what do you think of free speech zones? is it free if you have to be in an approved zone?
Printable View
what do you think of free speech zones? is it free if you have to be in an approved zone?
only in america... :lol::lol:
(I had to look it up)
Of course it is not free speech. Luckily in the US you can still say what ever you want in a public area, and for the most part ignore any free speech zones.
Free speech zones?
Christ, you guys have really fucked it up over there. It sounds like something out of 1984.
The question of course is (or at least one of the questions), if setting aside separate zones is how you enable free speech, does that mean using free speech outside of designated zones is illegal?
It was designed to keep Bush and his fragile little brainmeats away from anything remotely critical of his actions. While I agree that security for the president is important, it should only be focused on his physical safety. I've seen Obama deal with hecklers with much more decorum and less tazing than the Bush administration ever did. Unfortunately given the wikileaks and ACTA crap coming out of this white house, it looks like change only goes so far...
There is a time and place for free speach tbh.
To clear things up for people not living in the US, free speech isn't regulated to free speech zones. There was an attempt to get people to stay in the 'zones' though I wouldn't call it all that successful. Though there have been some cases where it was used to push protests from protesting in front of the doors, around to the back of buildings where no one can see.
You live in the UK right? You have free speech zones as well. Xei is supposed to be so smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
where and when are acceptable for free speech? church? in the senate? in your house? online? in front of the white house? in front of the federal reserve? you fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidness
wel i guess ill jus take ur word for it lol herp derp derrrpQuote:
Originally Posted by poopman
Seriously wat. All I read on this was the Wiki article but the intro there says that these zones are "are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States", and I never heard of this before.
Large public gatherings/protests require permits to keep them organized and prevent violence. An individual can exercise free speech anywhere, large groups need to let the cops know a few days in advance to keep a protest from turning into a riot. Sometimes this is abused to stifle free speech, but it makes it easier it most cases.
Hmm, never heard of that untill now. I think it's fucking bullshit, but unfortunately a lot of people are too stupid to prevent the need for things like horsey101 is describing.
I would be surprised if Europe didn't have a similar permit system for public gatherings. Not to mention free speech here is stronger than in Europe. Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't really agree. I think they're both less than they should be.
There have been a tiny number of arrests under those laws, and they don't tend to lead to prosecutions.
It's probably about equal to the number of people arrested due to the U.S.'s twisting of what 'free speech' means into 'free speech where we tell you', which also seemed pretty small when I read the article.
The issue is the principle though. I don't think there should be any kind of restrictions, except on incitement to riot. Otherwise, if you relax this, there's the possibility of slow, insidious change to something you really don't want.
Denial of permit equals denial of free speech.
Oopsy, loop hole.
The whole point of free speech is voicing your opinion, voicing your opinion to other people. If no one can hear you, whats the point? Exactly, there is no point. It hinders organized protests, which are the only successful protests. Also, it is far more likely for a riot to break out in a disorganized protest.
Free speech zones could also be used to sway the opinion of elected officials. Who is in charge of issuing the permit and who decides which voice is heard? If elected officials aren't aware of dismay by their voters, then they will think they are doing a perfectly fine job and keep making decisions their voters disagree with. Writing a letter and making a phone call only goes so far.
For example, someone could be whispering poison into the president's ear. Power behind the thrown so to speak. The law would be a highly useful in manipulating and exploiting. Instead of free speech being banned, this law eviscerates free speech by rendering your voice powerless. The saying "There is more than one way to skin a cat" comes to mind.
The law is very Orwellian because it makes people still think they have free speech, when in actually it has been indirectly banned.
Foresight is a preventive medicine.
I would laugh at the silly Americans, but ever since Toronto's G20 fiasco, Canadian's don't have much room to talk. Hell, even Iran was on our case for police brutality.
Iran.
When seen at this angle, the law could be a potential threat to national security.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis
Are you kidding? You don't even really have freedom of the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by horsey101
Several journalists were put in jail during the Bush administration.
Yeah the G-20 was so brutal, all those poor protesters that died :roll:...Quote:
Originally Posted by Samael
Yeah, yeah. I just thought it was funny. Had a very WTF reaction when I came across the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I'm tired of all the hippies screaming "police brutality" at the G-20. They did a stand-up job, and I haven't heard of a single death or serious injury caused by the police. So a couple people got detained for 24 hours for hanging out with the wrong crowd, boohoo, wanna see what the police will do to you in some other countries? I thought all the security costs for the summit were way overkill until I saw those reports of people rioting, torching cop cars and vandalizing stores. Way to give Canada a good image...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKgFsqry6LQ
the insanity is reaching a head. There will soon be a change.
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.
I don't think so. I don't personally feel like I have any less freedom of speech than I'd like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
It's not exactly Orwellian yet.
I absolutely agree. That's the same problem as it was in my city. After a while, some people actually just tagged along to protests to be violent idiots and that makes it so easy to just ignore any points that were tried to be made and paint a picture of the left as violent, rebellious idiots in any media outlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
More people get turned off by these actions then anything else, but news-reporting is ever only about the misbehaviours, but never to discuss any points and/or facts that were being presented. And often times I am pretty sure the general public would hear of some of the issues raised for the first time, which wouldn't be surprising due to general onesidedness in newsmaking.
And for the record, police brutality during protests is very real and played down too. It takes two to pick a fight.
Things are much more brave new world than they are 1984 I think...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You know, freedom of speech drowned in a see of irrelevance.