Free Speech

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
clakclak
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun, 13. Jul 08, 19:29
x3

Re: Free Speech

Post by clakclak » Mon, 3. May 21, 01:11

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 20:46
[...]
clakclak wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 20:01
Those of us that have faced discrimination, be it sexisim, racism, ableism or any other form, can attest to speech leading to a feeling of alienation and frustration.
We all had our feelings hurt, it has nothing to do with free speech though. You can get your feelings hurt without any speech at all, this is unrelated. The pen is mightier then the sword is a metaphor, not to be taken literal, because literally the sword is OP in comparison to the pen, just saying. :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
Some of the sources here are in German, because they were not avaliable in English. Sorry but it was the best I could do.

You can try to downplay things all you like Ketraar, but people face discrimination and suffer from it. Try to deminish their experience by claiming this is just about "hurt feelings", but at the end of the day it really is about more than that. It is about power and who wields it.

To give a concret example: In Germany it is a punishable offense to call someone a racist (in this case a woman had to pay 1200€ for two google reviews in which she called her former teacher a racist). The second review detailed an examplary incident which happend in the school and which the writer of the review felt was racist.

You yourself have argued against total free speech when you said "It doesnt mean there should be no consequences from the speech, in some cases even legal ones (but very limited)." Well this is what you get in reality. Free speech is never free, it will always be applied selectivly. It will always be stacked against minorities. Meanwhile AfD member Andreas Winhart can say stuff like, "if an N-word[...] coughs on me in my neighbourhood I have to know if he is sick or not" and Gauland can loudly voice his wish to "dispose" of Aydan Özoğuz and then have absolutely nothing happen to him. Why?

Simple, because Germany has a problem with systematic racism. (Systematic racism meaning that structures, instiutions and the socialisation of citizen contribute to a racist status quo. Those that do not fit the 'norm' are treated worse, not because there is an active conspiracy against them, but simply because they are viewed as 'others'.) And as long as that does not change on a fundamental level hate speech laws will be necessary to protect minorities from racist attacks as they help to mitigate some of the disatvantages that come with having to live in a system that is allready rigged against them.

Or to say it in the words of Desmond Tutu: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." And no, I am not being dramatic, just because I think that it is an injustice when people get punished for naming racism where it happens, but the racists get off scot free.

We can debatte all these theoretical ideas but at least in the country I live in the situation is what it is and I don't see this as just being about some "hurt feelings".

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by fiksal » Mon, 3. May 21, 01:48

Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 00:55
fiksal wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 22:15
What law would prevent 'them' to take power, if any promise of genocide is a free and protected speech?
In my country it is written in the constitution that advocating for fascism is not allowed, so any movement that aim at that is deemed illegal and thus cannot run for any election. Also as I mentioned Human Rights are a law and anyone infringing on them will have to face the justice system. Its not that complicated.
That's a good and concrete law then. No such law exists in US or Russia, to my knowledge.

mr.WHO wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 23:06
If there are enough people who would be willing to listen, then no amount of law or censorship will stop it - you can't censorship everything and if you can't, then why bother at all?
People who call for violence are as guilty as those then that follow it. And just because the fight is tough doesnt mean you should quit.

mr.WHO wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 23:06
Who will decide what is good and what is not and at what point?
I provided plenty historical examples that goverments are terrible at censorship.
Democracy does, people that vote on laws. If a law says one cant call for violence, then one can not, for example.

And even if we can spend extra time and watch the court cases that would be a mistake, we should be less lenient to anyone holding authority, from cops to politicians. Any show of preference to fascism, call for violence, race superiority, or willingly spreading misinformation is the cause to removal. In my opinion. They can continue their life as private citizens, not public servants.
Lord Farquaad wrote:Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make.

BaronVerde
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 22:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Mon, 3. May 21, 10:39

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 20:46
clakclak wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 20:01
Those of us that have faced discrimination, be it sexisim, racism, ableism or any other form, can attest to speech leading to a feeling of alienation and frustration.
We all had our feelings hurt, it has nothing to do with free speech though. You can get your feelings hurt without any speech at all, this is unrelated. The pen is mightier then the sword is a metaphor, not to be taken literal, because literally the sword is OP in comparison to the pen, just saying. :roll:
Hurt feelings because of whatever reasons is a very different thing to inciting people to kill for a cause based on lies. Pen against swords is not a metaphor, it is an adage derived from experience, as old as written history. It is ludicrously more complicated than a fight person to person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_i ... _the_sword

