Right is a matter of legality.Don Incognito said:
Free speech can be infringed upon, even legally, with the right reason ("Fire!" in a crowded theater for a typical example). It is STILL an infringement on free speech.
The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Free speech can be infringed upon, even legally, with the right reason ("Fire!" in a crowded theater for a typical example). It is STILL an infringement on free speech.
Free speech is a concept, based on the broader concept of freedom. If something isn't "protected speech", to use American parlance, then it isn't free speech at all. You don't have the freedom to insult others (you have the ability, but that is merely a fact and not a freedom), so prohibitions on insulting others don't limit your freedom, as something that doesn't exist can't be limited. Just like there is no general freedom to kill people which is then "limited" by the law requiring you to not kill people.The Deadpool said:
But the broader point still holds. Saying you are being treated unjustly because you have been censored doesn't work unless you can show why what happened to you is wrong, specifically.The Deadpool said:
You're getting into legal definitions which vary by country, I'm just breaking down the word: freedom (you are able/not blocked from) and speech (verbal communication).Don Incognito said:
You can block what people say, like you said it's your yard, but you are blocking people's speech.
This isn't even a bad thing, I just get pissed when someone blocks another person from talking then says "it's not blocking free speech, I'm not a government!"
Just something to keep in mind.
No, Deadpool; you are incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with context. When you are on someone's private property; their home, business or website; you have a formal or informal agreement with said owner (or if you are the owner with your guest) about a code of conduct that you will follow when on said private property. If you fail or someone else have fail to follow the code of conduct, they have every right to ask you to leave. You can stand outside their property and scream at the top of your lungs about how unfair they are but that is all that is going to happen to you. Because they can not enforce their views on you outside of their private property.
The government can, will and has many times in the past, all over the world jail, fine or executed people for saying, acting or supporting activities and speeches that they , the government, do not approve of. They can and will hunt down those they don't like.
And that is the difference. Between private citizens you are annoyance. With the government you are the latest member of the Stalin Hotel in beautiful Siberia.
The government can, will and has many times in the past, all over the world jail, fine or executed people for saying, acting or supporting activities and speeches that they , the government, do not approve of. They can and will hunt down those they don't like.
And that is the difference. Between private citizens you are annoyance. With the government you are the latest member of the Stalin Hotel in beautiful Siberia.
Phrases do not necessarily mean what their individual words mean together.NiPah said:
"free speech" does NOT mean "free" + "speech"
That definition of "freedom" only holds if we talk about what people physically are able though. If, however, we are talking about "limiting one's right to free speech", then "freedom" in understood as a "right" not an ability, as an ability is something you either have or haven't, not something that can be "limited". Whether or not you are able to speak or blocked from speaking is an empirical question for the natural sciences, but when we talk about "rights", we are talking about whether or not something is in accordance with a codex, be it an actually code of law, some sort of natural or intrinsic law, or a code of ethics (essentially, whether or not it's right to do it). In that context, freedom doesn't mean ability, it means being allowed to do something.NiPah said:
It IS free speech. It simply isn't protected by law, hence its name.Stephen St. said:
You are still confusing the concept of free speech (saying what you want, when you want). This concept is infringed upon for legal and moral reasons (and sometimes illegal and immoral reasons).
By definition, anything that prevents someone from saying what they want when they want is an infringement on their free speech.
The key part is that infringing on free speech isn't always illegal and/or wrong,
Actually, you do. Depending on context, that right can be legal and/or moral.Stephen St. said:
The problem is that "insult" is a subjective term. Example: some people are insulted at the idea of same sex marriage, but I still have the right (some places legal, some places moral) to marry someone the same sex as mine.
The problem with the video is the implication that there is the government sanctioned, "bad" censorship. And the privately done, "good" censorship.Stephen St. said:
The truth is, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it), not that simple. Things rarely are.
If "It" means "Censorship" then that IS my argument.Mik Sunrider said:
If "It" means "legality and morality" then it is ALL about context.
First, I just want to chuckle at the statement that context has nothing to do with it followed by a sentence establishing the context. *chuckle*Mik Sunrider said:
Okay, back to the conversation.
Legally, you are indeed allowed to kick me out of your house. Morally? It depends on WHAT I say, doesn't it?
Sure, if I walk into your house and scream "Death to all filthy [racial slur]!", then most people would argue that you are morally justified in kicking me out.
IF, during dinner, you are verbally abusing your elderly mother, and I try to calm you down and you kick me out for it, then a lot of people (and I hope most) would find you are NOT justified and you should have listened to me instead.
Both situations are LEGAL. But they are not both moral.
That is, again, dependent on context.Mik Sunrider said:
If I'm standing outside your house preaching my religion, and you come outside and punch me in the mouth until I shut up, you are legally and morally incorrect.
BUT, if I'm standing next to a burning cross in front of your house, screaming "Death to all filthy [racial slur]!" and you come outside and punch me in the mouth until I shut up, you may be legally incorrect, but I think most people would find you morally justified.
Legality and morality are about context. Always has been, always will be.
Then define what "freedom" means in freedom of speech. Because if all speech is free speech, then the qualifier "free" is empty - i.e. the word "freedom" has no actual content.The Deadpool said:
Describe to me a case where insulting someone is a moral thing to do.The Deadpool said:
´
The problem is that "insult" is a subjective term. Example: some people are insulted at the idea of same sex marriage, but I still have the right (some places legal, some places moral) to marry someone the same sex as mine.[/quote]
No, "insult" isn't subjective, wrong usage of the word notwithstanding. When I use the word insult I refer to the legal definition of the term, which I would paraphrase as: An insult is a statement that diminishes the worth of the person it's directed at. Insulting someone means trying to diminish someone's worth as a person.
Other things may be called insults by other people, i.e. some people might find gay marriage an insult, but that is not the sense in which I used insult, and such "insults" would be in accordance with free speech.
The video nowhere states that "non-government censorship" isn't a problem. In fact it pretty much explicitly states the opposite towards the end. It's a problem, just not the same problem that government censorship is.The Deadpool said:
Just because we can't point to a true anarchy in the world today, doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.Stephen St. said:
Free speech is the concept of being able to say anything, anywhere and anytime. In actuality this is rarely the case. There is a time and place for things, there is a limit on what can and can't be said even in the "proper" venue, etc etc etc. But the concept remains.
Anything that prevents you from saying what you want when and where you want it is a limit on your free speech.
I know it's difficult, but you have to divorce yourself from the idea that free speech = holiest of holy good things.
Not all opinions are worthy. If someone believes the Earth is flat (for a nice, non-debate causing example) calling that person "idiotic" would be justified, no? Surely we can think of a few other positions where insults would be valid.Stephen St. said:
True, but then anarchy is pretty much anathema to freedom. Freedom would invalidate itself if it included the right for everyone to do whatever they wanted, because that includes taking away the freedom of others.The Deadpool said:
Sure, empirically that is true. You have a factual ability to speak and that ability is factually limited by the circumstances. But that isn't a freedom - a freedom is something you are not just able to do, but specifically allowed or entitled to do according to a set of rules, which can be moral or legal. If it were otherwise, we'd just call it the ability to speak and could forget about the term "freedom" altogether.The Deadpool said:
Do I get to call you an idiot if you say something I find obviously wrong? I don't think so. There is no good reason to insult people, which is why you aren't free to do so.The Deadpool said:
So what does free speech mean? How would you define it?Don Incognito said:
I'm not sure if you're just talking from my definition, or the broader discussion, but would you then agree that someone taking away your right to do something would be taking away the freedom to do that thing?Stephen St. said:
I agree though my definition doesn't hold water, I was just trying to prove a quick point to the above conversation.
I respectfully disagree, there is discussion here, because Bob presented a discussion, he discussed his points, put forward his ideas and just asked us to be a bit more respectful in debate.ryukage_sama said:
And that has sparked a respectful debate, where we've discussed other ideas and opinions and moved forward in an interesting dialogue. Because this wasn't presented as a didactic "this is the way, this is how it should be, if you disagree you are wrong!" this was presented as "this is what this means, this is it's potential effects, but it's up to the market to decide... you're the market now, so you decide."
