The problem here isn’t that I don’t understand the issues surrounding the principle of free speech as it applies to the information age. The problem here is that it has nothing to do with anything I’ve posted. Good lord, is this how you approach every debate? Is there a Cafe Society thread out there where you respond to someone’s opinion on the films of John Ford by mocking his understanding of maritime salvage laws?
Can you tel us your country and cultural background? this is very much counter to the historical reason for Free Speech existing in the US, but of course other people and places have other traditions.
[quote=“Miller, post:101, topic:496044”]
The problem here isn’t that I don’t understand the issues surrounding the principle of free speech as it applies to the information ageQUOTE].
I have no evidence to debate that point if I had to. But if you say so.
Right, except what you posted was posted in a thread about the circumstances of free speech in the information age.
Tie your point to what you claim to know about the Internet Age, and maybe you will have a well constructed argument. As of now, it is incomplete at best.
Just saying…
By expecting coherent, non-fallacious, complete arguments from the other side, even if I don’t agree with them?
Uh - yeah. that is how I approach any and every debate.
And I try to return the favor.
If you ever present a coherent position, I will be happy to respond to it. Maybe (I can hardly tell yet) I will actually agree with all or part of it, and I will be glad to say so.
I don’t think so. I saw Grapes of Wrath recently, I may have mentioned that on this board. I think that was a Ford movie, no? But what would that have to do with maritime salvage laws?
If you want to paint me with nonsense, at least bother to look up the thread (which likely doesn’t exist).
Which is precisely why no skilled debater is going to get into it with you about child pornography - if you can simply pull John ford and maritime salvage laws out of your ass pocket and try to pin it on me with no evidence, imagine what you will do with child pornography.
(psst, not_alice ? **Miller **and **Hamlet **are not the same guy)
I’m not him, but here’s my answer:
Child pornography that involves the (ab)use of actual, real children isn’t just speech, it’s evidence of a separate crime. Book em! …but for the crime, not the speech*.
Child pornography that was created utterly without the use of actual, real children should have no limits on it placed on it by government. (Though any store, website, or other private forum may elect not to distribute it if they please.)
- If you want to confuse me, ask me whether the porn should be free to distribute after the makers are removed from circulation, assuming the makers were the parents of the children and thus had the rights to use and circulate the child’s image. Or, uh, do they?
The dodgy part of this is that tomorrow, when the regime changes, you might suddenly find yourself to be an agitator. The historical precedent is that this particular slope actually is pretty slippery, and it really is the case that You Might Be Next. Remember, a lack of free speech has actually been tried before, extensively, and the effects observed.
“Child pornography” is a tough term to grasp? So tough he couldn’t answer a simple question? Really? Well, I’d like to respond, but I just don’t understand what the definition of “satisfactory” is. :rolleyes:
Pick a definition you’re comfortable with and answer the question, which, oddly enough, had little to no relation to child pornography except as an example. Or use this one. It makes no nevermind to me or the actual point of the question.
Funny thing that. The exmples were persuasive enough to convince multiple Supreme Courts, legislatures, Presidents, citizens and founding fathers to be incorporated into the law for centuries. But what do they know, anyway.
Try not to get hurt unrolling your eyes, because in a simulpost, Begbert2 jumped in and got right to the point about some of the issues surrounding the definition of child pornography in a legal sense.
why should anyone deign to answer a question of the asker can’t explain his/her usage of the key emotionally laden term?
Funny thing that. The exmples were persuasive enough to convince multiple Supreme Courts, legislatures, Presidents, citizens and founding fathers to be incorporated into the law for centuries. But what do they know, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
So you are admitting that you are completely unfamiliar with the changes in principle that have been used tio define adult speech or other issues in this thread, throughout our history and accept that one definition you can point to now is the absolutely last one ever and that no one can find an edge case or debate it at all as it holds all the wisdom of Solomon himself?
Why don’t you at least try to make a full outline of your point from beginning to end, and then fil in the details where you can with citations and descriptions of same, and then draw a conclusion from them that makes sense. Right now I am not sure of what point you are making other than to argue with me, I’d rather see your actual preferred end to end argument because then there is a hope of persuading me, Kobal, or even a lurker. It may be the lurkers that would benefit the most from you demonstrating your persuasive prowess all in one place though. Yelling at me is not persuasive to the outsider.
What?
You might make more headway in this thread if you actually read the OP, which, as it happens, has absolutely nothing to do with the internet.
You, my friend, are hardly in a position to chastise others for incoherence.
Actually, considering that your contribution to this thread is nothing more than an entire Iowa’s worth of strawmen, you should probably ease off on “fallacious,” while you’re at it.
