Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Using your freedom of speech Options · View
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 10:11:36 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,590
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Most of us in the Western world have the luxury of freedom of speech(with reasonable limits). We can say, write and make pictures that says and expresses pretty much whatever we want without running the risk of criminal prosecution.

But, as we have seen, our usage of this freedom can have consequences. The Mohammed drawings made the middle east go bonkers, Theo van Gogh got shot after a movie he made and now a Muslim critic movie(which from what I've heard is one of the worst movies ever produced) resulted in a consulate being stormed and 4 people being killed.

I'm not out for a discussion on whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion, that they're over sensitive or anything like that. We've had that discussion before and we'll probably have it again later on, but I say we leave that for another thread.

My question is; do we abuse this right without thinking about the consequences? Do we just say whatever we want, make movies and drawings and don't think about what reactions it may cause and who it may offend?

Again, please no "Religious people are too snesitive" crap. I'm tired of that discussion.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
overmykneenow
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:18:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 966
Location: United Kingdom
Yes.

next?

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:19:35 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
Thanks! I'm next. :)

I've posted this in another thread, but it fits perfectly here.

In the US, the 1st Amendment to our constitutional document protects (among other things) freedom of speech. People are free to say (within reason, as you pointed out) anything they wish to say. What the 1st Amendment does not, however, guarantee us is the freedom from backlash, counter-pointing, boycotting, and general angst as a result of your protected free speech. In other words, say what you like, but be ready to deal with the backlash, and that's only fair. This is a distinction that I see people confuse all the time.

It's the very consequences of extreme cases that have curbed free speech, here and in other nations. For instance, a threat on another person's health or life (terroristic threats), or malicious misinformation about others (slander, or in written form, libel). That kind of speech will result in law enforcement action.

As for the type that's legal, yet likely to ruffle feathers...I'm not sure how to answer. You say you want to exclude the possibility of over-sensitive groups with axes to grind from the conversation, but I'm not sure how to factor that out of a discussion about free speech and consequences.


Next?
She
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:21:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,052
Location: Europe
In a way you've answered your one question..

elitfromnorth wrote:
My question is; do we abuse this right without thinking about the consequences? Do we just say whatever we want, make movies and drawings and don't think about what reactions it may cause and who it may offend?


elitfromnorth wrote:
Most of us in the Western world have the luxury of freedom of speech(with reasonable limits). We can say, write and make pictures that says and expresses pretty much whatever we want without running the risk of criminal prosecution.


Truthfully, I never give it a thought before, but if I am limiting myself when using freedom of speech, not to harm others with it, when in contact with them, why would be different on wider level? Where are limits to that? When mocking -not appropriate; When trying to awaken awareness of something -appropriate. Who is going to be judge of what is and isn't right to do?
And God knows that I have zero tolerance for organized religion (hahhaha, 'God-zero tolerance'; well it's funny to me)

Their feedback is ridicules, no question about it.


ElChupacabras
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:52:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/13/2012
Posts: 205
Location: Ibagué, Colombia
Here it goes Elit:

We have the right to use our freedom of speech as we please, even without measuring the consequences. Why? Because it is not our fault that there are fanatics out there that "ALWAYS" misinterpret whatever has been said by anybody to suit their fanatic thoughts and go ahead and do whatever they please shielded on their beliefs. One thing is to speak your mind and say what you think, and a completely different story is to go ahead and kill people or whatever it is that they do, not with their words but with their hands. So If you asked me, go ahead and speak your mind. I have made me a couple of enemies in my lifetime, because I don't keep my mouth shut when I know I have the right to speak up. Too bad for them.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:09:00 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,590
Location: Burrowed, Norway
Maybe I should have specified it even more in relation to these last cases. If I go out and make more Mohammed drawings with a Norwegian flag on them, post them online under an anonymous name and never mention to anyone that it was me who did it, then I won't be criminally persecuted because I did nothing wrong and if I'm good enough the radicals won't find me so I'll be safe.

But in light of recent events, I know that there will be reactions, violent reactions and most likely the reactions will hit Norwegian embassies/installments in the Middle East, people who had nothing to do with it. Shouldn't I then feel reluctance in posting them, from a moral point of view. What is the most important; my liberty or my moral?

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 4:30:10 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
Sadly, though, these 'outrages' against free speech exercises are often calculated. Take, for instance, the attacks yesterday on the US embassies. The info is now pointing toward this being a planned attack, using their 'outrage' over that video as cover. And that's not the first time, by far. So I guess I'd say, that while anything you say or do should be tempered with consideration of how others might react (otherwise known as, acting like a grown-up), that there's a lot of potential blackmail and bullying from supposedly aggrieved parties and groups as well.
Veronika
Posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 5:44:50 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/26/2012
Posts: 28
To me freedom of speech means filtering my thoughts with logic and ethic and then express it without fear :)
nazhinaz
Posted: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:04:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
As the saying goes, "freedom of my hand stops short of your nose".
If someone has a longer nose, we must be extra cautious not to poke on his/her nose.
Freedom doesn't mean to say whatever I do wish to say.
Freedom also limits me to speak or express in a decent way, which should not hurt someone or anyone listen or reading.
So let's stop our hands not to touch anyone's nose weather long one or a short one.
Guest
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:22:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,480
With such a broad, sweeping freedom such as the first amendment, it's misuse and abuse was inevitable. The old saying "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" comes to mind. Do I feel like burning the flag should be constitutionally protected? Hell no. But it is. And I swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. The first amendment is a bit of a paradox. It is simultaneously our right most taken for granted but it's also the right that really makes us free. That, and the "all men are created equal" thing.
Dani
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:23:42 PM

Rank: Penguin Wrangler

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,046
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
nazhinaz wrote:
As the saying goes, "freedom of my hand stops short of your nose".
If someone has a longer nose, we must be extra cautious not to poke on his/her nose.
Freedom doesn't mean to say whatever I do wish to say.
Freedom also limits me to speak or express in a decent way, which should not hurt someone or anyone listen or reading.
So let's stop our hands not to touch anyone's nose weather long one or a short one.


This is what I got from your post:

You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends' noses.



We're tiny. We're toony. We're all a little looney. And in this cartoony, we're invading your TV.

1ball
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:32:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
You can pick your friends and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your friends' noses.


You picked up on that, too?

We didn't get the 1st amendment because it would never be a problem. We got it because not having it would inevitably be a bigger problem.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:32:52 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,176
Location: United States
The U. S. Constitution protects our freedom of speech from our government's interference. It doesn't protect us from the consequences of our actions by those who are not our government. It didn't protect the Dixie Chicks, and it didn't protect the embassies that were bombed and the people who were killed by Muslim extremists this week from the consequences of the video that set off the riots, or were used as an excuse for the attacks. Still, I believe that the film maker's right to free speech should not be limited by the United States Government. Everytime we allow them to take an inch, they use it as an excuse to take a mile. They do it every time and in every circumstance. Why should this be different. The right of the people to free speech is absolute.
Buz
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2012 10:22:53 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,180
Location: Atlanta, United States
Freedom of speech is protected to a degree in most of the western world and we've come to accept and expect a great deal of tolerance in those nations. But that is just a portion of the world and most of the world does not live by those standards. Freedom of speech is not protected nor is it tolerated in nation's where the vast majority support an ignorant culture of hate.

Unfortunately when someone does speak out about Islam, there are millions of hate filled people who feel the need to express their violent anger against innocent people just because of their religion, culture or nationality. That says volumes about their religion and humanity.

I have written a new poem. It is called 'Long Twisty Woman.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/erotic-poems/long-twisty-woman.aspxx
Also, if you wish, check out my co-authored a story with the wonderful DanielleX. It is called 'Focus on Sex.'
You can read it at: http://www.lushstories.com/stories/quickie-sex/focused-on-sex-1.aspx

nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:43:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


You picked up on that, too?

We didn't get the 1st amendment because it would never be a problem. We got it because not having it would inevitably be a bigger problem.

Probably coz 1st amendment rules over US and not the entire World.
What I stated concerned the human norms and vlaues as prevalent.
Kitanica
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:36:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
Did the Russians protest us for red dawn? Lol WOLVERINES
the Germans didn't get mad over the dirty dozen or schindlers list. Well maybe a little
Islam extremists need to grow up.

I don't think the majority of islamists are that violent. out of the millions or more I'm sure are in the middle east, I'd like to think rioters are a small minority..
I'm sure someone in Yemen or Egypt sitting in a cafe right now drinking.. uh (whatever they drink if they don't like coffee) and reading a paper about the rioters thinking "wow, idiots making us look bad."

I dont see the big fuss, besides it's just a terrorist group that's had this planned for a while before the movie even existed (supposedly? Who knows yet)
Kitanica
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:43:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 882
Location: The Sprawl, United States
Great a double post lol. (edit) why can't we delete posts
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 15, 2012 10:29:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

Probably coz 1st amendment rules over US and not the entire World.
What I stated concerned the human norms and vlaues as prevalent.


The 1st Amendment came from English Law which traces back to Roman Law which was largely influenced by Greek Law, so pretty much a dominant belief in Western Civilization. Keeping charges of heresy (dangerous belief) and blasphemy (dangerous speech) from resulting in death produces societies that innovate and become technologically superior and therefore better able to defend themselves from predation by authoritarian regimes (religious or otherwise).

Catholicism, when overly influential in legal doctrine, produced such atrocities that it made Islam look like amateur hour, but the separation of spiritual law and secular law that came about when European kings grew the balls to wrestle power away from the Pope, led to the Enlightenment, which ironically borrowed from Arabic Islamic teaching as well as the English, Roman and Greek legacies to produce Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as recognized inalienable rights.




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2012 4:31:30 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,480
I'm for complete free speech simply because so much of our law is based on precedent. The moment you start putting limits on something like free speech, you're setting a precedent that will continuously widdle away our rights of free speech. Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 and much of George Orwell's 1984 underlined that concept. Political correctness has often been called "Newspeak" in reference to Orwell. Curbing anyone's opinions or thoughts is the antithesis to any free society.
nazhinaz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 2:15:42 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


The 1st Amendment came from English Law which traces back to Roman Law which was largely influenced by Greek Law, so pretty much a dominant belief in Western Civilization. Keeping charges of heresy (dangerous belief) and blasphemy (dangerous speech) from resulting in death produces societies that innovate and become technologically superior and therefore better able to defend themselves from predation by authoritarian regimes (religious or otherwise).

Catholicism, when overly influential in legal doctrine, produced such atrocities that it made Islam look like amateur hour, but the separation of spiritual law and secular law that came about when European kings grew the balls to wrestle power away from the Pope, led to the Enlightenment, which ironically borrowed from Arabic Islamic teaching as well as the English, Roman and Greek legacies to produce Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as recognized inalienable rights.



I am greatful for being enlightened.
But the 1st amendment goes far beyond.
Even a hateful speech is not considered an offence.
While in the legal doctrine that we borrowed from Greek laws anything with the intent of HATE cannot stand the approval of law.
I know its very difficult to figure out the intent from an act especially in the case of freedom of speech.
Still the distinction should be made, even though just in the books of legal ethics.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:17:09 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,667
Location: My Tower, United States
my opinion is the only one that matters - you are all allowed all the free speech you want, as long as you realize that. :)
tazznjazz
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:36:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
Veronika wrote:
To me freedom of speech means filtering my thoughts with logic and ethic and then express it without fear :)


Very well said!! The radical christian in Florida who helped with that movie has blood on his hands because he didn't seem to care about filtering, logic or ethics.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 10:48:40 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,667
Location: My Tower, United States
Veronika wrote:
To me freedom of speech means filtering my thoughts with logic and ethic and then express it without fear :)


btw, this is brilliant - post of the week, far as i'm concerned.
asleep
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:02:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/30/2011
Posts: 2,818
Location: United States
Well TAZZ and SPRITE beat me to the punch on this. VERONIKA has very succinctly stated the answer .... IMHO !!

Rick

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/love-stories/exit-33-trust.aspx

musicluver
Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:46:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/14/2012
Posts: 522
Location: somewhere boring, United States
well 'we' is a pretty broad term first of all. Second yes as a whole the US does take its freedom in this case too an extreme at times. We take alot of them for granted i think and because of that alot of people tend to abuse it to the point when you cant undo whats been done.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 1:10:46 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,661
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

Even a hateful speech is not considered an offence.


Should it be?

I tend to think, except in the cases of terroristic threats and slander, that even disgusting, vile speech should be protected. The problem is that so many other societies live under governments which lack tolerance for any speech that does not serve its purposes. Thus, the demonstrations you see in Arab and North African nations is mostly made up of people that simply can't accept that the US government didn't sanction the hateful, Islamophobic film that supposedly started all this. In their world, nothing like that would ever happen without the government's permission, and without that, the government would find them and toss them in jail post haste. They literally can't fathom our level of free speech.

Does that mean we should clamp down more on acceptable free speech here, to compensate for other parts of the world? Not a chance.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 5:33:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

I am greatful for being enlightened.
But the 1st amendment goes far beyond.
Even a hateful speech is not considered an offence.


Because the definition of hateful is something we can't afford to leave up to the government. Any exceptions to Freedom of Speech are exploitable by anyone with an emotional ax to grind and that's pretty much anyone in government.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
nazhinaz
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:45:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


Because the definition of hateful is something we can't afford to leave up to the government. Any exceptions to Freedom of Speech are exploitable by anyone with an emotional ax to grind and that's pretty much anyone in government.

I pretty well thought have left the job of defining articles of Sonstitution not to the Government but to the Superior judiciary.
Maybe I need to learn more about defining system in USA.
1ball
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:05:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
nazhinaz wrote:

I pretty well thought have left the job of defining articles of Sonstitution not to the Government but to the Superior judiciary.
Maybe I need to learn more about defining system in USA.


The Supreme Court is part of the government. Its members are appointed by politicians and judicial activism (creative interpretation of the Constitution) is always a concern. There have been numerous exception to absolute Freedom of Speech. The scary ones include the use of speech as proof of sedition, where a creative interpretation of hateful could be used to mean an attempt to overthrow the government.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
nazhinaz
Posted: Saturday, September 22, 2012 2:00:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/16/2010
Posts: 293
Location: Longview, United States
1ball wrote:


The Supreme Court is part of the government. Its members are appointed by politicians and judicial activism (creative interpretation of the Constitution) is always a concern. There have been numerous exception to absolute Freedom of Speech. The scary ones include the use of speech as proof of sedition, where a creative interpretation of hateful could be used to mean an attempt to overthrow the government.

Excuse me;but if my understanding is correct, Supreme Court is part of the STATE and not the Goverment.
STATE has three pillars functioning independently, Excutive (the Government) Legislature (the Congress) and JUDICIARY.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.