Which is as it should be. However the right to free speech is intended to encourage a diversity of viewpoints based on the assumption that diversity is in the public interest. When viewpoints get restricted by non-governmental means, the outcome is the same. I’m reminded of a local library that - at least, this is how I remember it - used to proclaim it supported intellectual freedom by refusing to ban controversial books. They didn’t buy the controversial books either, but they wouldn’t make a list and say they were banned. The effect was the same.
I believe I’ve said that a couple of times, but yes, it’s getting glossed over.
No. There’s more than enough self-censorship in entertainment as it is.
You make some good points here, but I’m not sure about your result. There’s a legal presumption against constent-based restrictions, but I don’t think a restriction on volume could be called content-based. So I think it would probably be fair for the village to ask that people not shout in the area near the dangerous rocks. I’m not sure it’s unsupportably vauge, either. It would be stupid of them to make that kind of restriction without putting other safety precautions in place, though.
I’d follow up (missed edit window) to that and ask why, if you understand and have internalized the arguments therein, even if you don’t agree with them, why are you so unclear on the nuances surrounding the edges of the term “child pornography”, as you said (or snarked, not sure which really) in post 106?
Huh? Can you list the library or do I have to find it on Snopes?
Seriously, not sure of your point - the library is either a private body or more likely a government agent.
In the former, you are saying a private body can not restrict speech in its purview?
In the latter, what, that the library engages in a disingenuous PR campaign? Would you forbid the PR campaign?
Also, more generally, I don’t think three is an explicit “assumption” that diversity of Free Speech is in the public interests that underlies Free Speech principles, because if there was, then the assumption could be shown to be false under some circumstance, and “in the public interest” would be the measure against which all speech would have to justify itself. That is not “Free”.
I think we are generally on the same page here, I’d rather explore issues with you than with others here whose screen names have 2 syllables Much more likely to result in a fighting of ignorance IMHO.
Even if some people would claim that the game itself is merely a vehicle for child pornography?
Hence the need for articulating what we mean by the terms we use, and agreeing to explain what we mean by them or answering direct fucking questions.
To me, when we’re talking about restraints set on free speech in the context of this OP, we’re talking about what can and cannot be said (or filmed, or composed or painted etc…), not what can be done with speech once it’s been said.
So yes, saying “it shouldn’t be OK for criminals to profit directly or indirectly from the commission of a crime” does impose a limitation on their speech in the broadest sense, but not what I consider a meaningful one in the context of an OP asking whether or not it’s all right to ban (or wish to ban) the lawful distribution of a rape video game.
To get back to the point you’re apparently thinking I don’t get : yes, in practical terms limitations can be set on the exercise of rights (but, I insist, not the rights themselves). I admit that. I said that I admitted that. The question asked by the OP is not whether or not it can be done, but when and where it should be, and whether or not limitations should be set even if there is no actual or direct harm done.
My position is that no form of expression should be banned, censored, silenced or taboo ; which is not the same as saying there should be no boundaries, rules, guidelines or consequences at all. That while not doing so may (and does) entail problems and hardships, they are less consequential to me than the continued existence of a taboo. That the battle for free speech (and human rights in general) isn’t fought where people are nice and friendly, but where they are skeevy, unsavory, distasteful, despicable and possibly even actively harmful to individuals and society in general. And finally, that criminalizing some specific forms of speech can (and have) lead to more control over perfectly legitimate and rightful forms of speech, and that this very real danger is threatening enough to me that it trumps most, if not all other concerns.
Which is why it’s important to be able to articulate and discuss the exact reasons why we feel some specific speech oughta be silenced, banned or controlled. And to be fair, you seemed to be on the right track there, for a moment.
No, I was thinking you were the one doing that by going over how apparently incoherent for me to say both things. Can we move on ?
:rolleyes:
Turnabout’s fair play ?
Because case-by-case is how we set our moral compass, both as individuals and as societies. We start from something that is self-evidently right, examine something close, yet different, and so on until we reach something that is self-evidently wrong. Then backtrack and examine where the change occurs, and why.
No. But being able to state one’s opinion when it’s developped or developping is a good thing.
Whu ? If your position is “it’s meaningless to talk about *that *here, because it’s too complex and involved a subject to fit on a message board”… why are you still talking ?
More to the point, why are you so dead set on further summarizing *my *complex and involved points, which are already a distillation or focused version of 2000+ years of social theories and real world examples ?
Again, I think it’s by picking apart specific examples that we explore our own ethical system. Broad, general statements mean very little.
And, again, the broad, general point you’re making is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. “Free speech rights can be limited, case in point : they are here, here and here”. Yes. In other news, the Sun rises in the east, water’s wet and breathing is good for you.
Where does this desperately crucial point lead you ?
Since I’m not positive about the way I remember the library’s ads or policies, I’d rather not.
I’m pretty sure you’ve missed the point. I was not talking about banning PR campaigns. I was saying there are many ways in which speech is restricted.
I think you’re begging the question here. Or at least you seem to be talking in circles.
This doesn’t dispel any ignorance either.
My experience is that a lot of people can’t distinguish between pornography and material they find distasteful. Or else they refuse to do so. Most of the time I ignore those claims.
If you didn’t want the question to be answered with respect to child pornography, you shouldn’t have framed it with respect to child pornography.
I think you shouldn’t be able to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there’s not actually a fire. So I guess I’m not an absolutist.
I also think that you should not be able to publish pictures or videos of somebody unless they deliberately put themselves into a public sphere (politician/entertainer/flasher style) or give clearance to you to use their image in that manner. I’ll even extend that to using their name in text and speech in false and defamatory ways (allowing for libel suits). Caveats may abound surrounding this issue.
I’ll also stand behind upholding copyrights to a point, which further limits speech.
And I’ll even allow certain limited restrictions to be placed on public displays for the protection of the tender sensibilities of the sheltered masses - though the minute there’s a reasonable expectation that the populace won’t stumble upon the content in their casual wanderings, the restrictions are removed. (Which is to say, no giant vaginas on your billboard, but inside the building have at. Also noise limiting and public disturbance laws fall under this.)
But if the content you are creating is a fiction sprung from your own head and/or made in a completely legal manner, and you don’t force it on people? Have at. Or if it’s simply a statement of your opinions (however defamatory)? Have at. Even if the content you have created shocks and horrifies everyone. Why? Because I believe that allowing restrictions on speech and content creation/distribution-to-willing-parties due to the objectionability of content alone is a dangerous precedent and an utterly unneccessary limitiation of freedom.
So what is the worst that can happen? We mention that you erred and the example was poor?
Me too. That is why I asked for clarification and a citation so I could get info form other sources.
Yes, in other news the sky is blue on sunny days
But what is the consequence of speech being restricted by government agency? What are the circumstances of a indirect book banning? A library can’t order everything, so some decisions have to be made. At what point does it rise to a “restrictin on speech”? In your (possibly apocryphal) story, to me it was the disingenuous PR campaign, not a decision to not buy controversial books. I might alter that in some circumstances, but you did not mention that they were asked to buy the books because someone wanted to read and didn’t buy them, only that they seemed to speak out of both sides of their mouth.
That is why I asked to see if there was more available, it doesn’t sound completely implausible it happened, but it doesn’t sound like the whole story either.
How come if I don’t understand something and ask for clarification, I hear form the moderator *not (Marley23), but if others don;t get something, instead of asking for a clarification, they say they “think I am …talking in circles” without even trying to demonstrate how that is so and hence further the discussion by sharing their understanding of the matter?
