There is an ideal of free speech, there is a legal protection of free speech and then there is a culture of free speech. None of these three things are the same.
Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks and co have the right to free speech and to denounce the war. And their political opponents have similarly the right to choose to organise boycotts of their products, cancel their appearances and not offer them contracts. But to think that this doesn’t have a stultifying effect upon the first would just be naive. There are many perfectly legal ways to hurt free speech.
Don’t do THIS either. Veiled accusations are not OK. “Ooh, you’re gonna be banned!” posts and “countdowns” are not helpful; if a person is a troll, you’re just giving them the attention they crave; if they aren’t a troll, you’re making a false accusation and an empty threat; either way, you’re doing nothing to counter the other person’s arguments.
If you think a person is a troll, report this to the moderators (it would be helpful to give us as much detail as you can as to why this you think the person is a troll, as opposed to merely ignorant, stubborn, downright stupid, or someone with strongly held opinions which conflict with your own strongly held opinions). Otherwise, publicly respond to this person as you would any other poster, or not at all.
Maybe, but what’s the alternative? Legislation forcing people to give celebrities contracts? Making boycotts illegal? I have to ask if you can think of a way to protect the celebrity’s freedom without infringing on the freedom of others.
Politically, I agree with Sarandon and Robbins. I respect their right to criticize our government. I respect the rights of others to criticize S&R for speaking out. I respect the rights of S&R to complain about the threats against them and against others who are critical of the government and so on and so on. That’s freedom of speech.
In the US, there is no right to threaten physical harm. There is no right to strike someone except in self-defense or in defense of another. I’m sorry to learn that in Belgium a person can be beaten for laughing, even though it is crude.
Goodness, Aldebaran! Would you beat up everyone who hurts your feelings? Aren’t your words strong enough? Why would you allow other people to control your emotions that way? That seems abnormal to me. Doesn’t that seem absolutely abnormal to you?
It would hurt my feelings if I lived in a country where the king could speak only one of the official languages. It would hurt my feelings to live where the government can collapse so easily. How long has it been since your government collapsed – fifteen years? twenty years?
I wonder if freedom of speech is insured when a government collapses.
There is absolutely no limit on Freedom of Thought.
If you are referring to the US, you are mistaken. You might want to read up.
Can I suggest a minor modification to your excellent idea of the stock Adebaran response? He loves dismissing people with the word “childish” without bothering to respond to the meat of their arguments. Hence, how about
"You’re right good God, you are so right!! Thank you, Aldebaran for opening my childish eyes!
Alderbaran, with all due respect, you’re not discussing the OP. Freedom of Speech is a very specific concept that has nothing to do with how I treat any citizen in this country. It has to do with how the GOVERNMENT treats citizens of this country.
I’d recommend you modify your OP, because you’re wildly deviating from it.
That there is a law on the subject, where the government is concerned, is not definitive if you have freedom of speech or not.
If you are prevented from speaking freely by your fellow citizens, you don’t have freedom of speech.
The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is that it’s a list of things the government can’t do to you or things you can’t be punished by the government for. THE ENTIRE PURPOSE.
If you’re prevented by your fellow citizens of speaking freely, you need to get the government involved. But that’s an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. That’s why I suggested that Alderbaran modify his OP.
Yes. We all have freedom, and we all have freedom of speech.
No one can stop us from publicly expressing our support for the war, and for Bush, or publicly opposing both. No one can compel us to support opinions by other citizens with which we disagree.
I don’t have to patronize Nike if I don’t like how they do business. I don’t have to buy Mother Jones magazine if I don’t like their opinions. I also don’t have to offer membership in a private organization to people who are raving, left-wing loonies.
I get to pick and choose what I think, and with whom I agree. It’s a beautiful thing.
Because it is enshrined in our Constitution, and you have offered no evidence or reasoning to show how the government has interfered with the rights of anyone as enumerated above.
Instead, you have offered your usual tripe about how anyone who disagrees with you insults cripples or joined the KKK.
Let me see if I can make this clear - the only kind of cripple I enjoy mocking is the intellectual and moral cripple. There is at least one on the SDMB whose posts make him appear to be so.
If I get a chance to organize my thoughts, I will see if I can open a nice Pit thread and let that poster know that I am thinking about him.
Gotta love that Freedom of Speech in Belgium where the government can fine you for distributing a booklet that said the Holocaust had been exaggerated.
Why is that a different discussion?
The OP poses that people are threatened/intimidated/prevented from speaking freely, thereby inhibiting freedom of speech.
Because the article the OP linked to speaks directly about Freedom of Speech, as understood by the First Amendment. He also confuses speech limited by government and speech limited by private entities. Please read zev’s comments on the first page to figure out what that means.
No that is not all it means.
Being able to speak freely is all it means.
I see the confusion, I think, you see that you have the ‘Freedom of Speech’ thing in your constitution and that therefore you have ‘freedom of speech’.
The ‘Freedom of Speech’ thing adresses only they way ‘freedom of speech’ can be curtailed by the government. It doesn’t address self-censorship of the media or intimidation by fellow citizens. Which also inhibit the degree to which you can speak freely. Which is what Aldebaran is trying to convey, I think.
This is a really entertaining thread, if only to see how people get drawn into straw-man arguments and how someone can consistently defend self-contradictory ideas. Just step back and just think, “Hmm. What kind of stuff is bouncing around in this guy’s head?”
Incorrect. It seems you’re refusing to try to understand what the U.S. Constitution is and does. If you don’t want to discuss this in that framework, start up a new thread.
Correct.
Ding ding ding! Winner!
Which is EXACTLY why he should modify his OP. He is talking about two entirely different things, but trying to incorrectly apply them to each other.
You’ve missed the point in the whole thing. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:
*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. *
Now what this means, is that Congress can’t legislate to establish a religion, prevent people from worshipping however they please, speaking freely, assembling peacefully and petitioning the government to make right what it may have messed up.
That’s it. Legally speaking, the “free speech” that you’re so worked up about is strictly a prohibition on the government from doing these things.
There’s even a body of law based on the First Amendment that has been built up over about 200 years that further refines when and where these protections are valid and when they are not. Generally speaking, intimidation, verbal assault, inciting to riot and things like that are not protected under the 1st Amendment, and the Government can haul you away for that.
Private citizens and organizations can legally (and often do) prohibit the free exercise of someone’s religion, abridge the freedom of speech, disallow the right to assemble, etc…
One thing you may not understand, being Belgian, is that the 1st Amendment is a Federal law. Generally any laws that would actually prevent or prosecute any sort of hate crimes or incite to riot kind of things usually would be state or local laws, unless it happened to occur somewhere under Federal jurisdiction(post office, federal building, etc…)
And about that guy on the message boards- yes, he’s a jerk and it was uncalled for, but hardly illegal- I bet even in Belgium, that’s just assholic behavior and not illegal. Legally, he has the right in the US to say whatever heartless and stupid comments he wants-it’s not the government’s place to prohibit speech. The moderators of the boards are fully empowered to ban him and disallow him access to any of their systems or even physical locations(churches, I guess) if they so desire.
However, what he said to you about “getting you” is a different story- that might well be illegal, again as a form of intimidation or verbal assault. That kind of thing is NOT protected speech.
