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.
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?
That is how undercover operatives discredit a movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
You may be right. Panem et circenses has already worked more than 2000 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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
Okay, when was the last time you publicly spoke out about a controversial issue?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Nu uh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
But does the banned books list in your country make you uncomfortable?Quote:
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.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Also, what does it mean to have someone's right to express their thoughts, be drowned in a *sea of irrelevance?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by malac
Thank you for clarifying his statement.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by malac
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
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.
The last few posts in this thread were beside the point. The only argument posted here that was relevant to the point was your ironic response.Quote:
Originally Posted by poopman
Hmm no.
*shakes head* Canadians don't know how to riot properly... they should learn from koreaQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Is Europe better then? Where you can't even deny the holocaust in half of it and even in countries as westernized as France they can fine you for criticizing some of their leaders/laws? Britain isn't so bad, but that's not all of Europe. Is South America or Asia in general better than us in regards to free speech? I should think not. But the U.S. and Canada as a whole are better than Europe as a whole. Australia's hate speech laws are more restrictive than Canada's. And the U.S. doesn't even have hate speech laws. If you reject my claim that North America in general has the best freedom of speech, then please give me an alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
why when asked if you think a free speech zone is counter intuitive do you just compare america to the rest of the world. stop changing the subject. we dont need to compare america with china or england. we need to go back to a more libertarian america. all you guys do is blah blah america is better than china, no shit. wow, something to be proud of. blah blah, america is better than england. great, thats why we left that dumb place. stop comparing us to them, worry about returning to what made america great.
I think not being able to deny the holocaust pales in comparison to people being arrested for not obliging the authorities when they were told they were only allowed to practice free speech where nobody could see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
I don't really get why you're insisting on taking the averages of entire continents anyway, I don't think fricking plate tectonics has much to do with any of this.
Who was arrested for excercising their free speech outside of the zones? Who? I don't know that it has ever happened. If anything, the zones are pointless since we have free speech regardless. The point is that unlike a lot of what is being said, America has free speech that ties with the most free in the world. We don't have to average continents, anyway. It was just easier than looking at each of the westernized countires seperately. Plus, I hate when people bash the rights we are losing in the U.S., (I don't deny that we have lost a lot,) and ignore how f'ed up Europe is all over the place. Looking at individual countries, the U.S. has good free speech. Britain does, too. Canada is pretty decent. I can't think of other nations that equal these, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You should avoid naturalistic fallacies. They're bad for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
Just because we have more flexible policies on free speech than any other country, doesn't mean we ought not to complain when we lose them.
There's plenty.
Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The States is pretty great but it's not the lone bastion of freedom that, judging by the rhetoric from within, almost everybody living there thinks it is. There's 12 countries above you in the human development index which measures political freedom among other factors, including all of the Scandinavian countries.
As I said earlier in the thread, the number of arrests made under this free speech zone thing are pretty small; as are those under 'hate speech' laws. They're covered here:
Free speech zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't only allowing pro-Bush signs near Bush seem pretty bad to you, though?
I never said we shouldn't complain just because we are better off than other nations. The point of the above post was to show that other countries, largely Europes, shouldn't be ignored in it's rights violations. At any rate, our individual free speech isn't being taken away directly. Rather, we've lost privacy rights, some court rights, and even to a lesser but still fairly significant degree some media rights. This could lead to losing individual free speech, but it hasn't happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by malac
That's because the index is measuring political freedoms as a whole. I would never claim we are one of the best as far as all freedoms are concerned. In a lot of ways we are soley at the mercy of the government or DHS. Just as far as individual free speech, (what the OP is referencing,) there are none better. The examples you presented are pretty egregarious and the few which were illegal really make me wince. (When the president is on private property, there is little wrong with dismissing protestors other than ignorance, for example. When he is on public property, dismissing protestors is a crime.) The Bush presidency broke so many laws concerning our rights it is incredible. That whole time in our history had us heading for fascism and with it being less than one presidency behind us, the damage hasn't been undone. Thing about free speech zones is they were illegal and an implementation of a corrupt presidency. I am not justifying them, but hate speech laws are fully within the law in some countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And many of those 'Scandanavian' countries might fine me for wearing a shirt that says 'Homo's Go to Hell.' Despite how much that behaviour appals me, it is screwed up that people can't partake in it. Many think our freedom of speech goes too far. I can spread the knowledge on how to make an A-bomb if I am not telling them to/organizing a group of them to use one or make one. So even if a limitation on free speech is justifiable, it is still a limitation. Political freedoms as a whole? Maybe Scandanavian/Nordic countries beat us out. On free speech in general? Not a chance.
At any rate, thank you for bringing to my attention those illegal arrests. It is very interesting and frightening how the President and Secret Service can circumvent the laws and just get away with it...
I apologize for my mistake. I had little time to accurately access your post because my class was about to start, however the same principle still applies even when the two ideas differentiate.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
I was aware of my assumption before I decided to post it, but as mentioned before, I had a finite amount of time, and so I decided to type it anyway so that I could give a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
S*rry gUYZ!
S'alright. I've done the same thing before.Quote:
Originally Posted by malac
This is somewhat related to this conversation. FOXNews.com - Pentagon Destroys Copies of Controversial Memoir Written by Army Officer seems like a bunch of bs to me, but im sure ill be called unpatriotic...or collaborating with al qaeda. thoughts? more thought provoking info here White House invokes state secrets privilege to block targeted killings suit - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
I doubt anyone will wig at you over that here on DV. Besides... Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.Quote:
Originally Posted by poopman