Freedom of Speech

GorillaEsq

Have you ever noticed how the concept of "free speech" seems to evaporate, when someone (or a group of someones) disagrees with a topic, discussion point, author or opinion?

Everyone wants to be heard, yet no one wants to listen. No one wants to be "controlled," yet everyone is trying to "control" everyone else.

I'm sure everyone has now heard about the YouTube "movie" created by the nutjobs in California, depicting the Islamic profit Mohamed as being a womanizer, pedophile, etc. The movie itself is low-grade, horribly produced garbage.

Yet, thousands of Muslims are murdering people, rioting and advocating for the slaughter of the film's producers. Really? You want to murder the guys because their crappy YouTube video sucked? Have you guys not seen YouTube? ALL of the videos suck. It's YouTube.

By the same logic, Michael Bay (creator of Transformers & Pearl Harbor), Tyler Perry (creator of the Madea movies, Meet the Browns, etc) and the f**kwit that created the Annoying Orange all should have been shot in the face years ago. Mostly because everything they produce, makes me want to punch myself in the d!ck.

But this type of utter insanity is not limited to the mass media... It's all around us.

This very forum is crawling with members that are absolutely vying for the opportunity to be offended and subsequently "retaliate" with various levels of hatefulness. They live for it. I'm sure any number of site moderators will read my comments above and be "offended" that I called the California guy a "nutjob," and expressed how Michael Bay movies are so bad they make me want to assault my own genitals.

Please know I'm not talking about the people that honestly engage a discussion with opposing viewpoints, and interact accordingly. And I'm by no means saying discussions should be "friendly and nice," as I myself am not exactly "warm and fuzzy" ....

- I'm talking about the people that literally stalk forums and blogs with the specific purpose of literally attacking targeted authors, simply because at some junction in the past, that author said something they didn't "like" and are now going to "teach that author a lesson."

- I'm talking about the ridiculously insecure people that see an author's picture next to a post, and click the "Report" button out of reflex, as though they just touched a hot stove, without even reading the content.

- I'm talking about the sociopaths that haunt forums with multiple accounts and fake/deceptive avatars, constantly explaining to various posters that all of their posts are stupid, and they ignore everything the author posts... And then continue to constantly, and repetitiously post how they're ignoring the author's strings and posts, over, and over, and over.

- I'm talking about questionably sane Internet-goers that email threats containing various levels of retaliation, because your post made them "sad."

Seriously?

Inevitably, there will be individuals on this very string that will respond with any number of asinine responses, such as "troll," "you're a big-meanie-stupid-head," and a flurry of other off-topic, juvenile responses that have nothing to do with anything, other than their own insecurities. (I interjected this late in the post, because most of them have stopped reading by now.)

The most obnoxious component of the aforementioned elements, is that the behavior described is not about debate... it's about control. I.E., "I don't like what you have to say, so I'm going to force you to stop..."

Typically, the behavior above is evoked because something about the discussion in question and/or author made the reader feel inferior. If Freud were still alive, he'd be having a field day with "Internet Psychology."

Thus, upon the reader feeling "inferior," and/or "offended," they retaliate with an array of the options above, rather than actually discussing the topic at-hand.

It's mildly psychotic.

Many content creators find this social phenomenon upsetting.

I personally find it absolutely entertaining as hell. :happy:

Gotta love the ant farm.

Keep being awesome. Happy Tuesday.

Jan72002

'they' were just looking for an excuse to riot against the US, the film gave them that. And the freedom of speech is a valuable concept, on that can be used but shouldn't always be used.

If you made the YouTube film would you feel any sense of regret?

GorillaEsq

'they' were just looking for an excuse to riot against the US, the film gave them that. And the freedom of speech is a valuable concept, on that can be used but shouldn't always be used.

If you made the YouTube film would you feel any sense of regret?

I wouldn't have made that film. If I created a piece of content that I truly believed in, and it caused a group of utter sociopaths to behave badly... I would regret that those asinine people behaved that way. I would feel that way regardless.

You don't get to murder, oppress, harass and attack people because you don't like what that have to say.

Jan72002

Do you think this will impact our election?

GorillaEsq

Do you think this will impact our election?

Slightly. I think those who vote are so polarized, it wouldn't matter if their "guy" was caught on tape, humping a grapefruit... they'd still vote for him.

126siany

Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.

GorillaEsq

Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.

The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

jonward85

And this my man is why you are on my friends list. I couldn't agree with this post more than i already do.

