• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free *beeep* Speech

strathmeyer said:
Ok, "does not at all value" meant something different to me when I jumbled the words in my head. I think I was accidentally reading your comments as "I don' think any forms of free speech are infringed in America". I pointed out China because I was saying that there are certainly communities that pretend to practice freedom of speech but do not. I think America is one of these communities. I'll remember to read things slower. We should go back to attacking whomever you were originally attacking.
Click to expand...

Evidence?

Who's right to free speech is being infringed by the government? Give details. And then explain why it's, at all, comparable to China's system.

I'll be waiting.
 
Fronzel said:
An interesting story... You can say the F word in Primetime.

It wouldn't be a problem for CNN to say "The Middle East is really ****ed up" because they aren't using **** as a verb.

At least, it wouldn't be a problem with the FCC. I'm pretty sure the presenter would get fired.
Click to expand...


Their official explanation sounds pretty inhibited:

The FCC, using the F-word more often to explain its decision than Bono did on the air, said the word "may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities." That distinction is a key test to measure whether a statement meets a federal standard for broadcast indecency.
Click to expand...
 
Hey, I'm totally with you- Jon Stewart and others should be free to use whatever profanity they want, enspecially since there aren't many children watching The Daily Show at midnight.
 
A question here:

I also am a huge advocate of freedom of speech, when it comes to communicating one's ideas, beliefs, principles, etc. Now, given this principle, if someone is speaking, and I *bleep* out a profanity here and there, has my ability to understand the point that they are making been interfered with in any way? If someone says "George Bush is a warmonger" or "George Bush is a *bleep* warmonger", has the person's right to communicate their message, or my right to hear that message, been in any way infringed upon or impeded?

I'd say no.

Now, granted, I'm an adult, and don't really take offense at most profanities; I've been known to use them on occasion myself. But there are those who are offended by such language, and certainly there are those who don't want their children to hear such language. So long as the message the person is seeking to communicate can come across, I don't really have a big problem with bleeping out the occasional (or in the case of some personalities, not-so-occasional) bit of profanity.

Now, taking this conversation in a slightly different direction, I also feel that "freedom of speech" is sometimes taken too far, particularly in our modern "complete lack of personal responsibility" culture. An example is a recent "scandal" in SecondLife, the online virtual reality world, which I recently joined.

In SecondLife, you can design your avatar to look any way you want, and can engage in pretty much any acts that you want. There's tons of areas devoted purely to sex. One of the activities that has risen to public awareness is what is called "child play", where one person creates an avatar that looks like a child, then another person engages in sex with that child.

There are tons of arguments for and against this; the main "pro" argument being that both participants are actually adults, and engage only in fantasy. However, there is a subculture -- and it should be noted that this represents a tiny, tiny minority of SecondLife members -- of active pedophiles and sexual offenders, who use this environment not only to engage in fantasies, but also to exchange ideas, suggestions, and strategies about seducing/abducting/raping children in real life.

Linden Labs, who created the SecondLife world, have responded by "censoring" the SecondLife world; if you search for terms like "child play", "lolita", or other such terms referring to underage sex (real or simulated), you will get no results.

And here is where the problem is -- there are plenty of SecondLife members who engage in child-related activities that have nothing whatsoever to do with such abhorrent practices. People who sell templates for child avatars that you can buy and use for yourself. People who host parties at which everyone should appear like and act like a child. But all of which involve no sexual activities whatsoever.

Linden Labs, in censoring words that could lead to pedophile communities/activities, has also censored words that could lead to these businesses/activities. And many people in SecondLife are up in arms over this.

Now, granted, Linden Labs made a very vaguely worded policy in this regard, and implementation left much to be desired. But in my opinion, protecting children from the potential abuse that could be inflicted by this minority of sexual predators supercedes the rights of others in the Second Life community, and I personally support censorship of such terms, even if many of those using them are doing so in an entirely innocent manner. Although I do think that Linden Labs should work to find a solution that addresses the situation better.

In short, while I disagree with censorship as a general principle, I find that there are specific cases where it is necessary, and where a person's right to express themselves can be subordinated to someone else's right to protection.
 
Wolfman said:
*shortened*
In short, while I disagree with censorship as a general principle, I find that there are specific cases where it is necessary, and where a person's right to express themselves can be subordinated to someone else's right to protection.
Click to expand...


While I don't know what "SecondLife" is - and child abuse a serious issue is in our culture: If two adults play such games, I see no logical reason to forbid their minds, meaning that every human has some kind of sexual fantasies, which means that people who have these Fantasies, also have them outside the virtual world.

The question is: If two Adults play this virtually - is this more dangerous than two Adults (let's say a married couple) playing this in real life? And is playing this a danger for real children? And does expression of sexual fantasies reduce the lust for "the real thing" - or does it heighten this kind of lust?

