Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I said I was out of that other thread and so I am. I thought I'd address your last two posts, though. First, the two of you both seem to ignore much of what I wrote, and wrote more than once at that. There is no issue here with Steve's right to censorship on his own board, that's a given, only that it is indeed censorship and needs to be called by its proper name. All I heard was denial. While I acknowledge the former (Steve's rights) in practice I must condemn the latter (censorship) in principle. That's all. Pillar, the pleasure was all mine. Please do not give in to the forces of the majority when you believe you are right. If it turns out you were mistaken, admit it, learn, and move on. Chupa (a friend of mine at Original Joe's in San Francisco is called Chupacabra by Sergio, one of the restauants's Mexican waiters--you and he are my only Chupas, by the way), I have no problem with how you care to go through your life vis-a-vis censorship. Is it sometimes useful? By all means, and most especially by those who do the using! In any event, you seem to acknowledge, at least, that no matter one's rationale censorship is still censorship, and I rest more comfortably with that than Steve's denial. As for your objection to my remark to Steve re the fountain of wisdom: I find it unfortunate that you chose to respond to me in the manner you did. Now you have much company, if you are interested, as this is the archetypical response to just such an observation within my experience on the Net. Then again, when was the majority ever much right when it comes to quality control? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Since you are saying you are out of the other thread, I would quite like to be illuminated about this. Tris, since you proclaim yourself a free-speech absolutist, and are proud of being labeled one, I would be quite interested how you would propose to deal with somebody asking for members of a certain religious persuasion to be exterminated? What if that person does not only have a clearly deranged world-view but also the means to carry it out or at least to influence a large number of people? As a free-speech absolutist, I would expect you to let such people get on with whatever they do, because such is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking as I understand it. If I got this wrong, I would be interested to see where the absolutism stops. And don't pull age or whatever on me please. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Ah Tris, it's a bitch when one reaps what one sows, isn't it? I believe I'd also have quite a bit of company in stating that your posts to Steve have been quite arrogant and high-handed. I have neither the time nor the inclination to mince words on a forum such as this, therefore I choose my words to have the desired effect in the least amount of space. If this comes across as rude or blunt, well, I can live with that. Allow me to pose one question to you. In fact, it's the classic definition of censorship weighed against the public good, of which you are no doubt aware. Still I'm curious to see your response. Would you shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater where no fire existed, knowing that the result might be a stampede in which people could be either hurt or killed? Would you defend someone's right to do so? ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 You anticipate me, Andreas. I had just copied your post and was about to paste it here. Thanks for doing my work. Tris, since you proclaim yourself a free-speech absolutist, and are proud of being labeled one, I would be quite interested how you would propose to deal with somebody asking for members of a certain religious persuasion to be exterminated? Within what sort of context? A speaker for, say, the Nazi party in circa 1944? Some nut case out of the Louisiana bayous with a hardon for anyone who doesn't worship his notion of how the Christ child shook out? What if that person does not only have a clearly deranged world-view but also the means to carry it out or at least to influence a large number of people? As a free-speech absolutist, I would expect you to let such people get on with whatever they do, because such is the logical conclusion of that line of thinking as I understand it. If I got this wrong, I would be interested to see where the absolutism stops. In a sec. And don't pull age or whatever on me please. Never same in the same evening. Okay, back to biz: I believe you either have free speech or you do not. There is no such thing as a little free speech--it's an all-or-nothing state. Allow me that as my working premise. Should you care to argue against my philosophy as such, do so at your leisure, but for our purposes here and now that's my platform. So, should the free-speech advocate allow this dissenting (and disruptive, even threatening) point of view to be expressed? I would say most definitely yes. It could be that your next sundry Free Speech Absolutist in line might differ, but I'm all for hearing all points of view. In fact I think it forearms me to know what those who would harm me are at intellectually speaking. Does that not make sense? You say this person might already have the means or influence to carry through his dire intentions, Andreas. This by implication leaves me, the free speech guy, presumably with less means and influence, yes? Possibly so, certainly. In that case, then practically what form of censorship might I have to quiet this man of threats? Assassination? That's all I can think of, and I can tell you that isn't in my line. Examples of your what-if are not hard to find right here in America. Hell, they abound. Going back to the Nazi party reference, we had those all over the place before and during the war--still today--yet they were not hounded into prison camps, at least not in the main--for all I know some crazy Nazi spouter ended up behind a fence, but it was for a charge, trumped up or otherwise, entirely more substantial than his discourse on racial superiority. We did, however, have many people rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps, most notably Japanese and Italians, but the pretext here was not what they were speaking about but just that they were possibly unfriendly aliens of one kind or another--the crying shame there being that many had been in this country for some while with good work records. (If I'm not mistaken some were actually citizens, but with "ties" to one objectionable society/person or another. Someone may correct me on this if they care--I'm no particular expert on the subject.) But my point is our country has a long history of considerable tolerance in this very area with much to show for it. Wackos out of the Louisiana hinterland (or Michigan, for that matter) are neither few nor far between. So what? They continue to bejabber, the FBI continues to keep an eye on their collective activities, and once in awhile the attorney general goes mad and orders a rightious slaughter down in Texas. What can I say? The "boys" need the action. Only in America! By the way, I did not label myself a Free Speech Absolutist but rather was so labeled, and none to politely, by Steve. Please admit that much at least. Afterall, we all wish to play at cricket here, no? Let's get back to this, shall we? Occasionally I listen to someone tell me about how his girlfriend screwed him over, or a woman's husband left her, or the step sister of so-and-so went off and eloped with this girl's erstwhile lover--you name it. I come back like this: "You ought to thank this SOB for letting you know earlier than later what an SOB he/she really is. Take the SOB out to dinner, send him/her off with style." When I was in high school I read a SF novel by Asimov or someone about this place far off in the stars that had problems, and at the end there's this professor with some kid trapped in a lab while the insurrectionists are blasting away outside with rayguns. So the kid loses his thumb and screams to his mentor, "Why the hell don't you pull the damned alarm?!" The professor replies: "Because if a society is meant to survive it will do so out of the strength it derives from its own good purpose and state of being. If we are so weak as to need the help of armed force then how purposeful is all this?" Maybe you can use that, maybe you can't. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I deny nothing, except the direct charge you made that we are using our "power" to cause harm to the free flow of discussion here. I did not deny that we lock up threads, nor did I try to mask our reasons for it (read the Agreement). Instead I explained it and you disagreed. Freedom of speech seems to be alive and well here This BBS is a great place to discuss things openly and without fear of reprisal, so long as you follow the Agreement that everybody has to read and understand when they sign up for this BBS. Even you don't seem to have a problem with this on one hand, though you make a big issue out of it in the same breath. To me, the ability to exchange ideas freely is the test of censorship, not some lofty and non-existant state of the world. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, nor should there be. But there does need to be clear rules and guidelines, and the ability for people to choose if they wish to live by them. And that is what we do here. Here on this BBS people are welcome to freely exchange ideas about CM, WWII, and other things that are at least somewhat related to either. The further out one gets from this, the more "right" we reserve to lock up threads. People, like yourself, call this into question, but I have seen the world that Absolutists try to create (and always fail) and I for one would rather off myself than try and live in such a society. If it could ever be achieved (and it can not) it would be Hell on Earth So I don't understand why you say I am in denial. I just have a different definition of censorship than you, based on what I feel to be a more sound understanding about what free speech really is in the world around us. And, I will go so far as to say, the way it not only should be, but the way it MUST be. In my mind there is no censorship, and in yours there is. But I am true to my own philosophy, and therefore I am not contradicting myself. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Hey chup, To avoid any misunderstanding: I don't stand by Tris's opinion on Steve, but I stand by freedom of speech (although not American ). [soapbox ON] Apologies if I don't mind my own, but censorship is a dear issue. To discuss your riddle: It is certainly a crime to endanger people without a cause. As such, I would of course neither shout "FIRE", nor defend the right of somebody else to shout that. If this makes me a "censor", so be it, it's a matter of semantics. I would also be willing to stand by my judgment in a court of law. And this is where the fine line between freedom of speech and censorhip lies, IMO: "Censors" should be able to justify their actions against an independent court of law. If not, they are dictators and criminals. [soapbox OFF] ------------------ My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 Would you shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater where no fire existed, knowing that the result might be a stampede in which people could be either hurt or killed? Would you defend someone's right to do so? Well, as long as you don't blush at acting in a "brutish" manner then I suppose that I may too, yes? So . . . your reading skills are about as developed as your debating skills, Chupa. Your question is quite idiotic in light of the fact that I have already cited this precise example in one of my passages to Steve. Now please go back and read that post again, see that I am correct and that you have made a fool of yourself, then come back here and humbly beg my forgiveness. I may or may not grant you dispensation, just depends on my mood at the moment. But we live and hope. There. Do you like that approach better? You can stoop, I can stoop. Only believe this: I can stoop way lower than you and much more articulately. The only difference is I will not stoop unless utterly provoked. Choice is yours, my friend. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Tris, I am not intending to debate your point, because I think we are so far apart as can be. Some minor clarifications though. You were indeed labeled a free speech absolutist, but you said that you were proud of being labeled such, and therefore I assumed that you do not have a problem with that. The second, I was thinking along the lines of a radio talk show host, or another influential person in the media, not some dictator. Which would not leave you any worse off in terms of influence over others. Just to explain where I am coming from: after the war, we had an addition to the German statute book making 'Incitement of racial hatred' a criminal offense. I think that is a good thing. As Jesse Jackson said according to CNN, 'Democracy requires vigilance, democracy requires patience'. I agree with him there. In Germany we now have the concept of 'Wehrhafte Demokratie' (rough translation is a democracy able to defend itself), which was born out of the bad experiences in the Weimar Republic, where the militants ran wild. If you go public in Germany with a statement denying the Holocaust, you go to jail. If you call for Jews/blacks/insert-minority-here to be killed/persecuted/whatever, you go to jail. IMO that is a good thing. I understand that we are on different planets, so I am not going to enter a debate about this, I am just setting out where I am coming from, and that I believe that there are other approaches to this problem of unlimited free speech than allowing it, and that these have merit, depending on the circumstances. Freedom entails responsibility, and the responsibility is one that is on the people who want to stay free to fight those who want to deny them freedom. If you are behaving irresponsible, IMO you lose your right to be treated in the same way as a responsible person. Again, I am not intending to get into a debate about this. This comes down to personal value judgements. I think you have thought a lot about your opinion, and I respect that. I also think it is totally wrong. As you most likely think mine is. Best leave it at that. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Ah, how rich. When Steve reacts poorly to your insufferable attitude, according to you he needs to grow a thicker skin. When I reply in kind, I am apparently a brute. As for the crowded theater example, yes, I see you did in fact bring it up. Forgive me, I missed it in the heap of your rambling, self-righteous posts. You cite it as being an exceptional example. However, you didn't answer my question. Would you defend someone's right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater? It's a simple question, so do this unworthy penitent the small favor of answering it. Finally, I have no need to 'stoop,' as you say. I have posted as I always do, and I will continue to do so. Your choice of how to react is your choice alone. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 I deny nothing, except the direct charge you made that we are using our "power" to cause harm to the free flow of discussion here. I have made no such accusation, Steve. No go to bed and sleep on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 But I am true to my own philosophy, and therefore I am not contradicting myself. I can live with that. Now for the last time, Go to bed, Steven! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 Tris, I am not intending to debate your point, because I think we are so far apart as can be. So be it. Some minor clarifications though. You were indeed labeled a free speech absolutist, but you said that you were proud of being labeled such, and therefore I assumed that you do not have a problem with that. None whatsoever. A point of order nevertheless. The second, I was thinking along the lines of a radio talk show host, or another influential person in the media, not some dictator. Which would not leave you any worse off in terms of influence over others. Just to explain where I am coming from: after the war, we had an addition to the German statute book making 'Incitement of racial hatred' a criminal offense. I think that is a good thing. As Jesse Jackson said according to CNN, 'Democracy requires vigilance, democracy requires patience'. I agree with him there. Democracy also requires tolerance and the right to free speech. I would think the good preacher would