Thread: free speech zone

Originally Posted by Supernova

No, the insanity has just begun.

Maybe some of these people could get their voices heard a bit if they weren't followed up by a bunch of fucking retards smashing cars and storefronts. Seriously, what the fuck to they expect to accomplish with this shit other than make all the protesters look bad?

As long as people keep dragging out the same tired protest routine and rhetoric there will be no change.

That is how undercover operatives discredit a movement.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm reading Brave New World at the moment so I might be slightly behind, ha. Hmm... I'm not sure about that. I think people are about as attentive as they have ever been, which is on the whole not very attentive at all, but those few with the ability to provide impetus are often alert. What exactly would you wish to see effected by this relevance?

You may be right. Panem et circenses has already worked more than 2000 years ago.

But what has drastically changed over the course of the last couple of decades is the amount of information that, especially younger generations, are subjected to. I see many positive aspects to that fact, but also an increased difficulty in determining fact from agenda, also due to increasing commercialization. What has been one stream of information for a long time during history is now an ocean, regardless of peoples' attentiveness, it's more than most, if not all, are even able to take in. And a lot of this information is filled with irrelevance and advertising purposes. I don't think if there is currently anything there could be done about this, though.

If I understand your question correctly, I would always propose a more objective, multi-facetted media and news approach of the main outlets. The main reasons why I think that especially mainstream media fails miserably is due to its corporate structure and the almost oligarchical press agencies. I am all for free flow of information, but at a certain distributional range, I think there needs to be a kind of hypocratic oath when it comes to journalism, as well as agencies. Institutions that exist for the sole purpose of checking the facts or to point out important information that has been left out should be more publicly acknowledged. So I would like to see the newsscape become more self-critical and publicly so. But if the masses would care? I don't know.

I guess this documentary is relevant to this thread:
The political economy of the mass media
Manufacturing_Consent.wmv
based on a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think so. I don't personally feel like I have any less freedom of speech than I'd like.

It's not exactly Orwellian yet.

Okay, when was the last time you publicly spoke out about a controversial issue?

Well, I speak about relatively controversial things a bit on DreamViews without any problems.

I'm sure I'd've had some controversial discussions at uni too.

Basically I've never been in a situation where I've felt I haven't been able to say something I want to, and I don't see how that can be seen negatively.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'publicly speaking out' or 'controversial' though.

what do you mean by you have controversial discussions at uni? what kind of controversial subjects often come up?

I'm really not sure... uh... I remember talking about when Israel boarded that flotilla headed for Gaza, that's one thing I guess. I've talked about... atheism? Communism?

I'm struggling to answer because I don't know what was meant by 'controversial' discussions in the first place. I can't really think of anything I'd want to talk about which would incite people.

Originally Posted by dajo

Are you kidding? You don't even really have freedom of the press.
Several journalists were put in jail during the Bush administration.

On top of that, we can be de-patriotized without a jury trial, news gatherings can be halted, we have no privacy laws to protect us from the establishment, many actions the government can take against the people are set up in a way that the action cannot be challenged legally, and DHS officials can do anything short of shoot a mouthy child and get away with it. Yeah, we are totally boned.

To be fair, though, Europe is lacking on the Freedom of Speech scale. The UK still bans lots of books and until the last few years had some notable journalism restrictions. Don't even get me started on how screwed up Germany has it's speech laws. FRANCE SOMETIMES FINES PEOPLE WHO CRITICIZE CURRENT GOVERNMENT LAWS!!!

So I hope no one tries to pretend we are worse off than most of Europe concerning free speech.

EDIT: Haha. I didn't even see that there was a second page. I'll catch up in a scond. If I am not topical anymore, I apologize.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I speak about relatively controversial things a bit on DreamViews without any problems.

I'm sure I'd've had some controversial discussions at uni too.

Basically I've never been in a situation where I've felt I haven't been able to say something I want to, and I don't see how that can be seen negatively.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'publicly speaking out' or 'controversial' though.

You know; sit ins, protests, running an anti-government website, hosting a libertarian or socialist or ultra conservative radio show. Something that might get some attention. Being allowed to talk to your friends about your opinions on religion and inciting social change are different things. You are free to talk about whatever you want as long as you aren't affecting change within the establishment.

But I don't want any attention. So what does my not gaining attention prove? :l

There's plenty of radical societies at uni. There's communist societies, etc. One of the college bars has the communist flag in.

I've never been impaired in my ability to speak freely. There are anti-government protests all the time.

To say that this atmosphere is akin to 1984 is just paranoid and baseless.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You are free to talk about whatever you want as long as you aren't affecting change within the establishment.

Nu uh.

