyone, but here in Oregon, its mostly the liberals.) is exactly that, abuse. people exploit our constitution, and bend it to fit THEIR needs. yes, the government does the same, but it still shouldnt be used to talk bad about the government. the press is another fine example of the abuse of free speach. aside from that, and the internet comments of the killing, etc., i agree with the freedom of speach. just sometimes if feel that it gets out of hand. i dont care WHO you are, if i see someone burning an American flag on the street, i will do whatever i can to beat them, and make a citizens arrest. that is taking it too far to. other than that, talk all you want.

We got the idea the last zillion times you mentioned it. But freedom of speech has nothing to do with what YOU want from it.

Incidentally, uunless the person doing the burning attacked you first you would be the one behind bars

I guess I agree with you there. A communist government probably would draw the line pretty far. A republic would probably be around the same.

And a dictatorship? Well, it really doesn't matter then, does it? ;)

i mentioned it a zillion times? from what ive seen i only have slighty over 800 posts. hhmmm. anyway, i dont care IF i end up behind bars, because i will be defending the ideals of my country, the country that i love.

[ 05-28-2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

morgan,that is the express purpose of the first amendment,the ability to speak ones mind about the government.except for people like you who are in the military.you are not covered by that protection while you are serving.

In the same way that working civilians cannot be rude to customers (professionalism)

freedom of speech is a MUST in our society, but sometimes it can be annoying too, like listening to those nutcases from the kkk.

"I may disagree with what you say sir, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Forgot who said that first but it's a good quote and it's how I feel about free speech. Or how free speech ought to be. That said, I state that we don't really have free speech anywhere anymore. Those of you who appear to live in first world countries (I'm in the U.S) seem to be giving everyone a kind of pat on the back. I've seen the statement about capitalist countries being these democratic meccas of freedom. Few restrictions are placed on speech because of the "pluralistic" nature of economy and the government. This is, for the most part true.

Quick side note: I'm talking mostly from my point of view which is the United States so if I say something that isn't true for whatever country just keep in mind that unless stated otherwise I'll be critical of my own country. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So the government doesn't put many controls on free speech, and indeed cannot, for the reasons that other people have already stated. But really, what about other more social controls (I believe that in sociology these would be called casual or informal sanctions). The English language is dieing, the media and corporations tell us what to think; and in the end who decides what's right and what's wrong with what people say?

A couple examples to illustrate my poorly (or not at all) made point.
I like to use big words. I'm overly educated and inasmuch know some weird stuff. I often have to explain what I'm saying to people when I use such words as onus, anathema, denigration or even insinuate or flippant.

Look at the recent diasters here in the U.S. and you'll find a plethora of great examples of violations of free speech, the disasters being 9/11 and the last presidential election (I mean this to be on topic though. If you want to talk about the election start a new topic ::Ducks for cover and hides:: ). Free speech being more than just the ability to say what we think. It also extends to our ability to access information. The dissemination of this information can effect how we think and is a form of speech. There was a great deal of self censorship and a staggering amoung of self aggrandizment within the press following the 9/11 attacks. As for the election, there were 13 recounts that were done after the supreme court's decision. Only two of them were widely reported on and in both of them Bush won. In the other 11 Gore won. This isn't freedom of speech.
We also see, or don't see, stories about Wal-mart's (or Columbia's) suppresion of labor unions. When was the last time you heard about a strike that wasn't either Baseball or United Airlines. Fact of the matter is, unless you're living near the strike you won't hear about it (and even if you are living near the strike, if in fact people are allowed to unionized, coverage will be exceedingly slim).

In short the government doesn't need to sanction or curtail speech because we already do such a great job of it. To use a previous post as an example:

Thing is that our constitution was created so that we _could_ criticize the government. In their wisdom the creators of the constitution saw the need with in a democracy for all speech especially that which is critical of the ruling body. How else to properly address the needs of the people. Now we have media censorship of the few pundits willing to call our current government for its trepasses. That's not free speech either and it's patently rediculous.

Remember that inherent in the right to free speech is the right to ignorance. Not only can you ignore someone but you can ignore everything.

A good resource for reading about media screwups is www.fair.org
They're fairly centrist, willing to take shots at both the right and the precieved left of the media world.

::Climbs off of his soap Box::

DeSoya

<font color=orange>Didn't I say that... [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Well maybe not, that is what I believe though.

Unfortuately Lord S. professionalism has nothing to do with Morgan not having freedom of speech in the military. Once you join the military there are a varity of freedoms you give up. Freedom of speech being one of them. At least in an offical capacity. While in uniform Morgan cannot say just anything he feels like, were as here, he can hid behind his anonymity (sp).

If the Government has the right to restrict freedom of speech, as some of you believe, and I think the example was hate or the Holicost, then who in the government gets to decide what speech to restrict? Who sets curbs on those people?</font>

[ 05-28-2002, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

something that just came to mind was regarding our media in the UK

they will invade people's privacy with whatever sordid crap they can get their hands on. Including of our Royal family (hence eour diminished respect for them now)

I personally think that "the public have a right to know" should NOT allow the press to invade someone's privacy uninvited

Not sure if this is off topic, but i just wanna'd to see if anyone else had noticed this ...
In the '50 or '60's , not sure anymore, been awhile since i had history-lessons ... there was a mass-hysteria about communism.
Actors who dried off with a red towel after showering were sued .. neighbours reported eachother to the authorities, mass-paranoia was engulfing the whole of america. I'm talking trials that were decided before-hand here ...

And ..albeit in a toned down version, its definetly what's happening in america now ... I saw on TV, the FBI who invaded the house of a student, who had a anti-Bush poster on her wall ...
That's crazy !!! Its her room, and her freedom of speech/expression !
Some neighbour reported the man next door, because he thought he heard him saying something about muslims ..

Im serieus, im seeing history repeating itself ...
Allready our freedom of speech isnt what it used to be ... the CIA allready has a computer that checks through all e-mail and phone-calls, searching for keywords such as "bomb" .. and they've openly admitted that.

Well, anywayz, i just wanna'd to say that im a little suprised at what's happening in America right now [img]smile.gif[/img] I understand the fear, but i think the fanatacism to try and not be affected by the terrorism, is actually helping the terrorists in their cause now ... they've got the U.S., AND the rest of the world .. paranoid, which directly affects things such as freedom of speech.

[img]smile.gif[/img] Just wanna'd to throw that into the group [img]smile.gif[/img]

Didn't I say that... Well maybe not, that is what I believe though. </font>[/QUOTE]Well... I meant said by someone famous and things. Like probably not you and me. :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

DeSoya

<font color=Orange>Johnny, its a must in ALL sociectys. Well, unless you have a country where freedom of speech is disalloud, and you would be executed if you freely speak, then THATS a problem. But it often doesn't seem to work, because you can be put to jail for saying your opinion (in extreme cases).</font>

First a bit of Metallica from And Justice For All.

"...Indepedence limited

freedom...
of choice is made, for you my friend
freedom...
of speech is words, that they will bend,

freeedom...
with your execptions."

Thank you Metallica.

Emphatic no.

Thats exactly what the PMRC and the FL sherrif who arrested Luke want. Ice-T went thorugh with it with Cop-killer, Dan Quale was on the case. It only took a few years for the LA PD RAMPART scandal to surface, validating the kind of "police" behaviors Ice-T was advocating defending ones self against. People still want to ban pornography, Pot is still illegal, some folks would love to ban certain video games. You hafta wait until your 21 to drink beer, If its not the goverment, its MTV, censoring artists in a variety of ways, although its the goverment that wont let you say c*ck or the almighty "F" word on any channel. The people who chastise there fellow citizens with "love it or leave it" rhetoric want to limit free speech as well, The right to petition GREIVANCES.

Even in America, with our highly idealistic constitution, It already happens. A few nations are far worse about Censorship and limits on free speech/expression for a variety reasons ranging from religious to political. I have only read about those though.

It is wrong to limit free speech, but it happens.

--------------------
Grok this!

<font color=Orange>well, chewbacca, there has to be SOME limit to what people can say. Otherwise, there would be masses saying terrible things about people, and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it!</font>

<font color=orange>But who sets those limits? Is it some bureacrat somewhere? Is it the elected law makers? Who would be the one to set limits? Should the entire population vote on it?</font>

"I may disagree with what you say sir, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

That's Voltaire who said that.

One thing Ive seen alot in this topic concerns peoples opinions. Other things concern facts. Opinions are just that-opinions. Facts are given thuths, commonly known truths.

I can say "I hate the shoes youre wearing. (I think) they're ugly." Thats an opinion. It expresses how I feel about something. Facts, however, are based in reality on truths.

Your shoes are blue. They have a hole in the sole. Facts that can be confirmed by another person.

Where I had sad the thing about a certain person stinking and needing a bath -- stinking is an opinion. In his own opinion he might smell like roses.

Someone said something about calling that same person a thief rapist ect. If the taget of the comments had actually been convicted of being a thief or rapist ect he couldnt sue me for making the comment. The comment would then be based in FACT. If id said he LOOKED like a thief he could sue me. What does a theif look like??? Im sure every cop in the world to get a good description so they could be spotted and hauled away.

One thing I would like to state on opinion on is the flag burning as a form of expression. Burn a flag and get the HELL out of the country. We dont need people like that. Go to Communist China or Russia where there are people you can get along with. I love my country. Despite all its faults its the best system in the world. Flag burners should be beaten up by the veterans of foreign wars who fought to save their sorry ass from being forced to speak German or Russian or some other language.

Ooops was I off on a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] soooooorrrrrrryyyyy

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing and yes they need to get rid ofthe strangle hold on Television. On tv in OZ they say every word you can think of and it doesnt bother anyone. They (the censors) still have a 1950s mentality in the USA. WE are no longer the sheltered naive people that we used to be. Our grandparents are dead. If they arent the way of life that exsisted in the 50s when TV became popular is.

One thng Ive seen in Oz that youll never see in the states is a JACK DANIELS or JIM BEAM commercial. Crappy as a commercial can get but I still get a kick out of seeing whiskey advertised on tv. [img]smile.gif[/img]