A question for Americans
- Thread starter Random Name 4
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The UK is fucking shit for rights, the difference is that we don't loudly boast about them (and nanny state refers to something different)Dr Snakeman said:
Whether something falls under protected speech or not is supposed to be determined by American society at large, but since we're a democratic republic we leave deciding specifically on that to our elected representatives. Certain things have really never been protected speech, direct threats against another, for example. Other definitions of unprotected speech are more mutable. Anything that is "obscene" is not protected speech, but the definition of obscene changes every generation or so. That's why the legal definition is anything that the majority of the population would describe as obscene. You really need variable definitions like this in order to be sure the laws of the government will represent the values of it's society.
I still have enough faith in the judicial system to think it's a long shot for an entire medium to be deemed unprotected speech, but if it is it'll be the first clear sign that bloody revolution is needed, and coming.
I still have enough faith in the judicial system to think it's a long shot for an entire medium to be deemed unprotected speech, but if it is it'll be the first clear sign that bloody revolution is needed, and coming.
I can't remember the last time I saw an NC17 rating on anything except hardcore porn. What America are you living in?RobCoxxy said:
When has the government ever banned a video game or movie? The only thing they can do is raise the rating for it which seems appropriate because you wouldn't want a group of eight year olds going to see something like Scarface.
Also the vast majority of film companies and actors/actresses are liberal so I don't know how you got the idea that film or the ratings system in America was run by a Christian company.
If you spent maybe two minutes looking up R rated movies you would know that sex and drugs are used all the time in movies. I will agree that many movies might receive a higher rating than necessary for sexual scenes or images but that is all that will happen, a higher rating.RobCoxxy said:
Also the vast majority of film companies and actors/actresses are liberal so I don't know how you got the idea that film or the ratings system in America was run by a Christian company.
There is a difference between talking and yelling... Yelling gets your voice into a wider area than just talking thus disturbing the public peace.. It doesnt really matter what you yell it will still be annoying to other people...Woodsey said:
As for your gramma nazism, taken from wikipedia: "An ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in speech, an unfinished thought, or, at the end of a sentence "
Nuff said..
America doesn't have free speech at all. It's only reserved for those who have the privilege to have a lawyer or grand social status.
The United States is fast becoming (rather, already has) a war-mongering paranoid police state. As is the rest of the world. Would be kind of difficult to not say the leaders are in collusion with one another to break down each country's liberty. Whether it's the Patriot Act or the UK and it's corporate police, it's all there, and the world is definitely changing.
The United States is fast becoming (rather, already has) a war-mongering paranoid police state. As is the rest of the world. Would be kind of difficult to not say the leaders are in collusion with one another to break down each country's liberty. Whether it's the Patriot Act or the UK and it's corporate police, it's all there, and the world is definitely changing.
It obviously isn't all protected.
The concept is that speech that is directly harmful or offensive to society/public safety and serves absolutely no other purpose is not protected.
That includes Slander/Libel.
In practice, we have special interests groups of all flavors who try to twist and reinterpret the 1st Amendment for their own means.
Topical Example: Senator Yee has accomplished this brilliantly, and he dares to call himself an expert proponent of First Amendment Rights.
The concept is that speech that is directly harmful or offensive to society/public safety and serves absolutely no other purpose is not protected.
That includes Slander/Libel.
In practice, we have special interests groups of all flavors who try to twist and reinterpret the 1st Amendment for their own means.
Topical Example: Senator Yee has accomplished this brilliantly, and he dares to call himself an expert proponent of First Amendment Rights.
Not on every sentence (an ellipsis is also '...', 2 dots means nothing) - it's to indicate a longer pause such as a lost thought. It doesn't replace a full stop constantly.GWarface said:
You're really missing the point too - stop being so literal. People should not be allowed to make claims that incites hate or violence against others, no matter how they do it.
Oh, and I think you'll find Wikipedia actually says: "or, at the end of a sentence, a trailing off into silence (aposiopesis) (apostrophe and ellipsis mixed)."
It's for trailing off into thought which causes the end of a sentence, not a general way to end a sentence.
