Free *beeep* Speech

[Oliver]

*Ahem* ... *cough*

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

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.

It's not censored- it's just against the law and punishable to say it by a fine, legal actions and serious repercutions such as being removed from air, enforced by a government body!

It might be an important distinction in law but frankly, if a government body fining you for saying something isn't censorship, I don't know what is.

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

But I question most of it. I agree that censorship over public airwaves is a lot more questionable, but at the same time, what ideas are really being censored in the end?

I agree that getting rid of such censorship is a good thing. But at the same time, I don't see why putting labels on movies is censorship (as you brought up the movies). Labelling something is not the same as censoring 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."

Maybe. I admit, the idea of following the Constitution all the time is a common viewpoint. But at the same time, while such a document was provided based on very valid and very cogent political theory, there will come a time when it will become woefully outdated; it might not necessarily be soon, as I still view the Constitution as valid, but there will come a time. At least, IMO.

 

[RandFan]

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

The majority doesn't need to. Marketing departments take great pains to figure out what the majority want's and doesn't want. Just don't partonize what you don't like. If enough people agree the message will get through faster than you can imagine.

However, if you want to get around the whole market concept of speech and control to an extent what others can choose then simply contact the advertisers and threaten them with a boycott. If there is even a chance that there will be a 5% drop in revenue you will effectively control speech. You don't even need government. Nice, huh?

"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.

Didn't we already have this discussion? I'm getting a sense of Deja vu.

Calling for boycotts is a protected form of speech.

Organized boycotts are almost always bad. And not just a little bit bad but very bad. They are pernicious. Boycotts are typically the result of a few people using demagoguery or playing to people's prejudices to influence advertisers to pull funding for projects. Boycotts seldom if ever represent the view of the majority. If they did they wouldn't even be called for. People just would turn off the TV or not watch the movie or listen to the radio or read the paper or whatever. Boycotts are away of circumventing the market and effecting change through extortion.

Now, let me be very clear, I would have no problem whatsoever with any group speaking out against any person, movie, show, message or whatever that eventually led to people turning off or changing channels or simply ignoring a speaker. When that happens it is a very damn cool thing. It's called Democracy. However, when a minority threaten advertisers with a boycott the effect is that a minority gets to effect our choices.

When the Dixie Chicks made their remarks about President Bush: A.) There were huge demonstrations where the bands records were publicly destroyed. B.) Many, many people called advertisers and threatened those advertisers with boycotts.

A.) Democracy. Healthy for society and speech.
B.) Legal and protected extortion. Bad for society and speech.

When people threatened boycotts of the Dixie Chicks it took away many people's ability to choose for themselves. The band canceled shows. Radio Stations would not play their music.

Boycotts suck. Big time.

Threatening someone's life, or threatening injury or criminal action should be made illegal as such criminal actions, in themselves, would be illegal.

And I'm not talking about that.

 

[RandFan]

*Ahem* ... *cough*

From the guy who ignores many posts and questiosn directed at him.

 

[MortFurd]

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.

Freedom of speech is a basic part of democracy - and first written into the foundation of a country in the United States of America. It is special, and desrves to be spoken of as special. That every democracy must have it doesn't diminish it's status as an important cornerstone of democracy.

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?

Freedom of speech (as written into the constitution) prevents the US Government from writing laws that restrict the citizens from voicing their opinions. It doesn't say jack about private citizens or organizations editing or censoring anything that goes through their media.

If I print a newspaper, the constitution doesn't force me to print things that I don't want to. It can't force me to give column space to someone to voice their opinion. It can't force me print a story about something if I don't want to print that story.

Likewise with TV. The constitution doesn't say I can't censor what is said. If I censor parts of your speech, you could sue me for all kinds of things - maybe breach of contract, or libel if I changed the sense of your speech by chopping words from it - but you could NOT sue me on the basis of "freedom of speech."

Where the idea ever came from that the US Constitution applies directly to individuals or private organizations is puzzling, especially given wording like "Congress shall make no law ..."

The amendents are restrictions on things the government can do. They guarantee our rights by forbidding the government to take them away.

 

[Darat]

*Ahem* ... *cough*

What was there to respond to - your post didn't seem to address any of the historical points I made.

 

[Oliver]

What was there to respond to - your post didn't seem to address any of the historical points I made.

It would have been interesting to know how it works in the UK, what solutions they have or if profanity in general is just something people there simply avoid out of politeness.

 

[Lonewulf]

The majority doesn't need to. Marketing departments take great pains to figure out what the majority want's and doesn't want. Just don't partonize what you don't like. If enough people agree the message will get through faster than you can imagine.


However, if you want to get around the whole market concept of speech and control to an extent what others can choose then simply contact the advertisers and threaten them with a boycott. If there is even a chance that there will be a 5% drop in revenue you will effectively control speech. You don't even need government. Nice, huh?

No.

But the webternets comes in handy.

Didn't we already have this discussion? I'm getting a sense of Deja vu.

Yes, we did. My bad for pulling it out again.

Calling for boycotts is a protected form of speech.

Organized boycotts are almost always bad. And not just a little bit bad but very bad. They are pernicious. Boycotts are typically the result of a few people using demagoguery or playing to people's prejudices to influence advertisers to pull funding for projects. Boycotts seldom if ever represent the view of the majority. If they did they wouldn't even be called for. People just would turn off the TV or not watch the movie or listen to the radio or read the paper or whatever. Boycotts are away of circumventing the market and effecting change through extortion.

Speeches are also a good way to play to people's prejudices. Signing contracts can influence advertisers. Joining market forces can do the same thing. I can name anything in the market that exists, and it will have an effect similar to what you are talking about.

While it may play to a mob mindset, the mob will always have an opinion.

Now, let me be very clear, I would have no problem whatsoever with any group speaking out against any person, movie, show, message or whatever that eventually led to people turning off or changing channels or simply ignoring a speaker. When that happens it is a very damn cool thing. It's called Democracy. However, when a minority threaten advertisers with a boycott the effect is that a minority gets to effect our choices.

So speaking out is okay, but it's a bad thing when it's done by a minority group?

Okay, seriously, I'm really not trying to strawman here. But you do point out that it's a bad thing when the minority groups get to effect our choices.

When the Dixie Chicks made their remarks about President Bush: A.) There were huge demonstrations where the bands records were publicly destroyed.

And, admittedly, I would consider such protests to be misguided. I would also say that the Dixie Chicks shouldn't knuckle under such pressure.

B.) Many, many people called advertisers and threatened those advertisers with boycotts.

Did the advertisers knuckle under, out of curiosity? (EDIT: I see later on you answered that question, more or less).

A.) Democracy. Healthy for society and speech.
B.) Legal and protected extortion. Bad for society and speech.

To be fair, though, our speech and society is actually very very open. These extreme cases are more uncommon than common, especially compared to countries that are worse off.

I mean, you make a decent argument, but you also seem to be implying that boycotts should be made illegal, and unprotected speech. Otherwise, you would want to protect boycotts even if you view them as harmful to society and speech.

When people threatened boycotts of the Dixie Chicks it took away many people's ability to choose for themselves. The band canceled shows. Radio Stations would not play their music.

Then find a new radio station... as for the band cancelling shows, that is a bad thing, I admit. But were they really forced to?

Boycotts suck. Big time.

But not if you agree with the boycott; there are some issues where boycotting is a very good way to attack injustice and evil. It is sad when it is misused, but I think that markets need to buck up and grow some gonads instead of customers not have the ability to stage an organized boycott. But that's all IMO, of course.




(Okay, it's been a while since I first posted about this... well, only a couple days, but still: did I just derail this discussion? Bad Lonewulf! Bad!)

 

[Darat]

It would have been interesting to know how it works in the UK, what solutions they have or if profanity in general is just something people there simply avoid out of politeness.

How what works?

 

[Oliver]

How what works?

Do you ever mind to follow a topic? I was talking about the Media and how they avoid profanity in the UK. Is it also okay if someone curses from time to time in the Media because the society itself doesn't use profanity very much - or is there some kind of censorship like in the US-Media?

I mean you have the same F-word, too - but I doubt that it's been used in a similar universal way like in the US, is it?

 

[Darat]

Do you ever mind to follow a topic? I was talking about the Media and how they avoid profanity in the UK. Is it also okay if someone curses from time to time in the Media because the society itself doesn't use profanity very much - or is there some kind of censorship like in the US-Media?

If you perhaps engage in a discussion then I might be able to follow you however your posts are rather grasshopper like - jumping from subject to subject and not following any recognisable logical progression.

I mean you have the same F-word, too - but I doubt that it's been used in a similar universal way like in the US, is it?

The UK and Germany ultimately share the same legislation regarding censorship and freedom of speech.

