And if they want to post about libel laws from the perspective of their countries, they are free to do so. I’m talking about libel laws from the perspective of my country, as should have (and, indeed, was) perfectly obvious. If you want to go into a compare and contrast exercise on how libel is enforced in different jurisdictions, knock yourself out. But that was plainly not the intention of my posts in this thread.
Well, that’s certainly a new high-water mark in bizarre non-sequitors for this thread.
Tell you what. You figure out who you’re trying to talk to in this thread, and then get back to me.
I read his answer as a request for you to define your terms before he plays a game of “gotcha” on child pornography.
Of course it is protected. See Daniel Ellsburg, Valerie Plame and a multitude of other cases probably. Newspaper has no duty to protect the classified status of information.
If your way of protecting spies is that the public should keep quite about it if they know, then your spies aren’t very good. Of course if the general public, not otherwise encumbered by an agreement to keep secrets finds out, they can share freely, or even speculate at any time. In the US, anyway.
Which is not remotely the same as saying that lay individuals are required to act as the agents of a government in keeping information classified.
I think he gets it. I think he is astounded, as am I, that you don’t get that the whole point of protecting speech at all is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. You can make as long a list as you want of different types of unpopular speech, the answer won’t change.
No relevant as evidence in a murder case though. If you want to change that, go ahead and start an effort to repeal the 1st Amendment. The process is clearly written in the US Constitution. Similarly for other countries.
And you are ignoring the actual case law.
You are free to try to change the statutes if you want, what with free speech and all.
I’m kinda thinking the same thing about you. Because a skilled debater can argue both sides, and use that to refine his or her preferred position. But I don’t think you accept that there is another alternative, instead you mock “debating skills” for al lof us to laugh at.
OK I will do that.
Define child pornography unambiguously - not what the law says it is, but what you think the law ought to say it is. Take as much time as you need to research the issue, anticipate rebuttals, and otherwise prepare for a debate in which you plan to actually persuade someone of your point of view.
Oh I am sorry. I didn’t realize I was giving you too much credit. I knew you picked a random issue about US law, and I thought you might actually intend to tie it back into the actual topic - see the headline on the OP which is not US-centric, and the amount of debate from outside the US.
Silly me.
If that is a non-sequitor to you, then I question what if any research you have done into free speech issues in the internet era. Why don’t you fill us in on your level of understanding of the issues?
I keep hearing that same old tired canard. As has been explained countless times, it has nothing to do with “unpopular speech”, it has to do with speech that directly causes harm. Rights, when the exercise of them causes harm to others or society, can rightfully be limited. Which is why the First Amendment and the concept of free speech itself, has always had limitations. Including all the ones listed in this thread. As have all the rights we have and protect. Rights simply are not absolute and nor have they ever been.
Yeah, I am sure that when the Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Debates of 1787 they had no interest in protecting unpopular speech, or that there is not a clear historic and legal trend straight from the Magna Carta through that time. Completely inappropriate to consider it.
Maybe “canard” does not mean what you think it means.
The topic of the thread is, “What limits should there be to free speech.” My post was entirely on point. You’re right, I didn’t explicitly say, “In the United States, libel is etc. etc.” I figured the people reading this thread would be able to figure that out on their own, and explicitly stating it would be redundant. So you’ve managed to prove me wrong on at least one point.
I used one of the more common definitions of “libel,” and you compared me to Communist China. I’m sure you can see the logical progression from one to the other, but I must the connection there escapes me entirely.
At this point, I have no idea what “issues” you are referring to. Which, at least, puts us on the same footing, because I don’t think you have any idea what you’re talking about, either.
Do you even bother reading all of what I post or simply find one thing to pick at and ignore the rest? Canard was a poor choice of words, you got me. But by all means, focus only on that and ignore the entirety of the point. It seems you and Kobal go to the same school of debate. And from your responses to other posters like Miller and Shalamanese speaks volumes about that.
Here it is again, in case you want to deal with the actual issue: “As has been explained countless times, it has nothing to do with “unpopular speech”, it has to do with speech that directly causes harm. Rights, when the exercise of them causes harm to others or society, can rightfully be limited. Which is why the First Amendment and the concept of free speech itself, has always had limitations. Including all the ones listed in this thread. As have all the rights we have and protect. Rights simply are not absolute and nor have they ever been.”
As not_alice noted, my answer was first and foremost : go play “gotcha” somewhere else, I ain’t interested. As I tried to explain to you further down the post, a debate is, to me at least, supposed to be a cooperation to reach Truth, not a blazing row in which the goal is to shout or prove the other wrong by any mean necessary. If you’re into that game, again, I’m not interested, and I suspect no one is much impressed by you going “No. No. You’re wrong. You’re stupid. You can’t debate. No. I’m right” over and over again, without adding anything to the discussion.
With that being said, your gotcha question *did *lead to an interesting one, which I asked and Freudian_Slit picked upon : if you remove the notion of harming a child out of the equation, is there anything inherently wrong, immoral, criminal and harmful about child porn ? It’s not an easy question to answer, and I don’t have a definite one to give you there. I don’t think there is, and I would say that if we assume pedophiles will phile pedos no matter what it beats all the alternatives, but I’m open to cogent argument.
So you keep saying. Maybe if you repeat it often enough, it’ll become actually convincing. I ask you the question again : How is speaking an action, and how does your speaking, without any action taken on it by either you or a third party, infringe on my rights and freedoms ?
Errr. You were the one saying, I quote : “the distinction I draw is the content of the speech, not whether or not it was made for the purpose of showing it”. Something that isn’t intended for publication in any form isn’t, by definition, public speech.
If my nefarious ex, not content with slandering me to oblivion and back, nicks my private, secret diary cleverly hidden underneath my pillow and publishes it, that does not constitute my speech. Either she’s publishing my words in her name, in which case it’s *her *speech, or she’s publishing my private words in my name, in which case it’s identity theft, which happens to be a crime.
By US law, distribution of questionable material isn’t actionable, only publication. Except on the internet, where it’s the other way 'round for some reason. Maybe because it’s easier to sue a provider than an anonymous citizen from across the world, who knows.
Strawman ? Snarking at your combined appeal to majority cum appeal to authority is a strawman, and bad debating form ?
I fail to see the contradiction in terms. I would also like to point out that “Solemnity is the shield of idiots” (Montesquieu), but I *am *a smartass, so there’s that.
Without question, as not_alice noted. It makes for much hullaballooh and cries of treason, but newspapers don’t have a duty to protect government secrets. Whether or not outing an agent is a good idea is certainly up to debate, not the right of the Press to do so. The government shouldn’t have the power to censor the Press, period. No extra-special scenario to justify every other.
Force later clarifications, corrections, apologies or even fines post factum, quite possibly, I’m not sold either way. But proofreading pre-publication for compliance with national security (or anything else) or criminal prosecution are both clear and definite nos.
That’d be it, in a nutshell. Freedom’s a tough gig, sorry. I hear it’s worth it, though.
Unless I’m mistaken, the gist of your argument is : This kind of speech may cause harm, so it should be forbidden/restricted alltogether.
My position is that yes, it may indeed cause harm, but the possibility of harm isn’t equatable with direct causation of harm, and one should ask oneself whether or not it is a good thing to sacrifice freedom in order to protect oneself from possible harm. You own Benjamin Franklin, a strong supporter of speech control, natch, phrased it thusly : They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Most quoters tack on “and receive neither” at the end.
As not_alice said, paraphrased : what the fuck does that have to do with anything ?
Is your position that an individual has as little free will, conscience and control over his own actions that a fired bullet ?
As for me, I’d say corellation doesn’t imply causation. If some nut goes on the internet, finds a site where abortion doctor names and homes are listed, with an injunction to go and kill them, is he compelled to comply ? Or, to take the problem the other way round, does publishing a page listing abortion doctors and urging people to go out and kill them ensures us that someone indeed will ? No, and no.
To me, arguing otherwise sounds very much like another way of saying “people are morons who’ll do what they’re told, so they shouldn’t be told some things”. Which is my visceral objection to the “fire in a theater” line. It inherently assumes that you, me, him, upon hearing someone yell fire, our normal and expected reaction will not be “uh ? Where ? Are you sure ? I don’t smell anything” but “OMAGAD FIRE AAAAAAH !”. It can happen, sure. But the logic behind stating that you can’t yell fire is that it will happen.
Basing one’s social construct on the idea that “people are and will be morons” strikes me as eminentely insulting and condescending.
Again with the canned speech.
Here’s how I figure it : all the rights stated by the Declaration of Human Rights are eternal, and absolute. They apply in full and without restriction to every man, woman and child who has ever or will ever live, no matter the culture, creed, etc etc…
HOWEVER, because social coexistence is likely to cause friction between said rights amongst citizens, each individual society collectively “debates” and reaches an accepted consensus on how best to compromise so as to live in harmony. We simply agreed that we wouldn’t push them further than this or that line, because we concluded that if we did, the Greater Good would be compromised.
But that is not an indication that the rights *themselves *are in any way compromised, or that the current status quo re. the interaction of opposing rights is the best or only way to go. Society and laws are mutable, inalienable rights aren’t, essentially. Which I believe was not_alice’s point when he/she emphasized that other cultures and countries did things differently.
My track record ? Jesus Christ, what are you, my electorate ?
Except that the primary guy debating the counterpoint is not even in the US. Sio you were debating a pint you made up, while he is debating the actual topic, for what purpose again.
In case you ddin’t know it, This message board has many many many non-US posters.
Amd free speech is a worldwide issue, especially if you try to limit it, virtually all speach can simply be moed off-shore and then what are you left with?
[QUOTE]
I used one of the more common definitions of “libel,” and you compared me to Communist China. I’m sure you can see the logical progression from one to the other, but I must the connection there escapes me entirely.
“libel” is a legal “term of art”, and as such if your total knowledge of what it means comes from some divctionary, then you know little about it at all. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know more, but you do have to forget what Mrs. Grim;ley told yo uin the 6th grade that words mean what the dictionary says they mean and that there is no nuance allowed beyond that at all if you want to sound intelligent in a debate about free speech, let alone libel.
