Questioning the Limits on Freedom of Speech

[Aaroneet]

Considering the recent controversies that have arisen earlier this year, (i.e that with Imus), I thought that this thread was long overdue, if not already done in a different form:

Should there be limits to freedom of speech? Many claim that making offensive statements in public, or using derogatory language, say, over the airwaves, is morally wrong, but are morals the true motives? Stay with the Imus example. When Imus was fired, it was only when he lost major sponsorship from companies such as General Motors. Could we afford to maintain these morals in the real world? After all, there are plenty of worse statements made over the air made by shock jocks and other "newscasters", like Bill O'Reilly. Why not fire these offenders? Is censoring those, particularly in a position of power, an example of paranoia spreading in a democratic society? Is there a double standard at work?

Feel free to post your thoughts on the topic.

[Splintered]

Eh. I can't say I want to censor speech.

I have politically radical ideas. Very, very radical ideas. Radical enough ideas to make even Lenin nervous.

Censoring speech can only serve to hurt me, because if I censor someone else, I censor myself.

[Aaroneet]

Actually, when you think about it, Lenin wasn't all that radical at all. He was just an insecure man hiding behind big ideals to conceal the hurt that was done unto him when his college-bound brother was killed. Lenin was a pragmatist, and more of a Tsar than the Tsarist rulers themselves.

[deafasadoornail]

Well, I'm libertarian. So, Imus made some stupid comments, lost sponsors, and got fired for losing said sponsors. I think that's good. Imus is a grown up and should have known that sort of thing would happen. We can't protect people from themselves.

Having said that, I don't think he should have to apologize to anyone. We KNOW he's an idiot. Anyone who gets offended by idiots is themselves an idiot, and therefore doesn't deserve an apology. And I'm sick of all the celebrity fake-out crap apologies. SO THERE.

I'm a big fan of free speech short of destroying property. So if you want to burn a flag, make sure it's your flag and you're not standing on something flammable, and I will fully support your right to do so.

[Vako]

A heck of a thread, and I do have plenty to say on this issue, but I will use the K.I.S.S. Principle.

I believe in the principle of freedom of expression. I consider it to be essential to the growth of individuals within any collective, and ultimately to the collective its self. The whole "self-imposed censorship" thing is troubling to me. Of course there is the issue of appropriateness. No one wants to see porn-ads on billboards along the roadway. Then there is the issue of self-control. I actually do feel that a guy should be free to make a complete douche out of himself if he is so inclined. It shows everyone who to watch out for. :-P

There is the issue of parents and children. It can't always be managed by struggling, busy parents, but if you don't want your kid to see something, you are in charge. Savvy?

Even with someone as Libertarian as I am, I do realize there are limits. There must always be standards and order for the purpose of public safety and mental health. I draw the line at ***** films, pedophilia, calls to violent acts against women, gays or minorities, or calls to action against the established authorities.

I have alot to say about this subject. Maybe I will post more about it later.

[Vako]

This reminds me of one of my favorite sayings an old friend told me.

"A person should not stand up in a crowded fire and yell "theater!".

I just thought I would throw that in there.

[Cyntrox]

Freedom of speech, eh? Well, unless you can say anything you want, there's no freedom of speech. And there should be.

[Drake Dun]

Remember, too, that for most people there is a difference between what they consider "unacceptable" or immoral or whatever, and what they feel comfortable passing laws against.

So for example, I drive by somebody who I think is homosexual and I scream something like "Go back to San Fransisco, fairie!" That makes me an asshole in my book, but few people would feel comfortable making it criminal (I hope).

Personally, I'm always trying to direct people's attention to the fact that when you support a law that makes some particular act illegal, what you are in fact doing is supporting violence against those who break that law. That's what police and prisons are. Institutionalized violence.

One of the most dangerous functions of the state, in my opinion, is to hide this fact by removing people from the moral immediacy of the decisions they make as voters. They cast a vote that says "crack skulls", but they not only don't have to do the cracking themselves, they don't even have to watch it.

Long story short, in my political universe you need a *very* good reason to make something illegal. I cannot, for example, support laws that outlaw child-porn comic books (not really an issue in the States, since the comic book medium is not that huge, but they are all over the place here).