See: European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 10

English Text:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of
broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.​

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and
responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions,
restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in
confidence,​

German text:

Artikel 10 – Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung

1 Jedermann hat Anspruch auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dieses Recht
schließt die Freiheit der Meinung und die Freiheit zum Empfang und zur
Mitteilung von Nachrichten oder Ideen ohne Eingriffe öffentlicher
Behörden und ohne Rücksicht auf Landesgrenzen ein. Dieser Artikel
schließt nicht aus, dass die Staaten Rundfunk-, Lichtspiel- oder
Fernsehunternehmen einem Genehmigungsverfahren unterwerfen.​

2 Da die Ausübung dieser Freiheiten Pflichten und Verantwortung mit sich
bringt, kann sie bestimmten, vom Gesetz vorgesehenen
Formvorschriften, Bedingungen, Einschränkungen oder Strafdrohungen
unterworfen werden, wie sie vom Gesetz vorgeschrieben und in einer
demokratischen Gesellschaft im Interesse der nationalen Sicherheit, der
territorialen Unversehrtheit oder der öffentlichen Sicherheit, der
Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung und der Verbrechensverhütung, des
Schutzes der Gesundheit und der Moral, des Schutzes des guten Rufes
oder der Rechte anderer, um die Verbreitung von vertraulichen
Nachrichten zu verhindern oder das Ansehen und die Unparteilichkeit
der Rechtsprechung zu gewährleisten, unentbehrlich sind.​

Whatever local laws exist in the UK or Germany regarding freedom of speech/expression have to be in accordance with that Article.

 

[Oliver]

If you perhaps engage in a discussion then I might be able to follow you however your posts are rather grasshopper like - jumping from subject to subject and not following any recognisable logical progression.

Whatever local laws exist in the UK or Germany regarding freedom of speech/expression have to be in accordance with that Article.

I have no Idea what you mean by grasshopping - the issue still is the Media censorship and how to get the million bucks. To make some jumps may be confusing to you, but in the end it comes back to - or is pretty much related to the issue.

So that does mean that you have no *beeps* in the UK, I guess - that's what I was asking all the time.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So that does mean that you have no *beeps* in the UK, I guess - that's what I was asking all the time.

See above - whatever there is in the UK cannot legally abrogate Article 10 so if there is "bleeps" used it does not affect people's right to freedom of expression.

There is nothing in the UK stopping any individual or company bleeping anything they want - that is part of freedom of expression.

 

[Oliver]

See above - whatever there is in the UK cannot legally abrogate Article 10 so if there is "bleeps" used it does not affect people's right to freedom of expression.

There is nothing in the UK stopping any individual or company bleeping anything they want - that is part of freedom of expression.

That doesn't explain if the "bleeps" are commonly used or not, are they?

 

[Darat]

That doesn't explain if the "bleeps" are commonly used or not, are they?

It explains that if they are used they are not breaching anyone's right to freedom of expression.

 

[Oliver]

It explains that if they are used they are not breaching anyone's right to freedom of expression.

I know that already. I will ask someone from the UK who actually knows it or start a new thread about it.

 

[Darat]

I know that already. I will ask someone from the UK who actually knows it or start a new thread about it.

But that is what the subject of your thread is about - free speech, as I have shown in the UK that it is irrelevant whether bleeps are used or not (if done legally) in reference to the topic you started this thread to discuss.

 

[Oliver]

But that is what the subject of your thread is about - free speech, as I have shown in the UK that it is irrelevant whether bleeps are used or not (if done legally) in reference to the topic you started this thread to discuss.

Well, I have a pretty controversial world-view, so I don't mind if the counter-arguments and questions automatically lead to derails to some degree - even if this may be confusing.

Now since we can argue about laws till the moon turns into cheese, basically the "Bleeps" are interfering the speech itself.

It would have been interesting to know if the UK uses these "Bleeps", too - having the same language - because it wasn't a complete derail to a topic named "Free *Beeep* Speech" to ask this out of curiosity, was it?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Now since we can argue about laws till the moon turns into cheese, basically the "Bleeps" are interfering the speech itself.


...snip..

How can we argue about the laws since both the UK and Germany are signed up to the same piece of legislation and both countries have agreed to be bound by?

That article states clearly what right of freedom of expression you have in Germany just as it does for what right of speech I have in the UK.

...snip...

It would have been interesting to know if the UK uses these "Bleeps", too - having the same language - because it wasn't a complete derail to a topic named "Free *Beeep* Speech" to ask this out of curiosity, was it?

In the UK people can (and presumably do) use bleeps if they wish to for certain words - that is called freedom of expression and is protected in the UK by the European Convention on Human rights - specifically Article 10.