This is a rather a question for Psychologists or Studies on this subject than asking about opinions because it's beyond free speech. To generally forbid these fantasies will be an unsolvable problem after all - until some nutjobs come into power and lock them away.

Maybe Linden Labs should have consulted psychologists on this issue - but I guess they feared a media-hype ignited by some "moral angels".

More curious is that all the shooters are widely accepted - beside the moral, usual suspects. While I also played them for a while, I think that virtual murdering is much more violent than virtual sex. So this may also be a question of sexual education - and I heard that not every country is educating this issue equally open-minded and serious to avoid "education of intolerance".
 
Oliver said:
While I don't know what "SecondLife" is - and child abuse a serious issue is in our culture: If two adults play such games, I see no logical reason to forbid their minds, meaning that every human has some kind of sexual fantasies, which means that people who have these Fantasies, also have them outside the virtual world.

The question is: If two Adults play this virtually - is this more dangerous than two Adults (let's say a married couple) playing this in real life? And is playing this a danger for real children? And does expression of sexual fantasies reduce the lust for "the real thing" - or does it heighten this kind of lust?

This is a rather a question for Psychologists or Studies on this subject than asking about opinions because it's beyond free speech. To generally forbid these fantasies will be an unsolvable problem after all - until some nutjobs come into power and lock them away.

Maybe Linden Labs should have consulted psychologists on this issue - but I guess they feared a media-hype ignited by some "moral angels".

More curious is that all the shooters are widely accepted - beside the moral, usual suspects. While I also played them for a while, I think that virtual murdering is much more violent than virtual sex. So this may also be a question of sexual education - and I heard that not every country is educating this issue equally open-minded and serious to avoid "education of intolerance".
Click to expand...
Sorry, Oliver, perhaps I should clarify.

Linden Labs is not specifically taking action against those who role play (one or both adults pretend to be a child in acting out a sexual fantasy). While I personally find that rather repulsive, I'd agree that it is their right to do so, so long as it doesn't lead to actual exploitation of children.

However, besides those who simply engage in role playing, there are also those who take it a step further -- they exchange ideas and strategies about how to abuse REAL children. They will talk about the best places to stalk children, the best ways to lure them away, the best ways to scare them into not telling their parents, etc.

It is THIS aspect of online practices that Linden Labs is trying to stop...but since the people doing these things use the same keywords (and often go to the same locations) as others with more 'innocent' intentions, the efforts to stop this small minority of predators inevitably affects others.

So the question is...do you censor people who are doing nothing wrong, and infringe their rights to "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression", so that you can prevent others from facilitating active child abuse?

Or, do you hold that, since many of these people are doing nothing 'wrong', it is wrong to censor or limit them in any way, and thus this censorship is unacceptable -- even if it does enable others to share strategies that lead to actual child abuse?

For myself, my opinion is that the harm done to even one child as the result of such online activities outweighs the harm done to an entire online community that face what are really minor inconveniences to acting out online fantasies.
 
Lonewulf said:
Evidence?

Who's right to free speech is being infringed by the government? Give details. And then explain why it's, at all, comparable to China's system.

I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

Huh? The MPAA and movies. The FCC and radio and television. Free speech zones. Public schools have a lot of leeway in infringing the rights of students. MPAA vs 2600, DeCSS, the HD DVD key fiasco.

It's comparable to China's system because they are all systems where freedom of speech is infringed. Yes, China's system is the most extreme in the world. I brought it up because I was pointing out that the Chinese still pretend that they have free speech, so it's possible that any community that pretends to practice free speech in fact does not.
 
strathmeyer said:
It's comparable to China's system because they are all systems where freedom of speech is infringed. Yes, China's system is the most extreme in the world. I brought it up because I was pointing out that the Chinese still pretend that they have free speech, so it's possible that any community that pretends to practice free speech in fact does not.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate the principle of your statement, and would agree that it is possible to have the illusion of free speech without actually having it, I'm afraid that your statements here are based on rather obvious ignorance of both China, and of the rest of the world.

I could name quite a few countries where prohibitions against freedom of speech are far more "extreme" than in China. Try North Korea. Iran. Vietnam. Zimbabwe.

In fact, as a person who's lived in China for 14 years now, I can state unequivocably that not only is free speech in China not as bad as a number of other countries (some of which I've also visited), but that it is improving rapidly. When I came to China in 1993, public (or private) discussion of political issues was absolutely forbidden, except to state unquestioning support for the government. Today, public discussion of such issues is commonplace. Tons of Chinese internet sites discuss these issues, even criticize the government. People talk about things today -- without punishment, and without censorship -- that they would never have been able to discuss a decade ago.

In addition, access to information and facts from the outside world has increased a thousand-fold. Chinese people are no longer limited only to what the government tells them; they have access to tons of other resources, opinions, and viewpoints.

Compare that to places like North Korea or Iran, where internet access is extremely limited (or non-existent). Where merely discussing problems with gov't decisions can land you in prison (North Korea). Or where a woman who wants to walk about with her face uncovered can end up being beaten (Iran).

No, freedom of speech in China is nowhere near as good as it is in my own country, Canada. But "China's system is the most extreme in the world"?!? Seriously, you'd better check out "the world" (China and the rest of it) a little more thoroughly before making statements like that.
 
Wolfman said:
However, besides those who simply engage in role playing, there are also those who take it a step further -- they exchange ideas and strategies about how to abuse REAL children. They will talk about the best places to stalk children, the best ways to lure them away, the best ways to scare them into not telling their parents, etc.
Click to expand...


Well, if this is true and not a rumor spread by some people who are generally intolerant, I think SecondLife would be the Ideal tool for the executive branch to confront such illegal activities with the law - because planing real Child abuse is a common restriction of Free Speech in many countries, I guess in America, too.

However: In this example I think it's rather dangerous to completely ignore this problem using censorship. But I also understand that the Firm reacted this way to avoid any damage to their reputation. Now the restriction of keywords may be annoying, but it's their right to build up their own rules in their software. I see no big difference to Rule8 in here and honestly, it would be much more restricting freedom of expression if there were no ability within the game to build up a child character in the first place instead censoring Keywords, wouldn't it?

And it would be more dangerous if someone automatically checks your background if you type in a forbidden keyword by accident - like China is accused of doing so to punish "free thinkers".

Maybe they find a work-around to solve the problem in a better way.
 
JayT said:
The US government was founded as the result of a revolution against corruption under another famous George.
Click to expand...

No, it was founded as the result of a revolution against a government that refused to extend the rights of Englishmen in England to the residents of its colonies, who were also Englishmen.

JayT said:
The United States of Amerika is now a bona fide, dues paying, card carrying fascist regime worse than any in prior history under the worst leader in history and worsening by the day.
Click to expand...

Please direct me to the concentration camps. Please show me the trains loaded with citizens headed for imprisonment in them. Please tell me when the invasions of Mexico and Canada took place.


Oliver said:
But there are many cases in which free speech in the US is also restricted:

You are not allowed to cry "Oh God! A Bomb!" or something similar in a full theater.
You are not allowed to call the Firehouse and say: "My Neighbors house is burning".
You are not allowed to lie in court.
You are not allowed to demonstrate opinions outside of a Free Speech Zone if there is such a Zone for this matter.

In Canada, school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality).

And here are even more restrictions you might not be aware of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#Restrictions_on_free_speech
Click to expand...

Oliver - I think you are a little confused.

You are not allowed to FALSELY cry "Oh God! A bomb!" or something similar in a full theater.
[In Germany, would such behavior go unpunished?]

You are not allowed to call the firehouse and FALSELY say: "My neighbors' house is burning."
[In Germany, are you allowed to turn in fake fire alarms?]

You are not allowed to lie in court.
[Are you allowed to commit perjury in Germany?]

You are not allowed to demonstrate opinions outside of a Free Speech Zone if there is such a Zone for this matter.
[I don't even know what this means. People stand outside San Antonio's City Hall every Thursday, when City Council meets, protesting against the war in Iraq. I think their efforts are futile and misplaced, but they are there.]

Oliver said:
In Canada, school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality).
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the U.S.? We don't run Canada's school system.

"Free speech" in the context of the U.S. Constitution refers to political speech. It means I can say, "The President is an idiot," and not get picked up by the Gestapo or the KGB. It means I can get together with a whole bunch of other people who believe the President is an idiot, and none of us will get picked up by the Gestapo or the KGB.

It does NOT mean I can say, "The President abuses six-year-old girls," without getting in a lot of trouble, unless I can prove it.

It seems like this is a really hard concept for you to grasp, or am I wrong? Or do you just like yanking our chains?
 
Elizabeth I said:
No, it was founded as the result of a revolution against a government that refused to extend the rights of Englishmen in England to the residents of its colonies, who were also Englishmen.

Please direct me to the concentration camps. Please show me the trains loaded with citizens headed for imprisonment in them. Please tell me when the invasions of Mexico and Canada took place.

Oliver - I think you are a little confused.

You are not allowed to FALSELY cry "Oh God! A bomb!" or something similar in a full theater.
[In Germany, would such behavior go unpunished?]

You are not allowed to call the firehouse and FALSELY say: "My neighbors' house is burning."
[In Germany, are you allowed to turn in fake fire alarms?]

