PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of Speech.


Fox♠
March 18th, 2010, 03:34 PM
My question to you all, does freedom of speech (or infact freedom on a whole) really exist? or is it just a buzzphrase to keep people in line?

Personally I think it's the latter, I mean, we're not really free to say everything, there's a lot we cannot say due to social taboos.

Honest
March 18th, 2010, 03:52 PM
Buzzphrase, really. A person can't yell "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU" in front of a politician without getting his arse murdered doesn't really have free speech does he?

xD, seriously though. While a person is able to voice his/her thoughts, not EVERY SINGLE person is truly able to. There are limits, and those limits sorta violate Freedom of Speech.

Don't now if that really made any sense. xD

NarutoActor
March 18th, 2010, 04:01 PM
Lol, this is exactly what we were talking about, I am glad you made it into a thread. I for one, and sick of political correction. Also the amount you exerciser your free speech is up to you, and the amount of bravery you have. I think it is despicable to try to bully someone, or look down upon someone; so that way, they will lose bravery, and to an effect trying force them to stop exerciser there right to free speech.

Mizan de la Plume Kuro
March 18th, 2010, 04:05 PM
That's why we have lies. Speech is never really free and frankly, I like it that way. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument so don't bother.

Yusshin
March 18th, 2010, 04:49 PM
I believe in freedom of speech as long as it isn't meant to hurt anyone.

Some say South Park has the freedom to display such atrocities on television; I say no, because it's meant to make fun and laugh at the culture of others in the world except the United States.

^ That's just an example

As for really having it, if it's based on a sound foundation or opinion with some logic, then yeah, we should have it, but if it's meant to harm others or try to harm others on purpose, then no.

Sarah Paliner
March 18th, 2010, 05:07 PM
Some say South Park has the freedom to display such atrocities on television; I say no, because it's meant to make fun and laugh at the culture of others in the world except the United States.As far as I know, South Park takes stabs at everyone and anyone. In fact, since it's such a US-centric show, most of its victims are Americans.

As for the actual topic itself, I'd say freedom of speech exists in partial form. This is probably for the best, since the cliche'd shouting "FIRE!" (when there is none) in a movie theatre should really not be a choice one is able to make. Otherwise, criticism of politicians and other public figures should be okay, and I think this is well protected in most stable democracies in the world (of course, when one is able to make criticism, one should also be prepared to receive criticism since others have the right of free speech too).

Esper
March 18th, 2010, 05:10 PM
Is this a question about whether freedom of speech currently exists in our culture(s) or whether it exists or can exist at all?

I say it exists, not as an absolute freedom without limits, but in degrees or more freedom and less freedom. Compared to the average person in, I dunno, Afghanistan I have more freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean they have none and just because I'll get banned from these forums if I go around swearing and insulting people doesn't mean I have no freedom or that it doesn't exist.

flight
March 18th, 2010, 05:10 PM
In America, we can criticize America's government without the fear of being arrested or being brutalized. In countries like Cuba, insulting their government is sort of a felony.

It sorta exists, to an extent, I would say.

Mana
March 18th, 2010, 05:38 PM
Depends on what is meant by freedom of speech.

It could mean "The freedom to say anything you wish" or "The freedom to voice your opinions", the options being subtly different.

Freedom of speech exists to some agree, you can (and should) be able to say what you want - as long as your words are not used to cause offence, or be used to violate the law. Shouting "Fire", "Bomb", etc. in a public place is a violation as it could endanger lives and certainly waste police time.

I think freedom to voice ones opinions should be there, as long as those who wish to use it are responsible enough to take into consideration other peoples feelings.

FreakyLocz14
March 18th, 2010, 05:43 PM
In the U.S. it does but there is no freedom of speech in Canada, the UK, France, etc.
They will still arrest you or have you sued for making hateful comments.

As much I disagree with hate I believe it's a constitutional right.

Anti-Hero
March 18th, 2010, 05:55 PM
What many, many people don't realize, is that Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the right to spout any crap you want. Rather, it gives you the right to voice your opinion, to say how you feel.

