# USA Unfreedom of Speach **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 8, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383 "2003-09-08T21:04:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/201 "2003-09-10T23:28:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > Why on earth do you seem so obsessed with the idea that “the government” is “The Law”? The government can vote laws after the legal procedure required to do this. The government however isn’t the juridical system. You’re taking a more restrictive definition of “government” than most of us, I think. I gather most people on this thread define “government” as covering all official functions of a nation’s authority, including the courts (i.e. the juridical system) as well as law enforcement and prisons and other agencies that could be used as instruments of oppression. The varying arguments over the definition of “freedom of speech” seem to be that some of us (including myself) want protection from governmental interference, while others want protection from that _and_ private reactions. I find this last part unworkable, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/202 "2003-09-10T23:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*Every citizen can use the right to look at such publication as a personal insult and as a violation of the anti-discrimination law. > > Why on earth do you seem so obsessed with the idea that “the government” is “The Law”? The government can vote laws after the legal procedure required to do this. The government however isn’t the juridical system. I don’t now why you keep going on as if this is the case when I explained this already several times.\*\* I just have to say this, and then I’m done, once again, with you **Aldebaran**. You have been discourteous, insulting, intellectually dishonest, off-topic, and deliberating ignorant of anyone’s views but your own this entire thread and I’ll be glad to be done with you. Just like last time. However, before I go off to enjoy my life, I will, once again, point out that in Belgium, they have enacted a anti-revisionist law that allows people to fined for exercising their free speech by stating that the Holocaust was perhaps not as extensive as thought. Belgium’s government, through it’s parliament and enforced by the judicial branch, has severely restricted the right of free speech, as we in America understand it. It would be unfathomable in the United States that Congress could enact a law outlawing speech that, although deporable, is just that, speech. And the hypocrisy of extrapolating a problem with free speech in America from the actions of a few knuckleheads, while not surprising from you, is likewise a farce. Good Riddance. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/203 "2003-09-10T23:39:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > I was at Borders last week and looked for Al Franken’s new book and Joe Conason’s book Big Lies. There weren’t displayed in front with the new books, there were in the back shelves. Then I saw this display, “Politics and You.” There were 3 pro-Bush books, Ann Coulter’s books Treason and Slander, and a couple neutral history books. I asked the lady at the help desk, why was the display so obviously biased, and she didn’t know but she would check with the manager. I had the feeling that nothing would be done, so while nobody was looking I added Franken’s and Conason’s books to the display. Woohoo! Direct ACtion! Viva la Revolucion! When I go to bookstores, I usually rearrange the Feng Shui books. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/204 "2003-09-11T00:15:14Z")
From Optihut > [@](#): > > The counter demonstration I am thinking about took place in the same city at the same time, but the two demonstrations didn´t mix, as that would definitely cause a bloody riot. Ah, ok. Yes, thats exactly why. Anyway, I was using that as an example of why I think the police did what the did re: McCarthyism Watch cited article on war protesters being barred from counter protesting at a Support the Troops (pro-war) rally. This doesn’t excuse the single protester at a Bush speech thing, as this very well MAY have been a case of abuse. I’m unsure as I don’t know all the details. No flames from me, Roger\_Mexico…appreciate your input. I don’t agree with all you said, but I don’t disagree with it all either. I think we need to be ever vigilant about our freedoms, especially after 911. Its a natural desire for Democracies to become complacent, and let their guard down. We want to be going about our business, making money, having families and going on vacation, etc etc. We usually just bump along until someone comes along and stabs us in the back or kicks us in the crotch…then we react with confusion, hurt, fear…and anger. Lots and lots of boiling anger. There are a lot of reasons why AMericans have always reacted this way, but thats for another thread. Its also natural, in times of crisis to look to a strong leader to save us, and to react with a defensive mentality…a fortress mentality if you will. This is part of human nature that goes back for our entire existance. I think that we need to guard against letting our liberty be sacrificed for our protection and safety. If we sacrifice who we are for safety…well, we are lost IMO. I have faith that , at least in this crisis, and at this time in our history, that we are vigilant enough that this won’t and isnt’ happening. Our grand children, or theirs, or their will have to fend for themselves