This is a theme that is being repeated by almost everyone in this thread, and to be frank (since we have 2 mods here) in many other threads (not just ones I participate in on SDMB lately, and to its overall detriment I might add…
Sorry - I was told by TomNDebb to disengage from the others. Not sure if I am allowed to mention them by name in anything less than a neutral context.
But I disagree with you on if it dispels ignorance or not, although I am reluctant to hijack, part because it is a hijack, and part because I am not fully comfortable it is not on the edge of “mod thinking and saying” and I’d rather not run afaul of that here.
But you see that those cases often rest at the frontier o free speech debates right? If you can’t be bothered personally, that is fine, free speech also covers not speaking, but do you object to others recognizing and protecting and possibly extending those frontiers, possibly on your behalf?
I was generally with you on this entire post, I started to waver with the “giant vagina” part, because how can you define what is or is not acceptable to everyone everywhere? What if the vagina is abstract? What if it is gian aborted fetuses on the billboard?
Then this paragraph followed - what constitutes “forcing” on people? I think (please confirm) posting on a billboard meets that test to you. If so, then what does not meet that test? No one makes me look at a billboard or anything else. No one makes me be present to hear a sound or read a book or play a game.
Where is the line for you, from one end to the other, as best you can describe it?
I think you are onto something, I am trying to get you to stretch just a little more…
I think that the purpose of free speech is twofold: firstly to allow people to create and distribute content to those who wish to receive it, without interference from a third party, and secondly to prevent you from having to worry about being dragged off to the stocks for some comment somebody overhears you making. I do not think the purpose of free speech is to force people to receive speech that they want to avoid.
Necessarily, the “speak without worry of punishment” and the “don’t have to endure content you dislike” goals are in disagreement with one another, and the line should be drawn in a way that gives both goals consideration. I personally feel that with regard to verbal speech everything should be allowed (at least governmentally), but other than that…I’m willing to place limits. This willingness is based on the fact that you don’t just slap up a billboard off the cuff. I also think you can be forced to keep your clothes on. Because while we don’t want to open the door to throwing people in the stocks, we also want to allow people the opportunity to stay reasonably sheltered if they wish to keep their mind all clean and pure and whatnot.
I think it’s pretty clear the difference between slapping something up on the street for everyone to see and posting and viewing content in the privacy of your own home or private property. The difference of course being whether somebody wandering the public sidewalks can see it from there. I think it’s vastly disengenious to compare a billboard, which you have to close your eyes while driving to avoid seeing, with a book or game, which you have to deliberately interact with to see.
And for myself, and others will disagree…I’d let principalities ban aborted fetus and abstract vaginas on billboards. Or anything else they want to ban (so long as it doesn’t put an unreasonable restriction on people, like ‘no visible female flesh’ would). You could of course still talk about aborted fetuses and abstract vaginas, and share pictures of them with like-minded folk where other people don’t have to see. Frankly I’m willing to let this slope slip, even if you wanted to get extreme and ban every sort of streetside display, because I think it’s of social value to allow people to have at least some avenues through life whereby they can avoid experiences they do not want. (Though of course if they dare to go into a store, that’s private property, and they’re at the tender mercies of the store owners then. )
I know there’s a whole political speech angle, but if people want to have a rally, they can do it inside a building, or keep their signs within code.
OK, just be aware , I am not beating you up here, only egaging in a discussion via the Socratic method…
All good to me. Except for the “for those who wish to recieve it” part.
Are you suggesting that if someone within “reception range” (meaning will vary based on the media) objects, than the government has an interest in restricting or prohibiting the speech?
Who is allowed to object?
What hurdle if any must the objection meet?
Can a single person or minority force the restriction or prohibition of any speech?
How do such ideas mesh with the First Amendment?
Why? I don’t recall an Amendment that says anything about “Freedom *from& speech”.
If we does not want to hear, isn’t it each and everyone of our responsibility to not listen?
So the nature of the media is fair game for Congress to consider in making laws restricting or banning speech
Some speech would be allowed in some media but not others?
How would we know?
How would we keep track?
A billboard requires no more or less effort than any other media in general. Nothing special about it. In fact, probably waaaay less effort than many media to put up a billboard, more “off the cuff” than most media.
The nature of clothing is a matter for legislation? Really?
Why do “we” want to do that"? Why can’t people shelter themselves? Many people live free of media they haven’t pre-filtered. Why is it the public’s responsibilty to even try to discern how to shelter individual’s precious sensibilities, let alone all groups at all times?
What governments have attempted to do so? How have they done it? How has it worked out for them?
So it is clear until it is not clear?
I have been driving many decades in maybe environments form the densest urban to the remotest rural, maybe a million miles, and I doubt that I have seen every billboard I passed. What “forces” someone to see them?
More importantly, what about radio for instance - it is literally “in the air” - ought we regulate its content in order to prevent people’s sensibilities being hurt?
If so, won’t we be left with the lowest common denominator content?
So you will support a comprehensive list of content by which everything must be judged before it can be spoken in at least some media?
How will this list be made and maintained? Will it be carved in stone forever or is it subject to revision?
A traffic safety campaign on the highway urging people to yield safely could be said to be using the triangular yield sign as an abstract vagina in context.
Then what?
A map of the US and pretty much everywhere else shows most of the country is empty space. Many people manage already to live fine by avoiding media they don’t like, by whatever methods they deem necessary, ranging from turning the channel, to creating a commune “far from it all”.
Why is this no longer sufficient?
I am OK with that.
So you would change the First Amendment to something like “You can speak freely, in a private space, and Congress may make laws to restrict the assembly of people and limit what they may say in public”? And then let Congress have at it?
There are tons of possible consequences; the worst would probably be the near-criminalization of some opinions.
That’s a difficult decision that is hard to judge in the abstract.
Not being on the library board then or now, I don’t know any more of the story.
Of course I can; it’s patently obvious. But you asked what I would do and I answered.
What do you mean “extend?” I usually object to people trying to ban works of art regardless of the merits of the subject: protests usually draw attention to banal-but-lurid crap, and works that are more complicated and harder to defend get pushed under the radar as mainstream distributors distance themselves from the product.
I wonder.
I think a point can be made that some speech *needs *to be heard. That it is (or at least, can be) in the best interest of society or the betterment of it that some “inconvenient truths” be acknowledged or at least heard by all. I think that is the intent behind laws prohibiting Holocaust denial : that some truths shouldn’t be avoided, and trying to deny them harms us all (not that I subscribe to the laws themselves, as I said earlier, but I can see their point and acknowledge the fact that they stem from the best of intentions)
Stepping one step down from giant vaginas*, would you feel it justified to object to a giant billboard of a news photo, or a live CNN screen ? A piece of art you abjectly dislike for whatever reason ? A pretty face ? A face at all ? The Bill of Rights and Luther’s pamphlets ? The case of those atheist billboards on the side of buses also springs to mind, as well as that of the equal and hamfisted opposite reaction.
Yes, I know, all of this is rethorical since you did say you were willing to let that slope slip all the way already. As I also agree that it’s up to each locale & community to decide whatever they want to allow or disallow. I’m still intrigued and puzzled as to how individuals (myself included) decide what is and isn’t acceptable to display on a billboard, write in a book or code in a game. It’s hard for me not to conclude that it’s all just arbitrary, when you get right down to it**.
Or maybe my thought process goes something along the lines of “I can shrug, roll my eyes at or choose to ignore whatever I see or hear, why can’t you (general you) ?”
I also think a valid point can be made that the place where people are free not to be subjected to whatever they don’t wanna see/hear is the privacy of their own home, not the public street***.
Does that make sense ?
Assuming it does, the question becomes : who or what gets to decide which truths anyone oughta man up and face. I vote “nobody, no harm done !” myself, but that’ll fail to surprise anyone I guess
*personally, I do think they’d make a valid point : “it’s the human body. It’s reality. It’s not dirty. It’s not dangerous. It’s not offensive. Grow the fuck up.”