Please cite the claim that 'words do not harm', because that is what was said upthread, and it is the fundamental argument for absolute free speech, am I right ? With deductive reasoning the argument crumbles and falls apart with the failure to prove that the claim is correct. And I think we already did a few steps to disprove it (but am ready for correction) with citing publications on the matter.
Last edited by BaronVerde on Mon, 3. May 21, 14:16, edited 3 times in total.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Mon, 3. May 21, 11:34

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 01:48
mr.WHO wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 23:06
Who will decide what is good and what is not and at what point?
I provided plenty historical examples that goverments are terrible at censorship.
Democracy does, people that vote on laws. If a law says one cant call for violence, then one can not, for example.
On that I can agree, yet Democracy without access to all the information (both true and fake) is not real democracy.
I will even say that if people only have access to one set of inofrmation, no matter for correct and benevolent, it's not Democracy, but masked Dictatorship.

Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 00:49
mr.WHO wrote:
Sun, 2. May 21, 23:06
I think people in 90s and 2000s would be shocked about modern day Free Speech and rampart censorship.
I think they would more be shocked at all the lies and trivial posts being spread. Back then most people did not have internet, especially young children. Now billions of people have access to the internet every day, including children who can barely read or write.
Either you're too young to remember these times or you try to pretend that the reality was completely different back then (especially early 2000s).

Pretty much everything that Alex Jones spew now is complete copy/paste New Age crap that was all over internet back then (with hefty load of other popular conspiracy theories threw together, like Philadelphia incident, Area 51, Arctic Nazi).
I haven't belived that crap when I was teenager (and I wasn't sharpest tool in the shed back then), but thanks to knowing all these theories I can easily tell from where, he pull all his crap today.

Thanks to access to information, he is amusing clown to me, rather than deranged individual.
Censorship and bloking the information will only add him credibility and fame, while having Free Speech access to 90s and 2000s conspiracy theories would make his voice silenced much more effectively.

Another example of censorship failure.

All I can see that people calling for censorship always goes for "think about the children". To me it looks like it's not Free Speech that is problem, but rather failure of schools and parents.

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 2505
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 19:23
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Imperial Good » Mon, 3. May 21, 22:08

mr.WHO wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 11:34
Pretty much everything that Alex Jones spew now is complete copy/paste New Age crap that was all over internet back then (with hefty load of other popular conspiracy theories threw together, like Philadelphia incident, Area 51, Arctic Nazi).
I haven't belived that crap when I was teenager (and I wasn't sharpest tool in the shed back then), but thanks to knowing all these theories I can easily tell from where, he pull all his crap today.
Most people in the world did not have access to the internet back then, especially children. I only really had access to it around the year 2000. You could post all the nonsense you want back then and it would only be read by a few people. There was no real "going viral" either as that only started in more recent times.

Mightysword
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Free Speech

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 3. May 21, 23:06

clakclak wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 01:11
You can try to downplay things all you like Ketraar, but people face discrimination and suffer from it. Try to deminish their experience by claiming this is just about "hurt feelings", but at the end of the day it really is about more than that. It is about power and who wields it.
I don't think he's downplaying it, but he brought up a point that is often the reason why it's hard to reach a total solution. When presenting our point, we often rely on extreme examples that can be very easily made into black and white. We also often allow no compromise by insisting our point be taken in a vacuum and force others to ignore all relevant context.

To draw a similar example with another quote relating to freedom of speech: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Don't know about others, but as someone who live in the US I'm getting so sick of that quote, because it's often taken way too liberally. Because if we are to take that quote literally, then not a single one of us deserve either, including Benjamin himself. Why? Because the fact by living in a society, we have ALREADY made that trade, to give up some liberty (follow rule and laws) in exchange for security, that's the whole reason why "society" is formed in the first place. So either Benjamin is a hypocrite, or people are just not understanding it correctly. You literally have to live by yourself in the wild to claim you didn't compromise the principal of that statement - absolute liberty with zero security. But does that means those of us who live in the confinement of society deserve none? :?

Another example that perhaps is closer to your "hurt feeling" point, the whole "don't blame the victim" culture.

