Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Freedom Of Speech Or Omgwtf?
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > General Discussions > Open Talk > Debate District
asunder
http://theboyloveblog.blogspot.com/

...

i didn't even know about NAMBLA before i watched that southpark episode...
this on the same sort of thing.... scary....

Should people be allowed to post websites like this (protected by freedom of speech) or should they be arrested...(because they are probably potential/current pedophiles)?

Discuss!




Popogeejo
We don't have freedom of speech anyways.
It's illegal to shout death threats or say racist comments.

That site,while moraly questionalbe isn't really breaking laws.It has no kiddie images and is just talkng aboout an idea.I would be happier if such site weren't made but I would be a hypocrit if I told them not to.
There are alot of sites with equaly stupid ideas;
www.godhatesfags.com

Freedom of speech has to many problems but we can't go back on it.You just need to take the bad with the Good.
ἀρχή
In the US freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is understood that the right itself outweighs any general social unrest. Most of our freedoms actually do this.

Of course the freedom itself has been re-interpreted many times to water it down somewhat (i.e. immenant threat, etc...), but it is still a nearly sacred freedom in the US.

It is fairly interesting to think about the philosophical climate at the time when the freedom of speech in the US was made an amendment. It was set up at the height of 18th century Liberalism
MonsterEnvy
Yes, I think that freedom of speech is a fascinating issue too. One case that I like to cite is 'The People of the United States vs. Larry Flint,' about the general public attempting to censor his Hustler magazine for being pornographic and generally morally objectionable. Flint won, because, though most might disagree with his ideas, the defense showed that publishing his magazine was a basic right according to the Constitution. So, I think that it's interesting how even though most people might dislike a certain point of view, it's always legal to express it. However, it's illegal to express it violently, like cross burnings and things. I think that it works pretty well that way...
ἀρχή
Of course as with any law, it's only as good as the court interpretations. I wish I was up to date on the supreme court rulings on many free speech cases.
MonsterEnvy
The one that I find most interesting, actually (didn't think of this in previous posts) is how publicly, everyone is allowed to have free speech, but, in the government, there are sever restrictions.

Not only is this on CIA agents and suchlike, but also on the most basic government employees- schoolteachers, for example. They are not allowed to express the belief that there is a God, or that you'll go to heaven if you pray, or anything along those lines outside of a strictly historical context. This type of freedom of speech is limited for a reason- children are forced to go and here it. However, why can you not, therefore, argue that teachers should not be allowed to teach other so-called 'beliefs,' for example, that William Shakespeare actually wrote his plays when there is some evidence- even though it's flimsy- that the real situation is otherwise.

Just some food for thought (i'm not arguing the point, just playing the devil's advocate)
ἀρχή
QUOTE(MonsterEnvy @ Apr 12 2006, 09:45 PM) [snapback]379735[/snapback]
This type of freedom of speech is limited for a reason- children are forced to go and here it.

Well, we really don't want any teachers like Socretes who was killed for corrupting the youth laugh.gif
Popogeejo
You can't call people f***ing c**ts.Thats not allowing fredom of speech...




Note from Quistis: Even if you're just "quoting", please remember to censor your words.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 07:58 PM) [snapback]379749[/snapback]

You can't call people f*****g c***ts.Thats not allowing fredom of speech...


You can call people that, but its common curtesy not to and be polite enough to restrain yourself from doing this.
There is no law against calling someone that, or is there one that marraculously got through AND I ditdnt hear about it?

EDIT:
I eddited the quote to fit in with Quissy's edit that wasnt there when I posted.
Popogeejo
Your not allowed to make threatening remarks,swear at police or claim that people have done someting illegal/wrong that they haven't(Libal laws)

So couldn't say that Tony Blair sucks off goats unless I had proof or worded it as an oppinion.

@Quintis,Sorry I thought this forum did that automaticly.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 12 2006, 08:02 PM) [snapback]379752[/snapback]

Your not allowed to make threatening remarks,swear at police or claim that people have done someting illegal/wrong that they haven't(Libal laws)

So couldn't say that Tony Blair sucks off goats unless I had proof or worded it as an oppinion.

