Ah, yes, summarizing a complex point into a simplistic approximation. And a soundbyte, too ! Why am I not overly surprised ?
I also fail to see how prohibiting one from making profit from anything constitutes a limitation to speech. There’s no inalienable human right to make a buck any old how I’m unaware of, is there ?
Fair ? Not even close, again, considering your choice of language and use of punctuation. Let’s call it “fair & balanced”, shall we ?
But we have certainly reached a point where I’m tired of being grilled by you, and answering to you honestly and truthfully, while you still haven’t written a single meaningful word regarding your own opinions on when and where speech stops being protected. You know, the point raised in the OP. “Whenever it causes harm”, while marvelously non-committal yet deep-sounding, isn’t exactly significant or concrete a statement.
I thought that I was being clear. And considering that you seem to be the only person to have any trouble with my statements (including the person to whom they were actually addressed) I’m fairly comfortable with my assumption that they were, in fact, clear.
In fairness to myself, it took me a little while to realize that you were failing to understand me on such a shallow level. Had I earlier recognized the actual depths of your understanding, I would have clarified sooner.
When I said I had caused readers distress, I was being facetious. I do not actually think I caused any readers distress, aside from yourself.
I think I have a fair understanding of the general level of reading comprehension of this board, and of the common conceptions and conventions that make up the culture of this board. And based on my past experiences as a poster here, I have not, generally speaking, had any trouble writing to a level that the majority of posters here can understand. So I’m going to go ahead and answer “yes” to all of your questions.
Your inability to follow my fairly basic arguments does not necessarily indicate a fault in my arguments. Having observed your interactions with other posters (notably in the recent thread on transgenderism) I am not particularly worried that the fault in our miscommunication is on my end.
I do not know what sentence you refer to. Or, for that matter, what “case” you refer to. I’m assuming, at this point, that you still are unable to distinguish between different posters in this thread, and are ascribing to me positions I have not taken.
What, exactly, is this in relation to? My stance that libel should be prosecutable? Certainly, the globalization of media makes prosecution more difficult. But that does not alter the principle that it should be illegal to make false and defaming statements about people. Since I have not taken a stance on the mechanics of said prosecutions, only on the principle, you have once again attempted to refute something by bringing up a subject wholly unrelated to the point you are refuting.
You know, this would be a lot easier if you’d learn how to use quote tags properly.
The definitions were given in post 50. They are dictionary definitions, yes, because I was using the words in the commonly understood meaning of the term, and that is precisely the purpose of a dictionary: to provide the commonly understood definitions of words. It’s the appropriate definition because it’s the one I wanted to use. If you want to use a different definition, then my argument becomes non-operative. But then, it also ceases to be my argument.
As to how my conclusion follows, I would direct you to posts 28 and 33.
Being able to summarize my position in two sentences is evidence that I’m not debating in good faith? Can you explain the logic behind that one?
Well, she has the advantage of writing to a more perceptive audience.
How about you try to explain it here, instead? Because the only issues you actually mentioned in that post was warning labels on media. If your other points are contained solely in books and films made by other people, and are not hinted at in anything you’ve actually posted, I’d argue that they are not in any meaningful sense your points.
When I made the joke about John Ford and maritime salvage law, I did not for one second imagine that anyone reading it would take it literally. I would, in fact, maintain that no rational person would read that paragraph and come away with the impression that I was claiming that any such thread actually existed.
Considering the hilarious gyrations the simplest rhetorical device inspires in you, I suspect I should be aiming hire. Having obviously exhausted your terribly limited reservoir of enlightenment, perhaps I should turn to mining your bottomless supply on unintentional amusement.
not_alice, you are beginning to skate on thin ice. (That is a metaphor; should I explain it for you?)
You have repeatedly attacked other posters for positions they have not taken and have spent an inordinate amount of space and energy trying to claim that other posters’ comments are unclear when you are the only poster who appears to have any trouble understanding what has been posted, (aside froma few of your posts that I am not sure anyone understands).
Take a deep breath. Read over the thread, (omitting your own exchanges), to get an idea how the actual discussion is progressing, and then stop attacking the presentation of other posters with nitpicks that indicate that you simply have not read them for comprehehsion.
Is it inaccurate? Here is what you said: “I accept and endorse the laws prohibiting individuals to profit from crime in any way, shape or form.” Here is what I recounted: “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.” What did I miss? You seem to be saying it is OK to limit the selling (as opposed to giving away free I’m guessing) of child pornography. And selling movies is, in part, free speech. It seems that the limitation you are putting on commercial free speech is that said speech cannot make a profit if it recounts a crime.
Do you agree that selling movies is a form of free speech? Because, if so, I can’t see how on earth limiting the selling of movies is not a limitation on free speech.
And I’ll completely put aside my disagreement with your “selling” vs. “distributing”. To me, giving away child pornography is no better than selling it.
Well by all means correct it. But then, that might actually continue the debate rather than wasting all our time, so it’s probably not going to happen.
You seem to have adopted this notion that by asking questions to try and figure out what the hell your points are and what support you have for them, is somehow a bad thing. I want to know what you position is, and, to be honest, I’m not having a whole lot of luck. If my recent recounting of what I thought was your position is wrong, by all means correct it. Tell me what I said was wrong. Again, I’m trying to understand your position.
I understand you don’t like my points. I think I expressed them clearly, and with enough detail that a vast majority of people can understand them. You, apparently, don’t.
Libel can harm someone’s reputation, which can devastate a person monetarily, socially, and emotionally. Betraying classified information can lead to the deaths of informants, spies, and harm national security. Using speech to cause a panic or riot can lead to people being physically hurt or maimed or even killed. And, in regards to child pornography, “The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children in at least two ways. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child pornography must be closed if the production of material which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be effectively controlled.”
I don’t care if you accept my arguments or not. But don’t pretend I haven’t made them clearly.
I fail to see a major distinction between false advertising and libel; both are deliberately lying in an attempt to cause injury (whether it be financial, personal, political, or etc.). I think it would take some convoluted mental gymnastics to argue that false advertising should be illegal, but libel should not.
And, I believe that most people can see a distinction between lying and stating an opinion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says nothing about a right to lie, unless you include “deliberate malicious lie” under the heading of “ideas”. That’s a bit of a stretch, and I don’t think anyone could rationally argue that this was the framers’ intent.
The idea of non-government institutions regulating their own speech is intriguing. Many organizations are effectively self-policing. Academic disciplines do their own peer-reviews and check for plagiarism, Professional organizations often have ethics rules that are often more strict that ‘official’ regulations (and being expelled from the organization can mean the end of one’s career), and several other examples come to mind. The concept of having such organizations (whether formal or informal) enforce their own libel regulations in lieu of the government is interesting. However, the end result is not significantly different from having official libel/slander laws and, in my mind, is at least as open to abuse.
Not everyone is a nice, ethical person. Some people behave ‘ethically’ only because there are consequences for not doing so. These people are the main reason we have laws at all.
The fault is your own. I will explain it to you one more time OK?
The point is this - and it s not a superficial one.
You can’t prosecute where you don’t have jurisdiction.
If you legislate away free speech, the speech will simply move, originating out of the jurisfiction but arriving there just the same.
Then what do you do? All you have done is forced people to to go through a minor hoop while gutting one of the most important legal principles in our long and storied tradition, dating back to 1066 in some regards. You would no longer be able to prosecute no matter the falsity or amount of defaming of the speech.
Or if you would make an argument more compelling than “the sun will come up in the east tomorrow” strung out over 100 posts.
OK we get it. Free speech ends where it hurts some one. And a ketchup bottle is red.
How far are you willing to restrict speech beyond that, as posited in the OP?
So you are making an argument about the specifics of the limits of the law and your citation is a dictionary you found online.
OK.
Just so everyone knows what you are trying to say and what your supporting evidence actually is.