If this was Bob saying "If you have criticism of the critics you're a bad person" which to be fair, given where his politics lay, many people were probably expecting, this would be a much shoutier, louder, forum thread where nothing was really discussed and people would be polarised and standing under banners and claiming others as their own or their opponents. Just look at other more didactic videos forum posts and you'll see it for yourself.
ok so i watched your video again and i remmebered that i shouldnt have.
censorship from government is whats in constitution, does not mean it does not exist outside of it. but you are correct about the dixie chicks.
its also ironic you bring up Jack Thomson, considering you are actively supporting the modern version of him
as far as criticism of something you like versus criticism of something you are. im pretty sure "all of you are mysoginystic basement dwelling neckbeards that shouldnt exist" is the latter.
but hey, at least you got to call yourself a whale penis.
Now if only you yourself acted the way you want us to act. you know the whole insulting groups of people on twitter thing.
censorship from government is whats in constitution, does not mean it does not exist outside of it. but you are correct about the dixie chicks.
its also ironic you bring up Jack Thomson, considering you are actively supporting the modern version of him
as far as criticism of something you like versus criticism of something you are. im pretty sure "all of you are mysoginystic basement dwelling neckbeards that shouldnt exist" is the latter.
but hey, at least you got to call yourself a whale penis.
Now if only you yourself acted the way you want us to act. you know the whole insulting groups of people on twitter thing.
Monopolies are the end goal of capitalism (the best way to make money is to control whole market) so yes, being mad at monopolies IS being mad at capitalism. No, there is absolutely no need for competition for capitalism to exists. it seems you have missed out on some economic theory.medv4380 said:
Seems your education is lacking.Strazdas said:
Capitalism as defined by Adam Smith requires competition. A true capitalist market has the maximum number of entities competing so that if a new one arises one old one will be forced out.
It seems like your education in economics is ether Asian based capitalism where Monopolies are the goal, or Corporate Capitalism which is much the same. Monopolies, corporate or otherwise, are little more than communism.
Ah yes ... name-calling, That always makes your case for you.Darknacht said:
You did not in any way refute what I said. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. In addition, you made a further error. You stated that the Bill of Rights was the last part of the Constitution. No it isn't. There are 17 more Amendments after the Bill of Rights. These are also part of the Constitution.
So when someone says the Constitution guarantees a right of Free Speech, they are correct. It's in the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution.
You are correct, however, that there are more kinds of censorship than government censorship. Bob's playing around with definitions in a very ham-handed way.
No matter how you slice it when you are using your power and influence to memory hole other arguments in what you say is a open forum to talk, and you do this not on there merit, but because they disagree with you. I can only assume you do it because you know your argument won't stand up in the marketplace of ideas or maybe even outside of a echochamber.
Somehow even bringing up that maybe some of this stuff should be looked at will get you called all sorts of names and accused of harassing women. Many gaming sites are using that context to censor discussion. I kinda want to know why.
Well first off they could be trying to hide there unethical practice in all this. However I don't think that is all of it.
You see I don't think gamergate is really the movement so much as people upset about the real movement. I think what we have here is the Democratic Teaparty that is calling itself anti-gamergate.
Somehow even bringing up that maybe some of this stuff should be looked at will get you called all sorts of names and accused of harassing women. Many gaming sites are using that context to censor discussion. I kinda want to know why.
Well first off they could be trying to hide there unethical practice in all this. However I don't think that is all of it.
You see I don't think gamergate is really the movement so much as people upset about the real movement. I think what we have here is the Democratic Teaparty that is calling itself anti-gamergate.
Originally Gamergate started about the conflicting interest, the other side screamed "misogyny" because a women was involved in the accusations. It had nothing to do with sexism and Anita Sarkeesian at first, the SJWs played the "misogyny" card and it quickly degenerated as all the trolls and hatefull people started throwing shit like badly trained monkeys.nayuan01 said: