Being able to speak freely - in the sense being free of the disapproval of others - is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Attempts to put this guarantee quickly run into conflict with the freedom of others to disagree with you.
Sarandon and Robbins are free to spout whatever half-witted hoo-hah they like. I am perfectly free to boycott their movies, protest their public appearances, decline to induct them into my Hall of Fame, and generally make it clear that I disagree with their opinions.
Part of the free market of ideas, and all that.
It sounds to me, based on Aldebaran’s description of how he would like things to operate, that he believes the government should be forbidding anyone to take action to display their disagreement with Sarandon and Robbins.
Of course, he is probably talking out his ass anyway.
(a) I think I tried to mention this before, though then of course it got dragged away into the trainwreck in pages 1 and 2, but we are facing a serious cultural failure-to-communicate here.
Strict US Consitutionalists understand that F-o-S in the USA refers specifically to the provision that there shall be no legal sanction by the state for expression, and that counter-expressions by private individuals are a different issue altogether. Then there is a second camp of those who believe in a concept of F-o-S entirely different and unrelated to the US Constitutional one under which it means that your speech is only “free” if it indeed cannot be suppressed or “chilled” by anyone whether state or private.
These are different concepts. Different. They both use the words “free speech” but they mean different things. Shall we continue yelling past each other?
Colaterally to both of these there are those that would make a distinction based on the specific merits of the speech in question, where certain speech deemed 'bad" can’t happen at all, and OK speech requires absolute protection from any consequence. You got those in every country.
If I have to fear for my job if I speak my mind, I do not have freedom of speech.
If I am refused a Job because I am Catholic, I do not have freedom of religion.
You want to constrict the meaning of a simple english phrase to what your constitution says about it.
Freedom is not only a matter of what a government may or may not do but also what other institutions or private citizens are allowed or not allowed to do to put pressure on someone.
This has EVERYTHING to do with the article.
It is all about how people are afraid to speak freely. Not because the government is threatening them but other citizens.
Now, you can shout all you like that the government is not doing anything, that your constitution ensures that it doesn’t, and therefore you have Freedom of Speech. That is just so much nonsense if people are actually afraid to speek.
I just wish that Alde would make just ONE thread, lable it “I hate America”, and simply keep posting all his anti-american veiled as a debate propaganda in one spot. Or if that is not possible let us know in the title that you dont really want to debate, but preach on the EVIL that is America. Maybe add a “(EA)” at the end of all your titles so we know.
I had a nice reasoned response to this thread all typed up but by the time I got to page 3, I realized no matter what I said it wouldnt matter. Alde would call me childish, or insist I had not read his earlier posts, maybe he would suggest I travel to the Promised Land that is Belgium to understand better the deep, enlightining ideas he is getting across.
Anyhow, since im here and typing…I will add my small contribution to what has been said a million times over. Wait, no I wont…just read JRD’s comments above. He sumed up pretty good.
Who is afraid to speak? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?? Did you read the article? You did? I did too…seems they weren’t TOO afraid, as we all read it for gods sake. I haven’t seen any indication that people are “afraid” to speak out about Bush, the administration, or anything else. From the constant yammering from the left, I’d say the fear factor is pretty low. As I said earlier, the title on the cover of Time Magizine was “Untruths and Consequences” with a big frigging picture of Bush on it. Does THIS indicate that they are cowering in fear??
No one that I’m aware of is cowering in fear, afraid to speak their minds for fear of the citizens rising up and lynching them (or whatever else is in your mind). Maybe you could provide a cite for this, as I’m obviously missing it…after all, I only live here. You seem to have some deeper insights into whats happening in this country, so please provide them.
The article quoted in the OP does NOT constitute a cite, BTW. You guys are taking one article, written by some spoiled, rich, pampered CELIBERATY, rife with unsupported speculations, anecdotes and other trash, and inflating that to the whole country. Those famous people that spoke out against the war, many of them wanted it both ways…they wanted to use thier positions and access to mass media to speak out and rail against the president and the administration against the war (as is their right), but didn’t want to be criticized when their views were unpopular with some of their fan base. Tough shit. They wanted their cake and eat it too…wanted to ‘speak out’ and still be totally popular with everyone. Not gona happen.
Is there a place on the planet where you can say anything you choose with zero threat to your job? Are you permitted to say anything you choose to your employer now? Can you tell your employer that she is a “dirty Jew” and that the Holocaust never happened with absolutely no fear for your job (and advancement, I’d like to add)?
Xtisme, the argument was whether the article had anything to do with freedom of speech. Which was denied because the government wasn’t involved and therefore had nothing to do with freedom of speech and the OP should be changed.
So, yes I went by the article to state that the OP was correct.
Whether the picture painted in the article (that people are afraid to speak against the war) is entirely correct, I indeed cannot judge to the extent that someone actually living in the US can.
Shodan, there is a difference between disagreeing and supressing.
If you disagree you are free to speak up, not buy a product or whatever.
Firing a teacher, f.e. is not disagreement, it’s supression.
I believe that cimmon politeness and civility have gone the way of the dinosaur in the United States, and I plan to teach my children otherwise. It is also rude and cruel to aim ridicule at those less fortunate that yourselves . . .
What?
The OP wasn’t “USA: A Really Rude Nation?”
Sorry.
It looks like we’re talking about two different things here . . .
Well, if you have an employee who constantly calls you racist names, and you are legally prevented from firing them, certainly your freedom has been limited.
Further, suppose you go to a particular store to buy some product. While you are there, the store’s owner makes a racist remark, or any other remark you disagree with. Now, do you have the right to shop somewhere else, or does the store owner have the right to demand your business?
With this in mind, does the store owner have freedom of speech or not? He has to decide whether or not to keep quiet around the customers, for fear that they will go elsewhere and he will go out of business. Now, keep in mind that nothing is stopping the owner from expressing his views, but similarly, nothing is stopping the customers from deciding they don’t want to deal with him.
Frankly, if you have absolute freedom, then by definition, no-one else does. Your absolute freedom would enable you to walk into people’s homes uninvited and talk to them at length about your religion. They won’t be able to tell you to leave, because that would infringe on your freedom. They won’t be able to disagree with you, because that (apparantly) infringes on your freedom. And if you demand food from them and they refuse to provide it, apparantly that’s an intrusion on your freedom, too.
Of course, their freedom has been infringed, but that’s apparantly not as important to you.
The OP’s premise is mixed up with his political views, and I’ll ask him again to seperate them out. As I understand it, his logic is:
[ul][li]Sarandon and Robbins express anti-war views.[/li][li]Aldeberan agrees with those views.[/li][li]Sarandon and Robbins have suffered economic consequences from people who disagree with them.[/li][li]Aldeberan concludes the U.S. is an unfree nation.[/ul][/li]
I’d ask the OP to try the same sequence with one small change:
[ul][li]Sarandon and Robbins express pro-war views.[/li][li]Aldeberan disagrees with those views.[/li][li]Sarandon and Robbins have suffered economic consequences from people who disagree with them.[/li][li]Aldeberan concludes the U.S. is an unfree nation.[/ul][/li]
If Aldeberan can draw the same conclusion even when he disagrees with the views being expressed, then I’ll have some respect from him. He’ll still be wrong (the economic consequences prove nothing about the freedom of Americans), but I’ll still have some respect.
Okay, so is a boycott infringing on freedom of speech? If I refuse to attend a Susan Sarandon movie because of her speech, is that allowed? And if I don’t attend, and others like me don’t attend, and the movie does poorly, leading to Susan Sarandon getting fewer job offers, is that allowed? Because that means her speech has threatened her job, and you specifically said that if a job were threatened as a result of speech then we’re not dealing with “freedom of speech” at all. Is that a fair representation of your position?
So, a teacher must be permitted to say anything he chooses and never be fired in order to guarantee his freedom of speech, right?
I understand this part. I agree, the OP was incorrect (if thats what you are saying) because the poster of the OP doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about as far as America goes.
From Latro
I’m not sure I’m following you here at all. Doesn’t “So, yes I went by the article to state that the OP was correct.” contradict “Which was denied because the government wasn’t involved and therefore had nothing to do with freedom of speech and the OP should be changed.”? What are you trying to say here? How is this a counter to whats been posted repeatedly?
From Latro
A cite of an example of a teacher (or anyone else) being fired solely because of his political beliefs would be helpful here. AFAIK there has been no one fired because they spoke out against the war (qualification: in a reasonable fashion), but if you know of one, please cite it so we can look into this deeper. This sounds to me something like EVERYONE knows that people jumped out of windows during the Stock Market Crash of '29. EVERYONE knows this happened all the time…problem is, it didn’t really.
If we could look at some actual cases where people were ‘supressed’ then maybe we can gain some insight into whats happening (or NOT happening) in America ATM, and also some deeper insights into what Freedom of Speech REALLY means, and how it applies here.
Now that Aldebaran has once again fled another train wreck of his creation, maybe we can discuss this reasonably.
Could you provide a cite showing that teachers are being fired for expressing their opposition to the war, or to Bush, outside the classroom?
I am sorry to say that I do not consider what Robbins or Sarandon claim to be credible.
If you could also briefly explain why this is evidence that Robbins or Sarandon are being denied their free speech rights by not being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, I would also appreciate that.
In other words, is “I don’t want those morons in my Hall of Fame” suppression, or disagreement? How about Bryan Elkers’ example of the racist store owner?
Aldebaran claims there is ‘Unfreedom of speech’ and yes, I think the article does support that claim. jsgoddess I hope you agree that the above examples are not just cases of disagreement. They go further than freedom of speech, not attending or boycotting a product.
Latro, I think your faith in Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon’s relatives is a tad naive. The “article” is an opinion piece, and can in no way reflect indisputable fact. I think what Shodan is looking for is something a bit more concrete.
All right, I concede that that may be true.
So far, to support Alderbaran’s claim, all we have been given is this article.
I found, however, that the counter argument (that this had nothing to do with freedom of speech) didn’t hold water.