You are not allowed to lie in court.
[Are you allowed to commit perjury in Germany?]

You are not allowed to demonstrate opinions outside of a Free Speech Zone if there is such a Zone for this matter.
[I don't even know what this means. People stand outside San Antonio's City Hall every Thursday, when City Council meets, protesting against the war in Iraq. I think their efforts are futile and misplaced, but they are there.]

What does this have to do with the U.S.? We don't run Canada's school system.

"Free speech" in the context of the U.S. Constitution refers to political speech. It means I can say, "The President is an idiot," and not get picked up by the Gestapo or the KGB. It means I can get together with a whole bunch of other people who believe the President is an idiot, and none of us will get picked up by the Gestapo or the KGB.

It does NOT mean I can say, "The President abuses six-year-old girls," without getting in a lot of trouble, unless I can prove it.

It seems like this is a really hard concept for you to grasp, or am I wrong? Or do you just like yanking our chains?
Click to expand...



I apologize for the short answer because "my bed is calling":

The examples were meant to point out that there are a lot of restrictions of free speech - also in america. For whatever reasons. So while the Holocaust-Law makes sense here (I explained why), it doesn't mean that countries who have these laws are less democratic or have less free speech. That's a simple fallacy.

Good night. :)
 
strathmeyer said:
Huh? The MPAA and movies. The FCC and radio and television. Free speech zones. Public schools have a lot of leeway in infringing the rights of students. MPAA vs 2600, DeCSS, the HD DVD key fiasco.
Click to expand...

MPAA and movies? The ones that rate movies? The ones that protect copyrights?

First of all: Violating copyright is not "free speech", it's violating another person's work. Second of all: Rating a movie is not violating free speech, it's putting a bit of information on a movie. Now, theaters don't allow people under a certain age to enter the theater (by threat of government law, though?), but name me a single government crack-down where someone was arrested for showing their child a rated R movie. Just one case.

The FCC? Bleeping out certain words over public airwaves? This is the confusion over the issue: People seem to believe that "free speech" is all about saying ****, ****, goddamnit, and seem to miss the whole idea on the "exchange of ideas". Name me a single person that has been arrested for the following, by a court of law:
1) Questioning religion.
2) Questioning the President.
3) Making fun of the president (think webcomics, or documentaries such as Fahrenheit 911).
4) Making fun of politicians.

But oh, yes, you're right! Just because we bleep out "****", we don't have free speech! Yeah, that makes sense...

I am unfamiliar with the court cases you cited.

It's comparable to China's system because they are all systems where freedom of speech is infringed.
Click to expand...

That's quite the comparison. Takes a helluva leap to make it, though, and I'm unwilling to do so.

I brought it up because I was pointing out that the Chinese still pretend that they have free speech, so it's possible that any community that pretends to practice free speech in fact does not.
Click to expand...

And I still stand behind my statement that free speech in America does, indeed, exist.

That you think America does not, is sad to me.
 
Last edited:
Thanz said:
I love the text of the mod box in a free speech thread.
Click to expand...


I wonder why there is such a rule anyway. If I'm angry I think it's completely okay to express this emotion. On the other Hand profanity seems to be very common in every aspect of expression in English - no matter if f* happy, f* sad, f* angry, f* bored, f* neutral...

And I have no Idea where this came from. Here in Germany we use to say damned instead f* - like "That was a damn good movie".
 
Thanz said:
I love the text of the mod box in a free speech thread.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with restricting speech on private property. If you come into my room and swear at me, I'm well within my rights to kick you out. Same with messageboards.

Oliver said:
I wonder why there is such a rule anyway. If I'm angry I think it's completely okay to express this emotion. On the other Hand profanity seems to be very common in every aspect of expression in English - no matter if f* happy, f* sad, f* angry, f* bored, f* neutral...
Click to expand...

Profanity is an unnecessary component to expression, and further some parents do not want to expose their children to such words. Either way, the JREF wants a clean board without swearing. As this is their board, it is their decision. You don't like the rules of the party, don't walk in through the door.

And I have no Idea where this came from. Here in Germany we use to say damned instead f* - like "That was a damn good movie".
Click to expand...

Here in America, that is not so. This is not a German-based board.
 
RandFan said:
Keep in mind that Howard stern's radio station lost a lot of money taking on the FCC so that Stern could use profanity and in the end they gave up. And hey, unlike you the government infringed Stern's speech. The constitution doesn't gurantee everyone the right to hear speech only the right to speak. If there was a case Stern would have persued it, trust me on this one (see Private Parts). No one is more passionate about free speech than Stern.
Click to expand...

Did I have a wonderful dream Howard Stern ran for Congress as a Libertarian, or was it a reality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom