Scrambles

Jesse,

With regards your hypothetical situation. A statement comparing christianity to belief in the tooth fairy is pretty harmless. Hate-speech restrictions are supposed to prevent newspapers or tv shows advocating things like "All christians should be killed" or "All Jews should be gassed" or "Person X should have rocks thrown at their house. Their address is Y" or something like that.

The question arises "Where do you draw the line?" when you start restricting free speech. Well, if you don't draw a line somewhere you can get a situation where a news show succesfully argues in court that it should legally be allowed to deliberately lie to its audience.




Scrambles

paul30

I fervently agree.

We should try some democracy in the US.

Right now we have a dictator, with only the semblance of a Congress, and a sycophantish Supreme Court.

In Iraq, 60% of the people are Shiite, and are vociferously boycotting Bush's hand-picked "governors." Democracy means, among other things, allowing people to govern themselves.

Bush doesn't like that idea at all.

The US has never liked it much, which is why it toppled democracies in Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Philippines, and elsewhere, and attacked self-rule in Vietnam and other parts of South Asia.

Afghanistan now is back to the fierce warlords who ravaged it before the Taliban cracked down.

Some democracy.

Misso

quoted from Jesse's post

Yes, hate speech would count, but the hatespeech as more or less defined by Scrambles and not teh "I don't like you and you suck" kind.

Don't know very much about the Danish constitution, but the Dutch one is actually similar to the Belgian one: one may not abuse the right of free speech to violate any laws. It's a thin line though. Some people got jailtime (or possibly a fine, can't remember) for insulting the Queen, and another guy wasn't prosecuted for calling gays lower than pigs, because it was supposdly a comment he made based on his religion.
In my opinion the limitation of not abusing freedom of speech is the only way to go, because unlimited freedom of speech will lead to chaos.

Optional

Once again in this thread I'm sensing a cultural divide at work.

Gah.... I really really hate to go out on a limb and say 'all' or 'most americans think like this' because I have no real way of knowing. *I* think like this, and my sense is that it is a culture-wide phenomenon... But I REALLY hate saying things without knowing for sure if it's a lie. SO, any american that reads this and disagrees, PLEASE correct me and I'll shut up. Good?

Ok. The problem here is that in america, unlimited freedom of speech really is the ideal. Unlimited freedom of speech is seen as the bedrock upon which all other freedoms are built... You cannot have ANYTHING if you cannot have that. Over the years we've been forced to make exceptions... libel, slander, 'fire' shouting, threats... But they have been just that, EXCEPTIONS, each of them VERY grudgingly given.

Problem is, there are many people who think exactly that, but simultaneously hold the belief that absolute freedom of speech is all very well and good for them and people who think like them, but not so good when opposing voices speak out. Very wierd. However, veryveryvery few believe the government should get involved in any capacity. They just think that he shouldn't have oughtn't have said what he done said, and maybe if they shout loud enough they'll get him to shut up. Suggest actually jailing him or fining him, and 99% would say no.

But I digress. Back to the main point. We are a huge country, filled with an astonishing number and variety of opposing interests. Most european countries enjoy near homogenety, whereas we suffer near total heterogeny... You know how most people agree (including me, to be blunt) that democracy in Iraq cannot work because of the competing interests of the three societal groups, the Shi'a, the Sunni, and the Kurds? The American democracy is founded on division MUCH stronger than that. We thrive on it.

Our government was built and continues to be patched in order to provide the greatest justice and opportunity for the greatest variety of peoples. The degree to which it succeeds in that is very debatable, but the point is that because of all the competing interests here, you can damn well guarantee that at any given point in time, SOMEONE, and usually much more than ONE someone, is doing their damndest to subvert the system for their own benefit. An example is the gun issue... There is one group of people who interpret the amendment to read ALL citizens are allowed to have ANY guns they feel like. There is another group that interprets the amendment to read ONLY citizens organized in LOCAL MILITIAS (ie, the National Guard) should own guns. And there are a wide variety of groups with interests stretching from one end of that spectrum all the way to the other. And that's just ONE issue, there are PLENTY more.

We know, we KNOW, deep in our bones, that if any loophole is left lying around, SOMEBODY will jump through it, guaranteed.

Which is why it seems insane, to us, to leave a loophole in that most fundamental of laws, the law that guarantees all others, the law that is the bedrock of freedom, freedom of expression.

So now I think you can begin to understand why it is that when we look at europe and see loopholes in freedom of expression (banned games and books, banned political parties, banned public expression) it looks like a fucking disaster waiting to happen. And it looks like you guys are less free than us. Your press may be relatively untouched by government interference now... But with the loopholes left lying around, it WILL NOT stay that way. And once the bedrock begins to erode, as it inevitably must, the structure will come tumbling down.

Now, understand that I'm not offering this in the way of argument, although I will argue if challenged, but more in the way of an explanation for certain attitudes you might find amongst USA posters. (subject, of course, to some USA poster coming along and telling me I'm full of shit, but there ya go.)

'Unlimited freedom of speech will lead to chaos' is NOT a self-evident assertion to us. In fact, just exactly and precisely the opposite.

-me

Misso

Good post, Optional.

However:

This is not entirely true. The (former) Yugoslavia is a good example of this, although this might not be seen as Europe.
But there are more examples: Germany was, untill the Weimar republic after the First World War, a medley of various kingdoms, princedoms, dukedoms and whatnot. Italy was the same, although it was united earlier, somewhere in the second half of the 19th century if I recall correctly. Though these dividing lines weren't very fundamental, they were there. In contemporary Germany, there is still a rather large gap between former East and former West Germany.
Switserland is a federation of some 24 cantons, all divided along - what they see as - sharp lines (language, religion, area).
Belgium, just a few years ago, switched from a unity-state to a federation; the country was almost falling apart because of the Flanders/Wallonia conflict, and to prevent this, the regions were given far more autonomy.
The Netherlands (as well as Belgium*) knew "pillarization", where society was grouped in "pillars" according to religion (catholic, protestant) and political colour (socialists, liberals). These dividing lines controlled all aspects of society: catholics voted the catholic party, had a catholic trade-union, watched the catholic TV-station, read catholic newspapers, went to catholic schools, the lot. My mother couldn't play with some children because they were of another religion. My gradfather once told a story of how the carriages used to go to the protestant church were parked by the protestant pub, and the ones for catholic church by the catholic pub, right across the street. Dutch political structure had to be adapted from a system like in the UK/US (first past the post) to a proportionate representation, to prevent deadlock in decisionmaking and to keep the people satisfied.
According to Robert Dahl's theory, the Netherlands could not have been a country, it should have fallen apart long ago.

The homogenity of the European countries is, I think, more appearance than reality.

* pillarization in Belgium was about catholics, liberals and socialist, and had the addition of the French/Dutch lingual struggle, which cut across the other three subsultures. Pillarization in Belgium was less dictating life than it was in the Netherlands, I believe.



You are right about the cultural divide at work here. I really don't feel that freedom of speech is some kind of "�ber"-freedom from which all others follow. Personally, I think that freedom of speech/expression is highly overrated (this is not to say I don't like it).

I think the only real difference is that the exceptions to the freedom of speech in the US are defined in common law, and in European countries they are already defined in the constitution. Put into practice, I don't see it making much of a difference.
What kind of bothers me the "MTV-syndrome": censoring nude and curse words, the 'parental advisory' stickers on CD's, etc.. Untill recently, there was, here in the Netherlands, an independant music channel in the style of MTV, with the difference that it didn't censore nude and cursing. Since it's takeover by MTV though, they have started this censonsorship.
Despite total freedom of speech/expression, the US doesn't always have more of this than countries that don't know this total freedom of expression.

Optional

True. One of the things that drives me crazy about modern american culture is that more and more it seems that all of society has to be ordered 'for the chilllldrruuunnnnnnn'.... It PISSED ME OFF when they made Times Square a 'family' place... I never got to see it in all it's squalorous splendor, and now it's just McNewYork, kinda.

But see, this is another area where the ideal of absolute freedom of speech comes in. There's all these soccer moms and babtist ministers and such like trying to make the entire country a happyshiny Disney America, and they have this opinion that free speech is all well and good, but don't you dare say anything the slightest bit risque where any of our precious chiilllddrrruunnnn might accidently hear it and be scarred for life...

Luckily, though, it is legally impossible for them to tell me I can't say shit and damn and fuck.... They can apply social pressure, commercial pressure, and they DO, most definitely, but they can NOT apply LEGAL pressure. See what I mean?

-me

fornuften

paul30
I don't know whether or not to take your comments about the state of democracy in the U.S. literally, but I will respond as if they were meant to be so.
Democracy does not mean that everyone agrees with everything that the government does; this is, as we know, impossible. The majority of the voting (and I would submit, caring) citizens of our country elected President Bush. This election entailed a certain trust the general public had vested in the ability of Pres. Bush to make good decisions on our behalf.
One might cite the recent actions that have been taken post-sept 11th that seem, at face value to contradict the ideas of freedom of speech and privacy. One might say that the fairly recent imprisonments of people in alleged connection with the terrorism is an instance of the deprivations of freedom by the "dictator" Bush.
However, I disagree. The very reason these actions have been taken is to protect the freedom of our citizens and our country. Let's think clearly here, the actions of terrorists limits our freedom to live how we will. If unchecked, this will limit the freedom of our country in a way much worse than our current President is allegedly doing. If there are some who have their freedom suspended in order to secure the freedom of many, so be it. Democracy was never about making everone happy; it is about making the most people happy as possible. It is about giving the most people possible freedom to live and pursue happiness.
In regards to Iraq, you refer to the resistance of the temporary leaders appointed by the President. Two things: First of all, these people are "temporary" leaders. They are NOT democratically positioned but are rather there to facilitate the building of an Iraq that can be democratic and thereafter, elect leaders democratically.
Secondly, if we turned Iraq lose right now, there would be no democracy and the government that would take power would hardly represent the views and consent of the majority of Iraqis. If the Iraqi people want religious leaders, so be it, as long as those leaders are not put in those positions of power through their ability to coerce and repress. As it stands now, there are too few people exerting too much disproportionate power to believe that the Iraqis can appoint a government that would represent the majority of their collective wishes. By appointing leaders in Iraq, the United States is providing the construct that will create the environment necessary to facilitate true democracy.
The governments that you refer to, saying that the United States toppled them in order to set up regimes friendly to them are hardly what one might have considered "true democracies." Remember, Sadaam Hussein received a 99% "referrendum" vote prior to the war. Democracy in action, right? The countries that you mentioned were hardly democracies in anything but name.
In response to the comment on Afghanistan, you mentioned that it is back in the hands of warlords. . . I don't believe so. If the type of democracy and order that is found in the United States is what you are looking for, that will take time; it took us 200+ years to get this far! Afghanistan is a long term commitment if we want to do it right, if we want to set up the correct framework for democracy to flourish. The same applies to Iraq.
By the very nature of United States democracy, the voice of the minority tends to receive the most attention because it is the loudest. The majority does not need to speak out if the way they want things is already in effect. So, the minority appears, at times, "larger than life." The American culture has almost always sympathized with the "underdog," or the minority. This is all right and fine as long as the minority keeps its place and does not become the "tyranny of the minority." That is not democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Someone can have their free speech only as long as it does not impose on someone else's free speech. President Bush, at latest estimates, has 70-80% approval ratings. This, I believe, is one of the best indicators that we still (contrary to some points of view the minority has and feels are underrepresented) live in a democracy.

Evangelion

Attack of the killer paragraph!!!

Formatting... must... have... formatting...

Oh, for pity's sake, somebody give the man some formatting!!! :boohoo:

fornuften

Optional

Yes, people do have their freedom of speech and yes, I agree that one should not be limited in what one can express.
However, don't the "soccer moms" and the "baptists" have as much right to mold society as you do? Just as there are things you don't appreciate in society, there are also things that those people you mentioned don't appreciate. And, when it concerns the raising of ones children, as long as it is done in harmony with the law, parents have the right to raise their children the way they want. This means that they have the right to demand that society looks the way they want as much as others demand that it looks the way they want. Just because their views are different than those who think certain things are permissible, does not mean that they are less an expression of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean that "anything goes"= fee speech. It means that all people, regardless of beliefs, be they socially conservative or not, have the right to have their beliefs be expressed and reflected in culture publicly. In other words, homosexuals have as much a right to say what goes in to, say, the school curriculum as do Methodist mothers. Neutrality does not mean that only socially radical ideas can be expressed. There is, I would suggest, not neutrality when it comes to social views because, even the fence sitter has chosen to sit the fence and reject both the right and the left. Society cannot be free from influences; the idea that we can create a community free from influences that might offend anyone is a false notion. Influences are there regardless of what we do because, by rejecting one influence, we only make room for another. So, by rejecting the way Times Square looks, you are only conceding that your views and values be reflected in you community rather than some one else's. So what decides what is shown and where it is shown; that is up to the consent of the majority of members in the particular community.

fornuften

Sorry Evangelion

I'm still learning the ropes of posting here. First post and all. I will work on the paragraphs.