@Quintis,Sorry I thought this forum did that automaticly.


You can claim all you want that someone has done something.
Swearing at police is not something I do so im not informed as much in that respect
If you threaten someone, MOST of the times aslong as nothing happens, and all you will get is an informal warning from the police.
Popogeejo
QUOTE
You can claim all you want that someone has done something.


You can't in Britain atleast.newspaperscan get sued if they make allegations about people without proof.The Magazine "Private Eye" is the most sued publication in the UK because of what it has alleged(All in jest ofcourse)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
Le Monkey
Yuo can get sued if you do it nationaly so that it breaks down someones life, yes.
But that is allot different from what it sounded like you were saying to me.
EGs,
Will you ue me If I spread rumors about you?
I frequently accuse my sister of stealing my money/stuff, will she ever sue me?
Will some people sue me as I accuse them of being drug dealers? (No, they will beat the cr*p out of me dry.gif)
Popogeejo
Depends on the people.We're solowly becoming a very litigous soceity where it's sue first and sue again later.
Le Monkey
Dont have to remind me,
I still hate the fact that you can sue the councill because you fell off the pavment as there was a crack in it..
How many other people actually LOOK where theyre going and AVOID THE DAMN CRACK????

Or you sue someone because you got banned from somewhere for causing fights, and they win.. dry.gif
Popogeejo
These days Peter Parker would have sued for being bitten by that Spider.

But I digress(again)

Freedom of speech was a Niave idea that can't work.
Envy's lil' miniskirt
What does Peter Parking being bit by a spider have to do with free speech?

I think freedom of speech does work, but since we (the US) live in this fluffy PC world where everybody is just ready to be offending by something it's taking quite a beating.

Howard Stern is a good example. He has been fined by the FCC for saying things that other radio/tv shows can get away with without anybody batting an eye. Since he is so famous more people complain about him and thus he gets fined more often than others in his field.
Popogeejo
QUOTE
What does Peter Parking being bit by a spider have to do with free speech?


We were talking about how people sue first and ask questions never.
Le Monkey
But that isnt relevant anymore really.. mellow.gif

I do agree that free speech is something that was a good idea to start with, but it was an idea and will eventually be so restricted with laws and regulations, that it will become a list of what you can say.. dry.gif
Popogeejo
Huzah for Political Correctness.
"White people can't call black pople black,asian people asain and Vis versa"
Basicly you can't say anything about people diffrent from you so technicly you have to treat people based on appearance/Sexuality/Religion rather than treating them as individuals.

If you're white police officer and you carrest a white guy it's doing your job,if you arrest a black guy it's "because of his race"

PC doesn't work in a soceity which has jerks in it.
Ronaldo Rodregez
Let me just say that no government is perfect, no government will ever be perfect, and no one's even close.
Envy's lil' miniskirt
Political correctness doesn't work. Because just like most everything else people don't know how to balance it out. PC does not apply to everyone of every race, gender or system of belief, someone has to be the pariah. People love scapegoats, it makes them feel better about themselves to blame someone/something else for the evils of the world.

It's like communism, it works well in theory but executes poorly in real life. All PC as done is given a large group of people a thin skin and not even about things that are all that important.

Yes, there will be jerks in the world. Yes, these jerks will make fun of people who are different than themselves but this is nothing new. Throughout history people have always been xenophobic.

Somewhere in the prehistoric times there were two guys who lived across the river from each other and would make fun of and throw rocks at each other because one used a spear to hunt and wore war paint. The second guy made fun of the first guy because he used a bow and arrow to hunt and didn't wear paint.

It's just human nature to be an ass sometimes. You can either accept that people will say things you find offensive go on with your life or you can spend a good chunk of your life whining bitching an moaning about it.
Popogeejo
QUOTE
It's just human nature to be an ass sometimes. You can either accept that people will say things you find offensive go on with your life or you can spend a good chunk of your life whining bitching an moaning about it.


I'm pretty sure I'm the ass most of the time.

The way I see it is that we're taught to except others belifes.All noice and happy untill some says all Gays are evil.Now we are supposed to respect that are we not?My mum was watching Rikki Lake (Don't know why) and they had a homophobe and tried to get him to except Gays as a "way of encouraging toloerance" but wait a second aren't we just saying he's wrong and we're right?

PC doesn't mean toloeance it mean we all have to hold hands and dance under a big simliey Rainbow while singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing"

PC sucks.
Carnal Malefactor
Christians want legal exemption to express their bigotry openly

Free speech is so easily perverted...
Popogeejo
Well the Christians are technicly right even if I don't like it.freedom of speech should work both ways.You've got to take the bad with the good.Sadly unless the unwashed masses IQ jumps about 25 points then there will be more "OMG fag loser" than understanding.
Envy's lil' miniskirt
^^Indeed it is.

However, if you truly want freedom of speech then that includes the ignorant as well.
Popogeejo
QUOTE

However, if you truly want freedom of speech then that includes the ignorant as well.


Can't we just have it so you have to pass an IQ test* to get freedom of speech.It won't stop every biggot but it'll thin their ranks somewhat.

Time for Popo's super-happy-fun-sweeping generalisations biggrin.gif Joy!
Librals don't want free speech,they want everyone to agree with their leftie view.
Republicans just want the same thing as the Liberals but a bit more extreme.
The UK parties just want everyone to have a cup of tea,calm down and shw unrealistic and impracticla ammounts of resspect to eachother.(Unless you happen to be Prince Phillip who can say absolutly anything.)

*I'm aware of the inpracticality and implications of this method.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 16 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]381917[/snapback]

QUOTE

However, if you truly want freedom of speech then that includes the ignorant as well.


Can't we just have it so you have to pass an IQ test* to get freedom of speech.It won't stop every biggot but it'll thin their ranks somewhat.

Time for Popo's super-happy-fun-sweeping generalisations biggrin.gif Joy!
Librals don't want free speech,they want everyone to agree with their leftie view.
Republicans just want the same thing as the Liberals but a bit more extreme.
The UK parties just want everyone to have a cup of tea,calm down and shw unrealistic and impracticla ammounts of resspect to eachother.(Unless you happen to be Prince Phillip who can say absolutly anything.)

*I'm aware of the inpracticality and implications of this method.


I have actually setgested an IQ test is required for most things, ^^

most of your genraligations are fine and good.. XD
and the Prince can say most things, but if you want an exapmle of someone who cocks up when talking in public, Mayor of London.. dry.gif
Popogeejo
QUOTE
Prince can say most things, but if you want an exapmle of someone who cocks up when talking in public, Mayor of London


Yeah but could he do this?

The problem is people don't realize how great "free speech" is untill they don't have it.they treat it like a right (mostly because of it's name) but it's a privalige.Governments don't have to lets us sa what we want bu they do(kinda.)
asunder
How's this thread still doing?
I haven't had time to really be on these forums nor even to make fun of bryantq to his face sad.gif

anyways here's some other free speech related material

QUOTE

Dear Viewer,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the "South Park" episodes
entitled "Cartoon Wars." We appreciate your concerns about censorship
and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media,
entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.

To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment
right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and
religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to
make people laugh and perhaps, if we're lucky, even make them think in
the process.

Comedy Central's belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite
our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not
to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion
over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public
safety in light of recent world events.

With the power of freedom of speech and expression also comes the
obligation to use that power in a responsible way. Much as we wish it
weren't the case, times have changed and, as witnessed by the intense
and deadly reaction to the publication of the Danish cartoons, decisions
cannot be made in a vacuum without considering what impact they may have
on innocent individuals around the globe.

It was with this in mind we decided not to air the image of Muhammad, a
decision similar to that made by virtually every single media outlet
across the country earlier this year when they each determined that it
was not prudent or in the interest of safety to reproduce the
controversial Danish cartoons. Injuries occurred and lives were lost in
the riots set off by the original publication of these cartoons. The
American media made a decision then, as we did now, not to put the
safety and well being of the public at risk, here or abroad.

