Freedom of Speech an Illusion?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

I'm certainly not an anti-semite, though I find 'jew jokes' as funny as any other racial joke. That said, I really don't think one should go to jail for denying the holocaust. Hate speech is one thing, MAYBE, but this seems to me to be nothing worse than expressing an unpopular opinion. Then again, that's what led to Socrates' death...

I have to agree there. The test of freedom of speech is if you can say things others find offensive, such as denying the holocaust. I can understand why such things woud be illegal in germany and austria, but I don't agree with it. If anything, it might strengthen the position of a holocaust denier, as it makes it look like the state is trying to cover things up. I would think it far better to show that the person is incorrect with the mountains of evidence of the holocaust, rather than saying, "You can't say things like that, so off to jail with ya."

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by [darkfire]

So if I went out and killed this man because he was going to harm me in the future, is that okay. I'm trying to "survive". I bet the courts won't allow that.

freedom means no one but you has authority over yourself

unless you're on some desolate island, fat chance of that happening

freedom as stated by law is not freedom

(except the laws of nature ofcourse, but then again: we don't need anyone to enforce them )

[bastard-sama]

the law of nature is that it always calls...

[Cloudkiller1]

Thats were self restraint and common sense come in.


You can still say those things, but you better be prepared...because someone else might excersize their right to free speach by challenging what you say or voicing their offense over it.



Which is how freedom of speach works. Say what you want, but be prepared to hear the reprocutions of it, Otherwise its not free speach.

I agree with you on this one, but as he said, as he said, If you have your own freedom of speech, he also has it as well and won't hesitate to use it either.

[N-Bomb]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

freedom means no one but you has authority over yourself

unless you're on some desolate island, fat chance of that happening

freedom as stated by law is not freedom

(except the laws of nature ofcourse, but then again: we don't need anyone to enforce them )

Law is an attempt to equalize freedoms at a high level.

[Aru]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Like all freedoms, the freedom of speech ends when it infringes on those of others.

I see that someone has summarized my thoughts on freedom of speech neatly in one sentence.

So the answer to the original question is, yes, yes it is?!

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

Law is an attempt to limit freedoms at a high level.

Fixed


the definition of "freedom" is to (be able to) do anything without bounderies or limits

therefore I am certain there is no such thing as freedom in a society
any politician using that word tries to sell an illusion
But I also realize that obtaining absolute freedom is impossible

maybe death is the only real freedom

[Roopoo]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Fixed


the definition of "freedom" is to (be able to) do anything without bounderies or limits

therefore I am certain there is no such thing as freedom in a society
any politician using that word tries to sell an illusion
But I also realize that obtaining absolute freedom is impossible

maybe death is the only real freedom

How can death be real freedom? Freedom is being able to do what you want to do when you want to do and with whom. Being dead is just that. You are finished. Even if there is life after death, what life? Do we come back and start all over again? If so, that just quashes your statement that death is the only real freedom. Because, there we are back again being governed by rules that restrict our freedom

[SeekAndDestroy]

Man this post has gone on quite long.. that's what happen when you start intellectual discussions in a forum like this.... so I might as well add to it I guess....

someone mentioned about the deserted island; that's probably the only time you're going to have true freedom. If you are by yourself you can do what you want when you want period...

Aside from that in a society, goverment refers to freedom more as a balance between what you are allowed and required to do.... Technically this works in everyone's favor. Think of it as a bubble... you can do whatever you want in your bubble as long as your bubble doesn't cross onto someone else's bubble (hence the deffinition of freedoms and rights where your rights end where someone elses begins). You can't expect to be free in a society where everyone has different opinions of freedom and what they should and should not be able to do; hence the need for a government.....

Again that's technically what's supposed to happen... in actuality governments generally fail miserably to follow this for everyone.... generally governments protect their freedoms and interests at the cost of their people's... or in the case of countries like the U.S. the interests of those with more money, influence, and the ability to grant them to the government itself.....

Technically here your freedom of speech goes as far as you can buy or otherwise influence other people to see things your way. As always our worst enemy is our own ignorance....

Check some of the stuff they have HERE there's some great documentaries.... later.

[HoboGod]

Freedom of speech is reserved exclusively to the rich and powerful. Anything the government tells their people about freedom is a lie. Even the classic example about screaming "fire" in a crowded theater can be done by somebody rich/powerful enough. He/she might even be given a medal of honor as a result of screaming "fire." And all the while, new laws, policies, and mass propaganda are being created to oppress the opinion of the lower class and minority groups.

[bastard-sama]

Well also there is times when people feel the same way so your bubble will expand or other bubbles will be in your bubble this is a gather of influence in a sense just like political parties the person who gets picked has all the inflence of the people in the 'bubble'

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Roopoo

How can death be real freedom?

nothing can hold you back and being dead you don't care about doing anything

[I EAT BABIES]

Originally Posted by bastard-sama

Well also there is times when people feel the same way so your bubble will expand or other bubbles will be in your bubble this is a gather of influence in a sense just like political parties the person who gets picked has all the inflence of the people in the 'bubble'

That's more of just being too stupid to think for yourself and eating the party line.

