|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Dear Presleytarian and Kenwritez.
I didn’t desist from responding because I disrespect your views or have a fear of being challenged, but I felt it was unnecessary to respond because it seems to me my statement was ‘self-evident’ to coin a phrase and because of the wealth of knowledge in the public domain.
However, here we go.
Please read about Richard Belmar, who is about to be released from US Army care. Amongst other things he stands accused of declaring allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. Notwithstanding the truth or otherwise of other accusations against him or other detainees (one is accused of planning to fly over the Houses of Parliament and drop anthrax on it, I think), it is clear that declaring allegiance to Osama Bin Laden is part of the justification to detain someone at Guantanamo Bay camp. If not, then why list it as an accusation?
Here is the story.
For example of small State Government restricting the most basic of human rights in a democratic society, the right to vote, see here
and here.
For information about big State censorship, see here and here and here and here and here.
For some examples of Corporate censorship, please see here
and here
and her
and here
and here
and here
and here
Just to show that we too, do not live in the land of Freedom From The State, please read here
Before I hear the cry of more strident ‘challenge’, let me say as clearly as I can, that I am not ‘picking’ on the US. I cited censorship in the US only because of the ardent denials that it exists there. In fact it is endemic throughout the world. As humanity has given up the attempt to define ‘fair and reasonable restraint’ satisfactorily, the rulers all over have exercised their power without restraint.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
Dear Erin quote:
which martyrs are the ones who were executed because they wanted the state to enshrine their particular beliefs about blasphemy into criminal law?
I don't remember saying anything about asking the state to enshrine my 'particular beliefs about blasphemy into criminal law' - there are more ways than one to skin a crocodile.
However, if you wish to study the life of a martyr who opposed idolatry you can try Holy Martyr Aquilina; alternatively, if you seriously wish to deepen your knowledge, you can spend a year reading the Prologue from Ochrid by St Nikolai Velimirovich - there are plenty of martyrs mentioned there for your edification.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Wanderer, as has been already stated, the state can accomplish things by laws using prisons or other criminal punishments. Whereas the private entities are merely exercising their freedom to not say or do some things.
This of course is no reason why private entities should be allowed to restrict your freedom of expression however they like or have no restrictions on what they do or do not express.
For example, it is illegal for a private entity that advertises houses for sale to merely exercise their freedom not to advertise houses for sale owned by minorities. They have the freedom not to say what the minority house owners want them to, especially when they are in prison.
[ 13. January 2005, 22:06: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
You're right, Ley Druid, it isn't a reason. It was a description of the difference.
However, your example wasn't about expressing opinions, it was about business practices. Said real estate agent would be perfectly free to state that they don't like working with any variety of skin pigment they care to mention, just as long as they didn't discriminate in their business in any way.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I hope someone else has told you about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy but the state in which you live, in spite of being quote:
expressly forbidden from restricting your freedom of expression
CAN and DOES quote:
restrict your freedom of expression within areas it has control over
Look what naughty little laws the Congress has passed abridging freedom of speech: Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Before I hear the cry of more strident ‘challenge’, let me say as clearly as I can, that I am not ‘picking’ on the US. I cited censorship in the US only because of the ardent denials that it exists there. In fact it is endemic throughout the world. As humanity has given up the attempt to define ‘fair and reasonable restraint’ satisfactorily, the rulers all over have exercised their power without restraint.
Jesus H Tap-Dancing Christ.
Just because the state DOES impose restrictions does not mean it SHOULD. I think you'll find that I've already said that the US does impose a freedom of restriction that is, IMO, completely unconstitutional and morally repugnant. The question is whether or not the state should impose any restriction on expression of ideals and beliefs. It should NOT. EVER. No excuse, no reason, no nothing that would ever justify in any way, shape or form the restriction of freedom of expression.
If you disagree and believe that there should be a restriction, you are advocating a stance that will, without a doubt, be used to shut your own self up one day. If you're happy to have yourself be muzzled by the state, then we really don't inhabit the same reality.
Isaac David --
quote:
I don't remember saying anything about asking the state to enshrine my 'particular beliefs about blasphemy into criminal law' - there are more ways than one to skin a crocodile.
You said you stand with the martyrs. What we're talking about here is whether or not the state should enforce any particular stream of religious thought. I'm trying to make the connection between your statement about standing with the martyrs and the subject at hand. The only connection I could come up with is that you know of martyrs who were martyred because they wanted the state to enforce a particular stream of religious thought. Otherwise, "I'll stand with the martyrs" doesn't make a damn bit of sense and is a pompous, arrogant non sequitur in an otherwise interesting, if frustrating, discussion.
Wanderer...
quote:
Erin, can you explain this slowly to me because I'm thick and I just don't get it? If it is acceptable (good even) for a private enterprise to restrict your freedom of expression in certain ways, why is it not good when your state does it?
Because I can look at the policies of a private business and decide if I wish to do business with them. If I agree, fabulous. If I don't, I can take my business elsewhere to a place whose policies I do agree with.
When the agent in question is the state, you have no other options. Also, the state can impose a fine, jail time, etc, whereas a business can just say "I don't want you saying X on my property". There's a huge difference.
For those who think that the government should be able to censor expression of ideas, which ideas should the government be free to censor? And why? I'm sure that you won't object when a Muslim comes up with his list of objectionable ideas (including that Jesus is the Second Person of the Triune God). Or when a racist lists his objectionable ideas. And so on. If you do object, what makes your list of ideas any more sacrosanct than someone else's?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Just because the state DOES impose restrictions does not mean it SHOULD...
If you disagree and believe that there should be a restriction, you are advocating a stance that will, without a doubt, be used to shut your own self up one day.
This is the absolute bottom line for me.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: Scanning all those links from Glimmer ... stones and glasshouses come to mind.
Not to my mind, they don't.
I’ve only got a moment, but I found Glimmer's links unpersuasive.
RE: Richard Belmar. I’m not hear to defend the Guantanamo Bay detentions. I believe many of them to be unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has already made clear that foreign nationals imprisoned without charges at the Guantanamo Bay camps are entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. civilian courts. If Richard Belmar was held for pledging allegiance to OBL, his detention is unconstitutional. If, as some sources have suggested, Richard Belmar was in Pakistan in an Al Qaeda safe house, that’s a different matter. That’s not protected speech.
RE: The Florida Voting Brouhaha. The First Amendment has nothing to do with the right to vote. Why is this at all relevant?
RE: Elton John’s position on censorship. 1) Does Glimmer really derive his or her opinion on American constitutional jurisprudence from a pop singer? 2) No one has “censored” the Dixie Chicks. They’re allowed to say whatever they want. Just as people who don’t like what they say are free to protest at their concerts and not buy their records. How is that censorship? Or is Glimmer suggesting that people should be forced to attend Dixie Chicks concerts against their will? The First Amendment guarantees my right to say controversial things. It doesn’t guarantee that people will like what I say or will like me for saying it. And if I don’t have a thick enough skin to be able to handle opposition, I should exercise my right to shut up.
RE: Alleged censorship of newspaper stories. Newspaper owners are free to run the stories they like and quash the stories they don’t. Just as I am free not to buy their rags and get my news from other sources.
RE: FCC crack-down on vulgarity on TV. The FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast television and radio because the airwaves are legally considered to be public property. The FCC has no jurisdiction whatsoever over cable TV, satellite radio, movies, the Internet, magazines, or newspapers.
RE: Bill Maher and the like. The White House Press Secretary’s comment that Bill Maher’s statement about the 9/11 hijackers vs. the U.S. military was “a terrible thing to say” is hardly government censorship.
RE: The failure of the press to challenge the WMD story. They were lazy and foolish, but how did the government “censor” them?
RE: “Corporate censorship.” As I’ve explained about 47 times already, the First Amendment circumscribes the activities of the State, not private entities. If a citizen doesn’t like the business practices of Cisco or Microsoft or Wal-Mart, don’t do business with them. Of course, SlimFast didn’t renew Whoopie Goldberg’s endorsement contract after she made vulgar references to Bush in public. The company has a right to hire or fire anyone they want and if they believe that her statements will make it less likely that consumers will buy their product, they’re free not to pick up her option. The First Amendment guarantees her right to speak her mind. It doesn’t guarantee her right to speak her mind and keep lucrative endorsement deals.
Free speech isn't free. It often comes with unpleasant consequences. But unlike some, I don't believe it's the role of the government to mollycoddle me if my tough talk results in tough opposition.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I hope someone else has told you about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy but the state in which you live, in spite of being quote:
expressly forbidden from restricting your freedom of expression
CAN and DOES quote:
restrict your freedom of expression within areas it has control over
Look what naughty little laws the Congress has passed abridging freedom of speech: Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time.
quote:
Originally posted by Glimmer:
Before I hear the cry of more strident ‘challenge’, let me say as clearly as I can, that I am not ‘picking’ on the US. I cited censorship in the US only because of the ardent denials that it exists there. In fact it is endemic throughout the world. As humanity has given up the attempt to define ‘fair and reasonable restraint’ satisfactorily, the rulers all over have exercised their power without restraint.
Jesus H Tap-Dancing Christ.
Just because the state DOES impose restrictions does not mean it SHOULD. I think you'll find that I've already said that the US does impose a freedom of restriction that is, IMO, completely unconstitutional and morally repugnant. The question is whether or not the state should impose any restriction on expression of ideals and beliefs. It should NOT. EVER. No excuse, no reason, no nothing that would ever justify in any way, shape or form the restriction of freedom of expression.
If you disagree and believe that there should be a restriction, you are advocating a stance that will, without a doubt, be used to shut your own self up one day. If you're happy to have yourself be muzzled by the state, then we really don't inhabit the same reality.
Here are two scenarios that come quickly to mind:
a) Dr. Evil can destroy the state by means of a thermonuclear bomb controlled by a computer with speech recognition software. The computer asks "Dr. Evil, do you want me to destroy the state?" Should the state restrict Dr. Evil's freedom of expression?
b)The Russians can destroy the state. They ask the state "Do you want us to destroy you?" Should Dr. Evil be allowed to express his answer (yes), saying that he represents the state, or should his freedom of expression be restricted, and should he not be allowed to say that he speaks for the state?
The latter seems more compelling to me. The state must, at least, restrict others from speaking for the state.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Those two scenarios quickly came to mind, Ley Druid? How and, more importantly, WHY? They make no sense whatsoever and furthermore have precisely dick to do with the conversation at hand. Presleyterian, kudos for picking through those links. After I moused over one and the link had "voting" in the title, I couldn't bring myself to look.
I mean, really, what's so difficult about keeping to the subject at hand, which is the role of the government in the suppression of ideas and beliefs?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Why has every state that has ever been in existence restricted the ability of others to speak in its name?
Or why has every state that has ever been in existence restricted the ability of others to say things that the state has perceived as a threat to its existence?
[ 13. January 2005, 23:47: Message edited by: Ley Druid ]
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Does it make any impression that people of insanely divergent political views agree that the gov't not censoring speech is a Good Thing. Why? Because even if I don't agree with everthing Erin has to say, I want to hear it. First, because I might learn something, second because I want to know what my fellow citizens are thinking even if it is bonkers (or even, especially if it is bonkers) and third, I want to be able to speak my own mind. How hard is that?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Wow, those are some of the thinnest straws I've ever seen. Ley Druid must have small hands.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
If you disagree and believe that there should be a restriction [on the freedom of speech], you are advocating a stance that will, without a doubt, be used to shut your own self up one day.
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
It is about whether the state should be allowed to restrict the citizens' right to express their ideas, beliefs, and opinions. This is the very bedrock of democracy and of a free society.
To the extent that you and others like you are successful, you will reduce religious freedom in your culture and lay the groundwork for the day when your own religious views become the target of govermental discrimination.
