Freedom of Speech

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There is an interesting contrast in the recent news. In France, a fashion designer was arrested and is to stand trial for anti-Semitic remarks he made publicly. "In France, making anti-Semitic remarks is punishable by up to six months in prison." Meanwhile in the US, The Supreme Court decides in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, who was sued by the family of a fallen Marine because the church protests military funerals, convinced that every dead soldier is God's punishment against America for acceptance of homosexuality. The family claimed emotional distress because the protesters were yelling things at them like "Thank God for dead soldiers" at the funeral.

While free speech does need to be protected even when we do not agree with what the other is saying, and stopping any speech is a slippery slope into stopping too much speech - this is quickly becoming sanctioned verbal and emotional abuse. It should not be legal for a mother to yell at her child that she wished the child were dead every day until the child commits suicide, even if the mother does not physically abuse the child. A parent chronically making sexually suggestive comments to/about their child - so long as it is only words, is still harmful to the development of the child. Bullying, including workplace bullying, is known to have negative effects, sometimes very significant.

It is important to protect free speech, and I see the dangers of making exceptions for verbal abuse (some people could claim the slightest thing as verbal abuse, and use that as a way of actually abusing others through the system), but that does not make it okay to manipulate the system into protecting abusers in this way either.

edit - dang the new only one url per post rule... sorry, you'll have to paste the address yourself

double dang, can't even put addresses in without making them links. Will post 2 of the links below in separate posts.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

French article

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Bullying

[Animus]

Elizabeth you may find these stories interesting too, sort of local to where I live, but similar nonetheless.

Newspaper carrier censors papers (doesn't like use of the word "hellish")
http://www.lfpress.com/news/weird/2011/ ... 48866.html

...

[Animus]

Judge's rape ruling 'disgusting' (Judge suggested victim was implying sexual intercourse through her attire and behavior)
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011 ... 18431.html

[Animus]

Cops apologize to York U for 'slut' comment (Cop warns teen girls not to dress provacatively "like 'sluts'" to avoid sexual assault)
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2011 ... 13106.html

[Animus]

Know, the other day I was watching America's Funniest Home Videos (AFV) with Tom Bergeron. They were playing random clips and, if you've seen the show, you know Bergeron always has little quips and puns to add to the clip. Well, they played this one clip of a "man" in a shopping cart, in the clip the man bailed out of the cart when it tipped over, but what struck me as immediately odd was what Bergeron said about the clip, I don't remember it exactly but it was like "[what's funnier than] a white-guy in a shopping cart?" admittedly most of what I remember hearing is "a white-guy in a shopping cart". Yet, I wonder why it is important to point out that he was caucasian, it doesn't seem to make the clip any funnier, and if it is a reference to black people suffering economic hardship, well that's a pretty bad joke.

Rather, it seemed to me like the need to categorize has become so engrained at this point. Instead of becoming "color-blind" through affirmative action and stuff, we've actually come to notice it a lot more, even when it doesn't add to our understanding.

People irk me, why they do stuff like this? The WBC is insane, there is a documentary on them called "Fall From Grace" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0977649/) I watched on Netflix. There is one pastor in the film that gives a good critique of the WBC and a good defense of what he thinks Christianity is about. Worth a viewing. Also some interviews with family members who abandoned the church and the family.

[Homer]

It is important to protect free speech, and I see the dangers of making exceptions for verbal abuse (some people could claim the slightest thing as verbal abuse, and use that as a way of actually abusing others through the system), but that does not make it okay to manipulate the system into protecting abusers in this way either.

One ought to ask oneself if the pros of free speech outweigh the cons.

A man's (or a woman's) life can be ruined by free speech (Eg: false allegations). On the other hand free speech can bring down a tyrant.

This problem has been around for a long time. Even Plato had to address it. Even worse, this problem is simply an instance of a larger problem - namely, where to draw the line between to apparent extremes/opposites.

It should not be legal for a mother to yell at her child that she wished the child were dead every day until the child commits suicide, even if the mother does not physically abuse the child.

