 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 5:25 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the internet would open up the world and people would see all sides of things and discover the world is much bigger than their little bubble of existence. Instead people have taken this great opportunity to learn and grow intellectually and decided to stay in their little "online" bubble instead. While there was a lot of gross and sick misinformation and it lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths Ive also come to the conclusion you can't fix stupid.
Yes, this "bubble" building is especially divisive, as people "surround" themselves with affirming opinions and statements and tend to block or blend out (literally and figuratively) voices and opinions of those they disagree with. These "bubble" people tend to make more "strawman" arguments, because they have listened less to the "other side" but more to a "filtered-by-peers" version of the "other side".
If you hold to an opinion about something important in life (and religion and politics tend to be just that, important in life), it is always a good idea to actively try understand the strongest and best positions opposing whatever point of view you hold, and to enter into any discussion open to the possibility that you may be wrong and the other side may be right.
Unfortunately, what you see often on the Net is people assuming the worst rather than the best about the "opposing side, and resorting to insults and attacks rather than genuine exchanges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 6:06 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!
I agree with all of that but it also comes down to personal responsibility and willingness to grow into a better person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 6:22 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Yeah, Solium, I think that technology and time has made people crazier and more dumb, it has has the exact opposite effect it was supposed to, and I cannot ever see it getting any better, because now there are these commercial industries, some cable stations and a LOT of social media and blogs built and working well off telling people a bunch of garbage, people are spending a lot of hours cramming their heads with ludicrous trash, and they will spend their entire lives in this wasteland of lunacy. Yeah, free speech woo hoo!
I agree with all of that but it also comes down to personal responsibility and willingness to grow into a better person.
yeah, we just have a LOT of people, mostly, ironically, older citizens, that have decided that they really like being the uglier version of themselves, that they had hidden away for some years, but now it is revealed. It is, on the other hand, rather encouraging that we could have this discussion on this board without anyone seriously unraveling or having to get this locked. That is some progress. I always that it was possible, but there was a contingent here who wanted a discussion locked the second it talked about anything even in the slightest bit of a sensitive area. We have made it through this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had some random reactions to this discussion, with probably nothing important to add...but:
1. We are born without speech. Speech is an acquired skill and/or art.
2. If we do not acquire adequate language skills through our parents, personal interests, or educational institutions, where does that leave “freedom of speech”? Is the lack of proficiency in a given language, a lack of “freedom of speech” in that given language?
3. Was Helen Keller more “free” when she gained the ability to communicate with words?
4. Lacan has some interesting things to say about the onset of language acquisition and its impact on human development. Not that I understand Lacan, but that is one facet of his theories.
But I am rambling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 7:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Now we're getting into the definition of speech. According to the Supreme Court money is speech. 
I think speech is the intent to convey a message. It doesn't have to be words. It could even be silence. It could be body language, a written sign, there are many ways to convey a message. (speech)
Yeah, unlimited cash contributions by corporations and wealthy people to politicians, that is what 'god' intended as 'free speech'.
luxury vacation trips donated to supreme court justices, for decades, yeah, that is probably what 'god' intended also, uh huh, sure.
It was not surprising to learn that GM and Ford have both gone back to donating money to the guy who cheered on the overthrow of democracy, as he ran like a little chicken, Josh Hawley. Bad corporate citizens, looking out only for their tax benefits, as they shaft their employees who are asking for a little piece of the enormous profits.
https://theintercept.com/2023/09/29/josh-hawley-gm-ford-donations-uaw-strike/
malarkey
|
|
|
|
|
|
As gross as it is I think Neo Nazis and KKK have a right to walk down the street, hold hateful signs and have their little pathetic parades. In fact, at one time it was encourage because "we" knew who the potentially dangerous people were. More so, it wasn't (isn't) illegal under free speech.
Its different when you get into hate groups online because most online activity is owned by private companies and they have every right to ban "hate speech" groups. Of course they do that because (a) they don't want to end up liable for supporting hate groups, (b) advertisers back out and they lose money as a company.
I do believe I have a right to hate my politicians, billionaires, law enforcement (and other hateful/harmful people) and express that without fear of being retaliated against or imprisoned.
I agree, in fact, I believe everybody has a right to hate everybody else and express that hatred. Threats and defamation are obviously something else. It should be legal to say "I hate Jon/Jane Doe", it's not okay to say "Jon/Jane Doe murdered his/her grandfather and is an embezzling thief" unless that is actually true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 9:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
As gross as it is I think Neo Nazis and KKK have a right to walk down the street, hold hateful signs and have their little pathetic parades. In fact, at one time it was encourage because "we" knew who the potentially dangerous people were. More so, it wasn't (isn't) illegal under free speech.
Its different when you get into hate groups online because most online activity is owned by private companies and they have every right to ban "hate speech" groups. Of course they do that because (a) they don't want to end up liable for supporting hate groups, (b) advertisers back out and they lose money as a company.
I do believe I have a right to hate my politicians, billionaires, law enforcement (and other hateful/harmful people) and express that without fear of being retaliated against or imprisoned.
I agree, in fact, I believe everybody has a right to hate everybody else and express that hatred. Threats and defamation are obviously something else. It should be legal to say "I hate Jon/Jane Doe", it's not okay to say "Jon/Jane Doe murdered his/her grandfather and is an embezzling thief" unless that is actually true.
Totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 6:19 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
An assistant professor at State University opines that transgender women should not be competing on the university's women's swim team. He believes they are still biological males and have an unfair advantage over biological women. Is his expressed opinion "hateful" and "defamatory" against transgenders, and if so, should he be censured, have his position lowered, or even be dismissed from his position at the university?
I don't think this is hate speech, personally. Transgenderism is a very complex subject, especially for those who identify as transgender, but this topic over the athletic affiliation has become an interesting, if heated one. Ironically so because the cases are few and far between but the media attention is at its loudest currently.
That said, the State University in this roleplay is run by a board of directors appointed by a state leader, is it not? The board of directors are assumed to make governing decisions for the school, not the state. I believe that whatever their decision to be, is because they have been asked to make that decision to satisfy the faculty, students, and parents of the school itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 2, 2023 - 11:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
I really don't agree with the analogy that burning the flag is free speech. You're burning a piece of fabric. There's laws how, where and when you can burn things. So its no different than your freedom to burn anything else under fire regulations. I mean you can burn a hundred dollar bill and I don't see anyone looking to ban that. People want to ban burning the flag only because it hurts their feelings. That not enough reason to base a ban on.
As much as Americans love money, it still doesn't carry the symbolic weight of the flag. There is no need to ban the burning of currency, because technically, it is already illegal to do so. In the United States, burning banknotes is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §333: "Mutilation of national bank obligations," which includes "any other thing" that renders a note "unfit to be reissued". The penalty is a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both. Nevertheless, there is no known case of anyone being prosecuted for burning currency. (Perhaps the authorities figure that the self-imposed financial penalty is sufficient.)
Burning the flag is a entirely separate matter. As you note, the various state or Federal statutes that prohibited flag burning did so because the act hurt people's feelings about that symbolic representation of our country. The statutes were all struck down by the Supreme Court because hurting other people's feelings is protected as an act of free speech. You are correct that someone could still be ticketed for a municipal fire code violation for public burning of the flag or currency, as long as they weren't being singled out from people who may have been burning other things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 3, 2023 - 5:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
I really don't agree with the analogy that burning the flag is free speech. You're burning a piece of fabric. There's laws how, where and when you can burn things. So its no different than your freedom to burn anything else under fire regulations. I mean you can burn a hundred dollar bill and I don't see anyone looking to ban that. People want to ban burning the flag only because it hurts their feelings. That not enough reason to base a ban on.
As much as Americans love money, it still doesn't carry the symbolic weight of the flag. There is no need to ban the burning of currency, because technically, it is already illegal to do so. In the United States, burning banknotes is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §333: "Mutilation of national bank obligations," which includes "any other thing" that renders a note "unfit to be reissued". The penalty is a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both. Nevertheless, there is no known case of anyone being prosecuted for burning currency. (Perhaps the authorities figure that the self-imposed financial penalty is sufficient.)
Burning the flag is a entirely separate matter. As you note, the various state or Federal statutes that prohibited flag burning did so because the act hurt people's feelings about that symbolic representation of our country. The statutes were all struck down by the Supreme Court because hurting other people's feelings is protected as an act of free speech. You are correct that someone could still be ticketed for a municipal fire code violation for public burning of the flag or currency, as long as they weren't being singled out from people who may have been burning other things.
Gawd Damn! I learn something new everyday. I had no idea burning or mutilating US currency was illegal.
Not that its like I have money to burn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gawd Damn! I learn something new everyday. I had no idea burning or mutilating US currency was illegal.
Not that its like I have money to burn!
It's not as if major law enforcement agencies do a lot of sting operations to bust all these clans who secretly burn money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
