Do we really have freedom of speech?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Pithikos, Apr 24, 2013.

  1. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I challenge you to support those statements with some hard evidence - links, please. And the number of laws is a ridiculous index to use to indicate the amount of freedom. In the U.S.A., a huge number of those laws you are complaining about are actually there to PROTECT our various freedoms.

    So it's time for you to put up or shut up.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pithikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    Ok. But what about ridiculing a person's religion? That is affecting other people but still it is allowed. An example is the sketches of Muhammed. Muslims take that as an insult so shouldn't that then be forbitten? It's affecting them.

    An other example is that burkas are not allowed in France. From an objective perspective it seems to me that "freedom of speech" is regulated in favour of certain groups of people.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Should I be Pepsi instead?

    I'm pretty free. It is true, though, that criminals don't have as many freedoms here.

    Which one? There are a lot of South American countries.

    Let's see. So far I have been in:
    Niger
    China
    Hong Kong
    South Korea
    North Korea
    Japan
    Belize
    Brazil
    Nigeria
    Canada
    Italy
    France
    Amsterdam
    Germany
    Australia
    Thailand
    Finland
    Mexico
    The Antilles
    Luxembourg

    How about yourself? Which one was "freest" in your opinion?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    You still haven't responded to my challenge - what's the problem? Nothing to back up your frivolous claim?????
     
  9. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Please don't give me the hog wash , laws to protect me . Let me give one just recently . I am a home owner , I want to install one extra outlet in my bedroom . The town tells me I have to get a permit and a licensed electrician , licensed in this town. I have wired electrically my other house ( I am an electrician ) . I can not do it because of license , I have to get a license it cost $ 180.00 then I have to get a permit there is an other $ 70.0. So friend this is one example of freedom I can name more of them . Have you considered as a driver on how much freedom you have ?
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    So if you were in a country that did not have:

    Laws preventing slavery
    Laws that prevented the government from arresting you for speaking your mind
    Laws that outlawed murder and rape
    Laws that meant you could own property

    You think you'd be more free?

    Move
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    So just do it. I do it all the time. No one will come to arrest you.

    You have the freedom to drive but not to kill other people on the road (or put them at risk for injury or death.)
     
  12. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Nope, you're still the one full of hogwash! You made some BOLD assertions that were nothing more than anecdotal evidence - which counts for nothing. Someone could claim, for example, that the city of Columbus, Ohio had the highest standard of living in the whole world - and it would be just as worthless as your mindless, unsupported claim.

    So until you produce some evidence to SUPPORT your claim or admit you don't know what you're talking about, I'm going to stay on your case. No one get a free ride in this place of trying to push stupid opinions as if they were facts. So... get busy or get gone!
     
  13. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Your last word move , is plain stupid . I am in this country probably longer then you are alive , and beside I come here by choice, you are here by accident of you parents been in bed. I have sons who served in the military for this country , by the way did you ?
    Let me add one thing more , You can have land, outlaw murder and rape , that and more is a common practice in post country in the world .
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you can't understand the reason for these laws?
    if you are indeed an electrician it should come as no surprise why they (the laws) exist.

    scenario:
    you just purchased your new home.
    the neighbors told you the previous owner rewired the house but kept asking them questions about the job.
    you also found out the locale DOES NOT require ANY kind of permit for such work.

    the above example posted by you in no way inhibits freedom of speech.
     
  15. Dufoe Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    I think at the root of it we are all aware that we do not have freedom of speech in the sense you describe. People say they do simply because the phrase has come to mean something different to most than the type you describe. It would be more accurate to posit that we have limited freedom of speech. Each person is free to exercise their rights, provided that they do not infringe upon anyone else's rights.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    freedom of speech, what is it?
    in my opinion it's the ability to verbally express ones honest informed opinion without fear of retribution.
    flipping someone the bird would not be freedom of speech, it would be freedom of expression.
    in that regard it seems we have added a right that we didn't have before.
     
  17. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I think it's pretty clear that arauca is just being bull-headed for some hidden agenda of his own. No idea what it is but I can't see anyone thinking as he claims to be able to find their way to the bathroom without help. He's made NO attempt to show the proof I asked for but rather dodges the issue like a little kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. His opinions are completely worthless. <shrug>
     
