Home Politics and Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Censorship

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Having touched on freedom of speech in another thread (America and the Gun), I was wondering what other people thought...

What is the limit to freedom of speech and when should someone be censored?

"So raise your fists and march around
Don't dare take what you need
I'll jail and bury those committed
And smother the rest in greed"

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think freedom of speech can be limited to time and place issues, but never limited in content.

    so what i mean is that people should not be allowed to disrupt places like businesses or schools with speech that is inappropriate for that time and place. this is why they draw up guidelines as to what is appropriate behavior for such places.

    however, if organizations or induividuals were to talk in a public place or in a location which they have a permit, they should be allowed to say anything, as long as they know that they may face opposition to their views as people will take passionate sides on controversial issues. and any debate must remain nonviolent for free speech not to be limited.

    therein lies the rub though, speech will spark action, and it's really difficult to say what will or will not incite violence. that's why hate speech is so hard to regulate because you know it can initiate violence, but when and where does it become a crime to say something? i don't envy law makers and judges who deal with this issue everyday.

    not many answers as this is one of the hardest issues to talk about.. no one is every happy with the outcome <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/tongue.gif"&gt;
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Calvin:
    not many answers as this is one of the hardest issues to talk about.. no one is every happy with the outcome

    calvin is definitely right on this one - free speech is like so many other rights in democratic society, in that it is part of a big compromise deal. whatever you say will upset someone, so society has to weigh up the value of what is said against the damage it will cause. i guess its all about not infringing other people's rights to things like privacy and fair trial. context is everything with this one.

    interesting - in the USA freedom of the press is more prevalent - in the UK, 'D-notices' are served if you try and reveal 'state secrets'. nothin like that stateside that i know of. i guess in the UK we place a higher value on security than freedom. just a thought.....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you reveal really touchy state secrets here in the US you can be convicted of treason and sentenced to death.

    Obviously the end result to either censorship or freedom of speech should be the least amount of suffering possible. It's hard to draw the line between freedom of speech and censorship because it's hard to tell how many people will be hurt on either side.

    Personally, I think the greater good is more important than individual rights, but I think it's dangerous for the government to determine what the real greater good is. Here in the US, the government is so saturated with corporate funding and corporate pressure that what the government says is for the greater good is really what is best for big business and not the general public. When this is pointed out, they justify it with the trickle down theory but that's bullshit.

    Your cycles have bled into ones supposed to be my own
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, so how many of you are aware of the censorship going on in school and colleges (particularly in the US) RIGHT NOW.

    Large companies sponsor an event, college hall, school books etc. Into the contract they write a stipulation that no student can publically criticise that company.

    This is inspite of the bill of rights. The school/college will (and HAVE) expell the student.

    The land of the FREE?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disney was sponsoring an event at a college that one of my friends went to. My friend and some other people took signs to the back and handed out flyers to the people going to the event. I don't think they got expelled, but they got in a lot of trouble (suspended maybe).

    ... That's why I'm going to a college that shirks at the thought of corporate involvement.... they even have a bail fund for students who get arrested at protests. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif"&gt;

    Your cycles have bled into ones supposed to be my own
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man of Kent, it's not so much an inconsistancy as You might believe.

    In My house (private property) NOBODY'S allowed to advocate sex with children. I'm not "limiting" the "free speech" of pedophiles merely, exercising My right to decide what is and isn't discussed under My roof (If You want to act as an advocate for such behavior, please do it elsewhere).

    That some educational institutions may choose to solicit funds from some organization(s) which, in turn, would expect (While on institutional property) to be immune from attack by those Who disagree (whether right or wrong) with their organizational goals is not so much a "usurption" of our freedom of speech as a recognition of the rights We recognize (Here in the US) of private property.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    don't you think all freedoms cause problems? what is the choice though? as for US collages they are probably the most restricted places in the country when it comes to freedom of speech. depending on the collage addministrations politicial veiws you have either a right wing born again christian bastion or a left wing PC tyranny.
    (sorry my spelling sucks)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

    Not ment as a flame . Just something that in my mind seems to fit . But what do I know ?

    BillofRights
    Originally posted by dazed_dan:
    i guess in the UK we place a higher value on security than freedom. just a thought.....

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If fredom of speach can be limited to time and place Then there is no need have limited content, as your time and place will soon ONLY at home and then be none.

    What good is the message if no one gets to hear IT!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, the poster who stated that in the US you can be charged with treason for revealing state secrets is 100% wrong. Treason is narrowly defined in the US as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of DECLARED war." If the US is not in a state of war declared by Congress then you cannot be charged with treason no matter what you do.

    It is true that espionage can carry the death penalty but so far no one has receieved this penalty since it was reinstated.

    On the other hand, if you simply reveal government secrets to the public at large, there is a good chance that nothing will happen to you. Look up Daniel Ellsberg and his release of what came to be known as "The Pentagon Papers."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Byron: What about Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, executed in 1953 after being found guilty of spying for the USSR?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MacKenzie,

    I stated "since it was reinstated." There was a couple of decades after the Rosenberg's executions where there was no death penalty for espionage in the US. It was reinstated about ten years ago. Since that time there have been no death penalty sentences handed down for espionage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I stand corrected, Sir.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Treadhead:
    Man of Kent, it's not so much an inconsistancy as You might believe.

    In My house (private property) NOBODY'S allowed to advocate sex with children. I'm not "limiting" the "free speech" of pedophiles merely, exercising My right to decide what is and isn't discussed under My roof (If You want to act as an advocate for such behavior, please do it elsewhere).

    That some educational institutions may choose to solicit funds from some organization(s) which, in turn, would expect (While on institutional property) to be immune from attack by those Who disagree (whether right or wrong) with their organizational goals is not so much a "usurption" of our freedom of speech as a recognition of the rights We recognize (Here in the US) of private property.


    Can you clarify something for me then, when DO you have freedom of speech? Are you suggesting that the only place you CAN have free speech is in public arenas?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Man of Kent, yes. That is if We both have the same concept of what constitutes puplic and private property(?).

    Someone's "Freedom of speech" places no obligation on Me to listen (Think what THAT would do for the Jehovah's witness'!). They're free to expound their ideals and values without fear of censorship but, not on My time and, not on My property.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Property owners have rights also. If you enter my privately owned buisness and bad mouth my company or me or harrass my customers I have the RIGHT to kick your ass out.

    So basicly Yes Freedom of speech on Public property.

    It may seem restrictive but we have alot more freedoms than most Nations.


    Freedom rocks !
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It really depends on what you mean by freedom speech. Does freedom of speech mean saying anything you please at any time?

    I don't particularly like cursing. If I invited a person to my home who insisted on cursing incessantly and ignored my request to not do so...I must say I doubt I would invite him again.

    Another example: I'm an emergency department nurse. Get a couple of my colleagues and I together for lunch and most non-medical profession people would be appalled at what we consider to be normal dinner conversation.
    In fact, many turn an interesting shade of greenish yellow. Therefore, out of consideration, I rarely talk shop with non-medical profession people as it disturbs most of them.

    And then of course, there is the traditional example of not having the freedom to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, thereby possibly precipitating a panic. Everyone rights are restrained to a greater or lesser degree when interacting with the rights of others.

    In the US, the 1st Amendment primarily protects political speech and the limits are extremely broad. Here's an example. A policeman, in most states, can arrest you for foul language in public-say you are cursing at the clerk and customers at McDonald's. The charge would usually be known as disorderly conduct. However, if you are directing your cursing at the police officer and at him alone then he cannot arrest you. The courts have ruled that cursing policeman is political speech protected by the 1st Amendment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, having 'clarified' that for me do you think that standing in a state school and saying 'I think Pepsi suck' is protected under the 'Bill etc'?

    Because it's STATE schools that are being affected, surely public areas primarily funded by public funds?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kent, If I was in a Public Institution and was kicked out for yelling Pepsi sucks I would sue the shit out of them.
    That ain't right.

    But if no one violated laws then Lawyers wouldn't be filthy rich would they.

    Freedom rocks !
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'Kent, if an institution takes money from the gov' then they in essence become "common/public" property.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Stonehenge:
    Kent, If I was in a Public Institution and was kicked out for yelling Pepsi sucks I would sue the shit out of them.
    That ain't right.

    But if no one violated laws then Lawyers wouldn't be filthy rich would they.



    This is happening NOW is both the US and starting to happen in the UK. Personally I think it sucks, but unless we act on it now it will become the norm.

    Doesn't this worry you, bearing in mind the practise of precedence in your legal system. if you allow this to happen then can't you other 'rights' be sold for sponsorship?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    'Kent', I don't think it's so much sponsoring Our rights away as confusion on the part of many here as to the nature of public and private property.

    All of Us pay taxes. As such, I believe that any group or organization that solicits and/or accepts funds from the gov' (Tax monies) should do so with the understanding that They are declaring (money talks after all) themselves a puplic institution.

    As such, I believe They have to treat citizens of this country (the tax payers) as investors free to voice whatever They wish on property supported by their dollars. If an organization wishes to forego puplic aid then, it's Their rules.

    I don't know about England but, here in the US we have a considerable number of folks Who petition funds from the gov' and then scream "Bloody murder" when they have to comply with this or that federal mandate.

    If You're goin' to suck from the Fed' teet, be prepared to listen to viewpoints You may find ubjectionable. If this is too high a price? Don't take Their (the Fed's) $$$.

    [This message has been edited by Treadhead (edited 23-07-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Me thinks you missed the point.

    These are State schools accepting ADDITIONAL sponsorship from private companies for school books, text books etc. These companies then place a gagging order on the school prohibiting any pupil bad mouthing said company.

    THAT is why I would be concerned. This practise is starting to creep in over here too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Naw 'Kent, I knew what You meant.

    We have some privately funded schools here (mostly religeous) that won't accept Gov' $$$ in order to maintain their autonomy. These are the ones I was reffering to in My first post.

    In state funded schools it's cut and dried. You're essentially an organ of the government and as such should not be able to supress disenting views.

    What We see here are state schools that take additional funding from business organizations to sponsor activities and programs that their budgets otherwise wouldn't allow for. The company providing the $$$ expects to be immune from attacks on it's product(s) for this aid.

    My attitude is, Then You shouldn't try runnin' commercials on public property. The argument is always "Well, if they didn't fund this program, We couldn't offer it" Tough shit, you're a state organization by virtue of the fact that You accept their (tax) money.

    I'm sayin' I agree with You in regards to state schools or "Private" schools that exist through student aid (gov' $$$) programs.

Sign In or Register to comment.