You know what's funny? That we have assholes like the WBC that are protected by freedom of speech but fucking video games might not be. Idiots.
A question for Americans
- Thread starter Random Name 4
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Shot response: Damn straight. Have a cookie.bahumat42 said:
Long response: First off I support the belief that everyone is endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness so long as you don't impede the same rights of others. So if someone comes up to me and shouts negative stereotypes just to prove a point, I am within my own rights to tell you to stop being an asshole (mind you I will be the better man and do it with civility). After all the root of freedom of speech is D-E-B-A-T-E.
Freedom is not licence for chaos.
OT: As for the initial question, there are always going to be people who are going to strip away our rights or perverse it for their own gain. That's the way it's was before we were born, that's the way it is right now, and that's the way it will be when we join our forefathers. When it comes to ANY sort of precious way of life we have to seek it, practice it, and defend it.
Do you understand what I meant by saying that though? I don't think I made myself all too clear. What I don't mean is that you can have rights taken away from you. I just mean that our rights should be restricted. Like the right to say you hate this ethnicity, or this race or gender.GWarface said:
Honestly? "Free speech" in it's purist form doesn't exist. Certainly, there's certain things you can't say (e.g. "I'm going to kill someone and here's how I'm going to do it..."). Besides, even if there was pure free speech, someone's going to take it too far in the eyes of the vast majority of the population (see: /b/).
There must be a balance between speaking your mind and keeping you from hurting others by doing so. And that balance is so damn fragile and hard to keep. Often it's tilted to the keeping you from speaking your mind side because there are so much fucking idiots who will run wild the moment the chains get any looser.
No, Americans do not have free speech. And when you enter a new public arena, speech becomes even more limited.
Here at the Escapist, for example, you are not allowed to say whatever you want. If anybody finds what you say offensive, it gets reported. After a review of the complaint and comment, restrictions are placed against the user who perpetrated the infraction. Certain speech is limited in certain circumstances.
The United States is no different, although inflammatory statements are dealt with far more leniently. Threats on the other hand, are dealt with more strictly. If I were to say "I'm going to rape your mom in the face" on any internet forum, it would be considered inflammatory slander that is not taken very seriously. If I were to say it to a co-worker or a classmate, for example, it would be dealt with far more seriously.
As long as nobody can hear you, everyone on the planet has free speech. As soon as you enter the public arena, free speech is lost.
Here at the Escapist, for example, you are not allowed to say whatever you want. If anybody finds what you say offensive, it gets reported. After a review of the complaint and comment, restrictions are placed against the user who perpetrated the infraction. Certain speech is limited in certain circumstances.
The United States is no different, although inflammatory statements are dealt with far more leniently. Threats on the other hand, are dealt with more strictly. If I were to say "I'm going to rape your mom in the face" on any internet forum, it would be considered inflammatory slander that is not taken very seriously. If I were to say it to a co-worker or a classmate, for example, it would be dealt with far more seriously.
As long as nobody can hear you, everyone on the planet has free speech. As soon as you enter the public arena, free speech is lost.
No one should be punished for speaking their mind, especially when repressing evil ideas does nothing to rebut or discredit them.Skeleton Jelly said:
This idea holds true for American society, and is hopefully a line in the sand that we'll stick to.
Of course, we haven't had a war on our soil for 150 years, nor anything like what Europe's had. You folks over there don't have laws fruitlessly trying to beat back an idea so much as actual movements.
That sounds more like the parliamentary system used in the UK, Canada, Australia, India, etc... Where if a government is losing support, their term can be ended early and a new election will be called.Shynobee said:
In the US, that doesn't exist. The government stays in power until its term is done, and when it's time for a new election there's only one other party to vote for. Most people don't switch, and it usually doesn't make a difference since it takes an entire state to change. Both parties have their sets of bad bills anyway.
Although the supreme court can overrule bad bills... There's probably other judicial bodies that can do this too. (Parliamentary countries, and some other republics also have this; it's not unique to the United States)
Hate speech, yes. And threats and such. But more in the sense that you think that said group should be below the other people and such. Opinions and preferences are fine, but they should stay at that.GWarface said:
You assume that ethics will remain the same over time, but they will change. There will eventually be a day when the majority of people will not only want some horrible murderous thing to be real but will see it as the right thing to do. Under your law all who disagree will be silenced.Skeleton Jelly said:
Responding to the original poster, the short answer has been covered in this thread already, which is to say, we have quite a lot of free speech. More than most, not as much as some, but enough to say definitively, yes, we have it.
Long answer:
The concept of free speech is certainly not an absolute. Even countries that have have the most protected liberties of expression (Denmark is at the top, I think) figure some speech should be restricted if it causes harm or endangers others. The most common example is yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. But I can also think of others, such as inciting a radical faction to violence or revealing sensitive information on current military or intelligence operations.
Interestingly, while we can't declare our intention to commit crime or assassination (which really isn't a violation of free speech so much as a confession to premeditation), it gets fuzzy when we talk about what we'd like to do but would not, out of a sense of decency or fear of consequences. It is on this that, for example, the forces that pushed Scott Roeder to assassinate Dr. Tiller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller] (namely Operation Rescue and Bill O'Reilly) are able to evade arrest since there's no certain connection between them and the active gunman. I'd wager, though, that radical islamic entities that were similarly vocal about the need for someone to attack a target would be arrested and tried, after all. So we don't necessarily have equal free speech. Hate speech is acceptable towards certain targets, not towards others.
