America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

We should even report on things that didn't happen. (Bowling green massacre)

I think that the future history of the world will remember the Bowling Green Massacre as a real event, albeit one that only claimed a single victim - the last vestige of Kellyanne Conway's credibility.

 

[Com Fox]

I think that the future history of the world will remember the Bowling Green Massacre as a real event, albeit one that only claimed a single victim - the last vestige of Kellyanne Conway's credibility.

How many people actually buy it now? Why would that even change?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Also, the White House claims that the Lindt Cafe Siege did not receive adequate media coverage, despite having dominated headlines for a month down here. Although part of me wonders if that could genuinely be called a terror attack, given the behaviour of the perpetrator immediately prior to the siege.

 

[eran0004]

Free speech is being able to express opinions without fear of censorship. As long as you're no infringing on the rights of others, which lets face it words can't really do that, then you're free to say what you like and other are free to call you an ass because of it.

Words are actually very powerful and they can do a lot of harm. Using nothing but words you can drive someone to the edge of suicide, or you can start a riot, or you can have somebody murdered, or you can make somebody lose their job.

Freedom of speech alone is not a good system, there needs to be some limits to it. The problem is to find a good balance, so that you can freely express critical opinions, but cannot cause too much damage.

As an extreme example, I don't think anyone would agree that it should be allowed for a newspaper to find a random guy on Facebook, print his name and picture with the headline: "This guy is a pedophile."
Just having the freedom to reply: "that newspaper is an ass." is not enough to undo the damage.

 

[Com Fox]

Words are actually very powerful and they can do a lot of harm. Using nothing but words you can drive someone to the edge of suicide, or you can start a riot, or you can have somebody murdered, or you can make somebody lose their job.

Freedom of speech alone is not a good system, there needs to be some limits to it. The problem is to find a good balance, so that you can freely express critical opinions, but cannot cause too much damage.

Problem is that it all comes down to the receiver, balancing is hard because some people might not mind what someone said but others will. It all comes down to who is hearing it. It isn't like being shot where everyone will feel the pain.

As an extreme example, I don't think anyone would agree that it should be allowed for a newspaper to find a random guy on Facebook, print his name and picture with the headline: "This guy is a pedophile."
Just having the freedom to reply: "that newspaper is an ass." is not enough to undo the damage.

It depends, if the guy is a pedophile and there is legit evidence the newspaper supplies I don't think that's a problem. If the news paper is wrong and is given unimformed information that is a different problem all together with the press spreading misinformation.

Spreading lies and propaganda isn't alligned to be like Free Speech or any sort of freedom. They are meant to express yourself. that isn't the case if you're just spreading misinformation.

 

[eran0004]

Problem is that it all comes down to the receiver, balancing is hard because some people might not mind what someone said but others will. It all comes down to who is hearing it. It isn't like being shot where everyone will feel the pain.


It depends, if the guy is a pedophile and there is legit evidence the newspaper supplies I don't think that's a problem. If the news paper is wrong and is given unimformed information that is a different problem all together with the press spreading misinformation.

Spreading lies and propaganda isn't alligned to be like Free Speech or any sort of freedom. They are meant to express yourself. that isn't the case if you're just spreading misinformation.

Yes, it is hard. Society is a complex construction.

 

[Carlos]

Problem is that it all comes down to the receiver, balancing is hard because some people might not mind what someone said but others will. It all comes down to who is hearing it. It isn't like being shot where everyone will feel the pain.


It depends, if the guy is a pedophile and there is legit evidence the newspaper supplies I don't think that's a problem. If the news paper is wrong and is given unimformed information that is a different problem all together with the press spreading misinformation.

Spreading lies and propaganda isn't alligned to be like Free Speech or any sort of freedom. They are meant to express yourself. that isn't the case if you're just spreading misinformation.

If gov can put people to jail without evidence (guilty until proven innocent) then expect the media to do the same. And when the media turns out to be wrong, they just don't cover it. It's that easy...

 

[Com Fox]

If gov can put people to jail without evidence (guilty until proven innocent) then expect the media to do the same. And when the media turns out to be wrong, they just don't cover it. It's that easy...

I never said it wasn't. I was saying how spreading lies through the media isn't the purpose whatsoever of freedom of speech and is problem of a different matter of misinformation of the press, and I don't support that.

 

[PeterJB]

No amount of socialism can save you now!

http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/02/black-lives-matter-toronto-trudeau-white-supremacist/

 

[Famine]

Words are actually very powerful and they can do a lot of harm. Using nothing but words you can drive someone to the edge of suicide, or you can start a riot, or you can have somebody murdered, or you can make somebody lose their job.

Freedom of speech alone is not a good system, there needs to be some limits to it. The problem is to find a good balance, so that you can freely express critical opinions, but cannot cause too much damage.

As an extreme example, I don't think anyone would agree that it should be allowed for a newspaper to find a random guy on Facebook, print his name and picture with the headline: "This guy is a pedophile."
Just having the freedom to reply: "that newspaper is an ass." is not enough to undo the damage.

Of course it should be 'allowed'. What possible reason could there be for the government to prevent them by force?

Why are you conflating freedom of expression with freedom from consequence?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why are you conflating freedom of expression with freedom from consequence?

I think a lot of people do. They say something contentious or controversial, and when people protest, they turn around and say "I'm exercising my right to freedom of speech" as if it's a Get Out of Jail Free card - and while it might be in the most literal sense, the people saying it give the distinct impression that they expect anyone who disagrees with them to forget about it because freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

 

[Carlos]

I think a lot of people do. They say something contentious or controversial, and when people protest, they turn around and say "I'm exercising my right to freedom of speech" as if it's a Get Out of Jail Free card - and while it might be in the most literal sense, the people saying it give the distinct impression that they expect anyone who disagrees with them to forget about it because freedom of speech is sacrosanct.

There was an anti Trump protest last week here in the Netherlands, an interviewer asked a lady why she was against him but her answer was that she didn't want to be on TV and then slapped the interviewer in the face. Logic....

 

[eran0004]

Of course it should be 'allowed'. What possible reason could there be for the government to prevent them by force?

Because it would be harmful to society to allow it.

Why are you conflating freedom of expression with freedom from consequence?

There is no conflation, freedom from legal consequence is part of what freedom of expression means.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because it would be harmful to society to allow it.

So who says what form of speech is allowed and what isn't, and would people be right to call that censorship?

 

[Famine]

Because it would be harmful to society to allow it.

Why?

There is no conflation, freedom from legal consequence is part of what freedom of expression means.

No it doesn't - not that I mentioned legal consequence.

Freedom of expression is the ability to say anything you like at any time without governmental censure. Freedom of expression is not the guaranteed protection of the consequences of exercising this ability.

 

[eran0004]

So who says what form of speech is allowed and what isn't, and would people be right to call that censorship?

Whoever makes the laws, usually some kind of parliament.

And yes, it is some kind of censorship.

Why?

Why it would be harmful to spread false rumours? Because people tend to pay attention to them and it can hurt your reputation, your career and your relationships.

Freedom of expression is the ability to say anything you like at any time without governmental censure. Freedom of expression is not the guaranteed protection of the consequences of exercising this ability.

The ability to do something is not the same as having the freedom to do so. You may have the ability to rob a bank, but that does mean that you have the freedom to do so.

If you penalise someone for saying something it means that they weren't free to say it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is alleged to have shouted it. Funny how thirty witnesses couldn't corroborate it. It's also funny that this alleged terrorist had the opportunity to murder thirty-two people and yet only killed two of them - a woman he was believed to be romantically involved with, and a bystander who tried to stop him.

So you have a link to the 32 witness statements? Funny how he's alleged to have shouted Allahu Akbar, but he was believed to be romantically involved with the woman he stabbed to death. Yes he ONLY killed two people, stabbed another, assaulted 12 cops, killed a dog and allegedly shouted the terrorist war cry during and after the event. I guess that's normal down there. I mean, what terrorist allegedly shouts God is Great! after killing people? Don't they shout, "Yay, terrorism ftw!" or something like that?

 

[polysmut]

The White House publishes a list of seventy-eight incidents that it classifies as terror attacks and accuses the global media of deliberately under-reporting them. Included in this list is the stabbing death of a backpacker in Queensland which police determined to be a murder.

The list also includes some events that received an incredibly high amount of coverage.

The White House did not specify which attacks on the list it claimed had gone under-reported, though the dossier included the massacres in Paris, Nice,Brussels, Berlin and the shooting in San Bernardino, all of which received widespread international coverage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...covered-widely-reported-bowling-a7566951.html

 

[Danoff]

The ability to do something is not the same as having the freedom to do so. You may have the ability to rob a bank, but that does mean that you have the freedom to do so.

If you penalise someone for saying something it means that they weren't free to say it.

There is a difference between saying that it is illegal to fire a gun, and that it is illegal to fire a gun AT someone when you are not defending a life. But what @Famine is getting at most likely is that your ability to express yourself does not preclude others from judging you based on how you express yourself and choosing not to associate with you, hire you, take you seriously, publish you, etc. etc... and of course you may get shouted down by far more people expressing themselves in the opposite direction.

Once again, it is legal in the US to belligerently call a black person the n-word, and rightly so, no word should be a crime in and of itself. That's how far we are from protecting transgender people from being called the wrong pronoun. And I'm very glad of that.

 

[huskeR32]

Spreading lies and propaganda isn't alligned to be like Free Speech or any sort of freedom. They are meant to express yourself. that isn't the case if you're just spreading misinformation.

Knowingly misrepresenting a person's gender doesn't constitute misinformation?

 

[Danoff]

They are meant to express yourself. that isn't the case if you're just spreading misinformation.

Knowingly misrepresenting a person's gender doesn't constitute misinformation?

Lying is not illegal. Fraud, libel, slander... all different.

 

[eran0004]

There is a difference between saying that it is illegal to fire a gun, and that it is illegal to fire a gun AT someone when you are not defending a life.

Of course, just as there is a difference between discussing genocide and promoting genocide. Words can cause great harm when used in certain ways, which is why there needs to be some limits to what you can legally say.

But what @Famine is getting at most likely is that your ability to express yourself does not preclude others from judging you based on how you express yourself and choosing not to associate with you, hire you, take you seriously, publish you, etc. etc... and of course you may get shouted down by far more people expressing themselves in the opposite direction.

Yes. Unless there are people who agree with you, in which case they'd cheer you on. In any case, that is not really relevant to the discussion of the need of having some limits to the freedom of expression.

 

[Tornado]

I'm guessing genocide (and robbing a bank, and rioting, and shooting a guy, and whatever other action you want to use as a comparison) probably isn't legal regardless of how much you feel people who don't agree with you should be limited in their speech.



Though it certainly is interesting how much more free speech was held dear about a month ago when Trump was whining about that play than it is now that the recent topic of discussion is how some guy is giving speeches people don't like.

 

[Danoff]

Of course, just as there is a difference between discussing genocide and promoting genocide. Words can cause great harm when used in certain ways, which is why there needs to be some limits to what you can legally say.

Those limits have to do with causing real-world harm, and are intimately tied with that harm. In the cases of slander, libel, and fraud, you're only on the hook for provable damages. When discussing killing someone, intent to actually carry that out needs to be proven. So the discussion itself is not illegal.

In fact, the discussion itself is never illegal (in the US), and hurt feelings never constitute damages.

 

[ryzno]

I'll just leave this here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

 

[Pillo-san]

There is a difference between saying that it is illegal to fire a gun, and that it is illegal to fire a gun AT someone when you are not defending a life. But what @Famine is getting at most likely is that your ability to express yourself does not preclude others from judging you based on how you express yourself and choosing not to associate with you, hire you, take you seriously, publish you, etc. etc... and of course you may get shouted down by far more people expressing themselves in the opposite direction.

Once again, it is legal in the US to belligerently call a black person the n-word, and rightly so, no word should be a crime in and of itself. That's how far we are from protecting transgender people from being called the wrong pronoun. And I'm very glad of that.

Once again you show that you do not know what freedom of speech is all about.. If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely. It is like calling wolf, when there is none.

I read a short piece about Trump, where the author compared Trump to Erdogan. And to be honest I agree with the comparison. Maybe Trump will spell end of the real Freedom of speech. It was a big boo-boo to criticise George Bush when he decided to go to war. But it was ok for everyone from the right wing to criticize Obama even Ok to fabricate conspiracies about him. Now with Trump, every show makes fun of him but he is lashing out like it was a crime committed against the supremacy of USA. The only freedome of speech in USA will probably be "hate speech" disguised as freedom of speech against a group/minority.

 

[Danoff]

Once again you show that you do not know what freedom of speech is all about.. If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely. It is like calling wolf, when there is none.

Actually I think it is you who do not know what freedom of speech is all about - it includes the freedom to express hatred.

I read a short piece about Trump, where the author compared Trump to Erdogan. And to be honest I agree with the comparison. Maybe Trump will spell end of the real Freedom of speech. It was a big boo-boo to criticise George Bush when he decided to go to war. But it was ok for everyone from the right wing to criticize Obama even Ok to fabricate conspiracies about him. Now with Trump, every show makes fun of him but he is lashing out like it was a crime committed against the supremacy of USA. The only freedome of speech in USA will probably be "hate speech" disguised as freedom of speech against a group/minority.

I tend to agree that Trump is overly sensitive and constantly cries lawsuit when offended. But I can only hope that none of that results in actual curtailment of speech.

 

[Tornado]

If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech

So who gets to be the arbiter of such a thing being misusing the concept of free speech or disguising hate speech? You?

then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely. It is like calling wolf, when there is none.

No, I think the people confusing the right to free speech with the right to not be offended by other's speech have a good head start on that.

 

[ryzno]

Once again you show that you do not know what freedom of speech is all about.. If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely. It is like calling wolf, when there is none.

It seems you don't and that will never happen.
I can run around calling every black person I saw the N word. I might get killed or assaulted but I can say it.
And guess what, whoever tries to kill me or assault me will be the one who gets charged in court.
Now there is a line of where hate speech turns into a hate crime but that is a completely different story.

 

[Famine]

Why it would be harmful to spread false rumours? Because people tend to pay attention to them and it can hurt your reputation, your career and your relationships.

If they're demonstrably false, you have legal recourse. Remember, freedom to say what you want is not protection from consequence of saying what you want.

So I ask again, why should there be governmental force to stop the newspaper (or anyone) from saying what it wants?

The ability to do something is not the same as having the freedom to do so.

I didn't say it was. In fact I said it exactly the other way round, with a qualifier.

Freedom of speech is the ability to say anything you want without government censure.

The ability doesn't generate the freedom - which makes your following hypothetical bafflingly daft...

You may have the ability to rob a bank, but that does mean that you have the freedom to do so.

That's because it doesn't work that way round.

If you had the freedom to rob banks though, you'd have the ability to do so without government censure.

If you penalise someone for saying something it means that they weren't free to say it.

Only if by "you" you mean "the government". Otherwise, nup.

Once again you show that you do not know what freedom of speech is all about.. If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely.

The moment you add an exception, free speech is banned completely. If you think "freedom of speech" includes any exceptions at all, you don't know how it works.

Freedom of speech is just that - the freedom to speak without government censure. It isn't protection from consequences of exercising it.