Free Speech

Quote by Chryses

When do you think this pattern of yours will be on display?

If you were ever part of a minority class based upon the shade of your skin tone in America for all of your life - you'd know when this pattern displays itself - you'd feel it and see it and experience its presence - every single day you woke up.

But since you appear to have zero level empathy reserves, I don't expect these words to ping pong around in your brain or affect your outlook going forward.

We must wait for attrition to claim your ilk. Nobody lives forever.

Quote by Chryses

Would it be fair to say that while you agree about the conjectured "pattern" referred to, you too are unable to predict when it may be expected?

It's happening now, has been occurring all of your life and if the pattern jumped up into your lap and licked your nose - you still wouldn't be aware. Just keep being obtuse and vague..that's a winning look for you.

May I just interject here. Free speech is not an exclusively American concept. Our issues around it in the UK are similar, but seeing people in the US having an argument along party political lines just looks like navel gazing, point scoring, and parochialism.

There are principles around free speech and expression that should apply worldwide, irrespective of the political parties and context in the different countries invested. Those are the things we should be focusing on. Should anyone feel they can express an honestly held, legal view without censure? Yes. Should people suppress such views? No. How many people here can honestly say they adhere to these principles in this discussion?

Debating is an art, not a bear pit

…and anyone saying we stopped listening to the Limeys in 1776 will get a spanking! Happy 4th, y’all! X

Quote by NishasWorld

Debating is an art, not a bear pit

RAWR!!!

I'm going to jump to the end without reading everything else because it's a longish thread, I'm a bit high, and I suck at art.

I think people are entitled to say anything they want. However, they are not entitled to a sympathetic ear, attention, or even a venue to say it in, nor should freedom of speech make anyone free from the repercussions of their speech, which could include them getting pissed off at you and practicing their own free speech about how big of an asshole you are.

I also recognize that totally free speech is not always a social good, especially when it's used to mislead and manipulate people towards socially destructive ends (looking at you, Donny). However, while it's framed as a problem with free speech, we might reframe it as a problem with stupid gullible dickheads (SGD). If there were fewer SGDs, then those who speak through a megaphone positioned at the opposite end of their digestive tract would be less influential and less of a threat - and we could keep free speech. I'm a big advocate for media literacy to be incorporated in K-12 education.

Free speech has lost its meaning. Free speech used to stand for the ability for anyone to express views, without fear of censure. Now free speech is a political tool wheeled out whenever it's convenient.

What does special counsel Jack Smith think about Trump's first amendment rights of free speech?

https://www.rawstory.com/jack-smith-seeks-protective-order-trump/

He recognizes a threat just as quickly as the rest of us do.

Is freedom of speech the unbridled license to say whatever you wish no matter the impact or consequences to others? As said before I may disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. I am not clever enough to define the precise components of free speech but somewhere a line must be drawn that says this is too much. In recent years here in the USA most of the social discourse has occurred well beyond the line of decency. A difference of opinion should not incite violence. Lies on a pervasive level should be exposed for what they are rather than be perpetuated. Does a lack of integrity compromise one’s ability to influence others or does it sustain it?

Answer personally in a manner that best suits you but think what the effect of what you might say is on our society.

Anyone can be sued in civil court for lying abd slandering another person.

Fox News had to pay up nearly 800 million dollars for lying about the 2020 presidential election.

There are consequences for lying abd libeling speech.

When does a spoken/verbal/captured - on video - or online - type/written threat - step over the line from protected free speech - to something worth investigating, indicting, arresting, prosecuting and sentencing?

Quote by Ironic

Wouldn't that depend on what was said?

Absolutely.

What you might consider a threat, another person might laugh off, ignore or - punch you right in your voice box a handful of times until you were severely incapacitated.

Now you want a definition of incapacitated, too?

Do I need to define all the words I use in various statements?

Why can't I just assume that you are like oh, say 100 million other people on this planet and you recognize a threat when you read or hear one?

Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated online - anywhere? Have you ever been doxed and your privacy invaded and then endured online threats and bald faced lies. Has anyone libeled and slandered you with bullshit and lies designed to place a target on your personal self - and thus open to physical attack from the foamed up followers of rabble rousers or cultists who you feel wish you harm?

It always depends on more than just words and definitions.

Quote by ElCoco

Different countries have different interpretations of free speech. For example,

.

As long as religions interfere in the lives of people who don't believe in those religions, the world needs more blasphemy.
As long as religions are treated different from other world views, the world needs more blasphemy.
As long as blasphemy can have serious consequences, the world needs more blasphemy.

Quote by ElCoco

Rock on, dude!

To stick to your rock theme: once blasphemy finally has the same consequences as telling someone you don't like their favorite artist, then blasphemy is no longer needed.

What Western countries still have blasphemy laws, I wonder? Canada's was supposed to be repealed as part of removing a number of outdated sections of the criminal code but I need to check if that got passed before the last election.

I have no real issue with burning flags,. religious texts, etc. so long as there is a recognition that all are equal. If burning the Qu'ran is allowed, so is burning the Torah or Gospels. And I kind of wonder how some of the Qu'ran burners actually would react to Bible burnings. Especially if those burning them were Muslim.

Personally, I want the right to criticize any religious, philosophical, or political viewpoint but tend to see burning books of any kind as too extreme and more for show rather than reflecting any real, thoughtful criticism.

Quote by Chryses
Include Science.

It kind of fits under "philosophical viewpoint" if you are critiquing it as a method of gaining knowledge. But science is certainly not above criticism when it is done badly, as it sometimes is, often by people trying to use it to further an agenda. At the same time, there are way too many critics of science who do not even really understand what "science" is (ie. a method for gaining and testing knowledge, not just a bunch of facts.).

Quote by Chryses

Include Science.

Criticism is an important part of science.

Quote by Seeker4

What Western countries still have blasphemy laws, I wonder? Canada's was supposed to be repealed as part of removing a number of outdated sections of the criminal code but I need to check if that got passed before the last election.

I have no real issue with burning flags,. religious texts, etc. so long as there is a recognition that all are equal. If burning the Qu'ran is allowed, so is burning the Torah or Gospels. And I kind of wonder how some of the Qu'ran burners actually would react to Bible burnings. Especially if those burning them were Muslim.

Personally, I want the right to criticize any religious, philosophical, or political viewpoint but tend to see burning books of any kind as too extreme and more for show rather than reflecting any real, thoughtful criticism.

I wasn't speaking about laws necessarily. More about culture.

Not sure if all are equal, but I agree they should be equally open to be criticized.

The only thing I have against the burning of religious books or flags is property damage. It's wasteful.

Forum Mod Announcement
Some reorganizing here:

1) If you have something you want to say about free speech, this is the thread for it. I'm consolidating a few other threads because these things are getting really fucking repetitive as certain members feel a need to generate a whole new thread every time they have a thought.

2) This thread was initially 5 pages long and locked when I started with it this morning. It's now 2.5 pages after cutting out all of the pointless bullshit. It was half bullshit due to the bickering and squabbling of a few particular members. The fact that it was half-bullshit caused it to be locked. It will likely be locked again if the pattern continues.

Protests: A Bridge Too Far?

Quote by Chryses
Over in England, where the climate fanatics are now disrupting snooker tournaments, some hooligans are finally being sent to prison. From our friends at The Guardian: Just Stop Oil protesters jailed for Dartford Crossing protest

“Two Just Stop Oil protesters who scaled a bridge on the Dartford Crossing, forcing police to close it to traffic, have been sentenced to more than two and a half years each for causing a public nuisance.

Morgan Trowland, 40, and Marcus Decker, 34, used ropes and other climbing equipment to scale the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, which links the M25 between Essex and Kent across the River Thames, in October last year. The police closed the bridge to traffic, causing gridlock.

Trowland was sentenced to three years in prison, while Decker received two years and seven months. Spokespeople from the activist group said these were the longest sentences for peaceful climate protest in British history.”

More of this, please.

Quote by Magical_felix
The Jan 6 MAGA patriots should take notes, they couldn’t even scale a ramp… that had stairs like ten yards away… lol

Quote by ElCoco
I don't know much about how English law works, but some counterprotesters received justice yesterday in Fort Worth.

Armed 'Antifa' militants attacked drag show protesters but ended up getting arrested. One of the counterprotesters allegedly pepper-sprayed the protesters across the street from a drag show in Fort Worth, Texas, leading to three arrests, according to the city's police department.

https://twitter.com/fortworthpd/status/1650634900750364673

Black-clad counterprotesters in tactical gear stood outside Fort Brewery and Pizza as the restaurant hosted a drag show Sunday, according to a news release from the Fort Worth Police Department.

Protesters for ‘Protect Texas Kids’ demonstrated across the street.

Counterprotester Samuel Folks, 20, allegedly went over to the protesters and pepper-sprayed them, subsequently swinging at police when they tried to arrest him. Counterprotester Christopher Guillott, 33, is accused of attacking officers with an umbrella and hitting one in the face as they attempted to handcuff Folks, with both men continuing to resist arrest. A third counterprotester Meghan Grant, 37, allegedly tried to charge past the officers to reach Folks and Grant and subsequently failed to comply with an officer before ultimately being arrested herself, the department reported.

Folks was arrested on suspicion of crimes including assault causing bodily injury, while he and Guillott both face a second-degree felony charge for allegedly assaulting a peace officer. Police arrested Grant on suspicion of interfering with public duties and resisting arrest.

https://twitter.com/fortworthpd/status/1650634205272080389?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1650634205272080389%7Ctwgr%5E989b84a078e30f16a64678360e381e9d5d008fd3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournal.com%2Farmed-antifa-militants-attack-drag-show-protesters-end-face-pavement-minutes-later%2F

Quote by ElCoco

There will be less of it if they're given prison sentences, don't you think?

I do.

Quote by sprite
Depends. or it might just incite more violence. notice the groups cited. Proud Boys. Neo-Nazis. Patriot Front. Not exactly hotbeds of intelligence and common sense. Lots of bigotry and racism, though.

Quote by ElCoco
Send all of them to prison. Proud Boys. Neo-Nazis. Patriot Front. Antifa. BLM. You name them. Parole the dopers and other non-violent criminals and lock up the violent ones.

Quote by Chryses
It will, I think, be prison terms, not arrests, that will have an effect. As Judge Collery said when he handed down the sentence, “You have to be punished for the chaos you caused and to deter others from copying you.”

As noted above, the thugs who populate those gangs are often slow learners. A sufficiently long incarceration might provide them with the opportunity to learn society disapproves of their behavior.

Quote by ElCoco
It's hard to measure anti social behaviors. Most don't justify prison sentences, but when it's bad enough, I can see giving the perps a time out.

Quote by Beffer
Violent street protests are a rite of passage in France. Hundreds of thousands take to the streets to protest injustice and proposed regressive government policies, year after year. And it works! The French people really know how to fight for justice. It's kinda sad that Americans just let injustice stand and continue to beat them down just to preserve order and the status quo. Some trouble is good trouble.

Quote by ElCoco
There are at least two benefits. The anti-social behavior is removed from society for the length of the sentence, so there's a direct benefit to society there. The second is the opportunity for those social misfits to change their behavior.

Quote by Ironic
There have been several videos of fed-up motorists dragging Just Stop Oil protestors who block roadways, but yesterday someone decided to punk the Just Stop Oil members at one of their own meetings.

Quote by Buz
Peaceful assembly to protest is good. Invite the media. Wave. at passing cars.

But Violence, assaulting cars and drivers, smashing business windows, doors, and looting is not. Setting cars on fire is not. Blocking roads is not. Scaling walls and breaking into buildings is not. Sacking The Capitol is not. Threatening anyone's lives, including members of congress and the vice president is not. Beating people up, Assaulting police is not.

Violent protest is criminal.

Quote by Chryses
Latter-day Luddites. How robotaxis are dividing San Francisco

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
Like they fucked over the cab companies... it all comes around again.

But where Lyft and Uber created driving jobs (arguably of lower quality) to replace the ones they destroyed, the only people who benefit from robot labor are those who - in marxist terms - own the means of production. It's hard to see what jobs will be created to balance those put in jeopardy. You can throw around the 'luddite' term all you want, but there does need to be an accounting for what new technologies do to the work force, which is the economic lifeblood of society.

Quote by Chryses
Climate Change protesters are in the NEWS again. A Tribal Ranger truck in Nevada rammed a climate change group blocking the road to the Burning Man festival.

Quote by Chryses
AI is still in its infancy. How long until a robot is doing your chores? There will be no end to the social upheaval it brings about.

Another Victory for the First Amendment

Quote by ElCoco
Supreme Court Upholds Media Protections: A Landmark Decision in Defamation Cases

https://bnn.network/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-upholds-media-protections-a-landmark-decision-in-defamation-cases/

"In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has reinforced media protections against defamation, refusing to entertain a challenge against these protections. The court’s decision has far-reaching implications, carving the path for future defamation cases and highlighting the crucial balance between freedom of the press and individual reputation."

Good news again.

Quote by Chryses
Indeed it is — provided they have not knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Quote by NY Times

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Biden administration officials to continue to contact social media platforms to combat what the officials say is misinformation, pausing a sweeping ruling from a federal appeals court that had severely limited such interactions.

It's a difficult issue. On one hand, misinformation is absolutely detrimental to the health and security of the nation and undermines faith in the institutions we depend on for a functional democracy. It led to the Jan 6 failed coup, as well as the deaths of thousands of people as Covid spread - not to mention brutal, costly wars in Iraq (yellow cake) and Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin). On the other hand, I'm definitely wary of allowing government (or anyone else, for that matter) to become the arbiters of truth and worse, making some unpopular but legitimate forms of speech illegal (see DeSantis' crusade against 'wokeism' down in Florida, for example - that guy on a national level would be a fucking nightmare of censorship).

Is there a way to fight the harmful effects of misinformation while protecting freedom of speech? Or do we have to choose one or the other? And if so, which is more essential to a secure and healthy society?

Quote by ElCoco

The last thing we need is for our government to suppress anybody's opinion, even if it's ugly and nasty.

Ugly and nasty speech is one thing. Deliberately misleading people through misinformation about objective facts (in other words, lying) to create chaos and manipulate people is another. Probably wouldn't be as much of a problem if Americans (not all, maybe not even a majority, but still far too many to be negligible) weren't so stupid and gullible and had some capacity for critical thinking in the face of utter bullshit, but recent history provides ample evidence to the contrary. 100% freedom and 0% responsibility. So, America, the most powerful nation on Earth and leader of the free world is being gas lit into madness by dishonest politicians, pundits, and profiteers. That should be far more concerning to all Americans than it seems to be, and it should be concerning for the rest of the world, too.

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know
100% freedom and 0% responsibility

Trust me, it is not just an American issue. I see it in Canada to some degree as well (and the UK, based on the news I get from there). I think one of the big flaws of the Western focus on "rights" is that for democracy and freedom to actually work, there's things we need to be doing to make it work. Get an education, apply our knowledge responsibly and wisely, vote based on that learning not just because someone appeals to our petty prejudices, and so on. Perhaps charters of rights need to be charters of rights and responsibilities.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm not so sure about that. If we lived in the same congressional district, the candidate elected to the House would represent both of us. Since one of us is more liberal and the other is more conservative, our Representative would, simply by the nature of the position, have to be something of a charlatan or fraud to represent both of us. Our Representative will say one thing to the more liberal voters in our district and something else to the more conservative voters. Deliberately misleading both groups by spinning the message to suit each group's preferences (prejudices) so neither group will vote for the other candidate in the next election. It's only in "safe" seats that the Representatives can deliver one and only one presentation of the facts.

Wow, that's a very cynical way to look at politics. And perhaps, in a winner takes all election system, it may not be all that far from the truth.

Does this 'official state measure' in Oklahoma (related to state measures in Texas & Florida) violate the free speech clause of school teachers in Oklahoma? Welcome to the solution decided upon by Republican majorities in America - simply don't mention past transgressions or race relations in these states. Burn all text books and books in school libraries (public libraries will be their next targets). Ban the very mention of crimes committed against minorities in the good ole USA.

https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB%201775%20Emergency%20Rules.pdf

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/oklahoma-teachers-dont-know-if-its-legal-to-teach-killers-of-the-flower-moon/

But in Oklahoma, where the murders took place, teachers say they aren’t sure they’re allowed to teach it in class. Under state measure HB 1775, schools are prohibited from teaching the idea that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously” or that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” (The law is similar to the policies in states like Florida and Texas, among a handful of others, that aim to block the discussion of themes like systemic racism, unconscious bias, and privilege.)

Of course, HB 1775 doesn’t specifically ban Killers of the Flower Moon. But the law is so vague that some educators reportedly say that they have avoided assigning the book and other texts out of fear of punishment. According to the Oklahoman, for instance, a Dewey High School teacher said last year she decided against adding the book to her curriculum “because she feared discussing the racial dynamics of the Osage murders could prompt an HB 1775 complaint.” And according to the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit challenging the legislation in 2021, “school districts in Oklahoma have instructed teachers to no longer use certain terms, including ‘diversity’ and ‘white privilege’ in their classrooms, and have removed seminal works of literature such as ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Raisin in the Sun’ from its list of ‘anchor texts.'”

Quote by Chryses

You have me at a disadvantage, for while you know what was censored, I do not. Still, you did ask me for my opinion about what you are implicitly complaining about, so I will provide it.

If your post supported free speech, then I suspect it was censored because it failed to comply with the forum guidelines. As you know, a U.S. government does not administer this forum, so the Constitution’s First Amendment does not constrain its rules.

If your post did not support free speech, then as your post was censored, you should be pleased and not complaining.

 

Oh so you do understand that free speech doesn’t apply to social media censorship. Because for a while there it seemed like you thought free speech was being impeded on lush, Twitter etc.

If you think about it, speech is never free. There is always a cost to be paid.

I agree with the ACLU... the gag orders placed on the Grifter King need to be specified more clearly - so create a boilerplate which targets what he can't say. And enforce it the very first time he broaches the order.

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-gag-order-2666062207/

No need to start a new thread for this.

Quote by ElCoco

It’s interesting how close extremism is to the surface of “civilized” society. The New York Times ran a piece about law firms warning universities of antisemitism on campus. What I find discouraging is the universities' acceptance of that of savagery.

"With universities across the United States grappling with a rise in antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, elite law firms are putting schools on notice. In a letter to some of the nation’s top law schools obtained by DealBook, about two dozen major Wall Street firms warned that what happens on campus could have corporate consequences."

The Wall Street Journal reported details on the origin of the letter yesterday.

Good for Mr. Shenker!

Quote by ElCoco

It’s interesting how close extremism is to the surface of “civilized” society. The New York Times ran a piece about law firms warning universities of antisemitism on campus. What I find discouraging is the universities' acceptance of that of savagery...

Quote by Just_A_Guy_You_Know

Sounds like you've taken a very complex issue, cherry picked some general talking points (or likely had them cherry-picked for you by whatever right wing talking head you're listening to), and attempted to take something like a position based on this absurdly reductive and only partial understanding of what's really going on.

So, to get this out of the way; Yes, we agree, antisemitism is unequivocally bad. There's your cookie. Now go to bed.