Warning: No discussion of moderation or those on the mod list should be tolerated per Eric's instructions. I invite the mods to keep this thread clean under those circumstances, and the general rules as posted, and that no personal bias will be interjected; by anyone.

I would like to get open input about the concept of free speech as different people see it, the laws that protect it, and the circumstances where it is defined including exceptions, especially as it pertains to human interaction.

Play nice...

---

Account frozen...

SNIP....

I would like to get open input about the concept of free speech as different people see it, the laws that protect it, and the circumstances where it is defined including exceptions, especially as it pertains to human interaction.

Play nice...

Can I start :o)

I don't believe in "free" speech.

My ability to speak freely cost a great deal to all those people who went before me and made my freedom of expression possible.

Today I only have the freedom to speak my mind because there are many even now who value, protect and build upon the gift we have been given.

I don't believe in "free" speech because to be able to speak freely is such a 'priceless' thing..



Probably not quite what you meant DB - but it was a thought :o)~


.

I may or may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it (to an extent determined by relationship lol).

---

Daniel

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.
- William Orville Douglas

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is afraid of its people.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

SNIP....

I would like to get open input about the concept of free speech as different people see it, the laws that protect it, and the circumstances where it is defined including exceptions, especially as it pertains to human interaction.

Play nice...

Can I start :o)

I don't believe in "free" speech.

My ability to speak freely cost a great deal to all those people who went before me and made my freedom of expression possible.

Today I only have the freedom to speak my mind because there are many even now who value, protect and build upon the gift we have been given.

I don't believe in "free" speech because to be able to speak freely is such a 'priceless' thing..



Probably not quite what you meant DB - but it was a thought :o)~


.

No Crunchy, that was a very good thought. The freedom of speech has over the time of human history been secured by the sacrifice of many lives.

It needs to be guarded and cherished, and the current generation needs to carrying the torch high...and to die for it if necessary.

---

Account frozen...

If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free.
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

You don't make it easy to reply: expecting something about free speech while applying a kind of a muzzle.
Ok: my expectation about free speech are like what I'm used to at some of the German boards I am reading: Even though they can be (and are) read by teenagers, swearwords are kind of tolerated (as long as they are used rarely for example for dramatic purpose etc, {belongs to the context} and don't mutate into a "written Tourette" or into a swear contest - and they stay there as long as no-one finds them objectionable); and criticism is tolerated too, as long as it's constructive - though I must admit that the border between criticism and flame might be flowing.
Anyway . There's much common sense needed.

I want you to compare the Rules of one of the German boards I'm posting on to the rules of this one (I just post the translation here instead of the original German text to make it easier for you), then you might see what I mean:

* Absolutely forbidden are contents which are hate-related, which glorify violence or which are pornographic.
* No "Flames"! Flames are posts with insulting content or personal attacks. Please use generally a moderate language that is not displeasing to other users.
* Most users know you only from reading your posts/mails. Please write your posts/mails/PM easy-to-understand, and watch quality, style and orthography. Sometimes less can be more.
* Don't abuse the board for advertisement or chain-letters!
* Watch the Copyright! Short quotations are basically legal when the source or auther is named in the post.
* [...] Please treat the posts/topics with the respect they deserve. Rather think twice what you post.


You see, there's not so much difference. Most of it (both here as well as there) is just common sense, written down as Rules.

---

Account frozen...

As you pointed out Thorin, free speech is not absolute. The most common example is that of yelling fire in a theater, where there is none, is not an exercise of free speech, but a violation of social mores.

---

Account frozen...

Alot of folks perceive freedom of speech to an extreme, when the intent was to prevent government inteference with your right to voice your opinion.

But that does not give us the right to say what we want, when we want...because on a social level, there is no gurauntee (nor do you have a right) that you will be socially accepted. In other words, you can be ignored, or otherwise be shut down (such as on a message board)...or kicked out of that movie theatre for talking.

---

the current generation needs to carrying the torch high...and to die for it if necessary.

Sounds like an armed forces sales pitch. Last I heard, it wasn't the Arabs taking away our freedoms, it was our very own people... ;)

As another poster has said:

I may or may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it (to an extent determined by relationship lol).