Originally Posted by HoboGod

Freedom of speech is reserved exclusively to the rich and powerful. Anything the government tells their people about freedom is a lie. Even the classic example about screaming "fire" in a crowded theater can be done by somebody rich/powerful enough. He/she might even be given a medal of honor as a result of screaming "fire." And all the while, new laws, policies, and mass propaganda are being created to oppress the opinion of the lower class and minority groups.

Yeah, I entirely agree. What we're seeing is more and more people with power (big business, movie stars, etc) are pushing down on those who freely speak their minds. What it's coming down to is this is happening more and more, and we're going to get to the point where everyone is paralysized from saying anything and it will because just one big chilling effect (Chilling Effect[wikipedia.org] for those of you not familiar with the term).

Hopefully this third post is found to be more acceptable and on topic.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by I EAT BABIES

Yeah, I entirely agree. What we're seeing is more and more people with power (big business, movie stars, etc) are pushing down on those who freely speak their minds.

Don't forget power through strength in numbers
you don't have to be rich or authoritive
you can also be a group of uninformed idiots

[hooliganj]

Originally Posted by Roopoo

I don't believe we can say what we want. If what we say could be regarded as offensive to some people, then we can be taken to court.

There's a big difference between criminal and civil litigation. You won't be pressed for criminal charges for saying something unless a prosecutor can demonstrate that you placed someone in danger with your words. If all you did was offend someone, then they might sue you in civil court, but that's not a limit on your right to speak.

Originally Posted by I EAT BABIES

So if Freedom of Speech actually existed, we shouldn't have to worry about reprocutions of what we say. We don't actually have freedom of speech, but rather we are permitted to say anything as long as it doesn't violate X,Y, and/or Z. In the end, these "rights" we're allowed can still be taken away from us. We're seeing it now.

Think of it this way - you cannot be charged for anything you say, but you can be held responsible for anything that results. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and everyone laughs at you, then no harm is done, and no charges will be pressed. But if you "yell" fire and a stampede occurs as people rush to avoid the flames, then it's your fault for recklessly endangering lives.

Freedom of speech is both a right and a responsibility.

Originally Posted by Eclipze

The way I see it, "freedom of speech" is not a literal term, but a figurative one.

If it is a literal term, then people would be allowed to throw racist remarks and vulgarities all over the place. That, however, is not the case. The "freedom", in this case, is limited (even if these restrictions contradict the word) to prevent conflicts that can potentially arise from the abuse of the term.

No one can stop you from throwing around racist remarks and vulgarities. Walk out your door and shout as many epithets as you can think of at the top of your lungs, and count the number of policemen who come to arrest you. Now making those sorts of comments in a private forum, either online or on TV or in someone's house, subjects you to the sensibilities of the owner of the forum. But even then, you won't be arrested for saying anything, only removed from the conversation.

Originally Posted by [darkfire

]The problem I see now in america is the mixed issure of Freedom of speech/Fair Use.

Why can't I spread a rumor about a something. Like for example the new ipod without getting my site shutdown. Why cant I say obscene thing to and about children. We don't have freedom of speech we never had it and never will. As the years go we are losing all our freedoms.

Finally someone begins to consider limitations that actually exist (at least, under US law). Child protection laws exist to prevent a child from being harmed both mentally and physically, and even then, they aren't as restrictive as you make them out to be. You can make whatever obscene reference you want to a child without breaking any actual laws, as long as you don't make any sexual advances. "Go to hell" or "eat shit" or something similarly gross might get you in trouble with the kid's parents, but not the police.

Copyrights are a real issue, but at the root is a legitimate claim. When a company tells you to stop saying something, it's because they believe that what is being said is harmful to their well-being. It's more abstract, but essentially the same as yelling "fire" in the theater. Someone could get hurt, or lose a lot of money, so obviously the company would like you to stop - which is fine, but at that point we enter complicated legal territory (nothing to do with copyrights is ever simple). First a company has to prove their awareness and interest in what you said, so they have to issue a cease and desist letter, basically a lawyer's way of saying "please stop". Assuming the letter is ignored, the company can choose to pursue the action by filing a greivance against you, at which point they have to prove 2 things in order to get the case to court - 1. that what you said is untrue and 2. that what you said can cause real harm to the company. Then, and only then, do they have a lawsuit, and then you get your chance to disprove both of those points, and the judge makes the final decision.

That's how the system is set up to regulate the clash between the right of a corporation to do its business unhindered and the right of a person to say what they want. It's not great, but I don't think anyone has had a better idea.