As a viewer of "South Park," you know that over the course of ten
seasons and almost 150 episodes the series has addressed all types of
sensitive, hot-button issues, religious and political, and has done so
with Comedy Central's full support in every instance, including this
one. "Cartoon Wars" contained a very important message, one that Trey
and Matt felt strongly about, as did we at the network, which is why we
gave them carte blanche in every facet but one: we would not broadcast a
portrayal of Muhammad.

In that regard, did we censor the show? Yes, we did. But if you hold
Comedy Central's 15-year track record up against any other network out
there, you'll find that we afford our talent the most creative freedom
and provide a nurturing atmosphere that challenges them to be bold and
daring and places them in a position to constantly break barriers and
push the envelope. The result has been some of the most provocative
television ever produced.

We would like nothing more than to be able to look back at this in a few
years and think that perhaps we overreacted. Unfortunately, to have
made a different decision and to look back and see that we completely
underestimated the damage that resulted was a risk we were not willing
to take.

Our pledge to you, our loyal viewers, is that Comedy Central will
continue to produce and provide the best comedy available and we will
continue to push it right to the edge, using and defending the First
Amendment in the most responsible way we know how.

Sincerely,
Comedy Central Viewer Services


Comedy Central's response to Cartoon Wars.....

discuss!~
Carnal Malefactor
They pussed out.

Those hypocrites.
Envy's lil' miniskirt
Do you all know what is really stupid about this whole thing? South Park has already had an episode with Muhammad in it, the Super Best Friends episode. Comedy Central is freaking out about nothing really, if somebody was going to suicide bomb them I think they would have done it already.
Le Monkey
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Apr 16 2006, 07:35 PM) [snapback]381991[/snapback]

QUOTE
Prince can say most things, but if you want an exapmle of someone who cocks up when talking in public, Mayor of London


Yeah but could he do this?


thats not even the prince.. fool.. xD


Comedy central is overreacting and backing out.. <<
Popogeejo
QUOTE
thats not even the prince.. fool.. xD


Google image search Prince Philip or Duke of Edinbouruh(sp?)

And Comedy Central have become far to cowardly these days.
MonsterEnvy
Ick, i hate this computer. I just lost a response....

Okay, so.

The true meaning of free speech is acrually very confused. it's quite simple- in the US, free speech allows people to express any beliefs they have as long as these are not blatant fabrications that would cause or lead people to cause themselves harm (the fire in a crowded theatre example) or in such a way as that they are threatening (cross burnings). So, it's perfectly legal for a KKK member to say that he thinks that all gays and blacks should die. It's not legal for them to say that they would like to kill all gays and blacks. the difference is that the second is threatening, while the first is not- directly. In the example earlier in this thread with the Christians who complained that they had their free speech repressed because they couldn't dis gays, the chrsitians have no case. They can't be kept from saying 'i think homosexuality is wrong' but they can be kept from saying 'I want to kill gays and send them all to hell' because that's threatening and harmful.

Also, the bit with Comedy Central and their refusal to show the Muslim cartoons has very little to do with free speech. Instead, they simply made an educated decision to not show inflamatory images. While they shouldn't have had to worry about their safety, they also made the socially correct choice to not anger a group of people whose religion has already been trampled and defaced. Really, shows like 'South Park' misuse, if not abuse, their free speech rights. They express opinions, but in a very derogatory way. This is legal... but it's still opinion, and protected, not statement, and therefore not free speech. That's not to say that I don't enjoy these shows, but it's just a way of using them to illustrate this point.

yep...

Oh. also, popo, liberals don't really want everyone to conform to their opinions, I think. They're more interested in making free speech free, but also unoffensive. Republicans are interested in allowing pretty much anyone to say whatever they want- especially giving businesses free speech and all the rights of people. In essence, businesses are people. they have birth certificates, death certificates, free speech, constitutional rights, and even a bit of a variant of a social security number. Replublicans also want to be sure that none of the free speech contradicts the government.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.