CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
God,
Laurel's Free Speech Dilemma
- Thread starter Whispersecret
- Start date
Ezzy
Insignificantly Important
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2000
- Posts
- 2,252
As it happens...
I was watching "The Bullet Catchers" on the Discovery Channel the other week, and they were talking about the security set up at the White House.
Up until a couple of years ago if you attempted to speak to the President at the White House you would be taken "Free of Charge" to Bel View Hospital for 3 days of evaluations.
They have now instituted a policy that as long as you can present 16 (not really this high) forms of identification you can use a pad and write him a note.
If you do not have the checkable forms of ID you can not even write him a note.
So much for free speach.
EZ
KerrieOKeefe said:
I was watching "The Bullet Catchers" on the Discovery Channel the other week, and they were talking about the security set up at the White House.
Up until a couple of years ago if you attempted to speak to the President at the White House you would be taken "Free of Charge" to Bel View Hospital for 3 days of evaluations.
They have now instituted a policy that as long as you can present 16 (not really this high) forms of identification you can use a pad and write him a note.
If you do not have the checkable forms of ID you can not even write him a note.
So much for free speach.
EZ
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
Wow, great post on this thread, KillerMuffin. 
There's always talk of rights, but rarely are responsibilities mentioned and I agree 100% that they're two sides of the same coin.
Laurel may permit free speech here, but she's certainly not required to. As Scylis rightly points out, 1st amendment rights guarantee freedom from government regulation of speech and press (and as the Supreme Court has defined "speech" to be aural forms of communication and press as visual forms of communication, this would actually be a freedom of press issue, but I digress).
That being said, the myth of freedom of speech and our actual freedom of speech are 2 different things. Our speech is curtailed by government all the time. Think about just a few things your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to do (among MANY others):
>publish an ad for a hitman
>make threatening or obscene phone calls
>broadcast radio programs without licensing or on a frequency already broadcasting so the two signals clash.
>Knowingly publish (libel) or speak (slander) false and damaging information about another person
>publish child pornography
>announce or publish military plans during wartime
>spray graffiti on public property
>tell someone of your plans to assassinate the President.
Lasher's comment that Constitution doesn't protect you against the consequences of your speech is wrong, however. The Supreme Court has struck down numerous Federal and State speech regulations. But it's also ruled that the right isn't absolute. How else could all of the above be illegal?
There's always talk of rights, but rarely are responsibilities mentioned and I agree 100% that they're two sides of the same coin. Laurel may permit free speech here, but she's certainly not required to. As Scylis rightly points out, 1st amendment rights guarantee freedom from government regulation of speech and press (and as the Supreme Court has defined "speech" to be aural forms of communication and press as visual forms of communication, this would actually be a freedom of press issue, but I digress).
That being said, the myth of freedom of speech and our actual freedom of speech are 2 different things. Our speech is curtailed by government all the time. Think about just a few things your freedom of speech doesn't allow you to do (among MANY others):
>publish an ad for a hitman
>make threatening or obscene phone calls
>broadcast radio programs without licensing or on a frequency already broadcasting so the two signals clash.
>Knowingly publish (libel) or speak (slander) false and damaging information about another person
>publish child pornography
>announce or publish military plans during wartime
>spray graffiti on public property
>tell someone of your plans to assassinate the President.
Lasher's comment that Constitution doesn't protect you against the consequences of your speech is wrong, however. The Supreme Court has struck down numerous Federal and State speech regulations. But it's also ruled that the right isn't absolute. How else could all of the above be illegal?
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,696
I hear a lot of talk about RIGHTS. RIGHT to smoke. RIGHT to own a gun. RIGHT to 'free' speech. Our RIGHTS are disappearing in the USA, blah blah rant rant. Generally the talk comes from people who, as KM so eloquently posted, think they should be given carte blanche to do whatever they please without any responsibility or sacrifice. They get all in a snit over having to pay any taxes whatsoever (when the US has the lowest tax rate in the 'free' world) yet they happily use the roads, are protected by the police and military, enjoy the benefits those taxes bring...having to contribute in any way whatsoever is 'socialism'. They want to blow smoke in my face - if I don't let them, that's 'socialist'. They want to be able to own any kind of gun they choose, but don't want to be bothered with responsible ownership. Forcing any kind of rules on THEM is 'socialism'. Yet when it comes to EVIL things like Porn and Drugs and Gambling, they want hard penalties and jailtime. Freedom for me and my beliefs, but not for you and yours.
It's a lot like that here sometimes. Everyone comes to the BB, and they laugh, they cry, they publish their pornographic fiction and erotic poetry, they bitch and whine and let off steam...but the SECOND someone else does the same and it's not to their liking, they want me to go pull posts and censor everyone. Freedom for me, but not for you.
This is private property. You are not guaranteed the right to have your work published in your local newspaper, and you aren't guaranteed the right to have your posts printed here. There have been times when I've yanked posts - not because I felt they were 'bad', but because they opened me up to the possibility of legal trouble. Child porn, threats of violence, and the revealing of user's personal info are usually what gets yanked - not because that person doesn't have a RIGHT to make those statements, but because by doing it on private property they're bringing us into possible legal jeopardy.
If one truly believes in the John Stuart Mill interpretation of Freedom (freedom to act so long as your actions do not injure or impede another), then one cannot turn tail the first time one sees/reads something that offends him or her. You have to accept another's right to say/do something you may see as stupid, nasty, offensive, or downright evil. So long as it doesn't injure you or others (and no, hurt sensibilities do not count here) or keep you from expressing yourself, that post or action should stand.
It's very easy to pump your fist and jump around in praise of Free Speech. It is an entirely different thing altogether to witness it in action and still support it. Many people who claim to be advocates of the concept qualify it - "Oh yeah, I believe in Free Speech, but with limits" (those limits being whatever offends them). "I believe in Freedom, but they should outlaw the burning of the Flag," they'll say with no hint of irony whatsoever. They miss the point. Yes, flag-burning is distasteful (and non-productive - what exactly does it accomplish, other than pissing off everyone?), but if you truly believe in Freedom of Speech, then you must support those who say things you don't want to hear, who do things that you disagree with.
The next time you read a post that offends you and you're all set to demand that Laurel 'take control of the Board', stop and think about Freedom of Speech and what it really means to you. And never, ever take it for granted. In many countries, it's not a right. It doesn't have to be a right here if we let others take it from us.
It's a lot like that here sometimes. Everyone comes to the BB, and they laugh, they cry, they publish their pornographic fiction and erotic poetry, they bitch and whine and let off steam...but the SECOND someone else does the same and it's not to their liking, they want me to go pull posts and censor everyone. Freedom for me, but not for you.
This is private property. You are not guaranteed the right to have your work published in your local newspaper, and you aren't guaranteed the right to have your posts printed here. There have been times when I've yanked posts - not because I felt they were 'bad', but because they opened me up to the possibility of legal trouble. Child porn, threats of violence, and the revealing of user's personal info are usually what gets yanked - not because that person doesn't have a RIGHT to make those statements, but because by doing it on private property they're bringing us into possible legal jeopardy.
If one truly believes in the John Stuart Mill interpretation of Freedom (freedom to act so long as your actions do not injure or impede another), then one cannot turn tail the first time one sees/reads something that offends him or her. You have to accept another's right to say/do something you may see as stupid, nasty, offensive, or downright evil. So long as it doesn't injure you or others (and no, hurt sensibilities do not count here) or keep you from expressing yourself, that post or action should stand.
