When "freedom of speech" is abused
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > When "freedom of speech" is abused
Posted on Oct 07, 2005 09:25 am
dbmasters
Administrator Since: Apr 03, 2002
I am really tired of all the lame crap people get away with under the "freedom of speech" protection.
www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/06/D8D2LHF06.html
Now, I'm curious what ya'll think...I tend to believe, that freedom of speech was not intended to become a "I can say whatever I want whenever and wherever I want", but was intended more as a means to allow people to disagree with people without fear of being targetted for those views.
I have always thought the forefathers wrote that defending people rights to express opinions and ideas, but did not intend the tabloid rags to abuse it, or the ignorant internet masses to be able to anonymously flame the hell out of whoever they feel like...I dunno...fine line to be riding there.
[ Back to Top ]
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Oct 07, 2005 10:55 am Defamation is differnt from insults... defamation has to be false... in this case the guy "could" be a homesexual or retard and is just denying and hiding it well. If the poster is saying something tha can be proved false then it's different... I think the big isse is the fact that it'm online... and a city coucil member... so nobody really cares... it's not like we're all watching this guys career :) If it was an article in the town newspaper..ie something pople who live there might actually see... It would probably go the other way.
Oct 07, 2005 10:58 am true, I totaly understand that, however, it's still classly, tacky and stupid...which our forefathers never made illegal. This article is just one example I saw today, we all know the more wide-spread and common issues that have been protected under "free speech"...
He may be a council member, but still is a person...
SirrusPrince of Cat EarsMember
Since: Jun 17, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 11:44 am It's definitely a foul case. Then again, should we make legal cases out of every person who trolls the net - whether if it were HRC or their own blogs? We'd be busy for a while.
Big trick here is that it'd be nice if these folks were just saying things about WHY they thought they guy was "mentally deteriorating" or what have you. You can find plenty of well thought out dissertations from people who think our president is losing his mind (probably a few that insist he never had one to begin with).
As an independent in a "red state," I can say that after the last election, I really got pissed over it until I came to realize that these differing viewpoints are what makes America freaking awesome. I mean, the problem for me is and has always been the "He's gay, ignore what he has to say" crowd. If I wanted to hear from someone with the mental capacity of livestock, I'd have spoken to a cow. Heck, I'm likely to eat them later on - it's only fair to hear what they've got to say.
Oct 07, 2005 11:45 am Quote:
I really got pissed over it until I came to realize that these differing viewpoints are what makes America freaking awesome.
Very true, the problem is the extremists on any given side, not the moderates.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:27 pm Quote:
"I can say whatever I want whenever and wherever I want" is exactly what freedom of speach means . Of course, that also means you may be freed-up for a can of whoop-*** after you get done saying your precious words . Everyone has a right to defend themselves as well... and if you can't back it up, you shouldn't say it . These guys hasseling this polutician happens because he's a polutician, what did he expect... everyone to agree with him, and be his friend ?
Without this most-base form of self-expression (ripping on someone) we would be forced into a life of silent-inside-jokes . Of course he doesn't deserve it, and the people on the other end don't deserve the ego-boost they got from ripping on him, but that's the way this type of juvenile energy is dispersed . Don't take him to court, take the law into your own hands, and stop wasting my tax-dollars.. y'a gay-retards ! 8p
I'd like to introduce my legal team :
Cartman, Kyle, Stan, and Kenny .
Classless, tacky, and stupid can be a good thing, too .
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:29 pm your posts just keep getting more and more entertaining. . . that's in a good way =)
Oct 07, 2005 02:30 pm I completely disagree.
Disagreeing with someone does not have to equal ripping on them...it equals disagreeing.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:33 pm True Dan, but I don't think that them changing the first letter of his name to indicate him being gay is a valid argument for him being gay... even if he is .
Oct 07, 2005 02:34 pm and it's childish, playground behavior, which is just stupid.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:34 pm Doesn't this come close to libel / slander. If it's true, and you can prove it, then it's not libel/slander. If you can't prove it, then the subject / person has legal rights to have the perpetrator cease and desist, plus have compensation for defamation?
It seems to me that any public forum (mail, internet, hand-outs, etc) would have to fall under this principle.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:34 pm True as well . Not court-worthy in the slightest .
Oct 07, 2005 02:37 pm True, totally uncourtworthy, my beef is more regarding the fact people actually do it...grow up already, ya know?
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:37 pm i guess being an anonymous blog, you should be able to have the offending post/article removed, and maybe a retraction, like in a newspaper.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:38 pm very true, certainly people can find more productive ways to disagree with a politico.
Oct 07, 2005 02:42 pm personally, I am a big fan of not letting anyone do anything on my sites without some sort of login/authentication.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:46 pm It is stupid, total opinionated dumbness... it's The New Dumb .
Yeah pjk, you would think a retraction on their own forum would fair... but also just as silly .
Oct 07, 2005 02:47 pm There is one blogger that blogs about SEO tactics (search engine optimization) that is being sued because a commenter on his site bashed an SEO company, that bashed company is suing the blogger, not the poster.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:52 pm not so silly, Hue. One of my lawyers made the comment, we're burdened with integrity, while the opposing side uses deceit and lies.
The forum, or blog hoster, (maybe) is bound to act in a socially acceptable manner, to keep the peace, as it were. The blogger may not use social decorum to make his point, but the hoster should. It's what keeps society running (somewhat) smoothly. If they don't, then they will add to the chaos type actions of the blogger.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 02:54 pm Man, that's one step away from a bad equipment review !
Oct 07, 2005 02:57 pm not true, equipment reviews (at least here at HRC) I am asked by the manufacturer to review their products, they ask for the review and supply the product in question...so it's a totally different thing.
granted, they aren't always happy with the outcome, but, THEY ASKED.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:00 pm I see .
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:02 pm What about all those terribly-biased reviews you see 'everywhere' ?
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:03 pm I mean everywhere 'else' .
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:10 pm if it's supported by the submitter as truth, then it's not the same as when a person just says 'so and so is a schmuck, and he stinks', etc.
Also, the submitter may state that their submission is an opinion.
Oct 07, 2005 03:16 pm suing in this case is childish to me. Its not like this was posted on a billboard or in front of his house. This guy made the choice to be in the public eye, there are consequences for that you need to accept reguardless!!! which i dont think this chump has.
now i agree with this case and think its more trying to abuse free speech
www.wral.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:18 pm Thanks for making sense of this for me guys .
... speaking of equipment reviews, have you gotten a hold of one of those Toneports yet, dB ?
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:24 pm Yeah xtc, that does make a bit more sense to sensor a person on a flight . The plane is private property, and the rules are prolly stipulated on the ticket she paid for .
Oct 07, 2005 03:24 pm Quote:
What about all those terribly-biased reviews you see 'everywhere'?
Well, that's something else that is brought on by political and financial interests...I have actually lost a couple possible sponsors for HRC cuz I wouldn't play that game...two for sure, a third I am still wondering if that's why they bailed...but then, any decent company accepts criticism...
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:25 pm I agree too, xtc. freedom to speak out is one thing, but freedom to force others to be offended is another. society sets rules for the whole society to function with. breaking them shows a persons unwillingness to live amiably with others.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:26 pm stay true, dB. Don't turn into one of the 'Guitar Magazine' lobby groups.
HuePinnipedal Czar (: 3= Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 03:29 pm Quote:
stay true, dB. Don't turn into one of the 'Guitar Magazine' lobby groups.
Somehow, I just can't see that happening . ; )
Oct 07, 2005 03:45 pm I refuse to cater...even if the readers don't agree with something, what I put out is my honest opinion...
I tell all people requesting reviews and such up front that is how I operate...if I am not honest, I am no good to you guys, if I am no good to you guys, then HRC is worthless...and I AIN'T gonna let that happen.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Oct 07, 2005 03:46 pm heh if that t-shirt case wins (which it wont) it could take the MPAA rating scheme and a number of FCC rules with it.
SirrusPrince of Cat EarsMember
Since: Jun 17, 2004
Oct 07, 2005 04:17 pm dB, if you don't want to play the game, you could always meet them halfway and, instead of catering, just have the "Reviews from a Clueless Newb" column where you send it to me and I act like a clueless primate, ***** about IRQs, and ultimately give up and use the device as a paperweight.
I can see the web banners now, "Good Products Wasted on a Total Newb!" I mean, I'll get my PR folks on that one to streamline it. I'm just a stupid Newb, I can't write for myself!
(That concludes self-depreciation and a rather poorly veiled attempt to get free gear under guise of stupidity. =3)
Oct 07, 2005 08:42 pm The way I understand it, freedom of speech is intended to protect our right to speak our minds in the arena of political debate as well as other discussions without fear of government repercussion. It was not intended to allow anyone to say anything they want about anyone or anything just to stir up anger and hostility. Not for political name calling, harrasment, or even to show your stupidity...it was and is about the ability to share genuine ideas and opinions in an open minded, civil manner. We can't yell "fire" in crowded building unless we believe there is a fire, "hijack" on an airplane unless we believe it is true. We have freedom of religeon (in some places), but I don't have the right to get n your face and force my opinion on u. If I'm on my property, I should have the right to say, write, and do anything I want as long as it stays on my property and doesn't harm anyone else. The exception would be that I shouldn't put things that are offensive to others (racial slurs and other signs of severe stupidity, foul language, etc.) where they can see or hear them from their property or public property. If I'm not informed enough to argue facts and opinions without name calling, foul language, and other disruptive, emotional behavior, I shouldn't participate n the debate. I should shut my mouth, learn about the subject, then participate in a constructive manner. On the other side, we need to get away from being offended by genuine cultural symbol, religeous symbols, etc. I have my faith and beliefs and I'll share them with anyone who asks, if they are truly interested, but I'm not going to scream in offense to the display of symbols that I don't agree with. Nor will I sue to remove the display of the Mexican flag in Mexico, German flag in Germany, etc. I won't even complain if my neighbor flys a foreigh flag in the proper manner. WHEW, I nee air!!
Oct 07, 2005 10:52 pm Yeah, what he said! ^^^^^^^^^
Oct 08, 2005 04:04 am this guy is allowed to say whatever he wants if he's just a blogger. bloggers arent held to the same standards of truth as are publications. its just like some drunk dude running his mouth. no one has to pay any attention.
Oct 08, 2005 04:07 am "This guy made the choice to be in the public eye, there are consequences for that you need to accept reguardless!!! which i dont think this chump has."
--YES. no ****. i mean, this is how comedians get away with what is ESSENTIALLY the same sort of thing--lying. its just that they do it to comic effect. if youre in the public eye, you have accepted the consequences.
Oct 08, 2005 04:12 am that comedy point seems a good point: whats the difference between innuendo and outright saying something? michael jackson endured years of jokes about how he liked little boys, which, through another lens, could have been judged as defamation.
if comedy suffers we all die, end of story! preserve the right to lie about people. its just not that big a deal.
Oct 08, 2005 08:27 am yeah, thats a good point forty, but, if bloggers are looking for the same protection under the law (freedom of the press, which is a hot topic among bloggers right now) then they have to be held to the same standards.
Oct 08, 2005 09:12 am Freedom without responsibility = chaos. Comedy is different, comedians are supposed to be absurd, exagerating things out of proportion to be funny is one thing, and it's to be expected in the entertainment world. But web sites (or any other media) that promote hate and inflame people just to benefit from it don't do any of us a favor. I don't believe in censorship, but there should be some accountability, especially in the press. Since when has the press been held to any standard? lol
Oct 08, 2005 12:27 pm "yeah, thats a good point forty, but, if bloggers are looking for the same protection under the law (freedom of the press, which is a hot topic among bloggers right now) then they have to be held to the same standards."
thats a good rebuttal. i was a little alcoholic when i posted those three last night. only skimmed the article itself. if it is a hate site i might be able to alter my opinion. as long as the freedom of comics is not infringed upon! and as long as there is still a way to use the net to pretty much voice your mind.
intent must be scrutinized, i suppose. maybe thats the gray area in which the line must be drawn.
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Oct 08, 2005 03:38 pm Quote:
I don't believe in censorship, but there should be some accountability, especially in the press.
And that's what the courts are for. If someone can prove they are or have been harmed by false or inaccurate writing/speaking 'press', individuals, or groups then those responsible can be held accountable. In this case the court did not agree.
I think those who wrote the constitution would be appalled at many things that have been allowed under the constitution, but I also think they would agree that it has for the most part done exactly what they intended. In another time John Lennon could have been executed for his comment "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus"... think about it. :)
Dan
Oct 09, 2005 06:09 am Right on olddog...I thk we have the best system there could be...it's just abused by selfish, irresponsible people, trial lawyers, perverted judges, congressmen, senators, presidents, and most of all...foolish citizens. Still the best though and I'm thankful that many of us are still willing to fight and die for it. I'd rather have a free and open system where some choose to live in the gutter than to live where I couldn't say what I believe to be true. We just need to be civil and responsible.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Oct 11, 2005 01:17 am Yup, ya dug up another enigma. The vein attempt of government to manage the exception. Threaten a neighbor publicly and you will see little recourse unless something happens to that neighbor. Threaten a figgure of precieved public importance and become the target of major survaliance. Yack about someone with money and you may spend a lot of time in court. Express views contrary to the vision of government leadership and it's a toss up as to weather it is an opinion or an attempt to insite riot or revolution.
Real bag of worms.
Oct 11, 2005 10:06 am More like a barrel of snakes! I guess one way to determine if one is trying to stir up trouble would be how and where one is exercising "free speech". Standing in front of a crowd and making accusations without supporting facts, name calling, stereotyping, etc, would seem to be done to incite violence, riots, and hate, which is wrong. Writing a blog, newspaper article, etc would be different, but should still be held to the standard of using facts and common sense. As far as where and when the government steps in is the difficult question. Really, the less government manages things, the better off we are. Government is run by people, and unfortunately, most of them have a selfish agenda. Seems to me the most selfish ones are the ones who are most generous with other peoples money....oops...yet another can of worms.