So when does this day come?
Or is it hard to predict, like the rapture?
Do you believe in this day too Rook?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
Like a sorbet to cleanse one's palate from all the straw men arguments, I thought I'd go back to FG's OP: quote:
The question here is whether there should be any boundaries when dealing with any significant religious figure in the media AND in particular, should Christians mobilise.
Fair enough. The answers, ISTM, are "No" (if FG is talking about governmental boundaries) and "Yes," respectively.
No, (summarizing others and myself) because (speaking from a civil viewpoint) the State ought not interfere with the airing of speech about "any significant religious figure[s]," (i.e., stating one's beliefs, ideas or opinions about such figures.)
Yes because Christians (and every other religious group) ought to be free to exercise their right of free speech concerning their ideas about such previously-mentioned speech or even about other "significant religious figure[s]."
Religious groups ought to be free to advocate whatever they want: Overturn of Vatican II, French as a national language, institutionalized slavery, mandatory peyote use, golf on Sundays as a sacrament, death to [insert race, religion or sexual orientation here], fried chicken and beer as valid Communion elements, banning of global thermonuclear war, prohibition of the public wearing of spandex and reading of Barbara Cartland novels by pudgy people, and more. This includes public outcry about the Springer opera.
If you don't like it, don't want it broadcast on the back of your BBC license fee, then fine; protest your little heart out. Send out those emails, make phone calls, hold public meetings, organize marches, anything you like. Use that right of free speech. You can even advocate that such material ought not to be broadcast. Again, that's your right of free speech.
But I find it bitterly ironic--and hypocritical--that people using their right of free speech are advocating the loss of free speech of someone airing ideas and opinions they find offensive.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Like a sorbet to cleanse one's palate from all the straw men arguments, I thought I'd go back to FG's OP: quote:
The question here is whether there should be any boundaries when dealing with any significant religious figure in the media AND in particular, should Christians mobilise.
Fair enough. The answers, ISTM, are "No" (if FG is talking about governmental boundaries) and "Yes," respectively.
No, (summarizing others and myself) because (speaking from a civil viewpoint) the State ought not interfere with the airing of speech about "any significant religious figure[s]," (i.e., stating one's beliefs, ideas or opinions about such figures.)
Yes because Christians (and every other religious group) ought to be free to exercise their right of free speech concerning their ideas about such previously-mentioned speech or even about other "significant religious figure[s]."
...
If you don't like it, don't want it broadcast on the back of your BBC license fee, then fine; protest your little heart out. Send out those emails, make phone calls, hold public meetings, organize marches, anything you like. Use that right of free speech. You can even advocate that such material ought not to be broadcast. Again, that's your right of free speech.
But I find it bitterly ironic--and hypocritical--that people using their right of free speech are advocating the loss of free speech of someone airing ideas and opinions they find offensive.
Respectfully, isn't your stace just as hypocritical? That people should be encouraged to protest that "that such material ought not to be broadcast" but that the government should not listen to them because: quote:
the State ought not interfere with the airing of speech about "any significant religious figure[s]," (i.e., stating one's beliefs, ideas or opinions about such figures.)
If the government wasn't allowed to interfere with what could be aired, why should people be encouraged to protest to them about what is aired?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
If the government wasn't allowed to interfere with what could be aired, why should people be encouraged to protest to them about what is aired?
Because the right of free speech isn't dependent, or validated, upon the result of that speech. In different words: You ought to have the right of free speech regardless if a specific exercising of that right is logical or illogical.
(From Life of Brian) You, AR, as a male, ought to have the *right* to have babies, as in, give birth to them. You can't ever actually have them, but you ought to have the right. That's my exercise of free speech. Ought I be prevented from it because you don't have a womb?
[ 14. January 2005, 04:34: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
So when does this day come?
Or is it hard to predict, like the rapture?
That's easy. It comes only after the citizenry surrenders its right to free speech. How long after hardly matters, does it?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
If a government said "You should have the right to be able to call 999 if there's an emergency" but didn't provide a fire bridge, polive force or ambulance service, I would think they were deceptive. Saying "You should have the right to propose whatever law you want" and then ignoring what was suggested seems, to me, to fall into a similar category.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
The martyrs with whom Isaac has been standing died because they refused to pinch incense to the Emperor, i.e., they did not wish to worship the government.
Where is the line between obeying a government and paying so much homage to the powers that be that it's tantamount to worship?
Is there a line between free speech and the sort of "free" speech some governments demand?
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Religious groups ought to be free to advocate whatever they want: <snip> institutionalized slavery, mandatory peyote use, <snip> death to [insert race, religion or sexual orientation here], <snip> and more.
But I find it bitterly ironic--and hypocritical--that people using their right of free speech are advocating the loss of free speech of someone airing ideas and opinions they find offensive.
This opinion can be traced back to a loss of belief in any "inherent good/evil". If we assume that "good/evil" is exclusively a matter of negotiation in society, that there is no such thing as an "inherent good/evil", then clearly the negotiations must be protected at all costs. Taking the above as example: if one loses the belief that hate killings are evil in themselves, then the process of discussing their extent becomes important. It is necessary that groups in society negotiate the allowed extent of hate killings. However, if one believes that hate killings are inherently evil, that their allowed extent is precisely zero, then it makes perfect sense to tell its advocates to shut up or face persecution. Why would one attack their speech and not wait for their actions (i.e., actual hate killings!)?
Words have power, words shape minds, words make things happen. Everybody instinctively knows that, but how can a Christian forget it? John 1:1-3,14. The first thing that generally moves is speech, it telegraphs the social and political punch to come. What Hitler would do and what Martin Luther King jr. would change was apparent from their speeches long before their impact on society was felt. For that matter, what is Christianity but "good news" - words shaping action?
So the restrictions to freedom of speech ultimately stem from what we see as "inherently good/evil". What is inherently good should be advocated, what is not - not. Absolute freedom of speech can only makes sense if one holds that there is nothing which is "inherently good/evil", that all is negotiable. Of course, that's precisely the trajectory of Western society for a couple of hundred years now. One could have hoped that for Christians both tables of the Decalogue, and for non-Christians at least the second table of the Decalogue, would serve as minimal inherent good stopping this trend. Apparently not so for some...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Erin, and others, thanks for the clarification. I can understand where you are coming from, even though I don't agree with you. In particular, when you say: quote:
If you disagree and believe that there should be a restriction, you are advocating a stance that will, without a doubt, be used to shut your own self up one day.
I think you are overstating the case.
My position is that I think freedom of expression is vitally important for a healthy society. I want the press to unearth all those embarassing secrets that the government of the day would like to keep from us; once we know what they have done we can express our opinions on them through the ballot box. However, if freedom of expression is used to threaten the physical well being of others, through any form of incitement to violence, it seems reasonable to me that that freedom should be curbed. My right to speak should not result in your buises, broken leg or whatever.
Provided I do not go around inciting violence I do not think that the state will take action against me. Nor do I think that just because the state has the right to impose this limit it is likely to impose lots of others, which would mean that I get clobbered. We live in democracies which, however imperfect, mean that has to get a public mandate on a regular basis - particulalry if it wants to make sweeping changes. I don't think totalitarianism (of the right or the left) is poised to take over Britain or the States; therefore I am happy to accept this small but significant limit on my freedom, and I believe that the majority of my fellow subjects feel the same way. Further restrictions should be, and I believe would be, strenuosly resisted but there seems little likelihood of these being imposed. Are we back to another cultural divide here - that (broadly speaking) Americans are far more suspicious of their government than the British are of theirs?
(Sadly I am just about to go away for a long weekend, so it will be four days before I can get back to this. I hate to think how much I will have to read on my return . . . . )
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So the restrictions to freedom of speech ultimately stem from what we see as "inherently good/evil". What is inherently good should be advocated, what is not - not.
And who gets to decide what is "inherently good/evil"?
That you are making this argument at all tells me that you believe yourself to be in the group of people who would be making that decision. Furthermore, it tells me that you believe the state should enforce your (that is to say, Christian) ideas on what is "inherently good/evil".
Presuming (pace the Wanderer) that the country remains a democracy, what then happens if the majority view in the country changes such that public expression of Christianity is seen as an inherent evil? Would you expect the state to protect your right to profess the faith, or stop you from saying it?
If you would expect the state to protect your rights to free speech in such a situation, you must expect it to protect the rights of those you would have silenced.
Blithely assuming that you are Right and 'they' are Wrong, and thus justifying a contradictory position, is the height of arrogance.
And don't get me started on the "we can start down this road, because there's no chance of getting far enough down it to hurt me" argument that Wanderer just made...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And who gets to decide what is "inherently good/evil"?
I believe it was called The Committee for Public Safety in one of its incarnations.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
We live in democracies which, however imperfect, mean that has to get a public mandate on a regular basis - particulalry if it wants to make sweeping changes. I don't think totalitarianism (of the right or the left) is poised to take over Britain or the States; therefore I am happy to accept this small but significant limit on my freedom, and I believe that the majority of my fellow subjects feel the same way. Further restrictions should be, and I believe would be, strenuosly resisted but there seems little likelihood of these being imposed.
Setting aside whether or not the government will continue its scope creep on this subject, why should they be resisted? By saying "yes, I accept that you may limit freedom of expression in instance A" you have absolutely given them the ability and justifiction to limit freedom of expression in instances B-Z. You've already said you're OK with it. So why should you resist now?
Ultimately, from where I sit, it looks as though all of those who think there should be restrictions on expression boil the argument down to "well, I think X is bad and people shouldn't do it". But again, I fail to see why the government shouldn't accommodate everybody's offenses. If it should accommodate one, it's got to accommodate all.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Father Gregory wrote: Scanning all those links from Glimmer ... stones and glasshouses come to mind.
Not to my mind, they don't.
I’ve only got a moment, but I found Glimmer's links unpersuasive. <snip>
One of the biggest factors in ending the Vietnam war was, so I have read, the reaction of the public to seeing images of soldiers returning in coffins in the media.
The US Government worked very hard to keep such images out of the media this time around. (And their reaction when private photographs of this ended up in the public domain).
That strikes me as being a better example of what Glimmer is trying to argue.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Ken wrote: There is nothing magic about the state that means it should be subject to different moral rules from anyone else.
Yes, there is. The State has the power to incarcerate you, fine you, confiscate your property, or compel you to do any number of things against your will. The Widget Corporation does not.
Naive fluffy wishful thinking head-in-the-sand liberal nonsense. Corporations do kill people. Even British and American ones. Sometimes they even do it with guns. Not very often perhaps, but it happens.
And it happens much more often that businesses, corporations and rich individuals have some limited degree of political power over their employees, customers, or neighbours, sometimes excercised directly , sometimes though influence of legal or governmental institutions.
That has been the normal state of affairs in most times and most places.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree that I may have read 'too much' theology into it - that's my job, kind of.
Exactly. Whereas most people watching it, perhaps, would have tuned in for the entertainment value, rather than the theological message. If it's your job you'll work hard at it, most people won't want to.
quote:
The point I was trying to make about the swearing is that many people have used that to write off the whole thing, without paying any serious attention to its contents.
And I agree. I'm suggesting that for some people - ordinary people at that - it's hard to pay serious attention to the 'contents' of a piece of drama when it's so saturated in obscenity that everything else gets obscured. I think that, possibly, JSTO ran that risk and for a lot of people it didn't work.
quote:
From the few episodes I have watched of the Jerry Springer Show and from the many hours I have spent at work with people from some estates in my city, the amout of "f's" per minute was not much of an exaggeration.
And on the estates where I lived and worked as a kid, and later in life the language of the junior playground could out-Springer Springer any day of the week, if we're still talking about the 'it's real life so it's perfectly valid' argument! I don't disagree with that either.
