The Enemies of Free Speech

Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but when you have any Freedom unregulated, it will breed corruption, intolerance, and lots of bad things.

For example, many praise Freedom of Speech, and it is great, but claim regulation is in complete contrast to the very concept. This is where one fails to see both sides of the story. Freedom of Speech is already regulated. What do you think will happen when you walk down Pennsylvania avenue with a group of people chanting "Death to the President, Death to America" while burning flags? Or people who will go on TV or radio who will try to advocate and encourage sex with children? You will not of course hear that. This is regulation of Free speech. Obviously it just is not right to advocate murdering people or raping children.

What about racism, corrupting children with sexual depravity, and glorifying violence, drug abuse, and greed? These are things a good hearted person would consider wrong, but are not regulated part of Free Speech. These very concepts cause hardships and pain for many people.

This brings me now to the ENEMIES OF FREE SPEECH. Enemies of Free Speech, are to be considered as anyone who would use Free Speech for the intention of bringing hardship, fear/terror, or physical harm to an individual, or group.

1)Supremacist/hate groups
These are typically racially segregated, and often religious as well. Some notable groups would be the KKK, NEO-Nazis, radical religious groups of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but also include a multitude of racially and religiously motivated supremacist groups. The goal is usually to preach their own group as the best humans in the world, and the only people deserving of certain rights and liberties. they generally consider anyone not their own second-class citizens, or to be a slave society for their own. Many will commit acts of violence and/or vandalism against those who they consider inferior.

It is no wonder that most law-abiding and co-existing people will refuse to accept their behavior. However, many groups like this are allowed the political freedom to express their views, and indoctrinate others into their cause, including children. How can we consider allowing groups whose only purpose is to hate and spread against people based on physical traits or faiths morally acceptable? They are using their Free Speech to bring hardship and pain, and instill fear unto people if for no other reason but their appearance or faith.

2)Glorifying Criminalism in the Public Media
Mainstream Hip-Hop has recently come under attack for this, but also to put on spot here is certain televisions shows, books, and movies as well. Children have easy access to such media that promotes drug abuse and trafficking. That promotes the abandonment of clear thinking and states act irrationally, such as attacking people or things as a first solution, and not something only to be considered after being well thought out.

Now please bear with me, there is a difference between documenting one's life of hardship and troubles for the purpose of helping others, reaching out for assistance to end the hardships, or showing the ills of society. But it is another thing to say selling drugs is great so we can buy fancy cars, expensive shoes, and designer clothing. To say alcoholism, smoking, snorting, or shooting up is ok because it feels great and keeps your mind off troubles. To steal and destroy out of nothing more than joy. Every form of media and genre of music or books has their own guilty party's.

The ones who suffer the most are the youth, and it is clearly visible with the daily erosion of family values and morals throughout the Western world predominately, but others suffer as well. Children expose to such media more hours of any given day then time spent building values of justice, liberty, humanity and utilizing constructive thinking and/or activities will eventually; AND DO eventually begin to form the negative thinking into an acceptable part of life.

These are things that are not ok to accept in society. We arrest drug dealers, we arrest violent criminals, we arrest thieves. We try our hardest to rehabilitate them, but it would be much easier if they were not around. So why do we continue to allow the glorification of such crimes publicly in society when we go right ahead and discipline those who take up such lifestyles? Where is the logic?


These are only a couple of things that I believe should be regulated part of Free Speech just as much as advocating rape or murder publicly. I may post more later, but for now I think just these two right here are quite a load to deal with.


[edit on 6/8/2007 by DYepes]

Firstly excellent post DYepes

I have thought about this problem for some time now and im glad you brought it up putting it so eloquently.
Although we don't have total freedom of speech we do have it to a large degree but i feel we need more regulation especialy areas such as racism, rappers, rockers, and added the influence criminal and Violent computer games have on our children.

But we have a problem the more regulation we put on free speech is the more power we give to our governments, then where does it end ??
Also many groups could be driven underground making it more difficult to debunk them and keep tabs on them.





This where my main beef is at the moment, and i feel we may not be able to stop the media peddling this crap by regulation as they would fight to the bitter end to protect their handsome profits. instead i think we must win the hearts and minds of the peaple especialy parents and kids, so they will not allow this nonsense into thier homes via TV (no ratings = no show) or buy these items to listen to or sell them out of a moral obligation to society and our future children, After all it for the good of society to reject these negative influences which cause so much distress generally and replace them with positive influences.

Music effects both sides of the brain Conscious and unconscious thats why so many adverts play music, rythems, sounds etc because they know they can influence you without you knowing or agreeing to it.Wonderful aint it..