America was founded on the idea of little-to-no government intervention, something gained from the accumulation of people who came to the new world wanting escape from the controlling unitary government of Britain and governments elsewhere in Europe. Thus, people wanted free speech, freedom of religion, petition, assembly, and press, which they got with the first amendment.Random Name 4 said:
However, these people didn't want anarchy (which is pretty much what you have to get in order to have true free speech), so they wanted a federal government to do nothing but protect the common welfare. This includes national defense and public safety. As a result, Americans are willing to curtail complete freedom of speech in cases where there is a possible danger that may occur from the use of said speech.
Thus, speech is only restricted when it has a chance of harming people. Cases in point:
-threatening the president, or anyone else for that matter if it is credible enough
-joking about bombs at an airport
-violent video games (the Supreme Court is deciding if this is actually capable of harming people)
Everything has the capacity to cause death or injury. However, the above exceed a certain margin of death or injury that the government is willing to allow.
TL,DR: If the government decides that something is dangerous to public safety, most people are willing to accept a certain level of curtailing of free speech TO A POINT.
This point is determined by our political culture, which is a whole 'nother subject
I could write a frikkin textbook about "Is your speech truly protected?"
Not really. There's nothing stopping some backwoods yahoo going out in the street and burning Bibles, Qurans, other things. It happens all the time. Turn on the radio and listen to one rock or rap song; good Lord, it's like porn you can't see.SyphonX said:
People only get mad with the whole "freedom of speech" thing when someone isn't listening to them. People aren't listening to, say, some Nazi extremist preaching his doctrine of hate. Nobody wants to listen to that, but if they tell him "no, you can't preach your stuff here" he'll go to the papers and claim he's being discriminated against and that his 1st Amendment Rights are being violated.
Don't really know what parallels you're drawing with the "paranoid police state" thing. Last time I checked I wasn't whipped in public with a rattan cane for screaming obscenities at a bar, or spray painting something on a wall, nor was I discouraged from becoming inebriated, marrying outside of my race, changing my religion, or what have you. Those things are common in "paranoid police states" like China. Here? Nah.
More or less this. although there isn't really anthing that can truely take away free speach, I can say whatever I want to, even if I go to jail for it. Also, of course the gov't can decide to take away vid games, they have the prisons and the biggest guns, but constitutionally, they aren't supposed to.SnootyEnglishman said:
OR it could sound like race, lack of common sense, the person in office's ideas and goals, what the person said that's in question, who the person is that it was said to, etc etc... Just sayingAssassinJoe said:
OT: Free Speech is very difficult to have when it comes to Law and Order. But i'm going to start off by saying that a critical piece for this discussion is that America's goal is to balance the power between human rights and the protection/safety of others. There has to be a limit to freedom to be able to preserve the freedom of others.
If a man walks up to you and says in a serious tone "I will kill the president in his sleep after sniping the guards from a nearby building." Would you let it slide and say "He has the freedom to say that, so what should I care?" or would you take charge and tell the authorities because you have no idea whether he is serious or not and he might actually kill the president.
America's system of law is mainly based upon the balance between human rights and the protection of others. For example, it is Illegal to kill someone. The authorities have a job to attempt to prevent such occurrences. So if someone does say that they will kill the president, how could they just let that person get away with it? They have no idea what that person actually has planned and how they are going to do it or even if that person are going to do it. But you should take precautions and prevent him/her from killing the president by putting him in prison.
So our speech is truly protected as much as it can. Complete freedom leads to problems and pain. You have to limit it so that people can be protected as much as possible while still keeping the freedom of each individual.
Because they already had a similar thing going about violent movies, only difference is that it blew over. Every form of media goes through this problem when it comes to entertainment in the states.
Hmm, I reckon the mods would be annoyed if I started threatening you*. I don't think me going on about my rights, would prevent them for hittin' me with the old banhammer.zehydra said:
But yeah, I suppose in certain places on the internet one can say whatever they want.
*Not that I would want to threaten you, I'm sure you are a nice guy.