  18. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    There never has and never will be a freedom of speech preconditioned on "truth" -- Although "truth" is in many jurisdictions a defense against being accused of defamation, the laws against slander and libel would not have to exist if free speech were conditioned on the statements being materially true. Indeed while injuring someone, defrauding someone by lying, or perverting the government pursuit of justice by lying are all criminal, lying itself isn't. That's why we have novels today.
    The original freedom of speech was the courageous act of criticizing those in power -- a type of political macho, parrhesia, favoring bold speech.
    Naturally, truth is a useful thing to have one one's side if one is criticizing the powerful, but most important was standing in the community as one whose morals were above reproach. If, as in the case of Socrates, one was not perceived as a paragon of virtue, you would be judged harshly by mob rule.
    I think you mean "express opinions" not "have opinions." And this contradicts your claim that "truth" is the original justification for granting freedom speech. Opinions may or may not be close approximations of the truth. Expressed opinions may be sincerely held or adopted as disingenuous rhetoric, empty talking points or mere repetition of stories you've heard but not experienced. So at a minimum, expressed opinions can be placed on the true-false, sincere-disingenuous, well-considered-rashly-stated and the first-hand-dittohead axes. Should all of these be treated the same? You say no then complain that others also say no.
    Actual insults are protected speech. Stage productions are protected speech. Burning the flag is statutorily mandated as the correct way to dispose of a flag, and if part of play protected speech. Why would a public performance of a flag burning not be protected speech?
    What you are insisting on is a freedom from speech -- a freedom to not encounter expressed opinion which does not align exactly with your internal opinion. A freedom from the possibility of taking offense. Such a freedom is you absolute right provided at least one of the following conditions apply:
    1. You have been proven to always be right on every issue and to always know every fact of the past, present and future,
    2. You are a totalitarian dictator,
    3. You are an absolute hermit,
    4. You are blind, deaf, and severely nerve damaged, or
    5. You are in a irreversible vegetative state.
    True advocates of freedom of speech take offense and still protect the freedom of speech.
    "for if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. " -- Washington, 1783
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -- First Amendment, 1791
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Jefferson, 1791
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Tallentyre, 1906. (Summarizing Voltaire)

    "During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. ... Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. ... Expression may not be prohibited on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. ... The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. " -- The Supremes, including Scalia

    PC is not reduced freedom of speech. It's the trend in society that marginalizing every group except white males between 30-60 is deemed uncivilized. Neither un-PC speech nor going shirtless with a dog collar to eat your lunch by immersing your head in a trough on the floor is statutorily regulated. Both will get you odd looks and possibly fired from work in exactly the same way that going hatless in the 1930s would or wearing your hair too long in 1969 would. Being un-PC in today's world is like being a "dirty hippie." But don't blame the lawyers. Blame fashion and the mob.

    Both in the law and on the topic of "humor" I believe you are mistaken.
    "Fighting words" laws and "hate speech" laws in the US target not opinion but actions like inciting a fight or motivating an assault. Mel Gibson wasn't in trouble for talking about "TEH JEWZ" but rather for being drunk while driving and having an open container of alcohol.

    It's not a liberal government that's at issue -- by definition it is a totalitarian law by a totalitarian government that spewed from your imagination. If your brain offend thee, pluck it out.
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If I say any of the words, deemed by PC, called hate speech, but with a cheerful heart, there is no hate. The definition of hate depends on the subjectivity of the audience, to interpret my intent and emotions based on words.

    The problem is liberals tend to whine the most and the loudest about trivia therefore they get to monopolize what is deemed free speech. The scam uses the guise of hurt feelings to censor free speech. Currently the University of Connecticut basketball team got an updated mascot logo; huskies. A liberal female is complaining the cartoon incites feelings of rape. She projects and is trying to limit free speech of a school based on her tripped out feelings; law suit.

    Let me show the dual standard. Many people feel insulted when they hear the two words Gay and marriage combined in the same sentence. It creates a defensive reaction in millions of people. This would be a conservative version of perceived hate speech, in which they, the audience, subjectively feel a conservative version of the liberal emotional trip out. The PC free speech rules do not apply, because this is not protected by PC. The conservative have to act like adults and not neurotic children. But the cartoon of a mascot, if it impacts even one tripped out liberal, then that is hate speech.

    Quotas are racist laws in that they discriminate against one race. There is often used in conjunction with a lot of liberal anger/hate against the evil white male. If we combine these, this should be considered hate speech and racism. The liberals deem this subjectively good, therefore it is not racism. The emotional rage is justified so it is not hate. The only audience that counts is the liberal audience, not the victims of racism and hate.

    You can restrict free speech by changing words and using dual standard audience emotional labels, until the rational cause and effect of free speech is muted. One cannot express truth due to smoke and mirrors.

    I am looking for consistency of rules so all have the same freedom of speech. If Gay marriage makes some people upset and defensive is this now hate speech? If we say no, then do any words that generate the same level emotion within an audience, also become exempt? Or is the dual standard in effect?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2013
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the "rules" are pretty simple, you have the right to state your honest opinion.
    in my opinion any man that passionately "loves" another man is . . . well there is something wrong with his brain.
    there is no "political correctness".
    are we trying to set a precedent here?
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Sorry, that was a typo from another quote I didn't use.

    I doubt it.

    Oh, they were both quite deliberately in bed - and my grandparents quite deliberately came here to raise their children in the US. They had the courtesy to learn to speak, write and read English well.

    Nope. But I had a father that served in the US military, did you?

    Those laws really restrict your freedoms, eh?
     
  22. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Agree 100% with the above. We have a new form of MacCarthysim today, disquised as PC.

    Kind of like .. "You must be all tolerant but if I and all those I've managed to convince of my view, don't agree with your view, we will not tolerate it"
     
  23. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Bad example. Doing that would be a deliberate act of malice. same as it is illegal to call 000 (or 911 in USA case) and make false reports.
     

Share This Page