GorillaEsq

And this my man is why you are on my friends list. I couldn't agree with this post more than i already do.

I try.

joehempel

Do you think this will impact our election?

No...however I think Romney's words that were secretly filmed at a $50,000 a plate fund raiser, was the nail in the coffin for him.

126siany

Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.

The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

You become amazingly literal when you can't fashion a reasonable response to someone else's point. I suppose such distraction techniques must work on some people, or you wouldn't employ the so frequently.

GorillaEsq

Do you think this will impact our election?

No...however I think Romney's words that were secretly filmed at a $50,000 a plate fund raiser, was the nail in the coffin for him.

I'm not so sure. Many of the people voting for Romney, are voting for Romney, because they hate Obama... not because they approve/like Romney.

joehempel

Do you think this will impact our election?

No...however I think Romney's words that were secretly filmed at a $50,000 a plate fund raiser, was the nail in the coffin for him.

I'm not so sure. Many of the people voting for Romney, are voting for Romney, because they hate Obama... not because they approve/like Romney.

Yes, but come election time right when they pull that lever, are they going to do the "go with the devil you know, or the devil you don't". Like the 2nd term of GWB. (at least in my opinion)

Jan72002

Really? I think the overall point that 47% of people don't pay federal tax is an important one. I agree he didn't phrase it well, he rarely does -- however I was an Obama voter in 08 and won't be this time. Not sure if I'm votin Romney or not.

DetroitDarin

Just so we're clear "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to forums, etc...we're aware, right?

If we 'should' be free to speak our mind online, dillholes 'should' be free to whine, complain, and report if need-be.

Right?

Freedom to be an idiot is precious.

The problem I'd have - to your point about forums - is when moderators or staff have no spine and moderate 'just because somebody complained'....or is (OMG!) "Offended".

"We deleted a post because it was offensive to some users!"
"b-b-but you deleting the post was offensive to OTHER users.."
"Well..."they" complained so..."

To be clear I haven't participated enough see that happen here.

deb62pink

'they' were just looking for an excuse to riot against the US, the film gave them that. And the freedom of speech is a valuable concept, on that can be used but shouldn't always be used.

If you made the YouTube film would you feel any sense of regret?

I wouldn't have made that film. If I created a piece of content that I truly believed in, and it caused a group of utter sociopaths to behave badly... I would regret that those asinine people behaved that way. I would feel that way regardless.

You don't get to murder, oppress, harass and attack people because you don't like what that have to say.

I so totally agree with you, well said....

joehempel

Really? I think the overall point that 47% of people don't pay federal tax is an important one. I agree he didn't phrase it well, he rarely does -- however I was an Obama voter in 08 and won't be this time. Not sure if I'm votin Romney or not.

"The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired."

Anyone really interested in learning about this problem would do well to read the article from this link:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

tquig

You don't get to murder, oppress, harass and attack people because you don't like what that have to say.

Unfortunately these people do not follow the same logic that we do. Not trying to paint all Muslims with the same brush but their religion is not isolated to theological beliefs. It spans their whole lives; political, legal, financial and economic. To many followers it represents the absolute opposition of other faiths. These people hate us and this was simply an excuse.

GorillaEsq

Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.

The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

You become amazingly literal when you can't fashion a reasonable response to someone else's point. I suppose such distraction techniques must work on some people, or you wouldn't employ the so frequently.

Yes. It's called debate, negotiations, conversations, discussions and trial. I excel at all of the aforementioned.

You attempted to derail the point with emotional cannon fodder and the buzzword "hate." You either purposely, or erroneously, read an emotional element into the topic, that simply wasn't there.

Your point, regardless of the delivery, is also flawed. "Happy-lovie-super-smiley-time" speech doesn't need to be protected. Unpopular speech does.

I don't care if you're offended. I'm offended by the endless, mindless, empty, superficial elements many people find offensive.

joe7880

That "film" and the trolls looking for a fight on the forums is a small price to pay for a free society, but what Romney said was correct; there is a base of people who are dependent on the system who will never vote for a person who advocates personal responsibility, and that he has to focus on the people who would vote for him.

joehempel

That "film" and the trolls looking for a fight on the forums is a small price to pay for a free society, but what Romney said was correct; there is a base of people who are dependent on the system who will never vote for a person who advocates personal responsibility, and that he has to focus on the people who would vote for him.

The problem is he lumped EVERYONE into that 47% that is on government assistance and that is just NOT true!