My position in this thread is that the definition of libel is “a maliciously damaging and untrue accusation.” There are some legal definitions of the term that are somewhat broader than that, but I was not making a legal argument to begin with, so those definitions are immaterial.
:smack: Of course the thread doesn’t exist! I wasn’t saying that it was a real thread, I was making something up to demonstrate how entirely off-topic your responses to me have been in this thread! It was an analogy: your responses to me in this thread have as much to do with what I’ve posted, as maritime salvage law has to do with the films of John Ford.
And this marks the point where I’ve officially graduated from being annoyed by you to feeling pity for you.
:eek:
Just to make sure I’m recalling correctly, you’re a 9/11 denier, right? Why am I not surprised that these things so often seem to go together?
Yes, we’re all aware of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Bully for you. That had nothing to do with the question I asked. I wasn’t asking about specific instances or grey areas, it was a simple yes or no question, and gave him the opportunity to expound away at his leisure.
I said nothing even close to resembling that.
I’ve made my points, and supported them with examples, numerous times now. I’ve even summed them up to see where the disagreement lies. If you still have trouble grasping it, well, that’s your problem, not mine.
You can’t even follow the debate now past one quote and you are going to lecture me…hmmm.
I spent time trying to bring you back to the point. I see that isn’t going to happen.
You are on your own to continue your silliness.
My actual position on the OP, if you care to actually, you know, debate it, is in post 23.
soon after that, you eqauted the game mentioned in, you know, the OP, with child porn and it was off to the races for you. Despite, you know, the article linked n the OP saying that child porn is not illegal in Japan as it is in the US.
So since then, that we are discussing child porn for pages now at all is nothing but YOUR strawman.
Maybe you should read the thread from the top again.
So the history of libel, its meaning as a legal erm of art, or its presence in a thread about free speech, another legal concept, has nothing to do with anything but your dictionary?
Are you in 6th grade?
the only one avoiding issues is you.
This started in post 29/30. You have never addressed the issue of why you brought child porn into it in the first place, despite me asking immediately way back then.
Nor have you ever outlined your case end to end. I see it has evolved over time, that is all fine, no problem there.
But maybe a few pages into it, a good solid summary is in order.
My primary interest is stated in post 23 as I said. If you have something specific to say about that post, then go ahead. But anything else has generally been trying to figure out what you mean with what you just made up or tossed out there randomly or both. Stupid me for trying, because you always have something else to make up or throw out there before you can ever take time to clarify the last toss.
And pity doesn;'t appear to mean what you think it means either.
Because you still haven’t laid out a clear case or defined any term when I asked for clarification.
But you have no problem tossing out making stuff up or admitting it.
But you win - you can make up shit faster and longer than I can call you on it.
continue on, and I will try to get it in bigger chunks after you dig yourself deeper, sillier holes for a while 
Are you aware of any of the debate surrounding the nature of free speech in the internet era that is not US-centric? I referred to some good sources in my first post in #23?
What is your take on all of that?
Just to be clear, I wasn’t really trying to make a legal argument or underscore any particular legal issues - I was just answering the question. And though I didn’t actually do with a simple yes or no (I retreated to a ‘it depends’), I guess I still deserve a little credit for navigating the apparantly rocky shoals of not-precisely-defined terms.
Look, what’s really simple is this : I may write in a vernacular style because, well, first I like it, and second, English not being my first language means I’m not the best at constructing higher registers of it.
However, my entire job consists in understanding and deconstructing its meaning precisely in the text, the subtext and the paratext.
“it’s a simple question” is not an innocuous turn of phrase. The unspoken implication of it is “so it should beget a simple answer”. Oh, of course, god forbid, you didn’t *say *so, perish the thought, you can’t be blamed if John Q. Public interprets it that way. But really, why are you dancing around ? Yes or no, man. It’s a simple question.
Which, BTW, considering you have failed to answer *any *direct question asked to you up to now makes your candid insistance that I should eminently suspect. Call me paranoid if you will.
And your “simple question” is, itself, constructed around loaded language. Had you asked me “Do you believe there should be NO limits on speech”, period, that would have indeed been an easy-ish question to answer : yes, I do believe so. Or rather, I believe it’s not impossible to envision a functioning society where it would be so (which is a different proposition from “there should be NO limits on speech RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW”, innit ? Covering bases, here.)
But by tacking “(including child pornography)”, which is of course such an innocuous term itself when you remember porn featuring two consenting 17 year olds can be described as “child pornography”, and *especially *when you decline to give your own definition of it, and won’t answer the question of whether you still would consider it criminal and bannable when it doesn’t involve live, harmed children,
pant, pant
By tacking that, you effectively turn the question into “child porn : for or against ?”. Again, without saying so, and of course if anyone does read it this way, why, that’s his reading of your words.