Drake

[Vako]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Remember, too, that for most people there is a difference between what they consider "unacceptable" or immoral or whatever, and what they feel comfortable passing laws against.

So for example, I drive by somebody who I think is homosexual and I scream something like "Go back to San Fransisco, fairie!" That makes me an asshole in my book, but few people would feel comfortable making it criminal (I hope).

Personally, I'm always trying to direct people's attention to the fact that when you support a law that makes some particular act illegal, what you are in fact doing is supporting violence against those who break that law. That's what police and prisons are. Institutionalized violence.

One of the most dangerous functions of the state, in my opinion, is to hide this fact by removing people from the moral immediacy of the decisions they make as voters. They cast a vote that says "crack skulls", but they not only don't have to do the cracking themselves, they don't even have to watch it.

Long story short, in my political universe you need a *very* good reason to make something illegal. I cannot, for example, support laws that outlaw child-porn comic books (not really an issue in the States, since the comic book medium is not that huge, but they are all over the place here).

Drake

On the issue of the freedom to shout insults at people in public, well, that is also a form of freedom of speech, and here, it is not illegal. Having been the target of much verbal abuse from my 'fellow' citizens here in my town, I first was just very angry. Then I realized that, yes, that is their right. It almost broke my heart, but well, it is a form of freedom of expression.

You make alot of very intriguing points in the rest of your post.

On the child-porn comic book thing, I can't wrap my head around that. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Vako

"A person should not stand up in a crowded fire and yell "theater!".

That textbook example of a justified limitation of speech is due to Learned Hand, I believe.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Vako

There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Exactly. Making a serious and thoughtful attempt to draw that line is a person's first step out of mere politics, and into political philosophy.

I already have my line, more or less. I have never satisfied myself that it is "right", as it were, but I have poured enough thought into it and gotten enough sense of confirmation from the process to say "here I stand."

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I have politically radical ideas. Very, very radical ideas.

I was kind of waiting quietly for those to come out... consider this a prompting.

Drake

[Aaroneet]

The question is now, and again, if you are in favor of free speech, can a material world afford morals?

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

Freedom of speech…..

I think people should be able to say whatever they want. I don’t believe there should be laws for what you can and cant say. Yeah words hurt but I would rather let all the assholes who say stupid things be social outcasts then to be put in jail. I don’t want the government telling me what I cant say it will just be them imposing on one freedom after another.
I’ve been verbally assaulted a thousand times and sure the people who say those things are morons but still I don’t think the U.S.F.G needs to be involved.
Example: I was in Florida visiting my god sisters and brothers we were at my god sisters school after a football game and this girl (who was white) that didn’t like my god sister came over to us and asked who I was (with all kinds of attitude). I told her it wasn’t any of her business who I was and to go away. She told me if it were 70 years ago I would have been hung from a tree she went on to say that all n*****s should be hung. After she said that she was stupid enough to turn around and try to walk away. I kicked her ass and informed her of how superior I was to her. I told her I would come back and kick her ass again if I ever heard that she said something like that again.
I was mad and I let my anger control me but I think I gave her what she deserved. I would rather put up with stupid comments than with government censure. Because they wont just censure racist or inappropriate things they will censure anything that goes against them or speaks ill of them.

[Aaroneet]

Very thorough answer. But the question is, again, can our country financially afford for speech to be entirely free?

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

It should be able to and if it cant the screw it we need a new country.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Aaroneet

The question is now, and again, if you are in favor of free speech, can a material world afford morals?

Afford morals?
I didn't know they had a price.

The country can afford for speech to completely be free. People may not like it, but the matter of the fact is: Words don't ignite gunpowder. They make people pull triggers, but that's only caused by the interpretation of words, not the actual words themselves.

For instance, if I went out and screamed out, "Du bist ein hundin!", most people would stare at me like I'm crazy. Go over to Germany, they'd get pissed that I called them a bitch. If I headed off to the Bushmen in Africa and screamed out, "Mothafuckafuckinfuck!", they'd just stare at me. If I moved over to the United States and screamed that, people would get angry.

If I popped out "0101100101101111011101010010000001100001011100100 1100101001000000110000100100000
011000100110100101110100011000110110100000100001", then a computer might get pissed at me, but average joe on the street would just laugh.

It's not the words that will get people angry. It makes no sense to censor words if they make people angry. It's the intention behind the words that makes them angry. If I had a paperclip in my hand you'd just think it was a paperclip; you won't ban that paperclip because I could stab you in the eye.

[Aaroneet]

Yes, morals do have a price. Think about it. When someone in a professional position makes an ass of his or herself by saying something irrational, the company's reputation goes down. If the company's reputation goes down, then they lose financial backing. If they lose financial banking, then the business can eventually go bankrupt, causing many to lose jobs. Then the companies the bankrupt one traded with lose financial contribution. A chain effect results, simply because somebody took advantage of a basic, inalienable right entitled to him or her at birth. So yes, freedom of speech comes with a heavy price.

[Splintered]

But think of the reverse: You'd, by effect, limit someone's ability to say something *rational* because the only security against saying anything at all, would not be to have them say anything as well.

[Aaroneet]

I suppose, but then we have to awaken as a country. If anything, my biggest fear is that we succumb to paranoia and fear. But, the way that free speech affects the financial world, we may, in fact, already be starting to succumb.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Aaroneet

Yes, morals do have a price. Think about it. When someone in a professional position makes an ass of his or herself by saying something irrational, the company's reputation goes down. If the company's reputation goes down, then they lose financial backing. If they lose financial banking, then the business can eventually go bankrupt, causing many to lose jobs. Then the companies the bankrupt one traded with lose financial contribution. A chain effect results, simply because somebody took advantage of a basic, inalienable right entitled to him or her at birth. So yes, freedom of speech comes with a heavy price.

I find that very attenuated, but for a moment let's take seriously the idea that one business leader's faux pax can create a substantial economic crisis which won't simply be remedied by other forces in the system. To me, that would be just that much more proof that the whole system needs replacing. The hanging of the welfare of an enormous number of people upon the whims of a single individual is a sure sign of hierarchy, class, and all that stuff.

A lot of so-called "issues" disappear once you consider the deeper issues underlying all of society.


Drake

[Valerius]

My take on this whole freedom of speech thing is that a lot of these people who whine about their rights of being able to say what they want to say being hindered by laws need a good bitch-slapping.

Seriously, do you need to constantly let loose a barrage of offensive words just to stroke your ego? Realistically the answer should be a big no. There's a proper balance between freedom of speech and knowing what shouldn't be said at a given time for a given situation. The way I see it, it all boils down to a matter of respect. Respect for the person you're directing your words to and concern as to how they might interpret yor words.

We all can't have our cake and eat it at the same time. So, that being said, it all comes down to biting your lip and using your head instead of your cock to think of what words to say.

[Aaroneet]

You're right. It's a contradiction in terms that the country could lose business because an employee made an asinine comment. But I'm also thinking of freedom of speech, not only from the perspective of the common person, but from that of somebody with power. If a CEO suddenly made some asinine or otherwise offensive comment into a microphone, then wouldn't that comment be all over the news? Would you want to buy from that company? I would ask how many times you, the consumer, have been dissuaded from patronizing a company because it was rocked by scandal, but that's another story entirely.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Valerius

My take on this whole freedom of speech thing is that a lot of these people who whine about their rights... need a good bitch-slapping...

There's a proper balance between freedom of speech and knowing what shouldn't be said at a given time for a given situation.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that nobody should ever be upset by anything that anybody says. They're just saying that government needs to butt out and keep the storm troops on a leash. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

Drake

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

I don't think anybody is suggesting that nobody should ever be upset by anything that anybody says. They're just saying that government needs to butt out and keep the storm troops on a leash. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

Drake

Yes, yes. I'm not against that stance, but you see, a large number of humans are inherently prone to doing things that lead to the slippery slope of avarice and recklessness. In a way, I see humans as inherently evil unless given a type of guardian of sorts. And who will be in charge of taking care of the people? The government.

People are sheep, so someone needs to keep the strays in check.

But, that's just my take on it.