On the extreme end, you can see the point if we're talking about ... say countries like Saudi, I heard that if a women got rapped, it's totally her fault and be punished while the rapper get to go free. But that doesn't translate 100% into other culture. For example, a woman decide to take a shortcut by going into a dark alley and unfortunately got rapped. Many decades ago, one of the thing people will say (and probably still say, just not openly anymore) is "the woman shouldn't walk by herself into a dark alley". When we say that (and by we I mean my people, Asian culture thankful are still pretty blunt about this) we are not trying to defend the perpetrator: I definitely want the rapper get caught, I wouldn't mind one bit if the maximum sentence is imposed on that kind of crime (and where I'm from that's the firing squad), hell if I can I would even insist on it. But when we say "the woman shouldn't walk by herself into a dark alley" it's not about blame sharing, it's about drawing lesson so the same tragedy isn't repeated. Many decades ago that statement is "common sense, conventional wisdom", today culture and political correctness try to censored it by making into "blaming the victim" because of the "hurt feeling".

A woman should be free and safe to go anywhere she like without the fear of getting raped ... is the statement you often hear from the "don't blame the victim" people ... and you know what ... I absolutely agree with them 100% ... if we are to live in a perfect world - a world where we never have to fear about anything because there is no bad guy. I remember saying this to someone specifically in another topic, I think it was you, but I'll repeat it all the same: we live in an imperfect world, you can not solve problem in our world by proposing solution that would only work if the world is perfect. Because beyond "nice feeling", it has little other value.



I think the phrase here is ... "the glass is half-full"? And you know ... sometime that's necessary. I watched some public hearing of the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) on a few major incidents. And the comments from the public there are often "don't sound like they care, why asking these question, they're insensitive ...etc... ". The point is ... if you have a public hearing from the NTSB, then either the incident potentially can cause dozen of casualties if it had not already done so. The job of these people are not there to try and take something positive from a tragedy, but to look at all angles. The glass is half-full yes, but it's not about the feeling, but to ensure how the incident would not happen again.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Tue, 4. May 21, 07:58

Imperial Good wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 22:08
mr.WHO wrote:
Mon, 3. May 21, 11:34
Pretty much everything that Alex Jones spew now is complete copy/paste New Age crap that was all over internet back then (with hefty load of other popular conspiracy theories threw together, like Philadelphia incident, Area 51, Arctic Nazi).
I haven't belived that crap when I was teenager (and I wasn't sharpest tool in the shed back then), but thanks to knowing all these theories I can easily tell from where, he pull all his crap today.
Most people in the world did not have access to the internet back then, especially children. I only really had access to it around the year 2000. You could post all the nonsense you want back then and it would only be read by a few people. There was no real "going viral" either as that only started in more recent times.
My point is that back then we had milions on Alex Jones, internet was 50% Porn, 45% disinformation and 5% of useful stuff.
Hell, we even had new age and conspiracy theories on the television (I recall one show where dude created a healing water by energizing it by cosmic energy using his hands - I've seen adults watching this crap!).

You're wrong that children didn't had access to it, maybe not <10 years old but most of teenagers already had at least 56k modem back then and many already had a phone that supported color pictures and low grade cameras.

What changed since then? Because it still looks to me like the problem doesn't lie with Free Speech, or fake news, but the fact that incompetent parents let <10yo unlimited use of smartphones and social media.

BaronVerde
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 22:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 4. May 21, 09:38

@mr.WHO: That is so confounded, it is "not even wrong". Or, to cite a certain Jedi: "Every word in that sentence is wrong !".

That's really all there is to say :-)

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 20:46
x3tc

Re: Free Speech

Post by Chips » Tue, 4. May 21, 20:30

I don't really see much of a definition of free speech - so reading everything to try and understand what people individually believe is true, or accept as reasonable, is a bit hit and miss.

I remember when I had my own forum being told that I couldn't ban someone, or edit their post, as they'd sue me due to preventing their right to freedom of speech. Told them to get on with it - it's something imparted by the Government on the citizen and I was not constrained by such things as an individual (in that specific context). Then again, they probably never read it, I banned them for incessant personal abuse towards the beta testers.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech- ... uman-right

I'll go with Amnesty International. Most people think it really means you can say anything you want. It doesn't. You can read your own laws in respective countries (or regions) to find out the constraints around free speech.

Has anyone done that?

@ Whomever linked the German article about the person being taken to court for 1200 euros. Was that libel they were sued for?

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 2505
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 19:23
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Imperial Good » Tue, 4. May 21, 21:10

mr.WHO wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 07:58
You're wrong that children didn't had access to it, maybe not <10 years old but most of teenagers already had at least 56k modem back then and many already had a phone that supported color pictures and low grade cameras.

What changed since then? Because it still looks to me like the problem doesn't lie with Free Speech, or fake news, but the fact that incompetent parents let <10yo unlimited use of smartphones and social media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

Statistics speak for themselves. Back in 2000 there was much less than 1 billion people with access to the internet. Now there is over 3 billion.

Mightysword
Posts: 3027
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Free Speech

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 4. May 21, 21:51

Imperial Good wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 21:10
mr.WHO wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 07:58
You're wrong that children didn't had access to it, maybe not <10 years old but most of teenagers already had at least 56k modem back then and many already had a phone that supported color pictures and low grade cameras.

What changed since then? Because it still looks to me like the problem doesn't lie with Free Speech, or fake news, but the fact that incompetent parents let <10yo unlimited use of smartphones and social media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

Statistics speak for themselves. Back in 2000 there was much less than 1 billion people with access to the internet. Now there is over 3 billion.
It's not just quantity but quality as well. With a 56k modem one most likely only look at a few article, or chat on a forum times to time. You certainly don't have dozen and hundred of video clip that can blast the content in your face none-stop. You also didn't have targeted algorithm that would continuously feed you content and lead you down the rabbit hole. I did have internet in the early 2000, but the amount of time I spent on it then is miniscular comparing to the amount of time I'm on it now.


Btw, this is why I refuse to open any political link on youtube regardless of how legit it is. Until this day my you-tube feed are full of music, funny animal and weeb material. I shudder at the thought of what may happen if one day the algorithm think I'm interested in politic. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

BaronVerde
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed, 16. Dec 20, 22:26
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by BaronVerde » Tue, 4. May 21, 21:59

Chips wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 20:30
Has anyone done that?
I must admit I haven't. I am an expat, and the country I live in (Spain) is rather open minded towards free speech of its citizens. The rules of the country I originally come from (Germany) allways seemed somewhat opaque to me, hidden in a plethora of scattered rules and interpretations thereof. Typically German 8) But not that any reasonable person with an open mind had to worry.

I find the Amnesty take on the issue of free speech reasonable, allow as much freedom as possible but prohibit spreading hate and incitement. We must unite, not break up in animosity. There are real big problems ahead, specifically because of the changing environment, the more we split up, the bigger the probklems will become. But that's a different story.

We can't allow hatred and divisive influence take over.

Code: Select all

  /l、 
゙(゚、 。 7 
 l、゙ ~ヽ   / 
 じしf_, )ノ 

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 18:47
xr

Re: Free Speech

Post by Observe » Wed, 5. May 21, 03:04

As important as speech is, listening is also part of the equation.

User avatar
mr.WHO
Posts: 6115
Joined: Thu, 12. Oct 06, 17:19
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by mr.WHO » Wed, 5. May 21, 07:46

Imperial Good wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 21:10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

Statistics speak for themselves. Back in 2000 there was much less than 1 billion people with access to the internet. Now there is over 3 billion.
Statistics meand nothing, if you fail to read it (again seem like education is an issue more than Free Speech). majority of that less than 1 billion was in the West, so this doesn't make my point any less valid.


Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 4. May 21, 21:51
It's not just quantity but quality as well. With a 56k modem one most likely only look at a few article, or chat on a forum times to time. You certainly don't have dozen and hundred of video clip that can blast the content in your face none-stop. You also didn't have targeted algorithm that would continuously feed you content and lead you down the rabbit hole. I did have internet in the early 2000, but the amount of time I spent on it then is miniscular comparing to the amount of time I'm on it now.
You could read as many articles as you could now, coz pages were much smaller/simpler. Yes they was time limit/$ per your browsing, but internet was also smaller place - it would be like comparing Steam in first years (a few dozen games) vs current state (dozen thousand games).


One thing that I can fully agree is dangerous and new in modern days is targeted algorithm, yet again targeted algorithm is form of CENSORSHIP, how you could blame Free Speech for it?

Vertigo 7
Posts: 2840
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 18:30
x4

Re: Free Speech

Post by Vertigo 7 » Wed, 5. May 21, 13:10

This clown show is getting even more hilarious...

phones with cameras = internet. 56k modems = same amount of information as today only smaller. Victim blaming women is somehow not supposed to be that cause you're supposed to get the telepathic message that the subject and actions in the sentence weren't actually what was spoken.

Wonderful uses of free speech!
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”