Forgive me if I conjecture, from your “track record” of cherry picking the arguments you answer to and handwaving the rest away as if they either didn’t matter or you had somehow debated them away entirely, that you wouldn’t be above trying to twist any complex answer I would give you into “See ? SEE ? HE’S A PEDOPHILE APOLOGIST !”. Or, you know, innocuous and simple statements to that effect. Once again, call me a paranoid if you will.
And frankly, that’s a far more in-depth analysis your statement called for.
But you know what ? Knowing that, I’ll still answer you, if only to watch the show.
So, should there be limits to child pornography ?
drumroll
After due consideration, I’ll say that while I’m loathe to reach this conclusion, no, there shouldn’t be any different restrictions on child porn than any other film, nor could I be a proponent of applying different standards to child porn without being a hypocrite.
If it is not illegal to own film depicting the Holocaust, either the real one or a mock version, if it is not illegal to own film depicting murder and death, either real or acted, if it is not illegal to own film depicting rape and war, brutality and the freakiest extremes of sex, be they real or acted, then no, I can’t see any reason why it should be illegal to own film depicting child molestation, either real or acted, following the same rules (e.g. not publicizing it without the explicit consent of those filmed). And that, whether or not said child porn was put on film for private consumption, with the aim to distribute it, or caught on camera by an innocent bystander, investigator, journalist etc…
You may freely substitute “film” with “cartoon”, “book”, “video game” etc…
You may also freely substitute “own” with “share”, “publish” or “display”. You may not, however, freely substitute “sell”, at least in the context of child porn involving real live children being real live buggered - that *is *a crime any way you slice it, and I accept and endorse the laws prohibiting individuals to profit from crime in any way, shape or form.
I do understand the reasons why society makes it a very special legal case, and deems that any sacrifice of legitimate use of such material is worth it if it makes it any easier to catch the bastards and book 'em fast and for good. And quite frankly, I’m not even sure I’m opposed to it as a matter of facts, although as **begbert **said open forums would probably constitute useful ways to keep tabs on pedophiles - but on principle ? Again, I fail to come up with rational, objective reasons against that particular kind of smut among all others.
One could even argue that on the contrary, the existence of such an exceptionnary case could constitute a springboard for further restriction on depiction of other taboos. After all, “don’t we reasonable gents agree that speech shouldn’t be too free ? What are you nay sayers, some kind of child porn lovers ? Do you hate America, too ?”
Still no argument from authority whatsoever, move along citizen !
The question didn’t have to have anything to do with child pornography. I was simply trying to find out, as the heart of the question said: "“Do you believe there should be NO limits on speech …?” From his prior posts, I sensed that was how he felt, so I asked the question. If he had a problem with the child pornography, all he had to do was say, instead of playing these games.
And your answer, “it depends” was fine, as far as it goes, but again, not really responsive to the question. I’m guessing, although I have no evidence, that you are not an absolutist as Kobal appears to be, and accept that there can be limits to free speech. But your answer, while true, only gave me a glimpse into that belief. If you believe that laws making it a crime to sell or distribute child pornography (as opposed to making it) are impermissible, that’s fine. But at the very least answer the question so we can get the more important question… why?
I’m not disagreeing with you. I am pointing out (I guess to Hamlet) that unpopular speech is often considered dangerous. In Schenck v. U.S., the speech being compared to shouting fire in a crowded theater was pamphlets protesting the draft. And the court said it was okay to restrict that kind of speech, and found his conviction Constitutional.
Not when your posts go haring off at ninety degree angles to the posts they’re purportedly addressing, no.
There is no part of the above quote that is remotely factual.
I did not equate the game mentioned in the OP to child porn. I do not believe I have made any comments at all in this thread about the game mentioned in the OP, except to note that the game itself is immaterial to the actual topic under discussion. Nor did I introduce the topic of child porn to the thread, which should be patently obvious even to you, as the post you’re referring to contains a direct quote from Kobal2 where he mentions child porn.
The only thing you’ve got remotely correct there is that Japanese laws only penalize the creation of child pornography, and not the possession of it. I was, of course, thinking primarily about US laws, and I suppose I could have made that clearer, but it didn’t occur to me that such a simple omission would cause other posters so much distress.
Oh, wait, it hasn’t. It’s only you that’s hung up over that, isn’t it? No one else seems to have had any trouble grasping the context of my post.
For the purposes of the argument I was making in that post, no. If I want to talk about a particular subject, I am not obligated to provide a comprehensive review of every conceivable aspect of that topic.
I didn’t say you were avoiding issues. I said (well, implied) you were not comprehending issues. Which, ironically enough, the above sentence once again illustrates.
I didn’t bring child porn into it. Hamlet was the first person to bring up the term. I only mentioned it because Kobal2 said that it was only illegal to create it, not possess it. While this is true in some jurisdictions, in many it is illegal to simply possess it.
Sure, why not:
Libel, as the term is commonly used, is the spread of malicious and false accusations, and it is appropriate for a government to legislate against this act.
Also:
In most Western nations, it is illegal to possess child pornography.
Those are the only positions I have taken in this thread. Well, there’s one other position that I’ve fairly heavily implied, but if I stated it outright, I’d get in trouble with the mods.
Your primary interest in this thread is content warning labels on mass media? And you’ve been accusing me of going off topic?
No, I don’t have anything specific to say about that post. If I did, I would have said it two pages ago. As it is, I don’t see anything there that merits my attention.
I haven’t “made up” anything in this thread. I made an analogy to demonstrate how hilariously off-topic your responses tend to be. I do not take responsibility for your inability to recognize an obvious, fanciful hypothetical.
You’ve asked for definitions of precisely two terms from me. I have offered definitions for both.
Well, that’s as coherent an English language sentence as I’ve ever seen.
Again, I haven’t “made up” anything. I’ve employed some middling clever rhetoric, which you hilariously took at face value. That’s not the same as “making shit up.”
Yes, by all means, continue to demonstrate your superior intellectual aptitude. I haven’t had this much fun since they banned The Ryan.
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
snort
Huh?
What?
Now then, that wasn’t so hard was it? Good on you!
I admit that I am a bit surprised that you do agree that it is OK to limit free speech (selling child pornography), even if they have no responsibility for the commission of the crime. It seems to fly in the face of other things I understood you to be saying (that there is causal harm from speech). Feel free to explain if I misunderstand your position.
Now, with that waste of time out of the way, can we move on to my recent post trying to sum up the argument so far? Here it is again:
"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? "
Well, clarity of writing is important in debate. Yes, you should know that above all else.
And not wait until 70 posts or so later to acknowledge that your omission is distressful.
Oh wait, in one breath you caused your readers distress (albeit the “simple” kind) and in the next everyone understands what you mean. You know what lurkers think? People who work with a diversity of cultures, in which reconciling international laws matters? You think they think you are spot on?
Or are you claiming you are right in a very narrow sense, the same sense that “the sun comes up in the east” is right?
Just the parts relevant to being persuasive and on topic, or you risk being read otherwise. If you are fine with that risk, then so be it, but stop arguing about it, and make your grander stand then.
You know, debate
You mean the sentence where you said you are not obligated to provide any information to actually you know, support your case?
Which is precisely why, emotions aside, it is important to cover the worldwide implications o f varying aspects of free speech. You can hammer down a nail in one place and it will only come out the other end somewhere else. Anything online can and does move offshore and/or gets encrypted. How do you propose to prevent that if you wish to place limits on speech itself rather than non-speech actions and torts?
Sure, why not:
citaton as to the definition, what you mean by “common”, why is that the appropriate definition, and how does your conclusion follow?
This is not even a headline on a letter to an editor, let alone a persuasive argument.
Also:
In most Western nations, it is illegal to possess child pornography.
that you are not debating in good faith? Because those are your efforts at laying out your supporting arguments end to end, and you did it twice in only two sentences? My niece in 2nd grade does better than that in essay writing.
She does better than that in reading comprehension too. Maybe it is related.
I suggest you read the sources I mentioned in that post and then come back and see if you understand better my point.
Hmm. In one sentence you say you didn’t make anything up, and in the next you say you made up shit about me and things I have written on other threads. Are you feeling ok today or maybe you are a little woozy? this is the second time in this post you say something is obvious or simple when it turned out not to be.
You just said up above you made it up. It doesn’t exist anywhere other than in your post - did it fall from the sky?
Maybe you should not really aspire yet to “middling” level rhetoric.
[quote=“Hamlet, post:118, topic:496044”]
Yah one playing gotcha a the first opportunity, having failed to offer a clear definition of the things you were asking about.
No none of that here.
Care to define your terms? The rest of us are hanging - In Japan, where the game in the OP is from, the definition is different than here, and I am sure lots like Miller and the hoi polloi in general “know it when they see it”.
Be we, meaning, you Hamlet can do better, no?
Not for me it isn’t. I haven’t seen an example yet where the actual speech itself, as opposed to an action someone else took to distribute or interpret it, and when said action was not already illegal in and of itself. I haven’t seen such an example, but I did get sidetracked sadly.
Can you pick one or two of your best such examples and polish them to a sheen? Then maybe we can agree to disagree.