Freedom of Speech...

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Everything is about context.

Should someone be jailed for *just* a text message - no. However, if some is being a stalker, and using text as a way to persistently harass, threaten and intimidate - yes.

There was a very memorable case of a young girl who committed suicide after months of bullying in school, that then continued after classes were out with facebook, email and text. Those horrible young girls deserve no less then jail.

Persisant abuse is abuse whether in person or online. If it would be horrible to say to someone's face, it's just as dreadful to say online to a complete stranger.

Though I do not believe in censorship, I also do not believe in the theatre of hate that cowards play out because of the anonymity given them.

I agree with this above to a certain extent. I think it is the "political correctness" that has gone haywire in America. It now has affected all of us to the extent that journalists and talk show hosts get fired for saying something offensive or not in line with what their TV syndication wants being said on air or in the paper.

Quote "PC can be criticized in several ways. I just pick two types of criticism that seem most convincing to me. Politically correct speech is a kind of orthodoxy or an example of dogmatic thinking or group thinking, which is why the concept of PC is mostly pejorative. Politically incorrect speech on the other hand can be seen as rebellious, original and individualistic. It can be very useful in identifying hidden assumptions, prejudices etc. Of course, political incorrectness can become a prejudice in itself, obscuring the need for real debate on some human rights issues." http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2...l-correctness/

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I agree with this above to a certain extent. I think it is the "political correctness" that has gone haywire in America. It now has affected all of us to the extent that journalists and talk show hosts get fired for saying something offensive or not in line with what their TV syndication wants being said on air or in the paper.

Quote "PC can be criticized in several ways. I just pick two types of criticism that seem most convincing to me. Politically correct speech is a kind of orthodoxy or an example of dogmatic thinking or group thinking, which is why the concept of PC is mostly pejorative. Politically incorrect speech on the other hand can be seen as rebellious, original and individualistic. It can be very useful in identifying hidden assumptions, prejudices etc. Of course, political incorrectness can become a prejudice in itself, obscuring the need for real debate on some human rights issues." http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2...l-correctness/

love it!!! thanks for the link

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I agree with this above to a certain extent. I think it is the "political correctness" that has gone haywire in America.

Quote "PC can be criticized in several ways. I just pick two types of criticism that seem most convincing to me. Politically correct speech is a kind of orthodoxy or an example of dogmatic thinking or group thinking, which is why the concept of PC is mostly pejorative. Politically incorrect speech on the other hand can be seen as rebellious, original and individualistic. It can be very useful in identifying hidden assumptions, prejudices etc. Of course, political incorrectness can become a prejudice in itself, obscuring the need for real debate on some human rights issues." http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2...l-correctness/

I completely agree. That's what I mean when I say the matter is a gradient, that is dangerous when taken too far, regardless which side you lean toward.

Thank you for the link, I know many friends who will enjoy the read!

[I B Hankering]

These people are fighting for their right to express themselves. It will be interesting to see how far this goes.

Egyptian Protesters Denounce Mubarak; Clash With Riot Police
Hamza Hendawi
AP

Discontent with life in Egypt's authoritarian police state has simmered under the surface for years. However, it is Tunisia's popular uprising, which forced that nation's autocratic ruler from power, that appears to have pushed young Egyptians into the streets, many for the first time. . . .

"We want to see change, just like in Tunisia," said 24-year-old Lamia Rayan.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/25/eg...h-riot-police/

++++++++++++++++++++

Tunisia: Don't Call It a WikiLeaks Revolution
Christophe Ena,
AP

Forget poverty, unemployment and decades of police brutality. Moammar Gadhafi knows what really led the Tunisian people to take to the streets: WikiLeaks.

The Libyan dictator argued in a televised speech this weekend that the anti-secrecy website had deliberately set out to overthrow his long-term ally, Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, by publishing "information written by lying ambassadors in order to create chaos."

Protesters run as police use tear gas after a demonstration against the Constitutional Democratic Party in Tunis, Tunisia, on Tuesday.Gadhafi wasn't the first person to suggest that Julian Assange's site played a significant role in Ben Ali's downfall. Last week, the journal Foreign Policy argued that WikiLeaks' Dec. 7 release of secret diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Tunis -- which explained how Ben Ali's extended family was looting the North African country and living in outrageous luxury -- exposed ordinary Tunisians to the true nature of the regime and "pushed [them] over the brink."

Political blogger Andrew Sullivan agreed, hailing the departure of Ben Ali on Friday as "a major, er, coup for WikiLeaks and the transparency it promotes." AOL News and others also reported that the controversial site had helped fan the unrest, which sent Ben Ali into exile in Saudi Arabia with his wife, Leila.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/18/tu...ks-revolution/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Forget poverty, unemployment and decades of police brutality. Moammar Gadhafi knows what really led the Tunisian people to take to the streets: WikiLeaks.

