A question for Americans

[Cpt_Oblivious]

everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days.

Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?

Am I the only one who thinks that saying is a load of crap? I mean, to an extent, no, words don't hurt people in the same way sticks and stones do. At the same time though it seems to place more blame on the people being offended compared to the people saying mean things.
Maybe I'm looking at it too broadly, it just seemed like an excuse for teachers to not have to deal with bullying.

I think it's less a way of saying that words can't hurt but more a way of teaching kids to ignore a lot of what is said, because it's so easy to do so. If someone's offended it's incredibly easy to forget the whole thing and not care, instead of throwing a tantrum about it.

 

[flying_whimsy]

When push comes to shove, as long as we have the right to bear arms our right to speech is protected. It's just unfortunate that so many people are willing to sacrifice their rights for passing social fads engineered by folks way more influential than they ever should be.

As one of my friends likes to say "guns are there for when the government gets out of control."

 

[Madara XIII]

It's supposed be but everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days. So slowly it's going away in my opinion.

^ This times 1000

People are being a bunch of pansies now adays about political correctness that our speech is not only limited but being watered down to such a disgusting degree.

Our new Motto over here is "If everyone doesn't like it, you can't say it" ....-_-

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes. You'll notice the hordes of people foaming at the mouth and calling first amendment violations about the current court case. These are the people who will be beating back the government in favor of freedom of speech. Now of course we don't have total freedom of speech,you cant shout fire in a crowded room, but we have pretty broad freedom of speech. The rules we do have are mostly to keep assholes from abusing it and endangering people.

 

[Madara XIII]

NO OFFENSE AMERICANS!

Their laws only suit them when in suits them. The people running their government are happy to be hypocrites.

None taken. You summed it up nicely

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?

And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?

And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.

Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .

 

[GWarface]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

oh my, here we go again...
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.

As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...

 

[Canid117]

Just a question, do you really have free speech if the government decides what speech is protected or not? For instance, the government can decide that videogames aren't protected as free speech, and ban them. What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

The government is technically not allowed to ban video games only certain types of pornography. California is trying but they are almost certainly going to get ***** slapped by the supreme court so our speech is pretty free.

 

[loc978]

Extreme freedom is merely anarchy. Reasonable freedom only allows you to swing your fist until it impacts someone's nose. Do we have reasonable freedom in the US? No, but neither does anywhere else I've been. We seem to have to choose between religious states and nanny states. Sad.

 

[Woodsey]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

oh my, here we go again...
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.

As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...

Such as?

And I was being literal with it, the point is you need a cap on it at some point to stop the inevitable mad men who really do believe the xenophobic shit they say, and who add fuel to any racial tensions (just using that as an example).

 

[Tautimona]

Film and television are protected by free speech as an artform, and hopefully games will be protected under this clause in the future

 

[KEM10]

When has the United States Government ever banned a video game?

The ESRB rates them for retailers, retailers decide what ratings they will sell, games with above a Mature rating don't generally don't get sold, companies avoid making them.

This isn't the Government banning or censoring, it's all about profit.

They came close with BMX-XXX.
In the end they had to recall it and change the M on the front of the box with an AO and then it was golden.

The real issue with this is that while it starts good by kicking out a game where you place a cat on the business end of your M16 to be used as a silencer (a little funny but more annoying/disturbing the longer you think about it) it could be quickly used to remove God of War because you are having simulated sex and ripping the head off a topless gorgon who has their tits in full view.

That and when you start limiting what can and cannot be sold, the demand lowers so the supply would as well. The best case scenario for this would be ending up finding censored games in Wal-Mart that remove the blood splatter and go to Best Buy to pick up the M rated version. However, that is why the ESRB ratings were developed in the first place which is what CA pushed for in the early 90's to prevent kids getting too violent of games.

 

[GWarface]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?

And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?

And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.

Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .

I do get what you are saying, actually quite well thank you, and i partly agree...
But i just cant see how removing freedom of speech because a couple of idiots cant shut up, is going to make this world a better place to live in...

 

[GWarface]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

oh my, here we go again...
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.

As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...

Such as?

And I was being literal with it, the point is you need a cap on it at some point to stop the inevitable mad men who really do believe the xenophobic shit they say, and who add fuel to any racial tensions (just using that as an example).

Such as the law against disturbing a public place, i think that would be a good law to start with...

And as with the inevitable mad men, we have a decent psychiatry system that can either help them or lock them up...

 

[GWarface]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Thumps up my man, finally one who gets the idea..

 

[FirstOne617]

I think that books and movies are commercial products the same way paintings are. While they are created to make money, the artistic expression of the piece is still at the forefront, rather than the background (depending, of course, on who wrote/directed the piece). I believe that though they are commercial products,

Well, this question starts to get into some unusual areas in American Constitutional law. To give a basic, blunt answer: yes. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the government tried to break up a peaceful rally, there would be popular outrage and likely some impeachments.

However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.

So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.

I feel like your comment hasn't gotten any of the attention it deserves so I just wanted to quote you to say that I agree for the most part and I think you answered the OP's question better than I ever could. My only question is where do we begin to draw the line as far as what is considered speech? Magazines and newspapers are protected under freedom of the press even though most newspapers and magazines can be considered commercial products. Books are also considered speech even though these are also commercial products. The Supreme Court even extended the protection of the First Amendment to the internet. Where does the line fall within media? Do we draw it at the written word vs. spoken word? Paper vs. technology? What category do audio books fall into? Most (if not all) forms of media have some sort of commercial goal in mind, so how do we determine the difference between a product and a form of personal expression? And please feel free to point out any statements I made that are blatantly incorrect. I'll be the first to admit that my areas of expertise lie very far away from politics so it's entirely possible that everything I just wrote was bullshit. I'm just very curious about how it's decided what is protected as speech and what isn't.

I feel that books and movies are commercial products the same way paintings are. Clearly, all are meant to be seen and enjoyed, albeit at a price. However, the artist's statement or expression is always at the forefront of the piece. It's the very framework of the piece itself. Harry Potter, in the end, was a fairy tale about tolerance vs. prejudice. That story could not have happened without that framework, and that was the statement JK Rowling was trying to get across. Since self-expression is an intrinsic quality of these type of works, I personally believe that they are more art than consumer product and should be treated as such. Video games are no different.

 

[Thaius]

I'm not sure that it's a matter of everyone in America being too sensitive, but rather it's a faulty way of dealing with things when that happens. We have a tendency to respond to a problem that one person has by correcting it for everyone. One person does something stupid, now it's illegal to be in the situation they were in when they did said stupid thing, even if it's completely innocent and safe. It's an irritating tendency that has been chewing away at our freedoms for a long time now...

 

[supermariner]

Just a question, do you really have free speech if the government decides what speech is protected or not? For instance, the government can decide that videogames aren't protected as free speech, and ban them. What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

Us Brits hardly have free speech either mind
in fact i'd say no country has TRUE free speech
i guess it's just that we don't claim to have as much as the americans

 

[Vykrel]

cant say curse words in school, a few sentences arent allowed to be spoken at all, and many people are fired from their jobs over what they say.

no, we dont have freedom of speech.

 

[mechanixis]

It is a little hypocritical here and there, but it's much harder to get jailed for saying things in the States than in, say, North Korea.

Censorship is still an all-around bad thing, though, and should be unilaterally opposed. Instead of trying to collectively hide things from children (which generally fails spectacularly to control their development anyway), we should instead work to place things we find unseemly or socially repulsive in the proper context.