Right.
Your argument is non-operative when discussing libel in the terms that a lawyer, a court, a legislator, a diplomat would actually use. But the guy on the street at the bus stop, he don’t know nothing about that so you sound smart!
Perhaps you can summarize your own writings, in one place?
Because I asked you for your entire arguments, and you gave one sentences theses, not well formed arguments or even arguments at all.
If you were actually familiar with the debate about freedom of speech in the internet era, you would be famliar with the book Code that I mentioned, the argument therein, and the author Lawrence Lessig and his later works.
I have no doubt you are scrambling to wikipedia to look him up now, at least it is a start. And I think he gives his books away for free as a PDF, so you can read them any time.
Yeah except I think I had actually mentioned a John Ford film in a recent thread. Funny how those things work - you make up shit and half of it turns out to be true. And then the rest starts to look like a tort of the sort you are going on about.
What I answered to you. The right to free speech doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you can make a buck off your speech, IMO. Going back to the UDHR :
There’s not one bit about “the right to sell your information and ideas”. Commerce is not a part of speech, is an entirely different matter, and subject to entirely different rules and regulations. Free market ain’t a human right :).
Nor do I see how the preclusion from making a profit off one’s speech impedes the propagation, exchange, seekness and receivitude of it.
One’s speech isn’t, in the grand majority of cases, bought and sold. Some priviledged individuals can and do make a living out of their sole speech, but I wouldn’t call it an universal right. If it is, somebody owes me a fat load of money
commercial free speech ? Sounds like an oxymoron
I fail to see how illogical or dissonant it is to assert that one should not be allowed to directly and lawfully profit from the commission of an act society has judged harmful and actively punishes.
That includes making money off snuff films, keeping money from done drug deals, publishing rights for “How I killed my wife : the audiobook of the true story”, and so forth. On the contrary, it would seem dysfunctional to me if on one hand we said “sorry, not allowed to do that, go to jail” and on the other hand “yup, still not allowed to do that, but you can make a living off of having done it. But don’t do it again, understand ?”. Talk about mixed messages.
Look, make up your mind. You can’t in the same post, within the space of two paragraphs, say “I really want to hear about your opinion, honest” and then “but who am I kidding, you don’t want to substantiate your points for realz, you’re just here to waste my time”.
Either cut the aggressive snark, or cut the dialogue. There’s not really much space for middle ground.
It’s not that I don’t like them, or understand them : I want you to elaborate on them, because categorical statements repeated ad nauseam fail to convince.
What kind of harm ? What’s the minimum harm threshold ? Harm to whom exactly ? Why should the nebulous concept of national security trump individual rights ?
Nor did you demonstrate the supposed direct causation between one man’s speech and another man’s acts, or how exactly the responsibility should be spread in your opinion, things like that.
Here’s a starting point : somebody using a racial slur on someone causes that person quantifiable emotional harm. Should that kind of speech be banned ?
Another amusing one : it could be argued that Scientology harms both the people in it, and the people it attacks. Should the Church of S. be outlawed ?
Finally, to reiterate an earlier example : Charles Manson believed the Beatles told him, personally, through their Piggy song, to kill people. Direct causation of harm ? Beatles responsible ?
I reiterate : I get your points, I do. The point of this thread, IMO, is not to state what your principles are, but to see how far these principles extend, and at which point (if any) do they break.
If you did say that earlier, I missed it. My apologies : that’s exactly the kind of thing I was asking for. That’s material to debate upon.
So : how is the fact that the material produced is a permanent record of the children’s participation and exacerbates the harm any different from a citizen’s account of “How I survived Mopery : the tragic story” ? If an ex-child wishes the videos of what was done to them be exposed, talked about and examined, is that not free speech too ? Or should he be allowed to talk about it, but not to show or even own video documents of it ? Not everyone wishes to just forget and put it all behind them.
Hell, to go back to your concept of the right to make a buck : what if a now adult child wants to profit from his own victimization by selling the video to honest to god pedophiles, rationalizing that what’s done is done, won’t ever be undone and one might as well try and find the teeny tiny silver lining. Providing the actual criminals in his/her case have already been prosecuted and are 100% out of the game, is their harm and foul there, in your opinion ?
To point the second, I tend to agree, however I think there still is a need to explicitly formulate and demonstrate in what way that particular production and distribution network differs from other criminal prod/distribution networks so much so that it needs its special legal zone, because “it’s MOAR EVIL” doesn’t cut it IMO.
Also, whether an unilateral ban down to ownership of child porn for whatever reason is the best or even the most efficient way to go at it. Which is how I parse your assertion : if we don’t do that, we can’t ever eradicate production, am I correct ?
Nope - merely arguing that corporations aren’t necessarily subject to the same rights as individual citizen. Convoluted ? They don’t have the same goals, ethical systems, aren’t subject to the same laws, why should we assume they are to have the same rights ? It’s not like the debate on corporate personhood is a new one.
WRT to libel laws vs. false advertising, and the possible distinction to be made between “personnal speech” and “commercial speech”, the case to consider would probably be Nike vs. Karsky. Settled out of courts, I’m afraid - but the most important point remains : I’m possibly not an utter crackpot for considering the distinction, at least one other guy did
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t believe the Founding Fathers of the US had wriggling tittays in mind when they penned the first amendment either
(as a side note, it’s now the second time I end up tasked with playing Devil’s advocate for pedophiles in GD, both times coming from feel-good humanist sentiments. How the hell does *that *happen ?)
How do corporations necessarily enter into this? Using this logic, a corporation (for example, a newpaper publisher) should not be allowed to falsly advertise, but they should be able to falsley accuse people of crimes? Or, to frame it in commerical speech terms, one newspaper can spuriously accuse a competior (company, or simply the owner therof) of false advertising? Or is the target only valid if it is another individual?
And I, as an individual, cannot place a fradulent classified ad to sell a car (commercial speech), but I can falsely claim that the car was stolen if the person who bought it forgot to ask for a receipt? Or maybe they did get a receipt, but I simply claim it was forged (slander/libel, depending on how I go about it)?
I am aware that there is, of course, a distiction between false advertising and libel; I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. They are, however, very similar, and invoking corporation personhood is exactly the sort of mental gymnastics I was referring to. It is splitting hairs at a nearly sub-atomic level.
That’s where all the fun is :p.
But one could argue the same about what does or doesn’t constitute libel, or false advertising.
If I say something that is factually wrong and 100% harmful to someone, but without malice and in absolute good faith (say, I’m just ignorantly parroting someone else and wish to inform and warn people of the truth I “uncovered”), that’s not slander.
If I say something 100% harmful, with intent to harm, that isn’t demonstrably false (like, I dunno, “Obama doesn’t believe in God !”), it’s probably protected by the First. And a demonstrably false claim certainly is when prefaced with “I think”, “some think”, “there’s a rumor that”, “I heard that” and other similar weasel words. There is a definite syntactic difference a professional wordsmith or nitpicker will pick up on, but what harm the statement will cause is most likely comparable.
Similarly, I cannot write on a cookie package “new recipe, now with twice more nuts !” if I haven’t actually changed my recipe and the new one does contain twice more nuts. However, “new recipe, up to 50% more nuts !” ? Misleading with intent, but not false advertising, as “up to” does not constitute a guarantee that you’ll get 50% more nuts. Could be 35. Could be 1%. As long as it’s strictly more than before, you’re good to go.
Here’s where we disagree. Once again, I, the UN, the Supreme Court, and many others have all agreed that selling “speech” (videos, newspapers, etc.) is a form of protected “freedom of speech”. I had assumed that you agreed with that basic premise. But it is yet another point where we can agree to disagree. I think the fact that newspapers, video stores, etc. sell their product rather than give it away free is NOT the determinative factor in whether it is protected.
Statement of an ideal: “I want to know what you position is.” Statement of reality: “and, to be honest, I’m not having a whole lot of luck.” I’d love it if you could make your points in a manner I can understand them, and then support those points. It’s just that that hasn’t happened very much at all. This latest post of yours is yet another example. I asked you numerous times in numerous posts to explain why my summation of your position was wrong, and you’ve done nothing to answer that. I WANT to understand what your position is, it’s just that you’re doing next to nothing to help me.
Answering these specific questions requires case by case analysis. Which is why, in the US, we have a judicial system to make the determinations. What is going in THIS thread, is that I pointed out that rights, including the right to free speech, are NOT absolute; that it is possible for free speech to cause harm to others, and thus be limited. I, and others, have given many examples of how that is. Now, if your complaint is that the examples aren’t detailed enough, that’s your perogative. Again, I disagree.
Same answer as above.
No. Mere hurt feelings are an insufficient harm to restrict free speech to protect. Now if the racial slur was accompanied by a burning cross meant to intimidate a specific person, then it isn’t. See Virginia v. Black. And, once again, these case by case determinations have little to nothing to do with my point.
No.
No. The thread of causation is too tenuous.
You seem to be very confused as to what my argument is, your cries notwithstanding. I’m not saying that every single example you can come up with should be regulated. I’m saying that free speech, like every other right, can be properly limited. I’ve explained that over and over, given examples, and then further explained it. It is your position that seems to me to be absolutist. I’m pointing out that that kind of absolutism is wrong.
It seems to me, Kobal2, that if you regulate commerce-related speech differently from speech by individuals, the result is pretty much the same: a lot of views don’t reach the public sphere.
No, I get that, and I’m not disputing or arguing that. I’m saying I disagree with your apparently implied corrolary : to me, the fact that criminals cannot sell speech directly tied to their crime isn’t the or a determinative factor in whether or not their free speech is restrained or silenced.
I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it was unfair. Maybe we operate on different meanings of “agreeing to disagree”, but to me that expression means “accepting both our viewpoints are valid”. If you honestly can’t see the judgment calls inherently expressed by your use of syntax and punctuation in your summation… Well, I dunno, it’s not my fault ?
Whether or not you’re consciously doing it, you’re not asking me to “agree to disagree” with you. You’re asking me to agree with you that we have both different opinions, and mine is stupid. Again, whether or not you’re conscious of that or of the fact your judgment call seeps through your language isn’t my problem or fault.
OK. Where do *you *set the line, and why ? Where does sufficient harm begins ?
Not where your judicial system, your politicians, your juries of peers, your country or its zeitgeist set the line, have set the line or how they did it : where do *you *feel it should be set. Is it so difficult to express your direct, honest opinion ? Or for you to grasp that that is what I’m interested in hearing from you, rather than non-commital canned speech ?
Why not ?
OK. Where and when does it start being meaningful ? Why ?
… I’m at a loss here, I really am. Yes. You’ve made your point. I understand it. You feel free speech can be properly limited. I grok it. I’m asking you how you, Hamlet, individual human being, in your heart of hearts, feel it should be limited, where you feel it is unrightly limited now, where you feel it should be more limited but isn’t, and to explain, describe or show to me the value system and rational process that lead you to these opinions.
What point of this isn’t clear to you ? What is so gosh darned hard for you to make sense of in there ?
Yes. That’s my, you know, beef with you. As I said, to you “agree to disagree” = “agree that we both have our opinion and yours is wrong”. That’s not how it’s done, I’m afraid.
I’m sorry, what is this in response to ? Criminals and their inability to make commerce with their views, or the advertising discussion with **Knightrider **?
I’m trying to figure that out myself. I believe you were saying that people and businesses can be held to very different standards in advertising, and I think that’s potentially problematic.
If there’s a particular spot on a mountain where shouting would cause an avalanche that would wipe out the village below it, is it a reasonable restriction of free speech for the government to prohibit loud speech in that area?