and weather their own storms however… From Roger\_Mexico > [@](#): > > Xtisme, I would say that freedom of speech is alive and well in America. I think the system works so well and we are so sensitive to this issue, that as soon as there is the slightest deviation (teachers suspended, etc.), it becomes a major issue. I don’t think the government has to step in and do anything, and anything they did do would probably be challenged as prior restraint. I agree completely. From Aldebaran > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, but your argument that they weren’t “in the USA” holds no ground at all. The “embedded” journalists were picked out carefully by the US and couldn’t transmit to the outside world what they wanted because they had to work under direct US control. That was why this whole system was implied to begin with. The embedded journalist (no quote as thats what they were) were WITH the US troops. They were under strict controlls as to what they could and could not say…and if you don’t understand why you are indeed a noob. Personally, I think you know EXACTLY why this is, and you are beeing willfully ignorant, but on the off chance you really don’t understand I’ll try and explain. The reason the embedded journalist were censored in what they could and could not report was due to security. If you actually watched any of the US stations (which I doubt) they repeatedly said this…they didn’t want to give any information or intellegence away (you know, there was a war going on and all that). I’d like you to give me some examples of any other country that even ALLOWS journalist to go with FRONT LINE TROOPS INTO BATTLE! Only exception I can think of would be the British, and I’m not sure if the BBC was with the guys at the very front. Maybe some of our British bretheren know the answer to that. If other countries allow this also, my appologies. As to what was reported. Well, I’d say that news is a business. The reports (from embedded American journalists as well as American news stations), for the most part, were designed and constructed with the American viewer in mind. I don’t think they necessarily lied, or even distorted the truth (well…they ALL distort things somewhat admittedly)…I think they simply put in those details that they felt were most appealing to the US viewer, while leaving out those that wouldn’t be. Reading the BBC, I’d say they do exactly the same thing. From what little I’ve read/seen from Al Jazera (translations mostly, as their English version web site was still under construction during the war), they did exactly the same thing, tailoring it to their target audience. Nothing specifically wrong with this at all. Convincing YOU of this though, I fear is an impossible task. I don’t suppose you could be asked to provide two articles, one from the US and one from another source, clearly showing that the US embedded journalist either: A) Lied blatently (at the request of the US…or even just lied blatantly, though this wouldn’t be a FoS issue then but a credibility issue) B) Were coerced into NOT reporting something that was news worthy, that they ‘really wanted’ to report, and not critical information that would endanger the troops at the front. As far as reading ‘other’ news sources, well, I admit the only foreign news source I read regularly is the BBC. I find that skipping around between the various US news web sites I usually get a fair idea as to whats happening (I even hit Fox occationally…mostly for laughs). Can you say the same though? Do you regularly read ANY of the mainstream US news web sites or papers? All this is getting pretty far afield though from the OP (IMO) which is, The US unfreedom of speech. You have yet to make any where near a convincing case that this is a true statement. However, YOU obviously think you have a point by this: From Aldebaran > [@](#): > > Let’s take the example of the “embedded” journalists during the invasion of Iraq. You call that free speech and freedom of reporting?? Well I call that laughable and a violation of everything that is meant by “free press and free speech”. Instead of a rant or a sound bite, care to take a stab at exactly WHY the embedded reporters were: A) Laughable B) A violation of everything meant by 'free press and free speech" Please try to actually list out a coherent answer that makes some kind of logical sense. Feel free to actually back up your arguements with, you know, cites and such. Try not to rant back at ME, but try and actually answer the question in a mature, coherent and logical manner. Thanks, XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/205 "2003-09-11T00:35:51Z")
> [@](#): > > And I’m sorry, but most of my posts will tend to come across as a bit strange in style and structure to native English speakers. Those who have met me before are by now informed about why this is. It is perfectly obvious why your posts come across as they do, and it has nothing to do with English skills. > [@](#): > > When reading your last comments, I can only conclude that you are completely unable to put aside your pointless prejudices. > Your view on me was prejudiced even before you posted one letter on this topic. This from someone who freely admits that he doesn’t even bother reading other people’s cites. > [@](#): > > I usely describe myself as someone with one single working braincell. Don’t exaggerate. > [@](#): > > I already said twice that I don’t address this issue you came up with, and I also explained that “the government” can hardly interfear on its own when someone violates a law in Belgium. I have read this five times, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Just exactly what the hell are you talking about? If anything. There is only one kind of ignorance against which the SDMB labors in vain, and that is deliberate ignorance. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/206 "2003-09-11T00:41:39Z")
