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!

Jan72002

You are probably right. He should probably have my vote in the bag by now and he doesn't.

But people who pay no or very little in federal tax calling to see his tax returns seems insane to me. Also, I'd he paid $2.3M in taxes I don't care what his income was, he did his part.

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.

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

Apparently not.

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.

I didn't attempt to derail anything. You attempted to draw a parallel between clear hate speech like the Islam-bashing film and forum comments, saying that people object to free speech and seek to control the conversation when they are offended. Paraphrasing you is neither "derailing the conversation" nor supplying "emotional canon fodder".

I'm not offended.

CharityPearce

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.

LOL - I blew my protein shake out my nose a little. I think this might make me more likely to vote for one or the other. Ugh!

And btw, I couldn't agree more with your post. To both parts. I don't know what's wrong with people. That crap video wouldn't have gotten a few hundred hits if it hadn't been for the violence associated with it. I hate to admit I sat through the entire video (hating every single second of it) just out of morbid curiosity. Afterward I thought to myself... "seriously??? Why would you even give this piece of crap a second thought???"

Have a fabulous day!

recriger

first I will say that I agree with you. The problem with the video riots specifically is that freedom of speach is not a globally recognized right. In Islamic countries the Imam's make the rules for the most part because the religion is basically the government. In america the government is supposed to protect and enforce our "Rights". In many countries the government grants "permissions". totally different way to see the world, and those that grew up there don't understand us any more than we understand them.

Many of these countries have state controlled media as well. If it goes out over the waves it is approved by the state, so they believe that if it came from America it must be approved by America. The assumption is that everyone here believes it since it was allowed to be viewed by the public. That's the way their world is, they don't see it as simply a couple of nuts in California.

Beyond that many of the countries currently protesting are very poor. So no, they probably have never seen Utube. Most have probably never seen a computer. Many of the states mentioned above also restrict the internet even for the ones that can afford it. Censorship is the rule of law. You aren't allowed to view both sides and then make up your own mind, the Imam knows what is best for you and that is all you will see. If anyone heard the NPR interviews (not a fan myself, but it's the only station that recieves clearly on my commute) with a few of the protesters, many hadn't even seen this video. They were told that the prophet was offended, and they were told that their natural reaction should be to protest.

Many of the protesters probably don't care much about a video. They will continue to react though; they are being watched by their neighbors as well as their religious leaders. What do you think will happen if they don't respond "appropriately"? remember when Kim-Jong-Il died? The state required that the people morn, and they were being watched to make sure they did just that.

Deedee0075

Hate goes both ways. Why would Sam Bacile create such a hateful, disrespectful film? Answer - He is a Zionist and they hate everyone but their own. I am absolutely disgusted by the film and Zionist America for supporting it. I am really disheartened by the double standard in this country.

Freedom of speech? There is no freedom of speech in the US. Wake up.

Jonesingmucho

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.

I think that being literal is important in a debate. The connotations of words used can be influencial. For example, using the word hate to discuss the OP's premise gives me a different impression than the words the OP actually used to describe control.

I am also amused when one side of a debate ignores the content and launches a personal attack. Suddenly, because of my own opinions regarding personal attacks in a debate format, I no longer am able to listen to that side of the debate with an unbiased open mind. In effect, your attack on the OP proved his point to me.

I applaud the OP's insight and bow to his brilliance.

GorillaEsq

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

"Freedom of Speech" literally doesn't apply to the forums, as the term itself is a Constitutional provision that prohibits our government from silencing its citizens.

Logistically speaking, the moderators of any website can oppress and alienate as many of their members as they wish. It's their site, and people don't have to visit it.

Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.

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.

I think that being literal is important in a debate. The connotations of words used can be influencial. For example, using the word hate to discuss the OP's premise gives me a different impression than the words the OP actually used to describe control.

I am also amused when one side of a debate ignores the content and launches a personal attack. Suddenly, because of my own opinions regarding personal attacks in a debate format, I no longer am able to listen to that side of the debate with an unbiased open mind. In effect, your attack on the OP proved his point to me.

I applaud the OP's insight and bow to his brilliance.

I disagree that he did not raise the idea of hate speech himself. He specifically chose hate speech as his leading example. A rose by any other name... And look at the words he chose to describe his own reactions to other videos, such as saying video producers should be "shot in the face" . Somehow, I don't believe that I am the confused party in this conversation.

I've watched a few of OPs threads and he does tend to dodge and distract more than argue the premises he put forth. It's an observation, not an attack.

samichip

When I was about 13 I was understandably very naive. I was also a hippy, a vegetarian and opinionated.

My school friend and I decided to troll a forum for American hunters and in the process made wild, immature accusations which just made us look like idiots. But I enjoyed watching the ant nest boil with a kind of outraged testosterone American men are notorious for and got a sick pleasure out of eventually being blocked.

But one of the hunters was intrigued and emailed me an invitation to take the argument offline. Over the years we argued and debated and I found myself maturing in my ideas.

Over a decade later we still email each other. I've learnt a lot from him and I'm sure he was entertained by my youthful ramblings, once upon a time.

Gorilla, I think my point is that you should take all the entertainment you can out of them. Enjoy their immaturity and hope that as it did for me, they find that they become educated and enlightened too.

Although, it may take a while

Dave198lbs

Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.

total nonsense