Another instance of the same problem. A what point does the State (other people) can intervene in family (or personal) affairs? Where do you draw the line?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Ryan,

It is strange that certain words are censored in certain media (newspapers, magazines, and radio) and it is legal to do so, but abusive language got the stamp of approval at a funeral. Where they draw the line seems rather arbitrary.

It is a philosophical truth that words are nothing but words, but it is a psychological truth that words have meaning that can wound a person for longer than it takes a broken bone to heal. Absolute truth takes both of these truths into account. Most of those who attend weddings and funerals are people who would be the sort of person who could get hurt by harsh enough expressions especially at that time. Wise governance would allow general freedom of expression while also protecting people at vulnerable moments. Westboro Baptist Church could say whatever they want in a huge variety of places and ways without targeting individual families and attacking them at their a highly vulnerable moment, attempting to heal from the loss of a loved one. It's no wonder that Canada and the UK have a lower percentage of psychopaths and sociopath than America where victimization is protected under the guise of freedom.

As far as suggesting that women not dress like sluts for safety reasons, if in fact women dressed like sluts get raped more often than the more conservatively dressed, it is ridiculous that anyone even complained about that. Rape is still rape even if she was wearing nothing but body paint while dancing in a dark ally, but certain things tend to provoke assinine behavior in people prone. The attendees went to that class to get information. They didn't have to like or use the information. I doubt that he implied that dressing reasonably makes a woman safe, because it doesn't.

Judge's rape ruling 'disgusting' (Judge suggested victim was implying sexual intercourse through her attire and behavior)

I'm not sure how this relates to freedom of speech. The woman reportedly was dressed in high heels and a tube top and wanted to party. When a female says "party," she means dress fun, use extra make-up, have some drinks, and hang out or dance someplace where there are a lot of people and upbeat music. When a male hears "party" he is more inclined to think "sex" but that does not mean that he is entitled to forcibly fulfill his expectations. If she told him no three times and he responded with "it will only hurt for a little while" - the guy knew he was doing something wrong and the judge was wrong to let the guy off due to "misread signals." But yeah, if words are just words, "no" is just another word. But also a tube top is just another top.

[Animus]

The hypersensitivity is where I see the similarities. Are there no such thing as 'sluts'? Is there never a morally questionable woman?

But even more to the point; I know pretty damn well, from hanging out with such people, if I dangle a gramm of cocaine in-front of a coke-head, he's liable to tear my arm off to get it.

The issue is really one of stimulus-response, whether or not the stimulus presented to the individual causes a strong enough draw without the desire to inhibit the behavior. As a teenage boy, I wanted sex so bad that it almost didn't matter about the reprocussions. I didn't rape anyone, but I came pretty close with forcing myself at my girlfriends. On occasion I would catch sight of a girl that was incredibly good looking, dressed to the nines, "tits popping out of her turtle-neck and shit" (to quote Dave Chappelle), and the animal in me would be pining just to run up to her and tear her apart (sexually of course). But I've also always had a fairly functional frontal lobe, though at times it didn't work so hot. Everyone has a different capacity for inhibiting their desires, and even the "normal" brain has its limits. The adolescent brain, like the adolescent mind, is not so good at inhibiting its desires or really understanding why it has to.

I don't go around dangling bags of cocaine in-front of coke addicts, that's fucking stupid. And, it's fucking stupid for girls/women to dress like whores if they aren't. To quote Chappelle again "If you don't want to get treated like a whore, why are you wearing a whore's uniform?" It's not necessarily about the "messages" a girl sends, though women tend to respond insufficiently to aggressive come-ons. But it's more to do with stimulus-response and inhibiting self-control, which is dependent on a well-formed and fully-functional brain. That is something that CANNOT (period) be expected of everyone. Strokes, tumors, aneurysms, drugs, and especially ALCOHOL fuck with a person's frontal lobe function. This society is damned retarded, nevermind. Let's just have a gay old galavant around a lions den in a fucking sausage-bikini, using bacon strips for tassles and then turn around and scold the lion for wanting a bite.

Sure, there is responsibility all around, and that means a SOCIAL responsibility to not be a temptress and then raise the victim alarm when the lions attack.

