[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

[Paul Rumelhart]

First, I'm talking about the inalienable right of freedom of expression, 
not the Bill of Rights.  That only pertains to the government.

There were two reasons that prompted me to write what I did.  There was 
discussion earlier about whether Darrell would have changed his mind 
about whether the Chamber of Commerce should have the ability to shut 
down web sites they found disagreeable.  There was also mentions here 
and there of "hate speech".  These two items are against freedom of 
expression as I see it.  So I wrote what I freedom of expression means 
to me.

Also, I was expressing my opinion that people who truly valued freedom 
of expression wouldn't get so bent out of shape when they ran across 
something that offended them.  If you want to construe from that that I 
am somehow trying to tell people to shut up, then so be it.

Paul

Reggie Holmquist wrote:
> Freedom of Speech is a right.  It protects citizens against their 
> government.  I find it amusing when person A engages in hate speech 
> and then person B admonishes person A and afterward person C shames 
> person B for not respecting freedom of speech.  I'm not saying whether 
> or not NSA is engaging in hate speech, but it should be clear to 
> everyone that what is posted on their front page is ugly, 
> disrespectful, and inappropriate.  Saying that NSAs front page is 
> ugly, disrespectful, and inappropriate is not the same thing as saying 
> the government should do something about it.
>
> What you appear to be saying is that anyone who is offended by NSAs 
> website should STFU about it because if they say anything it will 
> somehow hurt freedom of speech.  You seem to forget that the people 
> who are offended by NSAs website ALSO have freedom of speech.  I find 
> it a tiny bit hypocritical of you to accuse others of a tendency to 
> "shun these sorts of debates," while at the same time doing the exact 
> same thing yourself.  It seems to me that folks like Nick and Joe are 
> trying to HAVE the debate, and that /you/ are the one who is shunning 
> the debate.
>
> -Reggie
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of my own.
>
>     I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals to
>     express
>     themselves is sacrosanct.  The freedom to express your opinion
>     should be
>     held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free society.
>
>     There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in my
>     humble
>     opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and not
>     opinions.  I
>     agree with libel laws, for example.  On the other hand, I disagree
>     with
>     obscenity laws probably universally.  If groups want to get
>     together and
>     form islands of information in which certain ideas are suppressed, I'm
>     for that, too, as long as other options exist.  For example, if
>     someone
>     wanted to create a separate internet targeted at children that
>     enforced
>     it's own censorship, I would be OK with that.  If parents were OK with
>     their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then they
>     should be allowed to do so without repercussions if their child
>     ends up
>     on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your favorite boogey
>     man is.
>
>     As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks.  Our government
>     works *for
>     us*.  They should only have secrets in very narrowly defined areas for
>     very specific reasons.  And no, "they shouldn't see it because it will
>     make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.  The people
>     behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be secrets in a
>     reasonable world.
>
>     According to my views on freedom of expression, political
>     correctness is
>     a disease that should be purged from the  world.  Instead of
>     helping, it
>     just sweeps the problem under the rug.  If a person hates blacks
>     because
>     of an incident when they were younger, or because they just don't like
>     people who are "different", then they should be free to express that
>     opinion.  Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue will probably
>     ensue, but this is healthy.  This tendency by people to shun these
>     sorts
>     of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion, anyway).
>
>     In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community, I
>     might as
>     well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of the child
>     pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they relate to freedom
>     of expression.  These laws have been expanded so much under the
>     guise of
>     "save the children" that they are insane.  In Australia, one man was
>     arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson engaged in
>     having sex, and was convicted under that countries child pornography
>     laws.  In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing manga comics
>     from Japan that contained drawings of children having sex.  Was Bart
>     Simpson actually hurt by this?  Or the fictional Japanese
>     schoolgirl?  I
>     can understand the prohibition against possession of real child porn
>     (because it creates a market for such things) though I don't agree
>     with
>     it completely.  I think it should be a prohibition against
>     *distribution* of child pornography, not simply "possession", if
>     for no
>     other reason than people might be likely to hand it over to law
>     enforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves.  Prohibition
>     against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.
>
>     So what does this mean to us?  It means that if something offends you,
>     you should suck it up and learn to live with it.  Grow some
>     thicker skin
>     and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale somewhere.
>      Freedom of
>     expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to trump "freedom
>     from being offended".  The minute you allow the idea that some things
>     are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've just
>     thrown the
>     concept of freedom of expression out the window.  Now you'll have a
>     slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible" tends to
>     match the
>     ideals of the people who are in power at any given moment.
>
>     The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom of
>     expression is
>     that they most often end up defending things that they might
>     vehemently
>     disagree with.  They defend the speech of people they simply don't
>     like
>     or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are personally
>     offended
>     by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not threatened.
>
>     Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the NSA website,
>     which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their right to
>     be as
>     inane with their metaphors as they wish.  I applaud them, really, for
>     not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political correctness.
>
>     Paul
>
>     =======================================================
>      List services made available by First Step Internet,
>      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                   http://www.fsr.net
>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>     =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly 
> what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly 
> disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and 
> inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has 
> already happened.
>
> Douglas Adams