I’m not sure I follow you. The restraint on selling what is agreed to free speech (not allowing the sale of things depicting crimes) is not a restraint on free speech? I’m not being obtuse, I just don’t get it. Is it only free speech if the sale is done by someone not part of the crime (which, by the by, I had earlier asked about the distribution of child pornography by someone not involved in the actual commission of a crime)? It seems to me that rather than deal with the issue of whether or not something is free speech, you want to focus instead on WHO is doing the speech. So, again it appears to me, that you are saying that if a person didn’t commit the crime in the “speech” or did and is simply giving it away rather than profiting, that speech cannot be restrained. Do I have it now? Because it seems to me that has nothing to do with what is free speech and can it be restrained, but rather WHO is doing the speech and whether they make any money on it.
And this is yet another reason why it is so difficult to “debate” with you.
Why would you snip out the most important part of my post, in favor for engaging in case by case determinations which I have said, over and over, is not the point I’m making? I specifically explained about these determinations to you, but you simply ignore it. Why? I have my theories, but I’d be interested in why you do it.
In your world, is relying on external sources in developing an opinion a bad thing? And you expect me to sum up 200+ years of jurisprudence, political theory, common law, and real world examples in a few sentences?Is this whole exercise not about making our points known, but rather you playing a game trying to pick apart specific examples I’ve given and simply ask for more and more and more details about things I’ve already said are largely irrelevant to my point?
I’ve given that to you repeatedly. You somehow expect a topic that has been the subject of thousands of pages of writings, centuries of debate, hundreds of legal opinions, and multitude of opinions to be summed up, in detail, in one thread on a message board. I understand why you want to set such a high standard, and I understand how, for you, it’s much easier to pick away at generalities than explain your own position, but you’re asking for stuff that is nigh but impossible.
But, just for you.
It is proper to limit things that cause harm to members of society or society.
Certain kinds of speech have the direct effect of causing harm to members of society of society.
It is proper to limit certain kinds of speech.
Now, over the last 3 pages, you’ve asked for and have been given examples, you’ve had all these concepts explained over and over. I’ve even done some case by case determinations for you. But I’m not going to waste anymore time playing the game of "but what is “harm”?; "what is “cause”?, and on and on. Get a damn dictionary if that is what you want. Or, better yet, get “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill and a copy of Eugene Volokh’s casebook on the First Amendment.
Perhaps you are not clear on the difference between the creation of an ad, and the distribution of an ad, and wherein lies the responsibility for the content. And the difference between civil and criminal law? Or commercial and non-comercial speech?
Uh no. On all counts of similarity and hair splitting charges.
What Kobal and I are claiming is not that the examples are not detailed enough, they are sufficiently detailed.
It is that they are not persuasive enough to the sophisticated reader. they are fine as appeals to populism, probably sufficiently persuasive from that point of view, but they don’.
Oh the irony.
What kind of absolutism is not wrong in your view?
And while the First (and other similar) guarantees the right to speak, it says nothing about any rights to be heard.
And btw, one thing that seems to be lacking here in this thread is the difference between regulation and prohibition.
Libel, however you want to define it, is not prohibited, merely regulated. You can do it if you want to, there just may be consequences.
Can we go back to the OP for a moment?
Hamlet and Miller, Marley23, Kobal2, and others participating here - would you regulate the production and or distribution and or purchasing and or playing of the game in question?
Would you proscribe any part of that?
I am especially interested in your answers regarding the creation of the game, because regulation or prohibition of creation is essentially a societal control on thought - one would not even be allowed to think of the idea of the game as part of the production process without consequences.
Prohibit - yes, it is too vague as to what is prohibited. And it does not guarantee safety, so it is overly restrictive.
It is in the government’s interest to remove the danger, either with proper avalanche control, evacuation of the village until the area is safe, or even encouraging moving the village.
If these are the sources you are relying upon, great! Can you use them as cites in your argument, point out which parts of the arguments they make influence your position and why?