Originally Posted by N-Bomb

What is direct harm? What is harm? And what KIND of harm?

Welcome to the real question. Now you get to spend 7+ years in college and law school and then the rest of your lifetime arguing and hearing arguments on the matter, all based on previous arguments from the last several hundred years, and still emerge with no clear answer.

Originally Posted by I EAT BABIES

I found this article today, and I think this is a lot of what I'm trying to say.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11698322/ [msnbc.msn.com]

We're starting to see cases where others aren't causing any harm nor foul against other people, and yet they're seeing their freedoms being imposed on. And in this case, they're even being harassed as a result of acting on their freedom.

Originally Posted by SUSAN FILAN, FORMER CONNECTICUT STATE PROSECUTOR

The only person that's going to get in trouble here is Bill O'Reilly. He's lost the plot entirely. To think that you can commandeer local law enforcement to be your personal henchman because you don't like something a caller said on the air is absolutely outrageous and absurd. It's an abuse of the media, it's an abuse of law enforcement, and he's now the one engaging in threatening behavior. You can't do that. He's crossed the line.

That's really the end of it. O'Reilly can make all the threats he wants, but he's the one that's approaching the limit of harassment, not the callers.

Originally Posted by dibolistic

Are you refering to David Irving, the British historian? He's the one that spoke to BBC about denying the Holocaust, saying something like "if the Holocaust's goal was mass Jewish genocide, why did so many Jews survive?" He's serving three years in an Austrian prison.

I want to point out that all of my statements are based solely on US law, where some people (crazy, crazy people) do continue to deny the holocaust in perfect freedom. Austria, obviously, is different.


Finally, I want to address a point brought up by several different posters: freedom is still freedom even if it isn't absolute. Learn to think in relative terms. Compare the freedoms we enjoy today to people living in a British colony 300 years ago. Compare yourself to someone who lives under a dictatorship, or in communist China. modern freedoms may not be absolute, but it has gotten better. If we learn to balance idealism and realism, and discuss solutions rather than radicalism, things will get better still.

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by hooliganj

Finally, I want to address a point brought up by several different posters: freedom is still freedom even if it isn't absolute. Learn to think in relative terms. Compare the freedoms we enjoy today to people living in a British colony 300 years ago. Compare yourself to someone who lives under a dictatorship, or in communist China. modern freedoms may not be absolute, but it has gotten better. If we learn to balance idealism and realism, and discuss solutions rather than radicalism, things will get better still.

How can someone compare himself to other nations
if freedom isn't absolute, then those living under dictatorship are still free
what's the difference between getting sued for you speech or not allowed to say it at all
in the end it's all about the p.o.v. and where you draw the line

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

How can someone compare himself to other nations
if freedom isn't absolute, then those living under dictatorship are still free

Um...I'm sorry...what?

what's the difference between getting sued for you speech or not allowed to say it at all
in the end it's all about the p.o.v. and where you draw the line

It depends on the nature of the lawsuit. Although the government is, for the most part, not supposed to pass laws limiting speech, private entities can sue you for saying something you shouldn't.

Slander/libel comes to mind immediately.
The exact formula for Coke, or insider information also come to mind.

[Eclipze]

Originally Posted by hooliganj

No one can stop you from throwing around racist remarks and vulgarities. Walk out your door and shout as many epithets as you can think of at the top of your lungs, and count the number of policemen who come to arrest you. Now making those sorts of comments in a private forum, either online or on TV or in someone's house, subjects you to the sensibilities of the owner of the forum. But even then, you won't be arrested for saying anything, only removed from the conversation.

Um, of course no one can stop you from throwing out lines after lines of racist remarks and vulgarities, but whether the law has a rule to probhit you from saying it is another.

Here, in Singapore, you can get fined (not sure about getting arrested) if you were to be caught by the police for blurting out racist remarks (unless they are the usual policemen who dont give a damn unless there is a potential conflict visually seen as a result of the racist comment). If you were to throw vulgarities at someone, they have the rights to sue you.

But the main thing is, whether the person who was insulted wants to sue the offender, or not. Humans are not androids. Even if a law stats that a person who makes racist remarks will get jailed for 10 years, there are still idiots who proceed to do so, be it out of anger, un-educated, or just plain stupidity.

But just because a person will STILL do something, does not mean that it is allowed. People are not allowed to kill, but there are people who go on genocide rampages, dont they?

[Kempis Curious]

Check out this article:

http://http://www.timesdispatch.com/...=1137834655100

While this guy was hopefully more busted for having the child porn which required the abuse of real children to make.... good heavens, I had no idea such laws had been passed in the United States.

Drawn pictures of unlawful acts shouldn't be illegal to own! This kind of conformist nonsense is what "Freedom of Speech" was supposed to prevent!

-k

curious

[SeekAndDestroy]

..check your link, it doesn't work