I believe you do in fact believe that.
But then you would simply be wrong twice over all over again.
Yeah, the school of “study a topic and discuss its implications pro and con rationally” school of debate Which school do you subscribe to? The “thumb your nose and wiggle your tongue and refuse to study a topic in depth at all” school?
[/quote]
Here it is again, in case you want to deal with the actual issue: “As has been explained countless times, it has nothing to do with “unpopular speech”, it has to do with speech that directly causes harm. Rights, when the exercise of them causes harm to others or society, can rightfully be limited. Which is why the First Amendment and the concept of free speech itself, has always had limitations. Including all the ones listed in this thread. As have all the rights we have and protect. Rights simply are not absolute and nor have they ever been.”
[/QUOTE]
That might be your thesis, but it is not supported well at all. Nor is it helpful. You might as well say the sun comes up in the east. What might be helpful is taking a position on where the limits ought to be, and trying to persuade a skeptic that your choice is to his or her benefit, and is practical to enforce to boot.
There was no gotcha being played. It was a simple question, here it is again: “Do you believe there should be NO limits on speech (including child pornography)?”. Nope, nothing “gotcha” there. A straightforward question meant to try and determine the points you are trying to make, the limitations and rationale for those points, and find out the basis for our obvious disagreement. I find it amusing you go so far to avoid answering it and instead continue to play these little games of yours, but that’s just me.
I suppose I could try and play your game and ask for a definition of “action” and spend a few pages going over cause, effect, and consequences. But I really see no point.
Speaking is an action because it has consequences. Speaking is also an action because it requires movement of the muscles to do, because it can require positive movement, it effects other things in our universe, or because it involves an act of will, or whatever definition you’re playing with. I understand the point you’re trying to make, that speech is not an action. Which doesn’t change the fact that it does have consequences. You can insist that it doesn’t have any consequences, and that the people in the crowded theater would have been trampled anyway, the spy would have been kept secret, that the defamation doesn’t really matter, or however far you want to spin it. But that argument is, to me, without merit. Were I you (thank God for little favors), I would focus not on the definition of “action”, but rather on the causation issue and argue instead that any consequences of the speech are nullified by intervening acts. But God forbid I try and improve your position.
Rather than continue to go through your post line by line (and point out your false statement about distribution not being a crime or your faulty raising of appeal to authority), I’d much rather sum up where we are.
You believe that speech is an absolute right and that society should never limit it. The reason for that is that 1) Speech is not an action, 2) Speech can’t cause anything by itself, it requires another “action” to have a negative effect.
I believe that speech is an inalienable, but not absolute right. It can have limitations set on it when that speech causes direct harm to someone else. I, and others, provide examples of where speech does have a direct effect of causing harm. You feel that that causation doesn’t count because there will always be an “intervening cause” that breaks the causal chain between the speech and the harm.
Is that a fair statement of our “discussion”? Have we reached a point where we can agree to disagree?
By this logic, printed material wouldn’t be speech either unless it was specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Luckily for the rest of us, the overriding principle is that free expression of most kinds can be constrained only when there’s an overwhelming reason to do so.
You’ve answered your own question. Those labels exist, stupidly, because Congress held various hearings to scare forms of entertainment into stigmatizing and labeling themselves, lest Congress do it or the public get pissed off, which would hurt profits.
“Clear and present danger” is easy to sum up to schoolkids and it’s catchy. That’s why it’s a book and movie title. “Incitement to imminent lawless action” is a little more complicated.
Unpopular speech has definitely been limited in the past. The Alien and Sedition Acts come to mind, and so does Schenck, which gave us “clear and present danger” in the first place. That’s not how things should be done, but it’s naive to assume that restrictions on speech won’t expand to cover things that are merely unpopular.
Yeah, the Sedition Act seemed like a good idea and so lasted for what, nearly forever now…
Wasn’t there a march on Skokie back in the 80s where unpopular speech was put to the test?
Why is it not naive to assume that restrictions on speech will expand to cover things that are merely unpopular? What future speech and trend are you conjecturing here?
The world has been abuzz with a constant, high minded debate about the nature of free speech in the internet era since at least the debates in Congress about the Telecom Act of 1994.
Perhaps you can find yourself some representative snippets of it and avail yourself of some learning before you mock.
then why don;'t you define your terms satisfactory?
Or do you really believe there is universal agreement on the emotinally-laden term “child pornography”?
Yet you haven’t answered either.
Not persuasive examples though.
Not persuasive examples though.
I’d agree with that on principle, but am open to a counter-example if you have one. Please don’t repeat the earlier ones though. I’d need to see something where the actual utterance caused harm independent of someone else’s interpretation or other reliance on said utterance. Maybe there is such a beast, and I bet you are just the person for the job of bringing it to us.
I’d say no, because you haven’t even attempted to define “child pornography” yet.
In my mind, asking you for a definition is a test, because it will give you a chance to display a nuanced understanding of a contentious legal issue surrounding free speech, one that will not be resolved by referring to a dictionary or Bible, yet one that lies at the heart of your claims.
“Incitement to imminent lawless action” is a little more complicated.