Also, in the US, we are allowed to say what we want, go to different Countries and try the same thing, it won't work. I bring this up, because many people in this thread believe that just because they will be criticized, they don't have the right. Social taboo, people making death threats or whatever, if those are what keep you from speaking your mind, it is really your own fault. The government won't do anything, that is, unless you are specifically targeting someone in a hateful/violent manner (I.E. Death Threat.) You

To more clearly represent my thoughts, what people seem to be hung up on is the fact that people won't like what they say. But, in reality, they can still say it, they are just afraid. As long as what you are saying isn't targeting someone in a violent manner, you can say it. There are more unique ways to express your dislike for one rather than saying, "Go ***** your self, you ***** *****! I'm going to kill you!"

Yusshin
March 18th, 2010, 05:56 PM
In the U.S. it does but there is no freedom of speech Canada

Uh, it's part of our charter that Freedom of Speech is a right. Newspapers can criticize the government as much as the people can. You just can't go around saying "I'm going to blow up the CN Tower" or write "Black/White/Whatever people should go to Hell" on a wall as graffiti.

Which I say is reasonable.

As well, South Park's only insult to America is how (although pretty much no one sees it this way) when they insult other countries, religions, etc., it shows the ignorance in the American characters.

South Park isn't the worst, though; I know it insults every religion and doesn't target a specific one (which is nice). Countries, however, aren't equal. Canada is frequently picked on, along with the Europeans, Middle-Eastern Arabs, and Mexicans. The only Americans I see South Park criticizing is their Hollywood actors, which makes sense because most of them are crud. They don't mock the general American population like they do with Canada (flappy heads? weird humour? underdeveloped country ("This is Canada! We only have one road!")?) or Arabs (They're all terrorists?).

The most insulting episode would be where Santa and Jesus "bring Christmas to Iraq". Iraq doesn't celebrate Christmas and the display of Arabs, which are semites, killing Jesus, who is also a semite of that area, is atrocious. They also pick on that country at a time where Americans are brutally killing them for oil.

I don't approve of the freedom of speech in South Park because it's there only to hate on others and they completely ignore the general American population, as if they're perfect beings in a perfect country.

As said, Freedom of Speech has limits - everything has limits. Hating on others (i.e. "Ethnicity" should go to Hell") is not "freedom of speech". Spreading lies about others (i.e. the Quran teaches Arabs to beat their women) is not appropriate either. It's hateful, and it is against the law technically. The controversy on freedom of speech causes a lot of loopholes, though :\

FreakyLocz14
March 18th, 2010, 06:05 PM
Uh, it's part of our charter that Freedom of Speech is a right. Newspapers can criticize the government as much as the people can. You just can't go around saying "I'm going to blow up the CN Tower" or write "Black/White/Whatever people should go to Hell" on a wall as graffiti.

Which I say is reasonable.

As well, South Park's only insult to America is how (although pretty much no one sees it this way) when they insult other countries, religions, etc., it shows the ignorance in the American characters.

South Park isn't the worst, though; I know it insults every religion and doesn't target a specific one (which is nice). Countries, however, aren't equal. Canada is frequently picked on, along with the Europeans, Middle-Eastern Arabs, and Mexicans. The only Americans I see South Park criticizing is their Hollywood actors, which makes sense because most of them are crud. They don't mock the general American population like they do with Canada (flappy heads? weird humour? underdeveloped country ("This is Canada! We only have one road!")?) or Arabs (They're all terrorists?).

The most insulting episode would be where Santa and Jesus "bring Christmas to Iraq". Iraq doesn't celebrate Christmas and the display of Arabs, which are semites, killing Jesus, who is also a semite of that area, is atrocious. They also pick on that country at a time where Americans are brutally killing them for oil.

I don't approve of the freedom of speech in South Park because it's there only to hate on others and they completely ignore the general American population, as if they're perfect beings in a perfect country.

As said, Freedom of Speech has limits - everything has limits. Hating on others (i.e. "Ethnicity" should go to Hell") is not "freedom of speech". Spreading lies about others (i.e. the Quran teaches Arabs to beat their women) is not appropriate either. It's hateful, and it is against the law technically. The controversy on freedom of speech causes a lot of loopholes, though :\

A professor of mine said that hate speech is a crime in the UK and Canada. Hating others should and is (in the U.S.) protected speech. Hate=An opinion and we are allowed to hold opinions however we see fit. The law only prohibits commiting a hate-biased crime but simply stating you hate someone is legal.

The only speech not protected is libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots pretty much. But even those aren't crimes, they're civil issues. Making threats and causing riots can be criminal but only in extreme cases. Slander and libel are almost always civil issues.

