• 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

Lonewulf said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with any of that. I just enjoyed the juxtaposition of the auto-censor in the "free beep speech" thread.

On a somewhat related note, I am puzzled by the ruling from the FCC on Bono's swearing. They seem to be saying that swearing is okay when it is superfluous to the meaning being conveyed - "really, really, f***ing brilliant" but not when you use the word for what it actually means - such as "he was in the middle of f***ing his girlfriend when his roommate opened the door".

So, you can use a word when it adds nothing to the sentence, but not when it actually adds meaning. I've noticed similar censorship rules on Canadian radio - Alanis gets censored in "You Oughta Know" (Are you thinking of me when you f*** her) but The Tragically Hip in "the Hundredth Meridian" can "remember every single f***ing thing" they know with impunity.
 
Thanz said:
I have no problem with any of that. I just enjoyed the juxtaposition of the auto-censor in the "free beep speech" thread.
Click to expand...

True, it is amusing isn't it?

I just made that note because someone was probably going to burst in talking about the lack of free speech here. Well, okay, maybe not "probably", but still. Just in case.
 
Lonewulf said:
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.

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.

Here in America, that is not so. This is not a German-based board.
Click to expand...


Nope, it's a multi-national board in the non-national Internet - with a server located in the US. Get used to it, you will see more non-US members in the future.
 
Oliver said:
Nope, it's a multi-national board in the non-national Internet - with a server located in the US. Get used to it, you will see more non-US members in the future.
Click to expand...

"Get used to" what? I already am used to speaking to members from other nations. Hell, in about a month's time I'll be in another nation (Germany, to be precise).

What do I have to "get used to"? You're the one that's trying to enforce German language values on the board.
 
Oliver said:
How do you solve this problem? Also using *Beeps*??? :confused:
Click to expand...

It's become less of a problem over the years, as the Catholic Church lost pretty much all its influence. We don't use "beeps" so much anymore, but still, some people are bothered by swearing on the airways because of its lack of class, which I can agree with (unless it is used for a humorous intention).
 
Lonewulf said:
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.
Click to expand...

But we can still ask to be treated fairly, right?

Some words may be unnecessary to you, but not to others. I don't just support people whose ideas are like mine; I support the free speech of all people.
 
strathmeyer said:
But we can still ask to be treated fairly, right?

Some words may be unnecessary to you, but not to others. I don't just support people whose ideas are like mine; I support the free speech of all people.
Click to expand...

So because they bleep out curse words, America doesn't have free speech at all? :)

Also, do you think private property owners should be forced to permit all speech? Should forums be forced to not ban members? Or do you specifically reference government control, like I usually do?
 
Oliver said:
When I watch "The Daily Show" on Youtube, I have a hard time to understand what Jon Stewart actually meant whenever some nut jobs put a *beep* -sound in there every view seconds.

Since this bothers me a lot, I looked what this free speech myth is that everyone is talking about - and I found out it says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So can I sue Comedy Central for some million bucks now for breaching the law or not? :confused:
Click to expand...
Once again, you misunderstand something about the US and want us to explain it instead of doing your own research - like looking up other threads on free speech in this very forum.
But: the amendment does not say you may speak freely and using whatever words you want under any conditions you wish - and that point has been very clearly elucidated by the Supreme Court (back when it wasn't just flunkying for King george the slimey).
All it means is the government (and only the government - keep that point in mind) cannot stop you from saying/printing something before you can say/print it (and there are even exceptions to that - for example you can be legally gagged by court order under many circumstances). Once you have said/printed it, if it has been made illegal to say/print it, you may be arrested , given jail time or other punishment or fines for saying it.

None of the above has ANY application to non-governmental companies, groups, agencies, etc. Comedy Central - like any other network, station, newspaper, etc. is completely free to control what employees say on air/paper/computer - even to a large extent if they say/print.etc. it on their own time (unless there is no way to tie person and statement to the company - and even the, firing could occur.

The fact that a lot of people never bother to learn the limits of things lead them to make really stupid assumptions and really harmful (mostly to themselves) decisions.
 
Oliver said:
Huh? What does this mean "right to hear everything?". I mean that's the very meaning of speech: That others hear what I speak. So in reversion it is a clear breach of free speech if someone is not allowed to hear what I speak. And I honestly believe that's the reason why the law was written and that the founding fathers would spend me a beer right now for my conclusion.

Shall we share the money?
Click to expand...

Actually, no, a lot of people also mistakenly think that the right to speak freely (or write so,) is the same as right to be heard. It isn't. And again, the law provides protections for that also (one of the things that gives us some protection from advertisers nowadays).
 
Lonewulf said:
So because they bleep out curse words, America doesn't have free speech at all? :)

Also, do you think private property owners should be forced to permit all speech? Should forums be forced to not ban members? Or do you specifically reference government control, like I usually do?
Click to expand...
I think for those who believe in the concept of free expression that it is important to not simply see the issue as only in regards to government. If we should lose freedom of expression by means other than government then it would still be a significant loss. There are forces outside of government that can curtain speech. It's important to acknowledge that private property owners have a right to limit speech. We should be wary when a minority tries to influence speech through threats and intimidation.
 
I think the efforts to curb profanity are among the worst of attacks on freedom of speech.

Profanity is beautiful. From Shakespeare to Quentin Tarantino, masters of the beautiful and infinitely expressive English language have used it. It's poetry. It's joyful, contortionistic in its expressiveness and irreplaceable.

The FCC has no right to censor it- although Jerry Springer with the f-words bleeped out is a surreal classic.
 
RandFan said:
I think for those who believe in the concept of free expression that it is important to not simply see the issue as only in regards to government. If we should lose freedom of expression by means other than government then it would still be a significant loss. There are forces outside of government that can curtain speech. It's important to acknowledge that private property owners have a right to limit speech. We should be wary when a minority tries to influence speech through threats and intimidation.
Click to expand...

Or a majority tries to influence speech through threats and intimidation?

"Threats and intimidation" are a debatable issue. Boycotting is free speech, IMO. I'm all for keeping boycotts around; and I don't think that boycotts should be made illegal.

Threatening someone's life, or threatening injury or criminal action should be made illegal as such criminal actions, in themselves, would be illegal.
 
EeneyMinnieMoe said:
I think the efforts to curb profanity are among the worst of attacks on freedom of speech.

Profanity is beautiful. From Shakespeare to Quentin Tarantino, masters of the beautiful and infinitely expressive English language have used it. It's poetry. It's joyful, contortionistic in its expressiveness and irreplaceable.

The FCC has no right to censor it- although Jerry Springer with the f-words bleeped out is a surreal classic.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify - and being very technical and nit-picky about this: the FCC does not legally censor anything - the FCC punishes violations of the rules governing the broadcast of materials on public frequencies in the U.S. Its' warnings as to what will be regulated/fined are to let stations know what will be considered punishable violations. To censor something requires that you prevent it from being said/printed before it is said/printed.
I understand that a gigantic number of people misunderstand that point, but it is a very important one in law.
I also understand that a punishment system operates functionally as censorship - the amendment does not address that in any way and I suspect that most of the signers of the Constitution were quite aware of that.
 
fuelair said:
I also understand that a punishment system operates functionally as censorship - the amendment does not address that in any way and I suspect that most of the signers of the Constitution were quite aware of that.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The Amendment does not use the word "censor" or draw any distinctions: "abridging" is the word used.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The FCC's action is only allowed because it is limited to the public airwaves. It does not and cannot affect cable tv, newspapers, books, or the internet, among other venues of expression, however.
 
Lonewulf said:
So because they bleep out curse words, America doesn't have free speech at all? :)

Also, do you think private property owners should be forced to permit all speech? Should forums be forced to not ban members? Or do you specifically reference government control, like I usually do?
Click to expand...

I do not think America doesn't have free speech at all. I'm pointing out examples for infringements of free speech in societies that pretend to practice it.

I just think that "we" should all follow the Constitution to the United States of America all of the time. Right now what we have is, "on no, the constitution says that people have the right to bare arms, but obviously they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. Or hand guns."
 
Darat said:
Aren't you in Germany? If so you have such a law.

You need to go back to England and follow two roots for the idea that there is "bad" and "good" words in English.

One root is the censorship that was imposed by the Christian Church in regards to profanity e.g. taking the Lord's name in vain, this was enforced for many centuries.

The other root is the origin of English as a national language - for many centuries English was the language of a subjugated people (the peasants) whilst various other languages (most predominantly the ancestor of today's French) was spoken by the rulers of the nation. What developed was an idea that the words used by the peasants were "uncouth" "nasty" "brutish" and so on. And we still see that reflected in the UK and the USA in the idea that some words are "bad" and shouldn't be heard in polite company. (And as usual the Victorians helped cement this hypocrisy.)
Click to expand...


Oliver said:
We have the Meinungsfreiheit (Freedom of Opinion) here. What I don't understand is why I hear "Freedom of Speech" so often in America, as if it's somehow praised and something special - instead something pretty basic in a democracy - that isn't worth to talk about very much at all.

While I'm pretty aware of "good" and "bad" words, meaning words that are declared so because moral or racist backgrounds, I don't understand the need to "beep" them out when everybody knows what someone said:

Like the Media showing the latest "Kramer" Rant when he was saying the bad N-Word, which was the reason for showing it on TV, but at the same time not actually showing that he actually said that. It's a little bit paradox - and probably a result of broad personal attitudes if it's considered as problem.

And there is the funny Idea that people, especially Teenagers love to use them just because they are considered as "bad" - to revolt against this kind of morality.

Now the United Kingdom is famous for their political correctness and politeness in general - so I guess they don't have this problem with an excessive use of profanity or "Bad" words at all, do they?
Click to expand...


*Bump* for Darat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom