First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
People who use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices
Posted 8/4/10 , edited 8/4/10
I hate that Topix site. I never went back there once I saw all that hate & other ridiculous spam.
____________________
The US Amendments are a joke anyway. I always laugh though when people shout out the 1st Amendment to get away with their crimes. Very humoring.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/4/10
What reason exists to prevent free speech and expression that does not, otherwise, violate laws? Since when is there a normative obligation not to say certain things? If there isn't one, why sanction free speech and expression that is still within the boundaries of law?
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/5/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

What reason exists to prevent free speech and expression that does not, otherwise, violate laws? Since when is there a normative obligation not to say certain things? If there isn't one, why sanction free speech and expression that is still within the boundaries of law?


Good question. In Canada it can happen three ways.

1) Slander or Libel. I would argue that there is a normative obligation not to spread falsehoods especially ones damaging to reputations or self-worth about other people. The law agrees and in Canada if you are brought to trial for slander or libel it's up to you to prove in court that what you said about the plaintiff was true.

2) Hate Speach. Perhaps this is a special case of slander or libel. but in Canada we have some vaguely worded and oddly enforced laws aimed at preventing, for example, neo-nazi's from riling people up against Jews. Recently the validity and probity of the Human Rights Comissions that investigate, adjudicate and enforce these laws has been called into question.

3) Government Secrets - National security is often abused by the powers that be to control information embarrasing to them. However, the rational for National Security restraining certain information is valid. You don't want your military plans exposed to an enemy, you don't want an enemy to have an accurate assessment of your forces. you don't want to enter diplomatic negotiations with a pottential trade partner with all your cards laid on the table before hand or the contingency plan some general came up with in case of attack by same plastered over the news. Assuming you accept the existence and validity of your nation, national security CAN be (when it isn't abused) a perfectly valid reason to sanction certain information related aspects of free speach and expression.



3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 8/6/10 , edited 8/6/10
There are people who don't seem to understand what "Free Speech" is and why it exists. Free speech isn't a ticket to do whatever the hell you want. It's a ticket to hold your opinions and express it (in a non-violent fashion). It exists to prevent tyranny and to allow for change in times of change in the world.

Kind of like the 4th amendment: people often mistake it as some kind of law that allows any person to simply own a gun. It's not that primitive. The 4th amendment exists to protect the country. There are people who will argue it's not needed since the British stopped invading America a long time ago, but that's not the reason why it was implemented. It exists so that the people of America are able to overthrow the government should it ever become corrupt and unstable. If the 4th amendment is removed, that means only the government and certain individuals will be able to possess guns - considerably shifting the source of power.

If you're killing people and hurting people to send a message across, that's not Free Speech. That's terrorism.

If you're creating lies to defame people and spread false rumors, that's not Free Speech. That's slader and libel.

If you're expressing your opinions (non-violently) and spreading ACTUAL news with numbers and date, that's Free Speech. (of course there are those who express opinions through manipulated facts)

Sure, there are often cases where news will be in the gray area between sensationalism and free speech, but it's still Free Speech (assuming it's not made up). It's up to the viewers to be educated in such views and why it's important that higher education exists to prevent propaganda.

Hell the Government is often guilty of violating the Free Speech rule. If there's someone who's peacefully protesting some issue within the American law system and asking for a change, that's not a crime or some kind of act of anti-patriotism. Whether the issue will change or not, it's not consitutional for the American government to strike down anyone just because of confrontation.

Free speech has many down sides, but overall it's a beneficial thing.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/7/10
Look I am fairly sure allot of people mix up bigotry for hate, and some people may think it there skin collar that getting there way are heritage or gender guess what it can all be true if you want it to be. I have employers that hire receptionist on there looks they could almost careless if they could handle more then one call at a time. So being pretty will get in a door faster. being a tall good looking male will get you hired faster then a short male. Thing to think about if your a short male stop the Napoleon complex get that chip off your shoulder It comes through on a interview. Your demeanor means first impression last, if you do not think you will get hired because of what ever reason it will come true. Some people draw unwanted attention by trying to not draw attention sounds funny but it happens all the time. we live in a world of looks over ability in sells, food anything that has something to do with costumer and service work. It's unfair world out there always has been. Speech is so important, clear positive tones up beat. If your short and heavy it going to be much harder to get work. People skills god I hate that one but it is so important to show you can work with others hate as you may but getting the door is the first step. Why am I rambling on about this it easy to wright yourself off because of a miss conception of your on self image.The younger you are generally speaking lacking confidence is normal. Trying to cover it will show just say your a fast and eager learner. It is easy say life is unfair and I cannot get a fair break because of----------! Another words you gave up before you left your home, find work is the hardest job to do far harder, then holding down a job.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10
I'm not mocking you when I say it's a truly inspiring speech Tarakelly. For one thing it's lacking some of those tarakelly-isms that make reading your posts an exercise in cryptography. For another you stay on topic and present a cogent and positive argument.

Unfortunately, I'm a little less certain what it has to do with the topic at hand.

I agree with your point but I'm not sure what relevance it has with a topic about free speech and hateful actions.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 8/8/10 , edited 8/8/10
People who use the First Amendment to advocate hateful practices, I have been around to many people that use the first amendment as a cop-out with taking control of there lives. You do not have to listen to it or take to hart. I run in to many people that put such negative spin on freedom of speech. The Clue- less Klan, Jackson there all master at beating down something then turning it to there gain because people do not think for themselves. So many of these free speaking people are con artist and they make their living that way (kinda like are politician) it is there right but you have your on right to speak back or just walk away. I suggest in walking away if the group is large and fanatical. To me it like a radio don't like the tune turn the knob.
21991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 8/9/10
I find people who get in the news because of they hateful messages they spread despicable. Frankly even worse those masquerading as reporters and newspeople (aka FOX News) to spread hateful messages. The platforms wackos like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh spread are incredibly dangerous as they give reason and sometimes encourage violence against those they oppose. Consider Bill O'reily. No matter what your view on abortion is, if you are a thoughtful compassionate soul you will see his warnings disparaging and dehumanizing the doctor George Tiller who worked at an abortion clinic. His comments made it seem like Tiller was a mad man that brutally murdered children and was as dangerous as Charlie Manson. He even went to say "if I get my hands on him" with the rest cut off, implying the threat of violence.

George Tiller was later gunned down in his church.

It's this sort of cause and effect of the use of media and freedom of speech to demonize "the enemy" that I find dangerous. However it is critical that the law stays intact as a protection against "thought police" seen in dictatorships and the 50s McCarthyism. I feel that in the case of media it is the responsibility of those at the top to make sure the content of their companies shows do not contain such espousals. Unfortunatly many of the people I mentioned make load of money off of such "news" and "opinion" shows that there is no end in sight for that type of media.
Posted 8/9/10

mystic17 wrote:

I hate that Topix site. I never went back there once I saw all that hate & other ridiculous spam.
____________________
The US Amendments are a joke anyway. I always laugh though when people shout out the 1st Amendment to get away with their crimes. Very humoring.


so woman's right to vote and be treated equally is joke ?
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/10/10

artgeek707 wrote:

I find people who get in the news because of they hateful messages they spread despicable. Frankly even worse those masquerading as reporters and newspeople (aka FOX News) to spread hateful messages. The platforms wackos like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh spread are incredibly dangerous as they give reason and sometimes encourage violence against those they oppose. Consider Bill O'reily. No matter what your view on abortion is, if you are a thoughtful compassionate soul you will see his warnings disparaging and dehumanizing the doctor George Tiller who worked at an abortion clinic. His comments made it seem like Tiller was a mad man that brutally murdered children and was as dangerous as Charlie Manson. He even went to say "if I get my hands on him" with the rest cut off, implying the threat of violence.

George Tiller was later gunned down in his church.