I can’t believe you guys are giving this guy 5 pages of your time. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/207 "2003-09-11T00:43:51Z")
I don’t exaggerate. I was born with it. And what is so difficult to understand that the government in Belgium is not THE LAW. Is the principle that a country has a juridical system that works completely independent from the government that alien to you? I have constantly the feeling that these boards are populated with teenagers, sorry. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/208 "2003-09-11T00:46:01Z")
Its been futile, but I want to see if its POSSIBLE for him to reply to just ONE question. I’m not even necessarily asking for it to be a good reply, or even coherent. As an agnostic (read lapsed Catholic) I don’t really believe in miricles at all. However, it would be something like one if he’d just reply ONCE to something asked of him with something resembling logic or reason. /em Waiting in hopeful anticipation for the coming of the Master… -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/209 "2003-09-11T00:49:13Z")
From Aldebaran > [@](#): > > And what is so difficult to understand that the government in Belgium is not THE LAW. > > Is the principle that a country has a juridical system that works completely independent from the government that alien to you? > > I have constantly the feeling that these boards are populated with teenagers, sorry. /em looks crushed My hope was in vain obviously. If its any consolation, Aldebaran, I feel the same way sometimes when certain people post… Later all, XT ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/210 "2003-09-11T01:11:16Z")
So you are claiming that the courts are not part of the government in Belgium? I get the feeling that some people aren’t really as stupid as their posts make them seem, but it is not constant. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/211 "2003-09-11T01:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > I don’t exaggerate. I was born with it. I’m not sure what you’re excusing, but it _is_ just an excuse. > [@](#): > > And what is so difficult to understand that the government in Belgium is not THE LAW. > Is the principle that a country has a juridical system that works completely independent from the government that alien to you? How are you defining “government”, anyway? Now I’m curious. Even the U.S. considers their “government” to comprise of three major branches: executive (the President), legislative (Congress) and judicial (all those judges and stuff). You’re clinging to a definition the only you seem to believe in an attempt to prove us wrong. It’s not working. > [@](#): > > I have constantly the feeling that these boards are populated with teenagers, sorry. You’re wrong about a lot of things, aren’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/212 "2003-09-11T02:07:08Z")
Here is prominent case that has lots of issues: antiwar activities, employee misconduct, pro-Palestinian employee and pro-Israel management. When speech isn’t free Chronicle writer gets punished for antiwar political activity. By Steven T. Jones SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE technology writer Henry Norr was suspended from his job last week after being arrested in an antiwar civil disobedience action. Although editors at the paper have cited Norr’s misuse of sick time as the reason for the suspension, it’s clear to observers both at the paper and outside that Norr is actually being punished for engaging in political activity, a decision that raises complicated issues of free speech, journalistic ethics, and wartime ethos. Unlike many big-city daily papers’, the Chronicle’s ethics policy doesn’t ban reporters from protesting. “The Chronicle does not forbid employees from engaging in political activities but needs to prevent any appearance of a conflict of interest,” the ethics policy, a copy of which was obtained by the Bay Guardian, states. [http://www.sfbg.com/37/27/cover\_chronicle.html](http://www.sfbg.com/37/27/cover_chronicle.html) Related stories: [http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.norr.0410w](http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.norr.0410w) [http://www.sfbg.com/37/31/news\_norr.html](http://www.sfbg.com/37/31/news_norr.html) A radio co-host claimed she was fired for expressing antiwar views on the radio: [http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/07/07/200307079700.htm](http://greenvilleonline.com/news/2003/07/07/200307079700.htm) The station is owned by Clear Channel, which has extensive ties to Bush, and sponsors pro-war rallies around the country. And, from the other side of the aisle, an NPR radio host claims he was fired for expressing pro-war views: [http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0304/04/a05-126999.htm](http://www.detnews.com/2003/metro/0304/04/a05-126999.htm) He also said that NPR sucks and the listeners should tune in to Fox News. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/213 "2003-09-11T02:10:51Z")