It's very easy to pump your fist and jump around in praise of Free Speech. It is an entirely different thing altogether to witness it in action and still support it. Many people who claim to be advocates of the concept qualify it - "Oh yeah, I believe in Free Speech, but with limits" (those limits being whatever offends them). "I believe in Freedom, but they should outlaw the burning of the Flag," they'll say with no hint of irony whatsoever. They miss the point. Yes, flag-burning is distasteful (and non-productive - what exactly does it accomplish, other than pissing off everyone?), but if you truly believe in Freedom of Speech, then you must support those who say things you don't want to hear, who do things that you disagree with.
The next time you read a post that offends you and you're all set to demand that Laurel 'take control of the Board', stop and think about Freedom of Speech and what it really means to you. And never, ever take it for granted. In many countries, it's not a right. It doesn't have to be a right here if we let others take it from us.
GuyJD
"Simply.....the best"
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2000
- Posts
- 4,898
HOW ABOUT THIS?
Post a warning on the front page of this site. It should explain that Literotica takes no liability for any actions taken by someone who choses to read any story posted here. That is, Literotica cannot be liable for a crime that is committed by a rapist or pedofile just because of a story that the individual read on this site.
Post a warning on the front page of this site. It should explain that Literotica takes no liability for any actions taken by someone who choses to read any story posted here. That is, Literotica cannot be liable for a crime that is committed by a rapist or pedofile just because of a story that the individual read on this site.
It is not free speech but the reaction to it that determines what is permissible or not. The argument that yelling fire in a crowded room is a reasonable justification for limiting free speech is an old one: and a wrong-headed one. It leads to the absurd conclusion that you can say anything you want--as long as no one hears you. And just because a person can go to another site to express his or her opinions is no justification for censorship. Once upon a time, blacks were told that they had a right to freedom--as long as they went somewhere else to express it--but not with whites. "You're free 'nigger'...as long as you know your place. There is no 'place' for free speech. Either it is universal and omnipresent or it is not free. Cynically, Orwell could have expreesed it this way: "All speech is free but some speech is more free than others." I pity those tender souls who find the burden of freedom so oppressive. Free expression does no harm to those who love freedom. Only the tyrant profits by setting limits to it. It is not the lie that censorship seeks to 'protect' us from but the truth.
Mustang Sally
Wanna go for a ride?
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2000
- Posts
- 3,511
There are so many excellent posts on this thread! I'm almost afraid to post my own thoughts since I'm sure I won't be able to express them nearly as well.
Most of you are making this too complicated. I think the Larry King analogy makes good sense. Similarly, if a guest in my home says something that offends me, I can justifiably tell him to leave. In my opinion, that has little to do with Freedom of Speech, and I don't think the "offensive posts" issue does, either.
My fourth grade teacher once said: Your right to extend your arm ends at the tip of another person's nose. (He then proceeded to spank the misbehaving child. Hypocrite.) In other words, your rights end where they infringe on those of another. So, in this situation, as Laurel herself said, your "right" to say whatever you want here on this board ends where it puts her in legal jeopardy.
Seems simple enough, IMHO.
Most of you are making this too complicated. I think the Larry King analogy makes good sense. Similarly, if a guest in my home says something that offends me, I can justifiably tell him to leave. In my opinion, that has little to do with Freedom of Speech, and I don't think the "offensive posts" issue does, either.
My fourth grade teacher once said: Your right to extend your arm ends at the tip of another person's nose. (He then proceeded to spank the misbehaving child. Hypocrite.) In other words, your rights end where they infringe on those of another. So, in this situation, as Laurel herself said, your "right" to say whatever you want here on this board ends where it puts her in legal jeopardy.
Seems simple enough, IMHO.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Willailla said:
Personal accountability and responsibility can't be legislated. These are concepts that the individual must take to heart, along with things like integrity, honor, and common sense.
Of course, yelling fire in a crowded public venue is illegal in lots of places. Is it censorship? After all it's an exercise of free speech. Or is it an exercise of common sense.
The only place one can truly be free is when one lives off by oneself and not around other people. You are free to say whatever you want, I am free to be offended by it. You are free to go up to the StudMuffin and exercise your free speech and opinion by calling him a stupid, spik loving, son of a bitch, useless cowardly army puke. What do you think the consequences of such an exercise of your freedom of speech would be? It would be prudent, not legislated, but prudent to exercise your personal accountability and censor yourself. No one is saying that YOU MUST CENSOR YOURSELF OR ELSE!!!!
What is being said is that you have rights, with rights come responsibility. Period. The misfortune is that people feel free to exercise their freedom of speech rights without the benefit of exercising their duty of being responsible. You have the right to say what you want, no one is making you behave responsibly. We just wish you would.
Note: I am using the word "you" in generic terms, not directed personally at anyone, particularly not the quoted individual.
RisiaSkye
Artistic
- Joined
- May 1, 2000
- Posts
- 4,387
Is it really this hard? Laurel is not a censor--she's a publisher. Just as you have the right to compose anything you like, no publisher is required to publish it--that would infringe upon their rights.
This seems like a very different thing than a first amendment question. Say what you what, shout it from the rooftops for all I care. But, you don't have the "right" to require that I or anyone else tacitly support your declamations by publishing them through my/their private means.
I have students who think that their constitutional rights are being infringed upon by getting a "B." The claim is that my acts of correction--addressing grammar issues, marking down for lack of evidence, etc. constitutes a breach of their rights to expression. That is patently untrue. They can and do write as they like--and they face the consequences, which are clearly outlined for them in advance. It seems like the same thing is going on here.
I'm not suggesting that censorship is good, either. To be honest, I think that people should be legally allowed to shout "Fire"--and should then be bitch-slapped by everyone in the theater. Action, reaction. When your views or actions are unpopular, you suffer the consequences--the consequences of a failure to act responsibly. If the theater goers stampede without first noting if there is even any smoke--in other words if they panic without clear and immediate danger, they should also accept responsibility for their own foolish action. And it may come in the form of broken legs.
I definitely agree that you can't legislate "acceptable" behavior--for precisely the reason that everyone's version of acceptability looks a bit different. All of the crying about inciting violence or potential for harm misses a pretty important point: how do you think the "Founding Fathers" incited and fought a bloody Revolution? They talked, and some chose to listen and agree. Others chose to fights against them, or to remain uninvolved in the whole conflict. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Video games and TV didn't make you do it, nor did the moron yelling obscenities in the corner. The only responsibility we can enforce is that the person exercising their rights also takes the consequences, which can be brutal.
This seems like a very different thing than a first amendment question. Say what you what, shout it from the rooftops for all I care. But, you don't have the "right" to require that I or anyone else tacitly support your declamations by publishing them through my/their private means.
I have students who think that their constitutional rights are being infringed upon by getting a "B." The claim is that my acts of correction--addressing grammar issues, marking down for lack of evidence, etc. constitutes a breach of their rights to expression. That is patently untrue. They can and do write as they like--and they face the consequences, which are clearly outlined for them in advance. It seems like the same thing is going on here.
I'm not suggesting that censorship is good, either. To be honest, I think that people should be legally allowed to shout "Fire"--and should then be bitch-slapped by everyone in the theater. Action, reaction. When your views or actions are unpopular, you suffer the consequences--the consequences of a failure to act responsibly. If the theater goers stampede without first noting if there is even any smoke--in other words if they panic without clear and immediate danger, they should also accept responsibility for their own foolish action. And it may come in the form of broken legs.
I definitely agree that you can't legislate "acceptable" behavior--for precisely the reason that everyone's version of acceptability looks a bit different. All of the crying about inciting violence or potential for harm misses a pretty important point: how do you think the "Founding Fathers" incited and fought a bloody Revolution? They talked, and some chose to listen and agree. Others chose to fights against them, or to remain uninvolved in the whole conflict. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Video games and TV didn't make you do it, nor did the moron yelling obscenities in the corner. The only responsibility we can enforce is that the person exercising their rights also takes the consequences, which can be brutal.
Similar threads