agree, but I don't know. In Germany we now have the concept of 'Wehrhafte Demokratie' (rough translation is a democracy able to defend itself), which was born out of the bad experiences in the Weimar Republic, where the militants ran wild. If you go public in Germany with a statement denying the Holocaust, you go to jail. If you call for Jews/blacks/insert-minority-here to be killed/persecuted/whatever, you go to jail. IMO that is a good thing. I understand that we are on different planets, so I am not going to enter a debate about this, I am just setting out where I am coming from, and that I believe that there are other approaches to this problem of unlimited free speech than allowing it, and that these have merit, depending on the circumstances. I understand, Andreas, and thank you very much for taking the time to put your thoughts, your feelings, your position in meaningful context. Some time ago I made friends with a countryman of yours--at the time he was a student at Heidelberg University, then he went over to England where he latched onto a position with some company or other and ended up addressing the United Nations the next year about these tiny drops of curious fluid he used to transport ever so carefully from one test tube to the next while he was still a student at Heidelberg University . . . he also loved wargames and he and I conspired with ever so much delight against the author of CC, though at the time the product in question was that Tobruk game Atomic Games had--have you ever met Keith Zabaloui, Andreas--an engaging chap, he--in order to improve the product in question, but alas, all we managed to do was get another, even better friend of mine in Dutch with Mr. Z--I ended up in hot water as well, but then again I can take it . . . . . . anyway, so a few years ago when I was in Spain visiting my daughter I called this guy up (he was still in school at the time) and we chatted about this and that, and as it happened our conversation rolled around to semi serious stuff. So he tells me, "But you see, Tris, after the war our society was turned upside down and inside out and now it's a bit paranoid about anything having to do with our former Nazi ways, the holocaust, even wargames, where the swastika is absolutely outlawed." Yes, I said, but still a society must eventually bury its past and move onward as best it might--it is unhealthy to do otherwise. To this my friend told me, "That is so. But it is not so easy to bury one's past when you are constantly required to introduce your good Uncle Otto . . . the Nazi." Well, that sobered me up fast and I'll probably never know exactly how my friend or you feels on the matter. My own people come from Germany (from around Leipzig, my family name is Schuler), but as a second generation American I'm divorced from such old-world societal concerns. I hear you, though. Freedom entails responsibility, and the responsibility is one that is on the people who want to stay free to fight those who want to deny them freedom. If you are behaving irresponsible, IMO you lose your right to be treated in the same way as a responsible person. There's merit in that position, too. We have found, or at least we came to believe in the fullness of time, whether right or wrong, that freedom of speech is a fundamental right of all men, or should be, and that it is far better to have this than not. Again, I am not intending to get into a debate about this. This comes down to personal value judgements. I think you have thought a lot about your opinion, and I respect that. I also think it is totally wrong. As you most likely think mine is. Best leave it at that. I do not think your opinion is wrong, Andreas. I think your opinion is different from mine, and the two are not the same. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 As for the crowded theater example, yes, I see you did in fact bring it up. Forgive me, I missed it in the heap of your rambling, self-righteous posts. I forgive you my child. (nowgosayyourhailmarysandbehaveyourself) [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Ah, so you're claiming divine inspiration now? ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 You cite it as being an exceptional example. However, you didn't answer my question. Would you defend someone's right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater? No, I would not condone such behavior. But this brings us to the precipice of "prior constraint." At which juncture I draw the line. That is, while I would penalize a person who committed such an outrage I would not feel justified to encarcerate someone before the fact on the assumption that he might. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 10, 2000 Author Share Posted November 10, 2000 What do you mean "now"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tris Wrote: We have found, or at least we came to believe in the fullness of time, whether right or wrong, that freedom of speech is a fundamental right of all men, or should be, and that it is far better to have this than not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it's worth noting here that you are referring to the US and the US constitution? I agree that free speech is a good thing, I think everyone here would agree, however there are necessarily limits. In all societies there are limits, even in the US. First off, I think the US benefits from an extremely stable society of such mass that it is easily able to 'afford' the cost of a high level of free speech, perhaps the highest in the world. I firmly believe that not all countries can afford this cost. If some control by a sensible government had existed early on in the Former Yugoslavia it's possible conflict might have been avoided to a degree, (ok lets not get into this one on the board right now hehe). On the other hand, a free radio run by the UN in Cambodia significantly aided the election and peace process there. So we have pluses and minuses on each side. Many anecdotes can be thrown up, many theoretical positions tabled, but in the end it comes down to what works best, in my mind. As such every country has laws restricting free speech. For starters, the libel laws which are firmly entrenched most everywhere. It's accepted that the damage unrestricted free speech can do is greater than the slight moral cost of limiting it. To me this is a fair trade and anytihng else smacks of Libertarian hysteria and some desire to reach some Randian holy-land, a necesarily false hope. PeterNZ ------------------ "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Parts Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Someone pass the popcorn.. cheers. I am reminded of that scene in Good Morning Vietnam.. er how did it go? ------------------ "..more in need of a blowjob than any white man in history" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aaronb Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I would be interested to see where the absolutism stops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Speaking for myself as a darn-near-free-speech-absolutist, the right to free speech stops when such speech constitutes a clear and present danger to one or more specific individuals. This is the generally-agreed standard in libertarian western circles - for once I agree with a bunch of people. The only room for debate is: - how clear does it need to be? - how present (immediate) does it need to be? So, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is illegal and wrong, since the immediate rush for the exit is clearly precipitated by the speech, and endangers people in the theatre. Inciting to riot is also illegal and wrong, since it clearly may lead to immediate rioting, endangering innocent people. Mouthing-off about racial groups, while despicable and irrational, is not so clearly wrong that it should be illegal. The damage is not clear - since a moment's thought will dismiss the message - and the threat to someone's safety is not immediate. So, we tolerate people we think of as despicable in order that our own behaviours, which may be thought of similarly by persons or groups in power, will be tolerated in turn. When we begin to be intolerant of certain broad types of speech, we set a climate that allows all type of speech outside of narrowly-defined 'correct' speech to be suppressed. And we are seeing the results of this today in Canada and the US with the politically-correct movement. Political correctness is just a tyranny of conformity thinly disguised as legislatively-enforce politeness. Hence my sense of near-absolute free speech. All of this applies only in a public context; private groups may merrily censor away, as they own the resources used in expression, and as they cannot use armed force (the mechanism of governments) to implement their censorship. Hence this thread will likely, and rightly, be locked shortly. Eh, Matt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Tris in another Scout/PL thread: I bring it up because I see it. I bring it up because I find censorship, in any form, to be a repugnant thing. I don't like censorship. I am anti censorship. I am, in fact, that Free Speech Absolutist you have labeled me to be. And I am proud of this, let me tell you<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>by Tris in this thread: By the way, I did not label myself a Free Speech Absolutist but rather was so labeled, and none to politely, by Steve. Please admit that much at least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's just set the record straight on that issue. Tris, is a self-proclaimed FSA. There is nothing wrong with that in the abstract either. One day, who knows, all the FSAs will get together, immigrate to a small country, say, San Marino, stage an electoral takeover and vote in a regime of absolute Free Speech and property rights be damned. Until that day, FSAs in the USA (there's a title for a rock anthem if ever there was one) will have to contend with a messy document called the Constitution. Said document prohibits Congress from restricting free speech and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have extended that prohibition to the lower levels of government. Fortunately for we non-FSAs, that prohibition does not extend into the private sphere. One does not, for instance, have the right to enter my place of worship and call for the mass-execution of my co-religionists, although one is perfectly free to print such a call in a newspaper, assuming you have access to one. BBSs such as this one are private property (as is, you might be surprised to find, UseNet) and BTS is perfectly within its rights to impose whatever code of censorship it pleases, whether minimalist and rigorously fair or arbitrary, capricious, and intolerant of dissent. As Steve has pointed out, they tend more toward the former than toward the latter, and the vast majority of posters seem happy with this as evinced by the volume of posting on the board. Tris's calls of "censorship, censorship" are thus like a fart in a wind storm: mildly and briefly unpleasant to those in their immediate area, but of no import to the broader environment. ------------------ Ethan ----------- "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech." -- Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies, Bowling Green State University Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 It must suck to be a FSA when those damn religious nuts show up at your door at 8am Saturday morning and want to talk to you about your immortal soul for eight hours or so. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmorse Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 In reading the above I was struck by all the bandying about of the terms free speech, censorship etc, without reference to the source. Ethan hits it right on the head. Free speech flows out of the Constituition that gov't shall not infringe the right to speech. Yet we are social animals and from Hobbes on through Locke and other political thinkers there has been symbiosis between natural rights and obligations to the body politic. Most always missed is the context that the founding fathers viewd speech and communication vs government. You cannot take them and ignore how the concepts arose. Democracy/republican gov't cannot exist without the free flow of ideas and thoughts, but you are not guaranteed a forum. But gov't cannot, as it is representative and owes a fiduciary duty to the people's consent of the goverened, impose restrictions. Nor can or should Gov't interfere with the rights of people to share and to know. But this does not apply to private individuals. I owe you no duty save that of not causing harm and to the rights generally as a member of a social community Most of the free speech arguements are only dealing with one half or the other of these. It is also my free speech not to listen to you. It is BTS's right to say these are the rules for the use of this space. You are free to go to some place else and advocate your views. Set out your soap box in a cyber Hyde park, and know we will defend to the death your right to say whatever, however, the is not a concommitant obliagation to listen. It is a market place of ideas, the concept is to let those ideas be exposed and be viewed in clear day. Secrecy, deception and censorship FROM GOVERNMENTAL bodies is the truest threat to freedom. A closed mind does not encourage diversity, yet it is not required that I have to listen, read consider or care about any particular point of view. In fact to require such, even in the subtlest of ways is tyranny of another kid. This highlights why securing an education (not necessarily as is taught in schools) is the highest resp of a citizen. [This message has been edited by jdmorse (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/topstory/G57243-2000Nov09.html Keith brought this up elsewhere - I thought it may be of interest to illustrate the ambivalence many people in Germany have about the concept of unlimited free speech. Of particular interest is photo #4, IIRC. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Not to open myself up to the slings and arrows of angry forum members but I, too believe in an absolute right to free speech. Don't misinterpret this to mean I think that Steve has any requirement to keep open threads on his site that he does not want to stay open, rather, I think that all these angry religious wanker / Nazi / Fire in a Crowded Theatre arguments are fallacious. My two points of argument: 1) The more we try to protect people, the weaker we get. Once someone feels it is their right to live in a world that does not hurt them, offend them or otherwise bother them, then they have lost something which is integral to being human, the feeling of pain. If you are in a crowded theatre and someone yells fire, it is your responsibility to make sure he's right. If you go to the theatre with a bunch of idiots who believe everything they hear, you should have known better. If you hear a religious zealot advocating the extermination of your social group or, more likely, speech leading to such a goal, you had sure as hell better start working against it and not just figure that someone will protect you. People who want to limit speech are the same people who pass laws to require warning labels on coffee and life jackets when out on a lake, they are overgrown parents who think that life is only fun and love and that anything unsafe is inherently bad. We need mean, stupid and evil speech to toughen us up or we'll be swept away by the next great political or social disaster. 2) Ghandi, when speaking of pacifism, pointed out that when you chop down a tree, the axe is hurt as well as the tree. When we limit speech, we get caught in the inevitable inconsistencies demanded by the mewling of people who want a world more safe than you. eg Well if we can't advocate the extermination of Jews, we definitely can't discuss the misogynist tenants inherent in the Muslim religion, as that's just as bad. Racism, sexism, hate and evil all become straw men and slippery slopes until we're putting the same weight on off-topic posts, speed limits, bicycle riding and football games. In sum, we cannot be expected to think for ourselves if we put effort into the creation of a society that expressly forbids the act of speaking for ourselves, as the conscious creation of these morays and taboos not only retards society, it damages the individual. ------------------ I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve. -Meeks You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve. -Chrisl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts