If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Censorship
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 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"
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"
0
Comments
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">
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.....
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
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?
... 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">
Your cycles have bled into ones supposed to be my own
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.
(sorry my spelling sucks)
Not ment as a flame . Just something that in my mind seems to fit . But what do I know ?
BillofRights
What good is the message if no one gets to hear IT!
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."
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.
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?
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.
So basicly Yes Freedom of speech on Public property.
It may seem restrictive but we have alot more freedoms than most Nations.
Freedom rocks !
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.
Because it's STATE schools that are being affected, surely public areas primarily funded by public funds?
That ain't right.
But if no one violated laws then Lawyers wouldn't be filthy rich would they.
Freedom rocks !
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?
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) $$$.
[This message has been edited by Treadhead (edited 23-07-2001).]
These are State schools accepting ADDITIONAL sponsorship from private companies for school books, text books etc. These companies then place a gagging order on the school prohibiting any pupil bad mouthing said company.
THAT is why I would be concerned. This practise is starting to creep in over here too.
We have some privately funded schools here (mostly religeous) that won't accept Gov' $$$ 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.