Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[organica]

NelsonL wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 15:34

I realize this thread isn't actually about Iran, but directly after reading the latest posts here on free speech, I happened to find my friend's latest dispatch. Seems apropos to me:    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/persianality/detail?blog id=36&entry_id=41756

Slightly OT -  a very good friend from Iran that I'm likely buying a house from in a week or two is in some ways very ok about what he sees going on right now (on the news ect. ) but doesn't believe that it will change much . It's been hard times there for most people for many years from what I understand .

[Daniel Farris]

a crowley wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 13:05

? Philosophically , I'm an anarchist . Technically, I didn't say that you have an issue with "free speech " .  Condescend away  .

No, you didn't. Not technically. What you said was:

Quote:

Perhaps you have an issue with free speech . Many people do .

Which is postulating that I might.

...which made me wonder what about this debate would make free speech even remotely relevant to someone who has a firm grasp on what the concept actually means.

Unless of course you thought I was saying it should be illegal to mispronounce words, and if that's the case, I just can't help you.

DF

[Daniel Farris]

steveeastend wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 12:36

Basically I agree. But let´s get a little bit more in detail. Generally the governments of the U.S., Germany or Austria f.e. would not telling you can´t say this or that in private. BUT if you say it in PUBLIC,  what would the government do if it´s something they not really like? Let´s say you´re a young football/soccer player and say something good about either communism in the U.S. or Fascism in Germany and Austria. In Austria you COULD get lost in a campaign launched by politics in the mass media to make yourself look like a criminal. If you would get dangerous for the wrong people you could get in real trouble, you even could be killed.  I would call it limited free speech. In Germany there would be a public discussion about it. Nobody would be killed. In the U.S.....?

In the U.S. you'd likely be labeled unpatriotic. There would be a whisper campaign, and perhaps even an overt PR campaign against you.

What would the consequences of that campaign be? Perhaps a diminished ability to earn a living as a result of your subsequent unpopularity.

And none of that is an infringement of your right to free speech.

Let's look at a truly despicable cause like white supremacy that, for the sake of our discussion here, stops short of calling for violence. The good moderators here at PSW would never tolerate it. A white supremacist post here at PSW would be deleted post haste, as well it should be. And that would also not be a violation of anyone's right to free speech.

But let's say someone here ran their own website on their own server where they spoke their own (non-violent, for the sake of this discussion) views about white supremacy. Then someone here clicks on the link in their signature, reads it, and brings it to the attention of the other members. Then, let's say, that person is ostracized in the pro audio community for their white supremacist views, and their ability to earn a living in audio is severely hampered after that.

Is that a violation of their right to free speech? Absolutely not.

I can't speak to your examples about Germany and Austria. I'm talking about the U.S. here.

DF

[organica]

Daniel Farris wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 16:24

a crowley wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 13:05 ? Philosophically , I'm an anarchist . Technically, I didn't say that you have an issue with "free speech " .  Condescend away  . No, you didn't. Not technically. What you said was: Quote: Perhaps you have an issue with free speech . Many people do . Which is postulating that I might.

 You're assuming here apparently  . It's kinda like a free speech thing . Which is kinda like the ideal shared by many who feel that  condescending remarks are ok as long as they're the right ones about you know , the right people and everything .  Kinda tedious .  

[stevieeastend]

Daniel,

concerning your example the same consequences would be true for germany or austria. But I did mean to say something to a broader public than a forum. To say something offending people in power, offending the point of views of parts of a government or a "well instituted status quo"...

In russia, a couple of journalists have been killed for stating the wrong opinions for too long and making the wrong moves against the people in power. They became dangerous to the status quo.

In italy everybody stating anything substantial against the mafia is in real danger.

The real freedom of speech of a country is proved in times when a movement against the people in power, the government and other well established parties is accepted as a starting point of a political discussion and competition.
At this point connections of power are in danger, people usually don´t like that and do everything to remain in power. There are not too many countries which can handle situations like this without manipulations, dirty campaigns, repression or even civil war situation.

[Skullsessions]

Can we get back on topic?

Which I believe was Lickmypekkerrod......

[Daniel Farris]

a crowley wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 14:31

You're assuming here apparently  .

Since you're apparently the prevailing expert around here on what I think, please tell me what I'm assuming.

DF

[Daniel Farris]

steveeastend wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 14:31

Daniel, concerning your example the same consequences would be true for germany or austria. But I did mean to say something to a broader public than a forum. To say something offending people in power, offending the point of views of parts of a government or a "well instituted status quo"... In russia, a couple of journalists have been killed for stating the wrong opinions for too long and making the wrong moves against the people in power. They became dangerous to the status quo. In italy everybody stating anything substantial against the mafia is in real danger. The real freedom of speech of a country is proved in times when a movement against the people in power, the government and other well established parties is accepted as a starting point of a political discussion and competition. At this point connections of power are in danger, people usually don´t like that and do everything to remain in power. There are not too many countries which can handle situations like this without manipulations, dirty campaigns, repression or even civil war situation.

Again, in none of these situations has anyone's freedom of speech been infringed... until the government becomes involved. In an OFFICIAL capacity. Even in an unofficial capacity, it's a corruption issue. Not a freedom of speech issue.