Throat
March 18th, 2010, 06:09 PM
In some leve, yes. Well, you can't just rely on people's judgement, so I am ok with some censure.

Ivysaur
March 19th, 2010, 12:57 AM
In the U.S. it does but there is no freedom of speech in Canada, the UK, France, etc.
They will still arrest you or have you sued for making hateful comments.

As much I disagree with hate I believe it's a constitutional right.

A professor of mine said that hate speech is a crime in the UK and Canada. Hating others should and is (in the U.S.) protected speech. Hate=An opinion and we are allowed to hold opinions however we see fit. The law only prohibits commiting a hate-biased crime but simply stating you hate someone is legal.

The only speech not protected is libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots pretty much. But even those aren't crimes, they're civil issues. Making threats and causing riots can be criminal but only in extreme cases. Slander and libel are almost always civil issues.

???????

Just a heads-up: the only kind of "hateful comments" that are illegal in Canada, the UK, France, etc are "libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots". So no, the US isn't the only country with freedom of speech in the universe. Pretty much all democratic countries have similar limits: you may say anything as long as you don't jump over someone else's rights.

dr4g0n12
March 19th, 2010, 01:38 AM
Luke the moderator once said "There are no rights on the internet." I never thought that was true. What does he think he is? Well, it definitely should exist here.

Sansa Stark
March 19th, 2010, 04:14 AM
What many, many people don't realize, is that Freedom of Speech doesn't give you the right to spout any crap you want. Rather, it gives you the right to voice your opinion, to say how you feel.

Also, in the US, we are allowed to say what we want, go to different Countries and try the same thing, it won't work. I bring this up, because many people in this thread believe that just because they will be criticized, they don't have the right. Social taboo, people making death threats or whatever, if those are what keep you from speaking your mind, it is really your own fault. The government won't do anything, that is, unless you are specifically targeting someone in a hateful/violent manner (I.E. Death Threat.) You

To more clearly represent my thoughts, what people seem to be hung up on is the fact that people won't like what they say. But, in reality, they can still say it, they are just afraid. As long as what you are saying isn't targeting someone in a violent manner, you can say it. There are more unique ways to express your dislike for one rather than saying, "Go ***** your self, you ***** *****! I'm going to kill you!"
Exactly.
Freedom of Speech exists. But, it's more like, Spiderman Freedom of Speech because "with great power comes great responsibility".

People who have freedom of speech are given the responsibility to not commit slander, libel, things that could harm people, et cetera. And all for the right reasons. Pure freedom of speech is wrong.

Most people don't realize that though lol.

Luke the moderator once said "There are no rights on the internet." I never thought that was true. What does he think he is? Well, it definitely should exist here.
Well, it's the same thing - one is responsible for what they say. And, he was exaggerating - there are rights, but in the end, it IS the administration's last word on the matter. lol.
You cannot commit libel on the forums, and if you break the rules, then you're breaking the rules.

FreakyLocz14
March 19th, 2010, 08:27 AM
???????

Just a heads-up: the only kind of "hateful comments" that are illegal in Canada, the UK, France, etc are "libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots". So no, the US isn't the only country with freedom of speech in the universe. Pretty much all democratic countries have similar limits: you may say anything as long as you don't jump over someone else's rights.

There's been talk in the American media about the UK's Hate Speech laws. The media describes them as criminalizing hateful speech. Also, the UK banned the Westboro Baptist Church from entering their country on similar grounds. I may be wrong about Canada and France but I'm sure the UK has such laws.

One of the biggest violators of free speech is universities. The US Supreme Court has been dealing with university Speech Codes. I say they are worse than Hate Speech laws because not only have they been used to censor hateful speech but they have all been used to censor conservative ideas amongst students.

Feign
March 19th, 2010, 08:50 AM
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (OR GODLESS)!

People, you've got to back up your statements with fact, it's disconcerting to have to read through, and only be told opinion... I know it can become a mess when you have to look up stuff (like newspaper articles and excerpts from a charter of rights), but it's the only way to be taken seriously...

And as for evidence on your rights on the internet, specifically at the PC, see the ToS (terms of use).

EDIT: This is me being passionate about the topic btw :P

IceSage
March 19th, 2010, 09:39 AM
My question to you all, does freedom of speech (or infact freedom on a whole) really exist? or is it just a buzzphrase to keep people in line?

Personally I think it's the latter, I mean, we're not really free to say everything, there's a lot we cannot say due to social taboos.

I think it's more of a, "You have the right to say whatever you wish...

...But expect us to censor it" type of thing.

Fox♠
March 19th, 2010, 10:08 AM
Uh, it's part of our charter that Freedom of Speech is a right. Newspapers can criticize the government as much as the people can. You just can't go around saying "I'm going to blow up the CN Tower" or write "Black/White/Whatever people should go to Hell" on a wall as graffiti.

Which I say is reasonable.

As well, South Park's only insult to America is how (although pretty much no one sees it this way) when they insult other countries, religions, etc., it shows the ignorance in the American characters.

South Park isn't the worst, though; I know it insults every religion and doesn't target a specific one (which is nice). Countries, however, aren't equal. Canada is frequently picked on, along with the Europeans, Middle-Eastern Arabs, and Mexicans. The only Americans I see South Park criticizing is their Hollywood actors, which makes sense because most of them are crud. They don't mock the general American population like they do with Canada (flappy heads? weird humour? underdeveloped country ("This is Canada! We only have one road!")?) or Arabs (They're all terrorists?).

The most insulting episode would be where Santa and Jesus "bring Christmas to Iraq". Iraq doesn't celebrate Christmas and the display of Arabs, which are semites, killing Jesus, who is also a semite of that area, is atrocious. They also pick on that country at a time where Americans are brutally killing them for oil.

I don't approve of the freedom of speech in South Park because it's there only to hate on others and they completely ignore the general American population, as if they're perfect beings in a perfect country.

As said, Freedom of Speech has limits - everything has limits. Hating on others (i.e. "Ethnicity" should go to Hell") is not "freedom of speech". Spreading lies about others (i.e. the Quran teaches Arabs to beat their women) is not appropriate either. It's hateful, and it is against the law technically. The controversy on freedom of speech causes a lot of loopholes, though :\

Have you actually ever watched South Park properly? Nearly all of the episodes mock Americans in some way or another, they're SP's biggest target.

Ivysaur
March 19th, 2010, 11:09 AM
There's been talk in the American media about the UK's Hate Speech laws. The media describes them as criminalizing hateful speech. Also, the UK banned the Westboro Baptist Church from entering their country on similar grounds. I may be wrong about Canada and France but I'm sure the UK has such laws.

One of the biggest violators of free speech is universities. The US Supreme Court has been dealing with university Speech Codes. I say they are worse than Hate Speech laws because not only have they been used to censor hateful speech but they have all been used to censor conservative ideas amongst students.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (fourth paragraph) religious hatred.

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.

Sounds like "The only speech not protected is libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots pretty much", using your own words. Sometimes, it is worth it checking the original source and not stickying up to the media's opinions.

Also, about the Baptist church thing- a word from BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7898972.stm)

The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms".

A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

So, accroding to the UK Border Agency, the views from said church qualifies as the kind of speech whose ban you support >:

And, why do you mean with "censor conservative ideas"?
I have a feeling you only watch FOX News

Melody
March 19th, 2010, 11:44 AM
Personally, I agree with the mods on this one. There is indeed Freedom of Speech here and in many democratic contries, but it is generally fair to place some expectations on all of us to not abuse that freedom to ruin others' lives.

I agree with the current level of laws which prevents people from saying things that are considered slander, libel, or hateful to the point that it incites violence and riots. Besides, they don't watch us and throw us in jail as soon as we say those things, usually if you say something that bad...you only get punished if it seriously does some damage. (like causing a riot, or causing some poor person to lose their job because you called their boss and told a lie to get them fired because you hated them. Or totally ruining their reputation so badly that they can barely function in society by telling horrible lies that anyone foolish enough to belive the lies would shun the person and deny them basic rights.)

FreakyLocz14
March 19th, 2010, 11:54 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom



Sounds like "The only speech not protected is libel, slander, making threats, and causing riots pretty much", using your own words. Sometimes, it is worth it checking the original source and not stickying up to the media's opinions.

Also, about the Baptist church thing- a word from BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7898972.stm)


So, accroding to the UK Border Agency, the views from said church qualifies as the kind of speech whose ban you support >:

And, why do you mean with "censor conservative ideas"?
I have a feeling you only watch FOX News

I do not watch FOX I actually only watch local news.