Originally Posted by Xei

But I don't want any attention. So what does my not gaining attention prove? :l

There's plenty of radical societies at uni. There's communist societies, etc. One of the college bars has the communist flag in.

I've never been impaired in my ability to speak freely. There are anti-government protests all the time.

To say that this atmosphere is akin to 1984 is just paranoid and baseless.

But does the banned books list in your country make you uncomfortable?

I did a quick Google and couldn't find any books that are still banned.

Originally Posted by Xei

I did a quick Google and couldn't find any books that are still banned.

There are still banned books. Not many. But the precedent is still in place. Most of them are classified 'terrorist literature.'

Like what..?

I can't really answer your original question if you can't say what the books are.

You can't own/read things like the Mujhadin/Al-Queda weapons manuals, to name a couple. Sure, you might think there is good reason for this, and really, I don't think it some huge moral problem. But it doesn't do anything, (all the info is on the internet,) other than set a legal precedent for banning literature. (Literature can fall under possession of items useful for acts of terror.) Anyway, this is really more of a 'it can easily go much farther' thing than anything else. Still, it would definitely make me uncomfortable. Britian isn't bad about freedom of speech, IMO. Probably better than us as far as protecting citizen's rights. (I see far less wrong with the anti-terrorism act in the UK than the patriot act in the US.) Britain wasn't supposed to be a particularly damning example in my above post condemning the limiting of rights in Europe. Not like France is, or all the countries that do not permit genocide/holocaust denial.

Originally Posted by spockman

You can't own/read things like the Mujhadin/Al-Queda weapons manuals, to name a couple. Sure, you might think there is good reason for this, and really, I don't think it some huge moral problem. But it doesn't do anything, (all the info is on the internet,) other than set a legal precedent for banning literature.

Sounds more akin to classifying military documents than banning books. Do you feel uncomfortable that an American citizen can't possess US military weapons schematics?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Sounds more akin to classifying military documents than banning books. Do you feel uncomfortable that an American citizen can't possess US military weapons schematics?

I do not feel wrongly about it being illegal for government personal to release classified documents. But yes, I would feel very uncomfortable if classified documents, once reaching the hands of the media/public citizens, were made illegal to read/distribute. I think you will find that this is not the legal precedent in America and if I obtain classified documents through legal means, (if I did not violate my career oath as a defender of classified documents, that is, or trespass, or hire criminals to obtain the information,) I have every right to read and share that information. This has happened multiple times in our nation's history and the right for citizen's to possess things even more dangerous than weapons schematics has been upheld.

Originally Posted by dajo

Things are much more brave new world than they are 1984 I think...

You know, freedom of speech drowned in a see of irrelevance.

This topic has nothing to do with Brave New World... EDIT: I looked back and seen you had replied to what Xei said, so never mind. :/

Also, what does it mean to have someone's right to express their thoughts, be drowned in a *sea of irrelevance?

Originally Posted by malac

This topic has nothing to do with Brave New World...

Also, what does it mean to have someone's right to express their thoughts, be drowned in a *sea of irrelevance?

(I understand your distinction. It's just ill-written.)

Imagine a society where shallow happiness is the only virtue and the world is engineered so that logic will always loose out to short-lived gratification and easy living. Free speech doesn't matter. The framer's of the world have turned it into a non-sequitor. Nothing matters or has value and truth is pointless. It is all traded for a general lack of suffering. Who needs to violate rights when the importance of those rights can be stripped away? That's the Brave New World and the theme dajo is referencing.

Originally Posted by spockman

Imagine a society where shallow happiness is the only virtue and the world is engineered so that logic will always loose out to short-lived gratification and easy living. Free speech doesn't matter. The framer's of the world have turned it into a non-sequitor. Nothing matters or has value and truth is pointless. It is all traded for a general lack of suffering. Who needs to violate rights when the importance of those rights can be stripped away? That's the Brave New World and the theme dajo is referencing.

Thank you for clarifying his statement.

Originally Posted by malac

Thank you for clarifying his statement.

Well, it was an allusion. It would seem unclear and possibly confusing if you haven't read Brave New World because the allusion is lost on them, but to those that have it should make perfect sense.

Originally Posted by spockman

Well, it was an allusion. It would seem unclear and possibly confusing if you haven't read Brave New World because the allusion is lost on them, but to those that have it should make perfect sense.

I read it some years ago, but my memory of it was somewhat hazy, and because Dajo's statement is likely to be only understood by it's context as an allusion, the context of it was somewhat unclear to me.

Yes, spockman understood correctly. I understand there is no more confusion now?

i cant believe people are arguing still about this. its simple, a free speech zone a fucking oxymoron. stop over thinking it. a restriction on speech would make it not free. therefore a free speech "ZONE" is satirical sarcasm to true FREE SPEECH.