Shodan, In Belgium the power of jurisdiction is in the hands of independent and undismissable judges. The role of the government and the king as head of state - by which the one can’t operate without the backing of the other - in the composition of the juridical power is limited to their power of officially appoint judges. Of course this has as result that some political influence isn’t ruled out completely, yet no judge has any responsibility towards any political party or restricting ties to a political party or government. (Belgium is a federal state) Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/214 "2003-09-11T04:47:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*In Belgium the power of jurisdiction is in the hands of independent and undismissable judges. > > The role of the government and the king as head of state - by which the one can’t operate without the backing of the other - in the composition of the juridical power is limited to their power of officially appoint judges. > \*\* Have I got this right? The role of the government in legal matters is limited to appointing undismissable judges? Just wanting to make sure I have the correct perception. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/215 "2003-09-11T05:09:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Optihut \* > \*\* > Nobody wants to force people to go see their movies, but the aforementioned complete social shunning isn´t acceptable either. > \*\* Fair enough. What’s an acceptable level of fans shunning them, and by extention (since some can’t shun them after all) how many people should be forced to see their movies, then? I don’t see how it can be both ways, either you allow people at will to shun or not shun without restriction, or you’re forcing them to see the movies. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/216 "2003-09-11T05:51:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cicada2003 \* > \*\*Have I got this right? The role of the government in legal matters is limited to appointing undismissable judges? Just wanting to make sure I have the correct perception. \*\* Don’t bother. He’s using a definition of “government” that apparantly only applies to the legislatures and executive, while I think most people would include the judiciary. However you define it, though, a judge does have some enforcement powers in determining sentences and whatnot. They may not have the same political goals as the legislature or executive, but they make decisions on crucial issues like freedom of speech and if you are wary of abuses by “the government” (however you define it) it would be foolish not to keep an eye on court decisions, also. ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/217 "2003-09-11T09:39:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfkin477 \* > \*\*Fair enough. What’s an acceptable level of fans shunning them, and by extention (since some can’t shun them after all) how many people should be forced to see their movies, then? I don’t see how it can be both ways, either you allow people at will to shun or not shun without restriction, or you’re forcing them to see the movies. \*\* Eh? I thought the article mentioned them not being welcome at their niece´s school or something. If everyone around you starts avoiding you and treats you like a leper for expressing your political views, then I´d say that´s social shunning. Which movies people watch in their freetime is their business. Frankly I clarified in depth, that my beef would be with discrimination. If you refuse to understand that and hang yourself on “forcing someone to see a movie”, which I have NEVER even suggested by the way, then by all means go ahead. Just be aware that it doesn´t have ANYTHING to do with what I wrote in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/218 "2003-09-11T10:38:29Z")
Cicada, There are in principle 3 different and separated functions of the powers in Belgium. The government has the law making power. The jurisdictional function has the power of jurisdiction. The execution of the law as formulated in the laws = application on the behaviour of the citizens, lies by the administration = executional power. Political evolution within the Belgian State led to the following situation in practice: The government is formed by a coalition of political parties who have together a majority in Chamber and Senate. For its formation is the leading instance of the execution power thus dependent of the law making power. On the other hand is the government, by the mere fact that it can rely on the support of the parliamentary majority, the most important motor of the law making activity. I hope it is a bit clear as I described it. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/219 "2003-09-11T12:00:52Z")
Here in Israel, the word “government” refers to the executive branch only. I suppose it could mean the same in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![zuma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9c0ed/32.png) [@zuma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zuma)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383/220 "2003-09-11T12:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > **I find it extremely childish and laughable (and as I said: a very good example of the case I bring up here) that people here make every effort possible to picture me as “US hater” and “defending a political agenda”.** You’re right good God, you are so right!! Thank you, **Aldebaran** for opening my childish eyes! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-unfreedom-of-speach/200383.md?page=12)