The US Supreme Court says that the Westboro Baptist Church's activities are protected by the First Amendment and I agree with their rulings on these cases. They are not asking people to attack homosexuals (that's what I said should be banned) they are merely letting people know that they believe God hates them. I don't agree with them on that but I respect their rights as American citizens to say those things. Do remember that the 1st Amendment gives their dissenters the right to counter-protest and let them know what they think about them too.

Now regarding univesity speech codes, the US Supreme Court hasn't issued any rulings yet, but in Doe v. University of Michigan, 1989 the US District Court for that region struck down the campus' entire speech code and ordered all other institutions within the area of its jurisdiction to do the same on 1st Amendment grounds.

Also see Penn's "Water Buffalo" case for more on this.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
March 19th, 2010, 12:44 PM
The US Supreme Court says that the Westboro Baptist Church's activities are protected by the First Amendment and I agree with their rulings on these cases. They are not asking people to attack homosexuals (that's what I said should be banned) they are merely letting people know that they believe God hates them. I don't agree with them on that but I respect their rights as American citizens to say those things. Do remember that the 1st Amendment gives their dissenters the right to counter-protest and let them know what they think about them too.

Remember that inciting people to attack homosexuals is not always as simple as just saying that people should go out and attack homosexuals.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri

The example Mill uses is in reference to corn dealers; he suggests that it is acceptable to claim that corn dealers starve the poor if such a view is expressed through the medium of the printed page. It is not acceptable to express the same view to an angry mob, ready to explode, that has gathered outside the house of the corn dealer. The difference between the two is that the latter is an expression “such as to constitute…a positive instigation to some mischievous act,” (1978, 53), namely, to place the rights, and possibly the life, of the corn dealer in danger.

Also remember that when the issue is about the Westboro Baptist Church entering the UK, their rights 'as US citizens' are not the important thing. The important thing is that they were judged to have acted against the law of the UK and as such were banned from entering.

Melody
March 19th, 2010, 12:57 PM
I'll have to agree with I Laugh At your Misfortune! on that one...US rights do not necessarily apply to the UK, and the UK has every right to deny entry to people they feel will incite problems or to people who will quickly break the laws somehow.

There's an old adage that applies here, "When in Rome, do unto the Romans" which simply means when you're in Rome, you do as the Romans do. Of course you can subsitute any country and it's people into that adage, because the same principal applies.

twocows
March 19th, 2010, 12:59 PM
That depends on what you mean by "freedom of speech." A more accurate phrase would be "freedom of expression," where you are free to express any idea however you want. In the United States, we very nearly have this, with a few exceptions. Two of the magic words to silence someone here are "racist" and "pedophile," among others (terrorist works too if you're within earshot of a government official). I'm not saying that the things that these terms refer to aren't bad (they most certainly are), but the labels themselves quite often get used in ridiculous contexts here and are abused to silence opposition and harm reputations. Other than instances like that, though, we very nearly have free expression; even people with extremely intolerant or questionable positions are allowed to voice their opinion, and while I will usually disagree with what they have to say, thank goodness they have the right to say it. If people with unpopular opinions didn't have the right to speak their mind, we'd be in a far worse mess than we're in right now.

On the other hand, if you mean "free speech" in the literal sense, then no, nobody has that, and for good reason. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded area is illegal because it causes a panic, which can have any number of undesirable effects, such as people getting trampled or attacked. That has nothing to do with expression, though.

Melody
March 19th, 2010, 01:08 PM
I somewhat disagree. Just because someone gets accused of being a 'terrorist, or a 'pedo' or even 'racist', it doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically get hauled away.

Generally, people who misuse those labels to silence their opposition are on the losing end. Not to mention, they're doing harm by casting these labels on to anyone. (Thus violating the harm principle.)

That being said, those who falsely apply such labels are quickly discredited and ignored.

twocows
March 19th, 2010, 01:13 PM
I somewhat disagree. Just because someone gets accused of being a 'terrorist, or a 'pedo' or even 'racist', it doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically get hauled away.

Generally, people who misuse those labels to silence their opposition are on the losing end. Not to mention, they're doing harm by casting these labels on to anyone. (Thus violating the harm principle.)