It's this sort of cause and effect of the use of media and freedom of speech to demonize "the enemy" that I find dangerous. However it is critical that the law stays intact as a protection against "thought police" seen in dictatorships and the 50s McCarthyism. I feel that in the case of media it is the responsibility of those at the top to make sure the content of their companies shows do not contain such espousals. Unfortunatly many of the people I mentioned make load of money off of such "news" and "opinion" shows that there is no end in sight for that type of media.


So "dude it's FOX" as if that explains everything is Not a sufficient answer? I'm glad to hear that.


21991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 8/10/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


artgeek707 wrote:

I find people who get in the news because of they hateful messages they spread despicable. Frankly even worse those masquerading as reporters and newspeople (aka FOX News) to spread hateful messages. The platforms wackos like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh spread are incredibly dangerous as they give reason and sometimes encourage violence against those they oppose. Consider Bill O'reily. No matter what your view on abortion is, if you are a thoughtful compassionate soul you will see his warnings disparaging and dehumanizing the doctor George Tiller who worked at an abortion clinic. His comments made it seem like Tiller was a mad man that brutally murdered children and was as dangerous as Charlie Manson. He even went to say "if I get my hands on him" with the rest cut off, implying the threat of violence.

George Tiller was later gunned down in his church.

It's this sort of cause and effect of the use of media and freedom of speech to demonize "the enemy" that I find dangerous. However it is critical that the law stays intact as a protection against "thought police" seen in dictatorships and the 50s McCarthyism. I feel that in the case of media it is the responsibility of those at the top to make sure the content of their companies shows do not contain such espousals. Unfortunatly many of the people I mentioned make load of money off of such "news" and "opinion" shows that there is no end in sight for that type of media.


So "dude it's FOX" as if that explains everything is Not a sufficient answer? I'm glad to hear that.




They still need to be held accountable for what they espouse if it leads to violence which at times they seem to advocate. I know it's their trademark but the same time there needs to be some accountability for a media outlet with such prominence
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/10/10

artgeek707 wrote:


They still need to be held accountable for what they espouse if it leads to violence which at times they seem to advocate. I know it's their trademark but the same time there needs to be some accountability for a media outlet with such prominence


No argument here. Though I personally have a hard time taking fox seriously. Hell I have a hard time taking CNN seriously and even they have taken unprecidented action of attacking another network (fox) with their "Distorting is not Reporting" ad campaign.

21991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / boring, bland ohio
Offline
Posted 8/10/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


artgeek707 wrote:


They still need to be held accountable for what they espouse if it leads to violence which at times they seem to advocate. I know it's their trademark but the same time there needs to be some accountability for a media outlet with such prominence


No argument here. Though I personally have a hard time taking fox seriously. Hell I have a hard time taking CNN seriously and even they have taken unprecidented action of attacking another network (fox) with their "Distorting is not Reporting" ad campaign.



That's why I get my news from PBS, NPR, and the BBC. First two are owned by the goverment, but they do by far better reporting on issues with the goverment (as well as others) than any of the major news outlets. The BBC is also great for international news, or looking at our country from a different perspective.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/10/10
I rely a lot on the CBC, and sometimes CTV.

The latter is private owned and not a crown corporation and tends to follow the american model of sensational local news >> cause/disaster of the day>> rest of country >> rest of world (the last two crammed into 2 minutes of bites.)

The former is sometimes smug about it's 'public' nature and can go overboard in it's arts programs trying to find 'unheard voices' but over all I think it serves the public well.
1142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / PLACES
Offline
Posted 8/10/10 , edited 8/10/10
Actually, First Amendment doesn't advocate everything. There are limits.

Let me introduce you to a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio. It created something called the Brandenburg standard - which basically means that if speech is going to produce imminent lawless action, and if it is likely to produce such an action, then the feds can go after you and you can be arrested.

Also, another little situation called Morse v. Frederick basically states that students do not have freedom of speech if it comes to condoning illegal activities.

Makix basically said everything that I'm thinking. The first amendment, for the most part, is a great thing, but it is still frequently abused. One of the best ways to use Freedom of Speech is to speak out against unjust practices and say what you're thinking, but you should also know when to shut the hell up.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.