The big issues in the US are not about politics or violence, though, but about sex. Where we don't mind a bit of Holocaust denial, racial supremacy rallies or debate about the recognition of Palestine (or Israel's heavy handedness in contending with the Strip), we get freaked out that our kids might learn about sex prematurely and try it out without our authorization. The US is a bit uptight that way.
I've This Film Is Not Yet Rated [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240909-Regarding-the-supreme-court-and-video-games-WE-CANT-LOSE-I-present-facts-not-opinion#8705912][/I] explains well the dangers of having the MPAA as monopolistic black-box (non-transparent) source for parental film ratings.
Despite all signs that Jack Thomson is a maniacal alarmist, we are still frightened that video games are corrupting our children, as we were of rap music, collectable card games, tabletop Role Playing Games (I'm surprised no one's complained about vampire LARPers in their full gothic and cultist regalia) and Rock and Roll that might have had backmasked Satanic messages... and even Elvis' hip gyrations. All corruptors of America's fragile youth.
Fortunately, the legislators and if not them, the courts have proven a bit more reasonable about this with each of these issues. I expect they will continue this trend, but I've been proven wrong, and the US has been proven stupidly reactionary before.
Incidentally, we still freak out about books [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_U.S.] let alone movies and games. But so do all nations.
Long answer:
The concept of free speech is certainly not an absolute. Even countries that have have the most protected liberties of expression (Denmark is at the top, I think) figure some speech should be restricted if it causes harm or endangers others. The most common example is yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. But I can also think of others, such as inciting a radical faction to violence or revealing sensitive information on current military or intelligence operations.
Interestingly, while we can't declare our intention to commit crime or assassination (which really isn't a violation of free speech so much as a confession to premeditation), it gets fuzzy when we talk about what we'd like to do but would not, out of a sense of decency or fear of consequences. It is on this that, for example, the forces that pushed Scott Roeder to assassinate Dr. Tiller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller] (namely Operation Rescue and Bill O'Reilly) are able to evade arrest since there's no certain connection between them and the active gunman. I'd wager, though, that radical islamic entities that were similarly vocal about the need for someone to attack a target would be arrested and tried, after all. So we don't necessarily have equal free speech. Hate speech is acceptable towards certain targets, not towards others.
The big issues in the US are not about politics or violence, though, but about sex. Where we don't mind a bit of Holocaust denial, racial supremacy rallies or debate about the recognition of Palestine (or Israel's heavy handedness in contending with the Strip), we get freaked out that our kids might learn about sex prematurely and try it out without our authorization. The US is a bit uptight that way.
I've This Film Is Not Yet Rated [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240909-Regarding-the-supreme-court-and-video-games-WE-CANT-LOSE-I-present-facts-not-opinion#8705912][/I] explains well the dangers of having the MPAA as monopolistic black-box (non-transparent) source for parental film ratings.
Despite all signs that Jack Thomson is a maniacal alarmist, we are still frightened that video games are corrupting our children, as we were of rap music, collectable card games, tabletop Role Playing Games (I'm surprised no one's complained about vampire LARPers in their full gothic and cultist regalia) and Rock and Roll that might have had backmasked Satanic messages... and even Elvis' hip gyrations. All corruptors of America's fragile youth.
Fortunately, the legislators and if not them, the courts have proven a bit more reasonable about this with each of these issues. I expect they will continue this trend, but I've been proven wrong, and the US has been proven stupidly reactionary before.
Incidentally, we still freak out about books [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_U.S.] let alone movies and games. But so do all nations.
Under my law that murderous thing would have been hard to be fully set in motion as they'd be arrested and would be met with a counter movement powered by the government.feather240 said:
That is so true and so damn funny.Gxas said:
OT: If an actually person is saying it (I.E. Not a game/movie/T.V./ect.) and it has in no way anything to do with harming someone or something, then yes. We are allowed to say it. So in other words, free speech never has existed. If it did, the world would be slightly happier.
Ahhhhh, my friend that is the crux of the problem. Very intelligent question btw. So our ammendments/ freedoms are the most debated topics here. Esentially someone can cry "1st ammendmant!' and halt the country and all its legislature. So esentially people interpret our constitution, the same as people interpret the bible, in any way they want/benefits them. And what the majority says goes. And the majjority is expressed through the Supreme Court. Which is appointed by the president. Who is elected by the people. So in a sense we have free speech in acuality we have profitable speech. Whoever kisses up the most can say whatever the fuck they want. And then certain assholes, like Mr. Lee, will come around and use "profitable speech" to press their own personal crusade. And since Mr. Lee is an elected official he automatically gets a free pass labled "go lead your crusade" and only the highest of high powers (the courts) can stop him, or inversly complete his goal. So there you have it.
I'm actually Canadian. And I think those people could be reformed and what not. I don't believe they should be stuck in a jail and rot to death in there.maturin said:
Keep in mind free speech doesn't apply to the escapist forums, or any forums on the internet. They aren't public spaces; they are privately owned. The owners get to decide the rules. If you say something too offensive or disruptive, they have the right to delete messages, probate, ban, etc. Other private institutions also have this right. You can get thrown out of a bar for saying the wrong things.
(Internet forums are also not places, but that's beside the point)
(Internet forums are also not places, but that's beside the point)