That being said, those who falsely apply such labels are quickly discredited and ignored.
I didn't say they get hauled away, but it certainly damages your reputation and makes people stop thinking logically about whatever your argument is. The thing is, in the age of the internet, people are quick to apply these labels, and it's hard to discredit something that just gets passed by word of mouth. In an academic argument, nobody's going to say that sort of thing, but that's an entirely different story.

Melody
March 19th, 2010, 01:20 PM
I didn't say they get hauled away, but it certainly damages your reputation and makes people stop thinking logically about whatever your argument is. The thing is, in the age of the internet, people are quick to apply these labels, and it's hard to discredit something that just gets passed by word of mouth. In an academic argument, nobody's going to say that sort of thing, but that's an entirely different story.

True, that on the internet, there is a totally different sort of liberty in expression. Generally though, most intelligent people online aren't stopped from considering an issue by such labels, they'll look at both sides and see for themselves.

I can say that people that do misuse such labels are indeed not uncommon, but they're not really everywhere. it's an immature tactic anyways. If you were referring to people here at PC, or any medium packed with kids, you're going to run into n00bish trolls like that.

Åzurε
March 19th, 2010, 03:28 PM
I didn't say they get hauled away, but it certainly damages your reputation and makes people stop thinking logically about whatever your argument is.

Just going off of this, in my experience on the internet, you are pretty much free to say what you want. The only caveat is that other people are free to do what they want with what you have said. So no whining if somebody disagrees or makes fun of you, of locks your thread or gets you banned, or whatever.

twocows
March 19th, 2010, 04:24 PM
True, that on the internet, there is a totally different sort of liberty in expression. Generally though, most intelligent people online aren't stopped from considering an issue by such labels, they'll look at both sides and see for themselves.

I can say that people that do misuse such labels are indeed not uncommon, but they're not really everywhere. it's an immature tactic anyways. If you were referring to people here at PC, or any medium packed with kids, you're going to run into n00bish trolls like that.
It really tends to apply most to people with a reputation to uphold, like people with government positions. A lot of them are afraid to state what they really think for fear of having some arbitrary label cast on them. Not that they should be in such a position if they're really afraid of such a thing, but still.

Amachi
March 19th, 2010, 05:27 PM
I somewhat disagree. Just because someone gets accused of being a 'terrorist, or a 'pedo' or even 'racist', it doesn't necessarily mean that they automatically get hauled away.

Generally, people who misuse those labels to silence their opposition are on the losing end. Not to mention, they're doing harm by casting these labels on to anyone. (Thus violating the harm principle.)

That being said, those who falsely apply such labels are quickly discredited and ignored.
You clearly haven't argued that much with Obama supporters. The race card is played often in order to silence critics.

But you're right - playing it so often does more harm than good, and cheapens the seriousness of such an accusation.

Jimmy Carter -- "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American."

Maureen Dowd -- "Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie! at a president who didn’t. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"

Time's Joe Klein -- "...they oppose and fear him because he is black."

Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA -- "I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside, intimidating people."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-CA -- "They are spreading fear and they're trying to see that the first president who looks like me fails."

Rep. David Scott, D-GA -- "We've got to realize racism is playing a role here."

Bill Maher -- "To heckle a President, to shout in the middle of a speech, would he have done that if it was a white President? I don't think so. I think this is a southern guy who thinks, 'I can do whatever I want when it's a black guy speaking.'"
It's not just an internet thing.

http://theobamafile.com/_images/img307.jpg

Anyway, props to Fox♠ for making such a tip-top topic. I'd like to inform everyone that while many countries have the right to freedom of speech, there is no such explicit right in Australia under our constitution. At best, such a right is implied.

http://libertus.net/censor/fspeechlaw.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm

Kind of a bummer for us Aussies huh? But it ain't so bad I guess, it could be a lot worse. Oh well, we ain't all that important anyway :P

FreakyLocz14
April 7th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Remember that inciting people to attack homosexuals is not always as simple as just saying that people should go out and attack homosexuals.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri



Also remember that when the issue is about the Westboro Baptist Church entering the UK, their rights 'as US citizens' are not the important thing. The important thing is that they were judged to have acted against the law of the UK and as such were banned from entering.

I know they violated the law of the UK. A law but an law that limits free expression. This is akin to what opressive governments do.

Also how can someone act againts a the law of a nation they aren't present in to commit a violation? They haven't prostested in the UK so they don't have the jurisdiction to accuse them of a violation.

institutions
April 7th, 2010, 04:38 PM
Sorry, I can't add a cool political post like you guys, only my own personal opinion.

I do, in fact, believe I can say whatever I want whenever I want. I'm a generally kind person though, so it's not all bad.
Maybe i'm just naive to think that nothing I say will get me in trouble.

Thread also reminded me of some RATM lyrics for some reason
"Can't waste a day when the night brings a hearse
So make a move and plead the fifth 'cause ya can't plead the first"

I have somewhat strong political views, but hell if I understand a bit of it.
Politics bores me more than my 2nd hour Economics class.

Brittani
April 7th, 2010, 06:33 PM
we dont really have freedom of speech...you'd get arrested if you said that u were gonna bomb the wht hse

.Gamer
April 7th, 2010, 07:28 PM
Luke the moderator once said "There are no rights on the internet." I never thought that was true. What does he think he is? Well, it definitely should exist here.


There are no rights on the internet sweetie. Sorry, but its true. Also, people, get off Luke's case, he's a nice guy. :|

As to Freedom of Speech, no we don't have it and yes we should. If South Park wants to make fun of Down's Syndrome and cleft chins, I say, let them. Nobody is forcing you to watch it. Nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and be like "WATCH THIS OR YOU DIE!" (if that ever happens, woops). And to the people saying South Park doesn't make fun of America, that makes your entire argument invalid, pretty much all South Park makes fun of is America lol. Next time do research k.

Just because you don't like what someone else says doesn't matter. Other people may. It also defeats the purpose of trolling, which I won't get into because its my favorite thing right now. People should be allowed to say whatever they feel, this is also why political correctness is bullcrap imo. If someone thinks something else is "offensive" then its hate speech and punishable?????! What? No! Freedom of Speech. It is not exclusive and it shouldn't be. Granted, you should use words at your own discression (i.e. don't yell the "n" word in downtown Atlanta), but that doesn't mean they should be outright banned.

[/rant]

Thats how I feel about it. Also, just to add to that, to hell with PMRC, censorship is bogas.

Silver
April 7th, 2010, 07:39 PM
I feel there's freedom of speech to a degree. Yes you should be able to voice your opinion, however when you voicing of that opinion infringes upon the rights of someone else, then that should no longer be considered free speech. I'm all for the ideal of you can do what you want, so long as it does not impede/infringe on any other single persons right(s).

Though to be honest, I haven't put that much deal of thought into this. I may write a better opinion/post in the future.

Yamikarasu
April 7th, 2010, 07:43 PM
I don't approve of the freedom of speech in South Park because it's there only to hate on others and they completely ignore the general American population, as if they're perfect beings in a perfect country.

Oh please. The whole running joke in South Park is that they live in a town full of rednecks. That's the biggest American stereotype I can think of. You really should know what you're talking about before you write something. If you are offended by South Park, then don't watch it. If you are offended by someone's speech, then ignore it. Heck, if it means so much to you, then speak out against it! Which is exactly what you're doing now. And now I am exercising my freedom of speech by saying why I disagree with you. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and it has no limits. Even when it incites violence. That's why we don't arrest people simply because they agree with the KKK.

That said, on a website such as PC, we do not have freedom of speech because we choose to participate and abide by their rules. In life, you have freedom of speech. When you choose to be part of something like PC, you choose to abide by their rules (recall that little box you checked when you signed up, saying you read and agreed to their terms and conditions). If the mods were jerks and banned everyone they disagreed with, PC would not have nearly as many members as it does.

LethalTexture
April 8th, 2010, 12:35 AM
The idea of Free Speech is just a Facade. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but here in the UK, it seems that these days you can't say anything without fear off offending someone, whether it be an individual or a group. The lack of Double Standards disgusts me too.

Sneeze
April 8th, 2010, 04:17 AM
The only place free speech exists is 4chan, and they abuse the hell out of it. If free speech was introduced for the first few months or years it would be the same as 4chan, which would be bad but I imagine after a while it would cool down and the world would probably be better off for it. Worth it? Debatable.

TheUltimateSacrifice
April 8th, 2010, 05:58 AM
Consequences and implications for both freedom of action, and speech, are part and parcel of those entities; and do not deter from their realism.