I'm just saying that for some people tuning in to be entertained, challenged, or whatever the huge welter of swearing - not the fact that there was swearing - was heavy going. I asked a few non-Christian friends to check it out to see what they thought of the religious scenes in Act II. A few felt they really didn't want to work that hard to get the 'message' so they turned over. These are people who laughed their leg off watching Pulp Fiction, and who didn't blink an eyelid during Reservoir Dogs but who still reckoned that if it was artistically 'necessary' to saturate the whole production with swearing then the message must be too weak to weather proper exposure.
For the ones who perservered, their chief complaint was how boring the language was. When someone pointed out that that was how it was in real life, his reply was 'and in real life Big Brother has several hours every day of people going to the toilet and complete silence, but they still edit most of that out so we can see what's really worth watching.'
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And who gets to decide what is "inherently good/evil"?
Well, if there is such a thing as "inherent good/evil" - and I believe so - then clearly it must be found in everybody. For example, the idea that it's evil to kill everybody you don't like seems to have arisen in all cultures at all times. It's human. Sure, you will find a few "psychopaths" who seem to disagree by nature. Sure, you can make people kill other people. Nevertheless, there is an undeniable underlying trend in humanity that preferably one shouldn't murder. The decalogue (second tablet) is a classical collection of such trends. But of course, similar collections exist everywhere - which is the point.
Now, all this talk about "freedom of speech" is tying you guys into logic knots. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I'm sure even KenWritez knows in the bottom of his heart that hate killings are evil, and that hence clearly no religious groups should be allowed to advocate them. However, because he has swallowed the ideology of absolute freedom of speech hook, line and sinker, he has to conclude - I'm sure against every gut instinct - that he has to defend the right of some religious nutcases to run around in the world and declare that people should be killed because of race, religion or sexual orientation. I'm sure the devil is laughing his brains out.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That you are making this argument at all tells me that you believe yourself to be in the group of people who would be making that decision. Furthermore, it tells me that you believe the state should enforce your (that is to say, Christian) ideas on what is "inherently good/evil".
Yes, I'm in that group. So are you and indeed most everybody. Except, you are reasoning yourself out of the group and into the company of Hitler and the like, due to too much freedom of speech on the brain. But that can hardly be called my fault. Get a grip. There's stuff really no decent human should do (no, I'm not talking about whatever kinky sex you are into...), and hence one shouldn't allow people to talk others into it. End of story, really.
Well, almost. What about the first tablet, the bit about God? Now, it can hardly be proven that the Christian God is universal to humanity (it has to be believed). On the other hand, a sense for the sacred is and always has been part of humanity everywhere. Even hardcore atheists can be awed by nature and many find an ersatz religion, say humanism. Be that as it may, while special pleading for Christianity can't be derived from "inherent good", a minimal respect for whatever another person holds sacred can.
The rest of your post is entirely besides my point, as I hope you can see now. I'm not, of course, saying that with such minimal morals the job is done. Far from it. But to go further together requires a unity which is just not in existence at the moment. So let's stick to the basics.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, because he has swallowed the ideology of absolute freedom of speech hook, line and sinker, he has to conclude - I'm sure against every gut instinct - that he has to defend the right of some religious nutcases to run around in the world and declare that people should be killed because of race, religion or sexual orientation.
Bollocks (*)
quote:
Yes, I'm in that group. So are you and indeed most everybody. Except, you are reasoning yourself out of the group and into the company of Hitler and the like
You have no real idea do you?
And why are you telling us you want to use Hitler's methods? That is using the forces of the state to try to police private morals.
quote:
There's stuff really no decent human should do (no, I'm not talking about whatever kinky sex you are into...), and hence one shouldn't allow people to talk others into it. End of story, really.
Of course there is stuff no-one should say. But why does that require sending men with guns to stop them saying it?
(*) that's the technical term - had I explained in detail what I think of this flimsy argument I woudl have had to use language which would not have been fit for this board.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, if there is such a thing as "inherent good/evil" - and I believe so - then clearly it must be found in everybody.
So, since not everybody agrees that blasphemy should be banned, you agree that it's not an inherent evil?
quote:
I'm sure even KenWritez knows in the bottom of his heart that hate killings are evil, and that hence clearly no religious groups should be allowed to advocate them. However, because he has swallowed the ideology of absolute freedom of speech hook, line and sinker, he has to conclude - I'm sure against every gut instinct - that he has to defend the right of some religious nutcases to run around in the world and declare that people should be killed because of race, religion or sexual orientation. I'm sure the devil is laughing his brains out.
There's a difference between saying "all ______s should die" and "you should go and kill all ______s". It's the same as the difference between saying "David Beckham shouldn't have so much money" and "You should steal David Beckham's money".
One is voicing an opinion, the other is planning to commit a crime. Freedom to voice one's opinions and beliefs doesn't mean freedom to plan crimes.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That you are making this argument at all tells me that you believe yourself to be in the group of people who would be making that decision. Furthermore, it tells me that you believe the state should enforce your (that is to say, Christian) ideas on what is "inherently good/evil".
Yes, I'm in that group. So are you and indeed most everybody. Except, you are reasoning yourself out of the group and into the company of Hitler and the like, due to too much freedom of speech on the brain.
Interesting. Because I advocate freedom for everyone to express their opinions and beliefs you lump me in with someone who was totally against such expression...
quote:
But that can hardly be called my fault.
If it was the case, then no it couldn't. It's not the case.
quote:
Get a grip. There's stuff really no decent human should do (no, I'm not talking about whatever kinky sex you are into...), and hence one shouldn't allow people to talk others into it. End of story, really.
Talking someone into doing something illegal isn't expressing an opinion or belief. Talking someone into doing something legal, but which you (or indeed I) disagree with, isn't a problem at all.
quote:
Well, almost. What about the first tablet, the bit about God? Now, it can hardly be proven that the Christian God is universal to humanity (it has to be believed). On the other hand, a sense for the sacred is and always has been part of humanity everywhere. Even hardcore atheists can be awed by nature and many find an ersatz religion, say humanism. Be that as it may, while special pleading for Christianity can't be derived from "inherent good", a minimal respect for whatever another person holds sacred can.
That "minimal respect" isn't violated by this opera. Any more than it was by Life of Brian or Godspell.
What you're asking for is that nobody say anything you consider blasphemous. Clearly you aren't willing to extend that courtesy to other religions (since if you were you'd stop peddling that blasphemous (to Islam) nonsense that God has a Son).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So, since not everybody agrees that blasphemy should be banned, you agree that it's not an inherent evil?
I had already mentioned that complete disrespect for anything sacred can be discerned as inherent evil, but "Christian blasphemy" in particular not (that's too specific).
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's a difference between saying "all ______s should die" and "you should go and kill all ______s".
Unfortunately, that's a moot point. For experience tells us that the latter is bound to follow the former, if the former goes unchecked.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Interesting. Because I advocate freedom for everyone to express their opinions and beliefs you lump me in with someone who was totally against such expression...
The only connection I see is this: Hitler believed that he had the right to say: "All Jews, gays, handicapped and other human vermin should die." You apparently also believe that he had the right to say so. I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That "minimal respect" isn't violated by this opera. Any more than it was by Life of Brian or Godspell.
I won't judge without having seen it. "Life of Brian" is one of my favorite movies, by the way.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What you're asking for is that nobody say anything you consider blasphemous. Clearly you aren't willing to extend that courtesy to other religions (since if you were you'd stop peddling that blasphemous (to Islam) nonsense that God has a Son).
Whatever made you think that? Neither do I require that nothing "Christian blasphemous" may ever be said to me, nor have I lost my Muslim and Buddhist friends by offending their religious sensibilities. What I'm suggesting is a minimum of religious tact. How much is required clearly depends on circumstances.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I had already mentioned that complete disrespect for anything sacred can be discerned as inherent evil, but "Christian blasphemy" in particular not (that's too specific).
Fair enough. Though I'm sure the atheists would disagree about disrespect for the sacred being an inherent evil...
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's a difference between saying "all ______s should die" and "you should go and kill all ______s".
Unfortunately, that's a moot point. For experience tells us that the latter is bound to follow the former, if the former goes unchecked.
I'm sure it could be shown that the former follows on from saying "I hate ______s". Should that be controlled as well?
Of course, there are plenty of perfectly legal things which experience shows are bound to lead to illegal things. Like football.
The line I draw is where an opinion becomes a command. Freedom of speech protects opinions, not commands.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Interesting. Because I advocate freedom for everyone to express their opinions and beliefs you lump me in with someone who was totally against such expression...
The only connection I see is this: Hitler believed that he had the right to say: "All Jews, gays, handicapped and other human vermin should die." You apparently also believe that he had the right to say so. I don't.
Of course I do. How can I claim freedom of speech for myself if I would deny it to anyone else?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That "minimal respect" isn't violated by this opera. Any more than it was by Life of Brian or Godspell.
I won't judge without having seen it. "Life of Brian" is one of my favorite movies, by the way.
And yet when it came out, it drew just as much ire as JS-tO...
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What you're asking for is that nobody say anything you consider blasphemous. Clearly you aren't willing to extend that courtesy to other religions (since if you were you'd stop peddling that blasphemous (to Islam) nonsense that God has a Son).
Whatever made you think that? Neither do I require that nothing "Christian blasphemous" may ever be said to me, nor have I lost my Muslim and Buddhist friends by offending their religious sensibilities. What I'm suggesting is a minimum of religious tact. How much is required clearly depends on circumstances.
Tact is a good attribute for anyone to have, especially around religion. I'm with you all the way on that.
I just don't think it should be legally required.
[ 14. January 2005, 14:37: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The first thing that generally moves is speech, it telegraphs the social and political punch to come. What Hitler would do and what Martin Luther King jr. would change was apparent from their speeches long before their impact on society was felt.
quote:
So the restrictions to freedom of speech ultimately stem from what we see as "inherently good/evil". What is inherently good should be advocated, what is not - not. Absolute freedom of speech can only makes sense if one holds that there is nothing which is "inherently good/evil", that all is negotiable.
I'm suffering from irony-induced intestinal cramps.
Hitler gained his power by preaching things that his countrymen thought to be inherently good. MLK advocated things that many people at that time believed to be inherently bad. Your standard would allow Hitler while muzzling King.
Oh, but I forgot. Your criteria for good and bad will be a religious one (which can historically be counted upon to prevent injustice) and will be interpreted and administered by the government (which is immune from corruption and bad judgement).
Thanks, but I'll stick with free speech.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
So when does this day come?
Or is it hard to predict, like the rapture?
That's easy. It comes only after the citizenry surrenders its right to free speech. How long after hardly matters, does it?
The citizenry?
Who speaks for the citizenry? Who decides when the citizenry "surrenders its right to free speech"?
You?
How much of the citizenry must surrender? Who decides?
Do you think you can evangelize the citizenry and ward off the advent of this fateful day?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Little Masha wrote: Where is the line between obeying a government and paying so much homage to the powers that be that it's tantamount to worship? Is there a line between free speech and the sort of "free" speech some governments demand?
To paraphrase a trenchant comment from earlier in this thread – OK, it was mine ![[Biased]](wink.gif) – if you give the State the authority to make it illegal to say “Down with God,” you’ve just given it the authority to make it illegal to say “Praise God.” Which is why I believe it's in Christians' interest vigorously to fight government censorship.
quote:
Tubbs wrote: The US Government worked very hard to keep such images out of the media this time around. (And their reaction when private photographs of this ended up in the public domain).
I vehemently disagree with DoD’s policy, but legally it isn’t censorship. The government has no constitutional obligation to make it easy for the press to do its job. If it were truly censorship, then the government could make it a crime to display them. Which it hasn’t – because it can’t.
quote:
Ken wrote: Naive fluffy wishful thinking head-in-the-sand liberal nonsense. Corporations do kill people. Even British and American ones. Sometimes they even do it with guns. Not very often perhaps, but it happens.
When corporations – or their officers – engage in illegal behavior, they can be sued and/or prosecuted in a way that the State cannot. No one disputes that corporations have substantial power, but how precisely can Wal-Mart put you in jail? How can Wal-Mart burst into your house in the dead of night, rouse you out of your bed, and seize your property? How can Wal-Mart force you to hand over 37% of your income on payday? Of course, there are those “naive fluffy wishful thinking head-in-the-sand liberals” who thinks that people can’t be expected to resist the blandishments of advertising, but you hardly strike me as that type.
Oh, any IngoB, I strongly support your proposed Bureau for the Criminal Punishment of Tactless Behavior, but only if I get to be the Chief Prosecutor. 'Scuse me. I've got to go pick fabric swatches for my new office.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The citizenry?
Who speaks for the citizenry? Who decides when the citizenry "surrenders its right to free speech"?
You?
Yes, I speak for me, and you speak for you. We all speak collectively through our elected representatives.
quote:
How much of the citizenry must surrender? Who decides?
Fifty-one percent. It is decided at the polls.
quote:
Do you think you can evangelize the citizenry and ward off the advent of this fateful day?
Yes, at least the smart ones.
You seem to be very interested in how this all works. There are a number of good civics texts available used. There are also quite a few good books written by people who set up our version of representative democracy. I'm sure you would enjoy reading them.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
How much of the citizenry must surrender? Who decides?
Fifty-one percent. It is decided at the polls.
I have never seen this question posed let alone decided at the polls.
51 percent could surrender with or without the nefarious example of Fr. Gregory and others of his ilk. So what they do seems completely irrelevant.
Why don't you leave Fr. Gregory alone and keep up your great work of evangelizing the 51 percent?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
When corporations ? or their officers ? engage in illegal behavior, they can be sued and/or prosecuted in a way that the State cannot.
Why can't the state be prosecuted? Over here the State is often prosecuted, and sometimes even loses. The Prime Minister's wife used to make a speciality of it.
Anyway in general, in most times and places, the courts and government tend to work more for the rich and powerful than the poor and weak. There are not many jurisdictions where a poor individual can be sure of justice if they take a rich company to court.
quote:
How can Wal-Mart burst into your house in the dead of night, rouse you out of your bed, and seize your property?
They probably can't, not to you and me, not this week. But there are times and places where businesses do just that. And worse.
It ws not so long ago that agents of US companies sometimes beat up or even murdered trade unionists. And some of them got away with it.
European and US oil companies have employed agents to evict poor people from their land in a number of countries in South America, Africa, and South-East Asia. People who resist have been killed.
In some places government is powerless to enforce the law, in other places government is in the pockets of those who break the law. In most places government is on the side of the rich and powerful.
quote:
How can Wal-Mart force you to hand over 37% of your income on payday?
They probably can't force me to do that. But there are other companies that can force other people to do it. There has been debt-slavery in the US and Australia within living memory. And there still is in India and many other places.
quote:
Of course, there are those ?naive fluffy wishful thinking head-in-the-sand liberals? who thinks that people can?t be expected to resist the blandishments of advertising, but you hardly strike me as that type.
Of course not. I'm a socialist, not a liberal. I recognise that businesses, acting in their own interests, will sometimes act in ways which can only be resisted by collective action by their employees or neighbours. And in extreme circumstances - but not so extreme that they have not often occurred - by violence.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
but legally it isn't censorship. The government has no constitutional obligation to make it easy for the press to do its job. If it were truly censorship, then the government could make it a crime to display them.
I was going to stay away from this argument but this kind of rubbish makes it hard.
So lying and pressurising aren't forms of censorship? Your definition of censorship is too narrow.
quote:
The FCC has jurisdiction over broadcast television and radio because the airwaves are legally considered to be public property.
And that's exactly the case F.G. was making that as the BBC is public property a case for restricting what it can show exists.
Preslyterian you seem to contradict your own reasoning. Either free speech is free from all restrictions or it is'nt free.
14 pages and I'm just as confused by the American definition of free speech, Which IMNSHO dos'nt seem so free at all.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Well the American definition of free speech (which has varied as courts interpret the laws) isn't really relevant to the issue of this topic.
Which is about private citizens (Daily Mail et al) trying to censor the speech of an organ of the State (the BBC).
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It ws not so long ago that agents of US companies sometimes beat up or even murdered trade unionists. And some of them got away with it.
European and US oil companies have employed agents to evict poor people from their land in a number of countries in South America, Africa, and South-East Asia. People who resist have been killed.
In some places government is powerless to enforce the law, in other places government is in the pockets of those who break the law. In most places government is on the side of the rich and powerful.
As is still, apparently, happening in Columbia.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
quote:
Lapsed Heathen wrote: Your definition of censorship is too narrow.
What I've posted here aren't my personal definitions. They're the definition propounded by the Supreme Court. And in the United States, theirs is the only definition that matters. Lucky for you and others, you're not bound by it. Many Americans who have posted on this thread are quite happy with how they've defined things.
To some extent, the problem may be definitional. No, there is not an absolute right to free speech even in the United States. Slander isn't protected under the First Amendment. Neither is perjury. I don't have a constitutional right to make a false statement in the context of registering securities. The First Amendment isn't a defense if I lie on an application for a bank loan. And words that pose a "clear and present danger" of "imminent lawless action" are unprotected, although I'm not aware of a case in which the Court has found that exceedingly high standard to be met. As Mr. Justice Brandeis said in Whitney v, California:
quote:
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
In addition, as long as the regulation is content neutral, the government may in certain situations implement restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech. For example, the government can require protesters to get a permit to block city streets as long as the regulations are applied even-handedly, e.g., the animal rights people, the anti-World Bank crowd, and the National Rifle Association are all treated in the same way.
The principle underlying the First Amendment is that the harm caused to people by being exposed to ideas they find abhorrent is less injurious than the harm caused by suppressing free speech. And the best way to discern the truth is to ensure that free people enjoy a free exchange of ideas. As Woodrow WIlson said, ""Nothing chills nonsense like exposure to the air."
It boils down to this: 1) Is it the role of elected officials to protect you from the discomfort that accompanies the exposure to ideas you find offensive? 2) Are you willing to cede to them the responsibility for determining what falls under that category?
My answers are: 1) No; and 2) No.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
So when does this day come?
Or is it hard to predict, like the rapture?
Do you believe in this day too Rook?
Wow, you're completely right, Ley Druid. Your logical straws can be seen under a microscope. Let us know when you've finished weaving thousands of them together to fashion a piece of conversational confetti.
[ 14. January 2005, 19:26: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
Religious groups ought to be free to advocate whatever they want....But I find it bitterly ironic--and hypocritical--that people using their right of free speech are advocating the loss of free speech of someone airing ideas and opinions they find offensive.
This opinion can be traced back to a loss of belief in any "inherent good/evil".
Take back the turban, Swami Ingo; your mind-reading act is crap. So, since you can't read minds, even mine, please allow me to explain to you what's actually in my mind versus what you wrongly assume to be there.
My opinion can be traced back to me believing there is a greater inherent evil in religiously-fueled censorship than there is in airing JStO--or any controversial program--over public airwaves. Your sense of offense does not trump free speech.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we assume that "good/evil" is exclusively a matter of negotiation in society, that there is no such thing as an "inherent good/evil", then clearly the negotiations must be protected at all costs.
Again, you're wrong. "Negotiations" must be protected at all costs because the civil right of free speech is a greater good than you, LD or anyone feeling offended by JStO. You and FGs and Glimmer's willingness to deny free speech to the BBC and to the producers of JStO are a greater evil than any blasphemy in the show.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, if one believes that hate killings are inherently evil, that their allowed extent is precisely zero, then it makes perfect sense to tell its advocates to shut up or face persecution.
Again, wrong. 0 for 3, Sparky. Hate killings are inherently evil. They're bad things, not good things. If some Nazi gasbag advocates a return to the death camps, as abhorrent as I find that philosphy, I find still more abhorrent the idea his speech should be censored. If I do not extend the right of free speech to even those whose speech I loathe, how can I insist that my speech be free?
On a more day-to-day level, people like Nazis and Noam Chomsky aren't fought by shutting them up; that only makes them martyrs and perpetuates status quo. They're fought--and successfully, too--by letting them air their words, letting people see what evil morons they are.
They're also fought by counter-demonstrations. Google "Angel Action" and "Fred Phelps."
Darkness is best fought with light, not with more darkness.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would one attack their speech and not wait for their actions (i.e., actual hate killings!)?
Do you really think no hate speech = no hate killings? Do you really think muzzling these racists will somehow stop hate crimes? Actions are actionable, speech is not, or shouldn't be.
Why? Because speech is, or ought to be, free, as actions are not. You're free to say I should be killed and boiled down for soup; you're free to urge Glimmer to kill me and boil me down. What you're not free to do--and shouldn't be, if I have anything to say about it--is to kill me and cook me.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Words have power, words shape minds, words make things happen. Everybody instinctively knows that, but how can a Christian forget it?
By focusing so narrowly on their own limited concept of God, of history and of political reality that he or she loses sight of the fact that civil rights are both the most dangerous threats to freedom as well as its greatest protector.
The instigators of the Patriot Act, whom I'll assume are well-intentioned but misguided, recognize this duality, and have attempted to address it, albeit in a way that threatens all civil rights and IMHO will cause more problems than it resolves. Your solutions is the same in that regard.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So the restrictions to freedom of speech ultimately stem from what we see as "inherently good/evil".
I agree. You argue religiously-based censorship is inherently good, I argue it's inherently evil. Who gets the moral high ground?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What is inherently good should be advocated, what is not - not.
I think what you advocate is inherently bad, it's evil, you're none too many steps away from pulling on that pointy black hood, Torquemada. Now, who gets to referee our dispute? If we go with your rules, and I air a program highlighting and explaining all of this, then there is no dispute, I'm hauled off to a cell someplace or fined into poverty.
If we go with mine, we can have a dispute. To use a sports metaphor, you merely can't kick me off the field and declare a win due to forfeit.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
They're the definition propounded by the Supreme Court. And in the United States, theirs is the only definition that matters.
But this thread is about some otherwise apparently sensible and well-informed British people who think the British government should not be permitted to fund the British Broadcasting Corporation to put on a show they don't like.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
Bulletin board debate, like foot fungus, grows.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So why restrict it to the definitions used in t he laws of just one of all the many countries in the world?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Feel free to consider it as an example of trying to move closer to an ideal, and let that apply to the topical considerations of a question about limits on public broadcasts regardless of national context.
Or not. I mean, finding interesting ideas and contemplating them is clearly not as entertaining as just arbitrarily picking a side and defending it regardless of what anyone else thinks. Or doesn't think, as the case may be.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Tubbs wrote: The US Government worked very hard to keep such images out of the media this time around. (And their reaction when private photographs of this ended up in the public domain).
I vehemently disagree with DoD’s policy, but legally it isn’t censorship. The government has no constitutional obligation to make it easy for the press to do its job. If it were truly censorship, then the government could make it a crime to display them. Which it hasn’t – because it can’t.
You're right. Legally it isn't censorship. But morally it could be. The US Government was actively preventing information from being freely available because it Made Them Look Bad and the networks went along with that. (US sources have commented that reporting of the war is very different in the UK to the US. On the other hand, that US source I saw quoted was Tim Robbins )
Tubbs
PS Nice office ... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[Stupid code - T]
[ 14. January 2005, 20:55: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