If the Mafia kills people who speak against them, this isn't even remotely a freedom of speech issue. It's a criminal one. Just like saying "fuck you" in a bar could get you killed. That isn't a freedom of speech issue.

Yes. Freedom of speech is there precisely to protect speech that is unpopular. If it were popular, it wouldn't need protecting.

But laws protecting freedom of speech beg the question "protection from what?"

Crimes are crimes, and they must be prosecuted, but very few of them have anything to do with freedom of speech.

DF

[stevieeastend]

Of course russia is a democracy in order to be well accepted as a business partner for foreign investors.
Of course people have been killed for being against the government. Of course nobody of the government was involved. Of course nobody would deny that. And of course it´s never been an official action at any time...

There is an official position and reality.

Daniel Farris wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 23:43

Crimes are crimes, and they must be prosecuted, but very few of them have anything to do with freedom of speech. DF

That´s just not true.  It´s a long way to democracy for a lot of countries... not in theory though.

[Daniel Farris]

steveeastend wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 15:02

Of course russia is a democracy in order to be well accepted as a business partner for foreign investors. Of course people have been killed for being against the government. Of course nobody of the government was involved. Of course nobody would deny that. And of course it´s never been an official action at any time... There is an official position and reality. Daniel Farris wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 23:43 Crimes are crimes, and they must be prosecuted, but very few of them have anything to do with freedom of speech. DF That´s just not true.  It´s a long way to democracy for a lot of countries... not in theory though.

Steve, I do agree with you wholeheartedly (and have all along) from a practical standpoint. If governments do not live up to their abstract ideals in a real world context, there is a serious problem. One which must be corrected.

As I said before, I cannot speak with experience or direct knowledge to situations in other countries where freedom of speech is an empty gesture. And I can certainly see why such situations are perhaps more despicable than ones where freedom of speech is outright prohibited, because there, at least you know where you stand.

I was just pointing out that, at least in the U.S., if I get killed for something I've said, it's more often than not, not an issue of free speech, and more often a case of me pissing off someone who then goes and commits a crime.

DF

[jetbase]

steveeastend wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 00:10

compasspnt wrote on Mon, 15 June 2009 15:04 jetbase wrote on Sun, 14 June 2009 20:14 I'll never forget seeing a televised face to face interview (I'm sure it was an Australian reporter, but I could be wrong) with Sadam Hussein via an interpreter. At one point Sadam Hussein referred to George Bush as 'Mr Bush'. The interpreter relayed the sentence but referred to him simply as 'Bush'. Sadam, realising what the interpreter had said, stopped him mid-sentence & rebuked him, telling him to tell the interviewer that he never said 'Bush', he had said 'Mr Bush'. That really taught me something about respect, even for your enemies. Yes, SH was always so respectful. For instance (involving respectful matters of state) there was the tiled portrait of GHWB41 he had inlaid into the floor of the big hotel there, so everyone could walk on his enemy's face. That showed respect. I think demanding respect for criminals of that dimension is a little bit over the top, not adequate. I mean, come on guys, there´s a huge difference between people like Hussein, Ahmadinejad on one hand and George Bush on the other.  It´s like comparing Hitler to, let´s say Putin. Just wrong. There is a difference between corruption and dictatorship. And another between dictatorship and aggressive dictatorship in regards to other countries. Please take a closer look, Ahmadinejad doesn´t deserve respect in any regard. Respect has to be deserved by being a civilized human being.

Sorry for not making myself clear. The point I was making was about myself, since I felt that Daniel's original post was about taking responsibility for your own actions (or attitudes in this case). What I meant was that if Saddam Hussein, who I considered to be criminally insane (I still do) can show his arch enemy respect in this way, even if it was only in this one instance, then surely I can show respect to others, whether they are friend or foe. It is said that respect has to be earned, but it has to be taught as well & should therefore be given for free. My son is 1 year old. What has he done in his life so far to earn respect (apart from overwhelming cuteness)? But I if don't show him respect he won't have any. I would argue that all humans deserve respect simply by being human, even in the way they are punished for their evils.

[Skullsessions]

I love these threads where we learn that "war is wrong" and that "we should respect other people".

Pearls.

[Barry Hufker]

Swine.

 

[stevieeastend]

Skullsessions wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 03:58

I love these threads where we learn that "war is wrong" and that "we should respect other people". Pearls.

Normally I am not a pathetic person at all. But there were so many war "things" going on (jugoslavia) just around the corner that it´s pretty hard not to be affected.
Also there are more and more muslims living right now in europe and the problems between "us and them" are frightening sometimes.

The thing is, I don´t have respect for a lot of people, but I still don´t go to war against them.

[stevieeastend]

Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 16 June 2009 00:23

I was just pointing out that, at least in the U.S., if I get killed for something I've said, it's more often than not, not an issue of free speech, and more often a case of me pissing off someone who then goes and commits a crime. DF

This is what I was curious about. This isn´t true for too many countries world wide though. In europe it´s Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norwegen...more or less in Austria, Italy and Grecce but I wouldn´t really test it there The Czech, Slovenija, Hungaria, Poland and Croatia are pretty free countries as well but again I wouldn´t give it a try if not necessary...for the rest of Eastern europe... well... they still got a long way to go...

I am talking about being able to speak free in public against people in power, offending their status quo, being dangerous to their status quo,  without any consequences.