Freedom of Speech

[Professor Smooth]

Note: This thread is from an American point of view:

I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this concept. Yet, the United States just doesn't seem to get it. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech. It does not mean "freedom to say what we think should be said." It does not mean "freedom to say anything, except for things that people don't like." It means "freedom of speech!" And yet, the government as well as people in simply can not grasp this idea!

Freedom of speech except for what is obscene? NO! Obscenity is the most obvious example of something that exists only in the eye of the beholder.

This has gone on for a couple of centuries, though, so I'm getting used to it. To be fair, though, the more obvious censorship (of entertainment) in the US has gotten better over the past few decades. Fewer words are banned from television and radio, for example.

The "opponents" of free speech seem to enjoy using ludicrous comparisons to make their point. "What if someone wants to express themselves by killing everyone within a twelve-block radius to themselves? Would you protect that?" No! Because that crosses a couple of other laws. The freedom of speech does not negate the rest of the laws of the land. It's not the "freedom to do whatever you want."

There are are also people on the other side of the debate that don't understand that "freedom of speech" does not apply to private institutions. As you walk down the street, you are free to say what you like. However, to use the ever-popular internet as an example, you can not say whatever you'd like in private institutions such as chat boards or restaurants. There are rules, set by the owners of said institutions, that must be obeyed.

The bottom line is this, freedom of speech can be (and is) a double edged sword. It provides people with the ability to express themselves without fear of government reprisals, provided they do not go against any other established laws. Wearing a shirt that says "Jesus was a ****" may get you kicked out of the local tavern, but you can not be arrested for it (at least in theory).

The problem comes in when laws are implimented that are directly at odds with freedom of speech. Obscenity laws, for example. These need to be done away with. Entirely. Immediately.

I know what you (or about three of you) are saying. "Well what about the people who want to express themselves by taking naked pictures of babies and crapping in the middle of the sidewalk? Do you really want those kinds of things to be legal?" The obvious answer is, "no." They wouldn't be legal because they would still be covered under child abuse and sanitation laws respectively.

Someone prove me wrong.

[Denyer]

Indeed, "speech" at its most basic covers talking and written forms of language, not necessarily other forms of expression...

[Yaya]

Note: This thread is from an American point of view:

I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this concept. Yet, the United States just doesn't seem to get it. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech.
Someone prove me wrong.

What's your reference for this? I mean, do you have proof from any manuscripts of the founding fathers, the authors of the Constitution itself, that this is what is intended by "freedom of speech"? Or are you simply interpreting the Constitution as you see fit?

Because this is a very important point, really. To be honest, I don't know what the founding fathers actually intended with the First Amendment. But I am certain they acknowledged that, like any law, there must be limits to it.


Stu: "Insult is intent rather than choice of words... and, by that criteria, pretty much everything I've ever said about religion is an insult, regardless of how polite I may come across as being."


I disagree. If you challenged my religion without using obscenities, without the intention for conflict but for debate, if you avoided slanderous terms in discussing my religious beliefs, even if you disagreed wholeheartedly with me, it would be completely acceptable. If I took your words as an affront, then the fault would be in me. Moreover, if you approached me in this manner, I would be more inclined to learn from you what I don't know and less inclined to beat the living hell out of you .

"Religion is a choice. Personal politics are a choice. Therein lies the distinction."

That's true. But religion is a topic that is no less emotionally charged than issues of race or gender. It holds the same sanctity to an individual as the color of one's skin. As such, special treatment must be given to it, for the sake of avoiding conflict or even physical violence. Along the same lines, insulting one's mother, for example, is trangressing the bounds of civil behavior, and an abuse of freedom of speech.

There has to be a limit to maintain order. Who determines that limit is something open to debate. Usually, such a decision is left up to the powers that be, in this country, Supreme Court.

[Yaya]

I'm wondering what others think of this then, given we are discussing the idea of freedom of speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051220/pl_ ... olution_dc

[Best First]

i fail to see the correlation between freedom of expression and what is selected to appear on a carriculum.

no one is saying you can't discuss intelligent design, just that something with NO RATIONAL BASIS should not be taught as fact.

you keep trying to muddy the waters.

[Professor Smooth]

i fail to see the correlation between freedom of expression and what is selected to appear on a carriculum.

no one is saying you can't discuss intelligent design, just that something with NO RATIONAL BASIS should not be taught as fact.

you keep trying to muddy the waters.

I'm just as confused as you. There's no law saying that intelligent design can't be taught. It's just prohibited from being taught in schools.

I also take issue with all this talk about "what the founding fathers meant" when they wrote the constitution. It's blindingly obvious what they meant. There are, to my knowlege, absolutely no ambiguous passages in that document. People, like Yaya, have successfully tried to "muddy the water" to get people to doubt what the founding fathers meant.

Go ahead, Yaya, pick a passage where you're not clear what they meant and the document itself will prove you wrong.

[Yaya]

i fail to see the correlation between freedom of expression and what is selected to appear on a carriculum.

no one is saying you can't discuss intelligent design, just that something with NO RATIONAL BASIS should not be taught as fact.

you keep trying to muddy the waters.

Muddy the waters? The same smucks said the Earth was flat and that sperm housed tiny little men inside to create life once upon a time. And their reasons? Because it was RATIONAL. It was taught as fact based on the prevailing scientific opinion.

Intelligent design can be argued as quite rational, in fact. What puts you in a position to determine that intelligent design is irrational when the Father of Rationality, Albert Einstein himself, was a proponent of it? Guess you know something ole Albert didn't. Or maybe you just don't LIKE the very idea of intelligent design.

Surely todays scientists in universities all over the globe don't have the courage to challenge a man whom discovered the very knowledge that is the basis for their careers.

[Denyer]

I disagree. If you challenged my religion without using obscenities, without the intention for conflict but for debate, if you avoided slanderous terms in discussing my religious beliefs, even if you disagreed wholeheartedly with me, it would be completely acceptable.

The lack of particular words wouldn't make what I said not an insult. An insult is something intended to offend or hurt—it need not be construed as such by another. Similarly, lacing a message with words you find offensive doesn't actually qualify it as an insult. Insulting, perhaps, as the word functions as a verb as well as a noun, though that would be perception rather than empirical statement.

This isn't an agree/disagree thing, just a widely-held dictionary definition.

It holds the same sanctity to an individual as the color of one's skin.

Skin typically isn't holy.

As such, special treatment must be given to it, for the sake of avoiding conflict or even physical violence.

No. The argument you present is "don't say anything bad about our delusion or we'll thwack you."

The fact people get emotionally involved in something isn't necessarily automatic reason to accord it respect. People get very emotionally involved in rendering judgement on others, genocide and wars. That doesn't make those judgements, killings or wars worthy of respect.

It's reason to make sure you're carrying a big stick in case the other person makes a first move. Whereupon I, for one, will feel entirely justified in caving their skull in if they do. Verbal 'provocation' does not mitigate violence.

[Yaya]

I also take issue with all this talk about "what the founding fathers meant" when they wrote the constitution. It's blindingly obvious what they meant.

Volumes have been written on the Constitution alone and its interpretation.

If things are so blindingly obvious, as you put it, why the hell do we need courts to interpret the law!

[Yaya]

No. The argument you present is "don't say anything bad about our delusion or we'll thwack you."

.

Dude, you make me out to be quite the simple-minded barbarian, don't you?

If the world were full of levelheaded individuals who could tolerate such provocations, then your words would be quite practical. As it is, we are not a world of rocks, impervious to words. We are a world of people.

The problem with the world today is that the only feelings we respect are our own. We are a selfish world, because we put our feelings above that of others. We can't avoid trampling on the feelings of others, because it happens all the time, even unintentionally. But does that mean we don't make the effort?

There are people in this world that worship stone idols and the such. I have my opinon about them, how I feel their belief is quite ludicrous, but the way I would debate them on this should involve tact. Though I might disagree with their belief, and think very little of it, still I would show concern for how they feel about it. The subject of debate really wouldn't matter

[Denyer]

If things are so blindingly obvious, as you put it, why the hell do we need courts to interpret the law!

Because a large number of people have a vested interest in redefining anything and everything to their own advantage, especially in situations where penalty would follow.

[Denyer]

The problem with the world today is that the only feelings we respect are our own.

Just as every generation considers itself on the cusp of apocalypse, every generation expresses concern for shifting morality.

If the world were full of levelheaded individuals who could tolerate such provocations, then your words would be quite practical.

As it isn't, I'll settle for a situation in which I can lay legitimate claim to self-defence, assuming I consider a point worth pressing that far in the first place...

the way I would debate them on this should involve tact. Though I might disagree with their belief, and think very little of it, still I would show concern for how they feel about it. The subject of debate really wouldn't matter

Personally I'd be disinclined to debate it all unless it came to have a disfavourable effect on me or mine. I don't actually seek people out to annoy, being as how the idiot:clued and irrational:sane ratios aren't even slightly in my favour.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

this is Intellgent design.

"I am God" - now prove me wrong. you cant, but you know its bollox for so many various reasons.

[Denyer]

Pfft, please... the world was created by a bundle of intelligent spaghetti last Thursday...

[Professor Smooth]

I also take issue with all this talk about "what the founding fathers meant" when they wrote the constitution. It's blindingly obvious what they meant.

Volumes have been written on the Constitution alone and its interpretation.

If things are so blindingly obvious, as you put it, why the hell do we need courts to interpret the law!

Find something. Find ANYTHING that anybody with a fourth grade education would need clarification on.

The very existance of lawyers is an insult to the laws they "serve."

Sorry Compy.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Pfft, please... the world was created by a bundle of intelligent spaghetti last Thursday...

Exactly thats reason enough that the FSM exists.

actually the FSM might even be for fun, buts its a classic example of why IC is so absurd.

[Denyer]

the FSM might even be for fun

Fun? His most meaty and pure balls are a source of inspiration and sustenance to us all...

[saysadie]

It's true, you know.

I have also been touched by His noodly appendage. And the pirate fish is my desktop image.

It's a really good excuse to wear a Pirate outfit outside of Halloween, anyway.

[Brendocon]

I have also been touched by His noodly appendage.

You could probably sue for that, y'know...

[Metal Vendetta]

I have also been touched by His noodly appendage.

You could probably sue for that, y'know...

Hah, someone asked me this week IRL if I'd been touched, and I said "by his noodly appendage?" and they went "YES!!!"

...maybe you had to be there...

[Best First]

i fail to see the correlation between freedom of expression and what is selected to appear on a carriculum.

no one is saying you can't discuss intelligent design, just that something with NO RATIONAL BASIS should not be taught as fact.

you keep trying to muddy the waters.

Muddy the waters? The same smucks

er... which same smucks?

said the Earth was flat and that sperm housed tiny little men inside to create life once upon a time. And their reasons? Because it was RATIONAL.

debatable

It was taught as fact based on the prevailing scientific opinion.

and these ideas evolved because tehy were open to challenge. To teahh them now would be ridiculous, just as teaching Intelligent Design, which has no basis in science is.

Intelligent design can be argued as quite rational, in fact.

mmm, it is in no way a desperate attempt to introduce creationism into scinetifci discourse. Bet those door to door salesmen love you?

What puts you in a position to determine that intelligent design is irrational when the Father of Rationality, Albert Einstein himself,

Sorry, are you saying Einstien invented rationality?
ahahahahahahaha

was a proponent of it? Guess you know something ole Albert didn't. Or maybe you just don't LIKE the very idea of intelligent design.

can you find any modern (credible) scientists who support it? what? eh? oh.

i don't LIKE the idea of people attempting to pollute educationa dn science with their superstitions.

Surely todays scientists in universities all over the globe don't have the courage to challenge a man whom discovered the very knowledge that is the basis for their careers.

as far as i can tell they seem to universally have this courage actually.

i like teh suggestion we should defer to an idea because it is prestegious or has a prestigous association rather than based on what we know though, that's a great way for us to progress.

Have you considered trying to debate based on logic rather than just shouting out random stuff?

[Metal Vendetta]

Heh, I love it when people go "but Einstein believed this!"

"Damn, well if Einstein believed it, it must be true. There goes my opinion."

[Impactor returns 2.0]

sorry, did Eintsien actualy belive in the modern concept of ID?

[Best First]

or teaching it in schools as an alernate to prevailent scientific theroies?

still, lets 'open up the debate' eh?

http://www.venganza.org/

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Best graph evarrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!