[Animus]

A few more examples of things never to do (or else):

Drive a Cadillac in Detroit
Call an Ex-Con a "Gooff"
Tell your girlfriend how pretty her sister/mother/daughter is.
Imply that LBGT people have choices


It really doesn't matter what you think ought to be the case here, these are things you don't do without getting a knife in your back.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One ought to ask oneself if the pros of free speech outweigh the cons.

Why? This does not need to be an either/or issue, and freedom does not mean that one is completely free with impunity. We are generally not free to rape, rob, or kill, but we are still generally free. Much has been put under the umbrella of freedom of speech - such as flag burning - to the point that it is now more commonly and accurately thought of as freedom of expression, but we can not kill the protesters at the funerals as an expression of dissatisfaction with their abuse.

A man's (or a woman's) life can be ruined by free speech (Eg: false allegations). On the other hand free speech can bring down a tyrant.

True. For the former, false speech should be restricted in cases where the falsehood is intentional, intended to be taken for truth, and it is reasonable to predict that the falsehood would cause harm and/or unduly benefit the liar. Unfortunately it is creeping into the law in the US that lying to make yourself look like you have achieved something you have not is legal. Indeed that ruling only struck down the Stolen Valor Act, but now that it has been sanctioned to claim a medal of honor you did not earn (and keep in mind this issue was spurred by a politician who falsely claimed the medal of honor to look better to voters) then what difference is it if someone puts something else on their resume to get a job? Yes, the burden is on the employer to verify the resume but false resumes waste valuable time, and if an employer is fooled (either by dismissing something as thinned older records or they get someone to lie for them to back up their lie) then a truly qualified individual might not get that job, and the company is left paying someone who might not be qualified at all or less qualified (hurting the company), and someone who is more likely to lie, cheat or steal within the company too.

A more fundamental question is why do we have laws at all? Laws are supposed to promote functional behavior by discouraging dysfunctional behavior.

In a natural, lawless state, people and animals have a variety of tools to shape the behavior of others. If a puppy bites its mother too hard, she bites it back hard enough to hurt, but not hard enough to cause damage. If someone shoots a member of a gang, that person or a member of that person's gang gets shot back. If one squirrel steals another squirrel's nut, the other squirrel will chase the first squirrel and bite if necessary and able to get it back. A lot of animalistic behavior leads to the biggest and strongest getting their way more often, but humans felt that certain things were wrong even if you were too small to protect yourself. If somebody steals from the smallest member of the group, humans generally consider it just as wrong as if someone stole from the biggest, strongest, and fastest member of the group. My guess is that before there were codified laws, sometimes there were heroes who would try to right the wrongs against others, either alone or in a group.The codification was likely intended to make right and wrong clearer (promoting functional behavior by discouraging dysfunctional behavior) and make punishment for wrong more even amongst offenders.

The system of laws we have now is anything but clear, generally considered unequal, and now is starting to fail to discourage dysfunctional behavior (maybe more than starting in the US, as evidenced by the fact that the US incarcerates more of its population than any other nation on Earth... and it once was considered "land of the free"). The result is a lot of frustration from a lot of people. It's hard to know the exact tipping point on how frustrated how many people have to be before there's a revolution, but it is not hard to see that if the leaders keep making decisions that protect dysfunction, the system will not function.

[Animus]

Street smarts*

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Are there no such thing as 'sluts'? Is there never a morally questionable woman?

Of course there are. What to do with them is an issue. Raping them is not the answer.

I know pretty damn well, from hanging out with such people, if I dangle a gramm of cocaine in-front of a coke-head, he's liable to tear my arm off to get it.

Yeah, like I said:

certain things tend to provoke assinine behavior in people prone.

________

I would catch sight of a girl that was incredibly good looking, dressed to the nines, "tits popping out of her turtle-neck and shit" (to quote Dave Chappelle), and the animal in me would be pining just to run up to her and tear her apart (sexually of course). But I've also always had a fairly functional frontal lobe, though at times it didn't work so hot.

I recognize that it is unfair to provoke a behavior and then make the provoked out to be the bad guy, but we have to also look at what exactly provokes. Many Muslim men consider a woman wearing a pair of pants or in any way showed any arm skin or leg skin as considered highly provocative. There was a Muslim guy on the bus some months ago who struck up a conversation with me. At one point I got an itch on my arm and absentmindedly scratched it, and saw him look at my arm and I could tell he was getting off on it. That was creepy as hell, and I was wearing long sleeves that I had partially rolled up. Americans don't tend to consider it a major turn-on to roll up your sleeves, and generally don't consider it fair to a woman that she should have to wear a full burka just to not arouse the Muslim men.

Yes, there is a difference between not wearing a burka and dressing like a slut, especially since slutty dressing is generally done to attract what the wearer thinks will be positive attention - and that is a major issue. Sex and love are often confused, and teenage girls are biologically programmed to seek love and acceptance at that time. When they see that the kind of attention they think they want goes to girls dressed a certain way, especially if girls not dressed that way get left out, they will dress that way.

So we have a catch 22. If girls dress slutty they get attention and might be more likely to get raped, and if they don't dress slutty they can feel ostracized, which is not only a big deal to many mammals including humans, but can be extra painful to a teenage girl who has an extra need to belong and feel loved.

Sure, there is responsibility all around, and that means a SOCIAL responsibility to not be a temptress and then raise the victim alarm when the lions attack.

As much as the females have the responsibility to not be provocative, the males have the responsibility to not provoke provocativity. I agree, there is responsibility all the way around.

[pointexter]

One can think the thoughts that are already there.
Whether it is possible to think (or speak) freely is questionable in the face of causation.
Causation also calls into question the notion of freedom.

Its possible to arrange the thoughts any which way, without vocalising them in any way.
The tendency to do so, in order to advocate for or against in an attempt to change things is most likely an expression of ego.

[Scorched Soul]

Dude, a whore is a whore and deserves to be called one and will get little respect from me but are you actually trying to argue that it justifies rape??

I don't know too many mentall illness that suddenly make a guy unable to restrain himself from jumping on the first woman he sees and fukkin raping her. No excuse.

Women can definitely lead guy on and they do push it but i've never met anyone who thinks it actually partly justifies a guy losing it.

Are you comparing yourself to junkie who is so hooked that they will basically mess someone up just get their hit of whatever?? How long has it been dude?

[windhawk]

"Freedom of speach is the right to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire." -- Abie Hoffman

[David Quinn]

Nice one! :)

-

[Glostik91]

I think the idea of free speech comes from the idea of freedom of conscience. The freedom to think and then the freedom to express what you are thinking. If you are thinking you want to punch someone else in the face because they are a Jew, and then you proceed to tell them, "I'm going to punch you in the face because you are a Jew." then that is a hate crime. If I tell a Jew that he should go to Auschwitz and burn himself to death because he's a Jew, then that is not a threat toward his personal security. There is a difference between telling someone what they (supposedly) deserve and threatening to be the arbiter himself.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

[Cahoot]

Actually, just as we are born perfect, we are born with freedom of speech and thought.

It's a freedom that cannot be given by man.

Man can take that freedom away, though. From himself, and from others.

[GodsDaughter1]

Actually, just as we are born perfect, we are born with freedom of speech and thought.

It's a freedom that cannot be given by man.

Man can take that freedom away, though. From himself, and from others.

GodsDaughter says: Cahoot, I just love your answers, you make so much sense to me. You and Elizabeth are two of my favorite people here, although, I like others too!

Why is humanity so wicked, so full of jealousy, hatred, anger, nastiness, where the heck did violence, vulgarness, corruption come from, I'll tell you where it came from, it came from listening to evil then spreading it like gossipy warmongers. I can't wait to DIE! I implore God to strike me down please I beg you Lord, take my life, away from these nasty vile mean-spirited trouble-making daughters of evil. I cannot love these kinds of people, I can only feel pity for them, and anger that they should live among good people trying to tear them down like the less favorable character they are. Where did evil originate from, it had to come from one nasty thought first!

[GodsDaughter1]

There is an interesting contrast in the recent news. In France, a fashion designer was arrested and is to stand trial for anti-Semitic remarks he made publicly. "In France, making anti-Semitic remarks is punishable by up to six months in prison." Meanwhile in the US, The Supreme Court decides in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, who was sued by the family of a fallen Marine because the church protests military funerals, convinced that every dead soldier is God's punishment against America for acceptance of homosexuality. The family claimed emotional distress because the protesters were yelling things at them like "Thank God for dead soldiers" at the funeral.

While free speech does need to be protected even when we do not agree with what the other is saying, and stopping any speech is a slippery slope into stopping too much speech - this is quickly becoming sanctioned verbal and emotional abuse. It should not be legal for a mother to yell at her child that she wished the child were dead every day until the child commits suicide, even if the mother does not physically abuse the child. A parent chronically making sexually suggestive comments to/about their child - so long as it is only words, is still harmful to the development of the child. Bullying, including workplace bullying, is known to have negative effects, sometimes very significant.

It is important to protect free speech, and I see the dangers of making exceptions for verbal abuse (some people could claim the slightest thing as verbal abuse, and use that as a way of actually abusing others through the system), but that does not make it okay to manipulate the system into protecting abusers in this way either.

edit - dang the new only one url per post rule... sorry, you'll have to paste the address yourself

double dang, can't even put addresses in without making them links. Will post 2 of the links below in separate posts.

GodsDaughter says: This is a worthy thread, one which needs acknowledgment each time it's brought up. To stifle free speech is to deter development, to stifle a trouble-maker is to improve development such as sociability. Trouble-maker self-defined as creator of false tongue, poisonous concepts, slanderer, gossiper, speaker-of-truth to the cause of detriment, racists etc. People are afraid to speak-out for fear of being sued, many don't know what is acceptable speech and what's not. Ettiquette behavior in free speech is not only intelligent, it self-teaches one to handle speech effectively without the detriment.

[Glostik91]

Actually, just as we are born perfect, we are born with freedom of speech and thought.

It's a freedom that cannot be given by man.

Man can take that freedom away, though. From himself, and from others.

If man can take it away, then certainly it can be given by man.

And if man can take away this freedom before birth then I suppose perfection is also robbed.

Taken from the child and given to the man in charge.

If I interpreted your statements correctly that is.

[Cahoot]

Actually, just as we are born perfect, we are born with freedom of speech and thought.

It's a freedom that cannot be given by man.

Man can take that freedom away, though. From himself, and from others.

If man can take it away, then certainly it can be given by man.

And if man can take away this freedom before birth then I suppose perfection is also robbed.

Taken from the child and given to the man in charge.

If I interpreted your statements correctly that is.

When man puts a turtle in a cage, he takes away the turtle’s freedom.
When man puts a dove in a cage, he takes away the dove’s freedom.

When man releases the dove, the dove is free to fly.

If the act of releasing is the power that gives the dove the freedom to fly,
then the same act of releasing gives the turtle the freedom to fly.

Will the turtle fly?

No.

*

But it does have the freedom to crawl off a cliff, and although for a short while the turtle may feel like it’s flying, actually its falling.

The man who took away the turtle’s freedom to fly may pick the turtle up and throw it through the air, but this is not giving the turtle freedom to fly. It is just giving the turtle another experience of falling, and besides, it is cruel to throw turtles.

The turtle also has the freedom to build an airplane, extract and refine the fuel to fly the airplane, and thus fly in that sense. But this is not likely to happen, since the turtle’s legs are too short to reach the controls.

The turtle also has the freedom to crawl onto a plane that man has built and fueled and thus fly in that way, but actually the turtle is just exercising its freedom to crawl into another cage, and when the plane leaves the ground the turtle in his cage is flying only in the sense that it is flying when standing on the earth. But this is not likely to happen, since the turtle would not get past the airport security checks without a ticket, and because it’s a well-known fact that turtles don’t carry photo ID.

look at that escargot

[cousinbasil]

I just noticed this thread. What I don't get is that making anti-semitic remarks is can get you jail time in France. What if you made antigallic remarks? Or anti-Roman Catholic remarks? Do the remarks have to be made to a Jew, or can a Jew press charges if he simply overhears a person make the anti-semitic remark? Can a Jew be arrested for making an anti-semitic remark? Aren't the French famous for their arrogance? Don't they bad-mouth everybody that isn't French?