** on an unrelated note : Knightrider, upon due deliberation with me, myself and I, we agree by a majority that you are right : free speech protection shouldn’t be extended to deliberate lies and misdirection. The question of whether or not malicious intent factors into it at all is still ploughing forward. It’s currently slowing down on End Doesn’t Justify Means Lane and snagging bigtime upon “how the hell does one prove or disprove intent, anyway ?” Shoals
*** noise control, I think, is a separate issue, since the general problem isn’t with the content of what is being broadcasted, rather than the fact that something is broadcasted at all from the outside of one’s den into the inside of one’s den.
Might you share the location? Perhaps it has been covered elsewhere research would uncover?
I know. I would think it is patently obvious too, but some here don’t seem to think so so I was hoping someone else besides me would say it. Thank you.
It is patently obvious what I mean by “extend”
Seriously, I mean something like drilling down into what must be a fractal-like edge, examining the cases, and seeing if whe can establish where and on what basis rests detailed claims about what ought to be free or not, and who and how such decisions ought to be made .
Like the Socratic method I linked above (but after the post you quote I think to be fair)
Well, when you get to define words so that they fit your precise meaning, I guess you’ll always be right. But here in the real world, limitations on free speech doesn’t just include what is called “prior restraint”, but also post-speech consequences, such as criminal penalties, civil suits, and possibly future injunctions. My bad for assuming you meant “freedom of speech” when you said free speech and not, in fact, that you meant “prior restraint on the freedom of speech”.
This doesn’t even make sense to me.
Limitations on free speech can come in many forms, but you’re simply redefining those limitations to only include the ones you want, and not the others we’ve been discussing. When you play with words that way, it makes it damn difficult to get anything meaningful from your posts.
Why didn’t you say this in the first place. For pages now, I’ve asked you, over and over, whether you think limitations can be placed on free speech and now, after you dodge direct questions and redefine words at your leisure, you say you’ve always agreed to it. Fuck you could have saved me a ton of time by being straightforward 2 pages ago.
So now the distinction you’re making isn’t between who made the speech like before or whether the speech is for profit or free, it’s when the limitations on the speech comes (whether it is prior restraint or after the fact consequences)? You just continue to change the playing field whenever you get in trouble, don’t you. I’m curious how you can consider post-speech imprisonment NOT to be a limitation on free speech, but, at this point, I don’t care what your answer is. I’m done. Every time I make a point, you simply snip it away and ignore it, instead favoring playing games. I’ve had enough. Enjoy the thread.
There is a town in my county (US, California) that has a large Cross of the Christian variety erected in a public park. There is a Easter Mass held in the park in front of the Cross each year. The town council regularly gets in trouble for applying Christian thought to their public deliberations as a secular government body.
Are you suggesting that all of this is OK despite repeated and strenuous objections from some locals?
Why is that not the only issue?
Are you suggesting that the government has an interest in regulating or prohibiting speech to the effect of “No dear, those pants don’t make you look fat”?
The child pornography was merely one example of “free speech”, which is why I placed in in parens as an afterthought. It was not the focus of the question.
Seems fair.
Of course. I think doing those things (invading privacy, libel, etc.) were examples of the harm that can come from speech.
I agree. Though I think extensions in the length of copyrights are ill advised and show the favor of big money lobbying over the benefits of public domain.
Sounds good to me. All of these, I think, are reasonable limitations on someone’s right to free expression. There are others (time, place, and manner regulations, incitement, classified information) I’d add, but I agree with much of what you say.
I tend to agree with this in general. There are some problems I have (Virginia v. Black is one and potential defamation issues even if the only people are willing parties), but by and large, I think we agree. Which is part of the reason content based free speech limitations are subject to strict scrutiny.
)