/

Am I the only one that finds humor in this statement? We been after Gadhafi for decades and all we had to do was quit whispering behind his back!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Am I the only one that finds humor in this statement? We been after Gadhafi for decades and all we had to do was quit whispering behind his back!

Assange doesn’t deserve all of the credit. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg deserves as much credit as does Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. Reagan and Bush didn’t have the benefit of their technological developments. (Jan Hus was burnt at the stake; Martin Luther benefitted from Johannes Gutenberg’s new technology.) Plus, the article goes on to explain that, “The problem with such arguments, though, is that they relegate ordinary Tunisians -- at least 75 of whom were killed by security forces over the past month -- to the role of bit players in their own uprising.”

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Assange doesn’t deserve all of the credit. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg deserves as much credit as does Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. Reagan and Bush didn’t have the benefit of their technological developments. (Jan Hus was burnt at the stake; Martin Luther benefitted from Johannes Gutenberg’s new technology.) Plus, the article goes on to explain that, “The problem with such arguments, though, is that they relegate ordinary Tunisians -- at least 75 of whom were killed by security forces over the past month -- to the role of bit players in their own uprising.”

I was just joking there I B.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I was just joking there I B.

Okay.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Valerie

I'm curious to know how everyone feels about this topic....

It seems the right to free speech is getting less and less, and cencorship more and more. I mean people can go to jail now for sending someone an unwanted text message?...a freaking text message! I just can't fathom how a few texts messages is cause enough to arrest someone and put them in the same jail (with actual criminals).. Or if you get into a verbal altercation, if you use a curse word someone can turn around and make a bloody police report on you.
Seems like in today's society everyone is stepping on their tip toes just so no ones feelings get hurt, and it seems to be only getting worse. So many things people are afraid to do or say because it might "offend" someone...I'm not saying I think everyone should run around being disrespectful and rude, but at what point is a line going to be drawn?

I truly feel censorship is a cancer...

If we're going to go the medical analogy route, I'd go with...

Abridgments to the absolute right of free speech are rather analogous to the count of t-cells in the body. Count too low...problems. Count too high...problems. There is a range of t-cell counts that is considered "normal".

Now..precisely where the "optimum" count is...who the hell knows? Whether you think "optimum" is toward the low end of the normal range; or, toward the "high" end of the normal range seems to depend upon which fatal malady one is more frightened of.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Sisyphus

seems to depend upon which fatal malady one is more frightened of.

I think I speak for all when I say the Clap is what frightens us the most

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by WTF

Am I the only one that finds humor in this statement? We been after Gadhafi for decades and all we had to do was quit whispering behind his back!

Yes, and how about that rat worm that destroyed the nuclear power computers of Iran? Isn't it sad that we as a country can't seem to be as creative in bringing down people like this without having to fully invade a country?
http://kannanking.blogspot.com/2010/...hits-iran.html

Ok, back on topic.. LOL

[coast_encounter]

I heard this quote the other day and it seems especially relavant these days.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)

[Tiffani Jameson]

Originally Posted by John Bull

There is no right to live without being offended at some time or another.

I agree with this 100%. You're going to be offended by someone at some point. We ALL will offend, either with our presence, or beliefs. What the world needs now is tolerance. If people only understood the difference between the things we can change and those we cannot, we would have less fights.

Some people still think that Black people are inferior, shouldn't have rights, and should be shipped back to Af'ca. Some people think that gay sex is immoral, which I find ironic in a 'nation, under God' but doesn't allow prayer in schools. Don't think that legislation is going to pass anytime soon. So keep your feelings to yourself. Say what you want, just don't go to jail trying to get your point across.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by John Bull

There is no right to live without being offended at some time or another.

There is freedom from censorship only from the government and only where the speech is of a political nature.

Walmart can censor books and music for sale in their store all they like. You can do the same in your store.

The bold and underlined portion of the sentence is just plain wrong. There are numerous categories of speech besides political speech that cannot be regulated by the government. The most notable of those is commercial speech, although there are others such as artistic expression. The Courts have held that the protection of speech is broadest when it comes to political speech, but many more categories of speech are protected.

However, you comment that the right to free speech, like all rights, is held only against the government is correct. It is also, unfortunately, not widely understood.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Assange doesn’t deserve all of the credit. Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg deserves as much credit as does Twitter founder Jack Dorsey. Reagan and Bush didn’t have the benefit of their technological developments. (Jan Hus was burnt at the stake; Martin Luther benefitted from Johannes Gutenberg’s new technology.) Plus, the article goes on to explain that, “The problem with such arguments, though, is that they relegate ordinary Tunisians -- at least 75 of whom were killed by security forces over the past month -- to the role of bit players in their own uprising.”

certainly right. I think assange is an interesting personality. and i don`t understand why blowing the whistle is a worse thing than doing the things whistle is being blown on. The networks he created were just fantastic. Couchsurfing and okCupid aside :-) (did anyone read the articles about Julian being a CSer and onOKStupid (a cupid?)