This statement is too true to be funny!

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Freedom of speech is a particular requirement of political speech in the public arena.

Speech in privately owned areas such as an employers premises or a message board or a movie theater can be (and is) curtailed for any of several different reasons.

---

BOINC WIKI

Freedom of speech is a particular requirement of political speech in the public arena.

Speech in privately owned areas such as an employers premises or a message board or a movie theater can be (and is) curtailed for any of several different reasons.

I agree...There is a limit as there must be in some areas as to what you can do and say in the name of free speech...In Berkeley in the 60's...came a defining moment that helped to determine what was what...

Free speech movement at Berkeley

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

Doing Violence to Free Speech

By Don Watkins

The Federal Communications Commission recently asked Congress to hand it broad powers to regulate "excessive violence" on TV, the way it currently restricts "indecent" speech: broadcasters who violate the FCC's limitations on "excessive violence" will face crippling fines and, potentially, the loss of their broadcast licenses. Isn't it time to ask: How did a country that reveres free speech end up with a government agency that imposes continually expanding speech restrictions--and where will those restrictions end?

Free speech means the right to express the products of the mind (scientific conclusions, artistic creations, political views, etc.) using whatever words or images one chooses over a medium one can rightfully access, without interference by the government. It means the right of a publisher to publish a controversial novel; the right of a newspaper to run an article criticizing the government--and the right of broadcasters to decide what content will flow over their airwaves.

But in 1927, just as radios were becoming widely used, the government seized control of the airwaves, declared them "public property," and assumed the power to regulate them in the name of the "public interest"--an undefinable term that can be stretched to mean anything. Thus broadcasters' right to free speech was cut off at the root, as the government, having irrationally barred broadcasters from owning the airwaves they made valuable through their technological innovation and broadcast content, went on to dictate how those airwaves could be used.

Initially the government pledged that only "obscene" speech--materials that "depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct"--would be barred from the air. But having abandoned the principle of free speech and established itself as the unchecked arbiter of what could be said on the airwaves, the government was later able to ignore its pledge and, in 1978's FCC v. Pacifica ruling, expand its speech restrictions to include the broader (and even more nebulous) category of "indecent" speech. Thus, broadcasters could be fined for anything from profanity to sexual double-entendres, to vague references to sexual acts. Now, advocates of censorship are appealing to this precedent in order to justify regulating "excessively violent" content as well.

Moreover, Americans had been assured that speech restrictions would apply only to broadcasters operating on the "public airwaves." But now, in its quest to regulate "excessive violence," the FCC is insisting that its regulatory mandate be expanded to cover subscriber-based media such as satellite and cable TV.

If we allow this progression to continue, it is only a matter of time before the FCC starts restricting "offensive" philosophic or scientific views (as some religious opponents of evolution would like). And having gutted free speech on radio and television, what is to stop the government from censoring the Internet, books, and newspapers?

What made this trend toward increasing censorship possible--and inevitable? When the FCC assumed the power to subordinate free speech to the "public interest," it declared, in effect, that individuals are incompetent to judge what speech they and their children should be exposed to, and so their judgment must be usurped by all-wise FCC bureaucrats, who will control the airwaves in their name. Given this disgraceful principle, it did not matter that the FCC's initial restrictions were supposedly limited to speech pertaining to sex: if the government knows what's best for us in the realm of sexual speech and can dictate what we watch or listen to, then there is no reason why it should not control what ideas we should be exposed to across the board. To reverse this destructive trend, therefore, we must do more than resist new speech restrictions--we must abolish existing ones and restore our commitment to the principle of free speech.

Does this mean that parents must be forced to let their children view programming they regard as indecent or violent? No. It is a parent's job, not the government's, to decide and control what his child watches, just as the parent is responsible for deciding what he himself watches. If a parent determines that a show is not appropriate for his child, he is free to change the channel, turn off the TV, or block his child's access to it in some other way. His need to monitor what his child views on TV no more justifies censoring broadcasters than his need to vet what his child reads justifies censoring authors.

Americans face a choice: free speech or censorship. There is no middle ground.

Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."




Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!