Source

Now from the above qoute we can see how music can have good effects on our children well anyone for that matter, but is it so hard to see that when rythem is combined with negative and crimanal ideas then we will learn and pehaps become what we behold.

Now many will argue only stupid people will allow these influences to change and mould them, but i say it only takes one kid to to believe in some of these ie rappers and start peddling drugs and using pistols beliving this will give them stripes to break into the music industry and "blow". but then the other kids are forced to protect themselves with guns and get attracted to the quick money and become influenced themselves, kind of a domino effect.

I suppose what i'm trying to get at is we must debunk, refute, and reject these types of negative speech from open platforms at every single opportunity we get wether it be at home, school, Tv, church, anywhere and everywhere.....the bigger the audience the better.




Well said i think regulation would be good but we must start with the consumers first. get them to deny ignorance eh.

There is no logic in this these people hide behind freedom of speech law and ultimatly one day freedom of speech may be greatly reduced to our detriment due to the many abuses of it.


The harvest is ripe but the labourers are few..

[edit on 8-6-2007 by reaper2]

The problem lay in the fact that we have already been attempting to educate the consumer for years, I think even decades. It is time to hold those responsible acountable for their actions, and that is the people who spread such negative thinking through public media.

It is not to worry about giving too much power to the government, we the people are the government. Laws are written, and may be written quite specifically. When a law is there, it must be obeyed. there will always be good samaritans to uphold the rule of law. The problem is when a law is written quite vaguely and leaves room for amending and such.

We shall write the laws. Rather than edit the laws we initiate for these goals when we feel there needs to a change, we have a clause that states we cannot edit the existing writing of the document. We must only be allowed to add to it, even if it is to refute a previous writing. In this way, it will always be known what was originally written for the purpose, and whether the change being proposed is an acceptable change.

So for example, if we wrote on some new document the following:



Now lets say we wanted to, and finally get around to adding the promotion of hate groups. Instead of editing the original text, leaving room for a sneaky Senator or House member or somebody to kinda remove the clause that says "druge abuse, drug trafficking)


Now the amendmant proposal will state what is struck from the original and thn added, but what will appear on the amended document is what is above. It happens today. so instead of editing the original, we simply leave it as it is, and add the new stuff.



I hope that did not seem to confusing, sometimes I have trouble saying it easy way. butin this manner, if some sneaky Senator or representative did want to edit the clause for the purpose of his or her shares in a particular media company, the public would see exactly what was written, and what has been added, or intended for deletion.

I would wish all the laws were edited this way. It may not look pretty, but it would be accurate, and easier to trace for accountability.

[edit on 6/8/2007 by DYepes]

DYepes are you a lawyer? those qoutes you came up with are excellent examples of what the law should state. although im sure there is much more to add unless you create statuet law (I Think) in which case the above would become a basis for laws refering to that argument.

We really need something like this in the uk right now our youths look like american gangster rappers and a significant number are acting that way too.

I really can't add much more to this thread at this time other than to say if you did indeed write those laws yourself then you could be made of the right stuff to instigate change in this area, and very welcomed it would be too.

Seeing as you have a good idea of what would cover that area of law i must ask do you have a plan of action if not could you come up with one.
I would like to see what possible route you could take etc..

A shame this thread hasn't got more attention before now i would liked to hear what Chissler amongst the other social experts would have to say on this one.

Ill have to look into this one more closely and come back later.

Well I definetly woud like to come up with a plan of action, and believe I could put on together. No I am not a lawyer, but I have studied how laws are written, and then abused. The abuse usually comes in the amendmants, and whence it passes the original texts typically get buried very deeply, if not sometimes lost forever.

Preserving original texts is paramount to uncovering corruption and abuse as far as I see it. In any case, I may need the expertise of a real lawyer, because the laws require certain words to be used to describe certain things, and a lawyer would know all about that. So, if you know any here on Ats, by all means refer them here.

I didn't like your original post - people can march down the street and do what they want. You can create your own news station tomorrow and shout about whatever you like - whatsmore, you shouldn't be hindered either. It gets dangerous however, when government decides whats okay and what isn't. Political correctness, so hated by the right, is the greated conduit to measure public acceptance of vulgarity. PC, not censorship, is the answer.

Only in very specific instances.
Exceptions to Free Speech





That's fine to have as an opinion, but the law doesn't support it.



Morals are different than laws. You have every right to consider these people morally wrong. But they have the LAW on their side, as it should be.



Sounds to me you're in the camp of book-burning and total censorship. Let the parents regulate their children's TV, not the government.



Well, I'm glad you don't make the rules. Because if everyone could regulate Free Speech according to what they find offensive, we'd be a nation of zipped lips. Because some people find religion terribly offensive. Some people can't understand how we can allow religions to continue to brainwash our children. They think it's harmful and painful for the children. Sound familiar?

I'm sorry, but anyone who wants to regulate Free Speech because they are offended by what people say is the enemy of Free Speech. Free means free. What you're talking about is not free speech, it's censorship.

That has nothing to do with being offended, it is about spreading hateful ideology and the people it can indoctrinate as a result of it. Those indoctrinated may later turn their beliefs out into a violent twist.

Lack of regulation is what leads civilizations to fall apart. Eventually it will be ok to have a "Pedophile Pride Parade" because they have the freedom to talk about it. Or perhaps a local supremecist group will have the right to distribute stories about horrible things they have done to "so and so inferior race/religion" under the guise of "fictional-entertainment" for the purpose of indoctrinating others, and striking fear to the group in question.

When a society takes an extra step to protect the rights of baseless hate and violence, it will not be too long before it plunges itself into anarchy. We probably already appear that way to the few remaining indeginous tribes of the world that try and distance themselves from the filth of so called "civilization".

Thoughts can only be "spread" if people are willing to take them up. I don't care how many pedophiles (to use your example) tell me that having sex with children is a great thing, I'm not going to believe it. I'm not going to take it up. And if I did, I would be responsible for my ACTIONS, not those who told me it was great.

At some point we have to hold people responsible for their ACTIONS, but not their thoughts and speech.



"Indoctrinated"? People aren't being kidnapped and shown films about these hateful ideologies. People aren't being "indoctrinated". Those on the receiving end of this "hate speech" need to be held responsible for turning it away and NOT believing it. They're not being "indoctrinated", they're simply being exposed to thought. If THEY take it in and in turn, do something violent, THEY are responsible, not the people who exposed them to these thoughts.

That's what free speech is ALL ABOUT.



Lack of regulation on speech?



I believe these things are already "OK" and legal... I also believe your use of the word "indoctrinate" is a bit strong for someone exercising their right to free speech and voicing their opinion. Indoctrinating implies teaching. It implies imparting the basics of a way of thought.



Do you not see the difference between hate and violence? One is thought and one is action. One is benign speech and the other is a harmful physical act. One can hurt other people... the other cannot.

What you're advocating is to stifle a benign act (speech) in hopes of preventing a harmful one (action). It doesn't work. Because even if people don't speak about something, the thought is still there. And the next step is to stifle the thought that came before the speech. How you gonna do that?

Where is the line between that which you deem to be an unacceptable topic for open discussion and the line that someone else may draw.

The acts of love and hate are the strongest of human emotions and for each of us they present themselves in very different ways.

If we all stopped talking about the things which make us different and why we feel the way we do. We all start to tow the line and become model citizens, before long an underclass, an underworld if you will, will evolve to satisfy the needs of everyone who is not deemed "normal" by the powers that be. they will fall further away from mainstream society and then themselves become the object of someone else's hate and fear. While all the time living in fear themselves and possibly hating themselves for not feeling normal, or they could feel completely at peace with themselves for being true to their own being.

Good luck working out were to draw that line. Not a job I would want. Still you can't please all the people all of the time.

MonKey

The line is drawn when one group advocates the suffering of another. That is the line. you can write all the private novels you want, share them at your hateful groups bookclub meetings. But allowing them to be published for national distribution and on the shelves of any bookstore where any 10 year old kid with an abusive family can pick it up and convinced "hey, I blame all my problems on "X" race or "y" religion, because these guys make sense". no it does not make sense. We do not want to storm your home and have you arrested fro your privately written works. But I will be damned if we should allow you to conitnue to spew your filth and degradation to the public world where weaker minds and vulnerable emotions can be twisted to the "dark side".

double post

[edit on 8/11/2007 by DYepes]

I agree that there is the distinct possibility that a person's words can stir violence. There are many modern day examples of preaching hate and violence.

A prime example was Abu Hamza al-Masri, who preached hate and violence in Britain. His words certainly caused others to act violently. But there were laws that he broke which led to his current imprisonment, and that is an example of the law, not censorship, being used to protect our speech.

Well, if it makes sense to some people and doesn't make sense to others (you), who is responsible whether it makes sense or not? Who is responsible for ANY action taken at another person's suggestion?

The very fact that it makes sense to some and not to others (you), tells me that YOU are the one deciding whether it makes sense or not and YOU are responsible for NOT choosing to do something stupid. Therefore if it makes sense to someone, THEY are the ones deciding whether it makes sense or not and THEY are responsible for choosing to do something stupid.



Well, then, you will be damned. Because this is our law, our Constitution and the very essence of freedom. You have to choice not to listen to it. You have the option to do what you can to impress these "weaker minds" NOT to be twisted to the dark side, but you may not, under law, shut up those who would voice their opinions. (Except under the very limited restrictions by law).

jsobecky, yes, there are situations where speech can stir violence. This is covered by existing restrictions on the first amendment.

If the law gauranteed to freedom to murder, I am sure you would defending that with due dilligence as well. I suppose you are correct BH, it is the duty of the American citizen to maintain that our childrenhave every right to grow up and contributr to the ills of society, to grow up with their purpose being hate and violence based on trivialities. It is our right and duty to ensure our children are allowed to grow up exposed and shaped by violence and hate because it is a violent hateful person's right to do so.


Ideologies like this was runnign rampant aroudn the fall of the Roman Empire, and no doubt the Persian, Babylonian, Summerian, and so on and so on.

When a people decide it is evil's right AND duty to spread itself and infect our children, the people have already damned themselves.

do me a favor BH, DONT EVER ASK WHY SOCIETY IS SCREWED UP. EVER. Do not ever question why people commit crimes on others because of their religion. Dont ever question why white men used to attack black men (and still do) because of their skin color. Dont ever question why the NAZIs killed the JEWS. When people have the right and duty to spread hate, violence will continue to swallow those around it.

Soceity was built by eliminating the bad, not letting it run rampant. Thats when society begins to crumble, as you can clearly see it has been for decades now.

You are?

See, this is what I don't understand... You're equating someone expressing their opinion with taking a life... If you don't see the difference, I can't help you.



You're totally filling my mouth with words. I said no such thing.



When our society falls (and it will) it won't be because of people who were true to the constitution and the rights of every American. It will be because of those who tried to take those rights and freedoms away and dictate how people are supposed to think and feel.



What?



I don't have to ask.



Again, the difference between committing crimes and voicing one's opinion seems to have escaped you.

The line must be drawn somewhere. There are thoughts, words and actions... The line is between words and action. You wish to move it to between thoughts and words and you think this will make a positive difference. You are mistaken. You're barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Taking people's freedoms is NOT the way to fill the world with love and respect. That's an illusion.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

The freedom to hate is not a freedom worth defending protect. The freedom to express prejudice and other horrible things are not virtues to defend. These are not values that good men and women will sacrafice their lives to protect. You will not sacrafice your life to protect the freedom to spread baseless hatred and violence.

You will not find many or any good people in the world who strongly believe it is worth sacraficing anything to protect the rights of such backward thinking. Most who do so only say so because they are A: never have been or will be affected, or B: stand to gain something by doing so, or C: either openly or secretly support such backward thinking.

I gaurantee that when, thats right I say when, not if, soceity evolves enough to propose a legislation to supress the public distribution of such backward thinking, not only will the only people defending it be drowned out by the outright majority of people who are generally good people, at least against such backward thinking, but everyone will come to see how much better life has become as a result of it.

DYepes, I've read a lot of strong opinions here on ATS. And I've heard liberals bashing right-wingers for being Nazis. And right-wingers bashing liberals for being Commies. I've just finished reading a post where Karl Rove was called our own version of Joseph Goebbels, for example.

To date, I can look at those posts and chalk them up to the rantings of the ill-informed. People that are just casting giant umbrellas because they are weak in historical or societal perspective. People who find it easier to pigeonhole than to examine with an unbiased mind.

But what you are advocating actually scares me a little bit. And I say that with some reluctance, because I don't want to bring the discussion to a halt. From what I've read of your posts over the months, I've found you to be a serious person. Not a jokester by any means.

So don't take this as a personal attack. I think that you may very well be fed up with the actions of some people in our society. And you may be frustrated with the fact that our laws protect them and their speech.

But that is what makes our country so strong to begin with, the fact that all speech is protected as long as it does not incite violence, etc. It's a hard pill to swallow sometimes, the fact that Phelp's Church members can spew their bile at the funerals of soldiers and others, but it is their right. But changing our laws is not the way to go. Things work out for the best in the end if we follow our laws according to the Constitution. Trust me on that one.

Isn't one of the big problems with regulating speech, not WHAT is regulated, but who does the regulating?

I mean it is fine to say "THIS" is hate speech, or "THAT" is hate speech, but who makes that determination?

Currently we have a system where there are checks and balances, a legislature and a "Supreme Court" to make those judgments. Being a Representative Republic, that tentatively means "We the People" make those determinations.

The danger lies in advocating any one single ideology, such as the OP, above all others.

Look at it this way....

Hitler was thought of as a GREAT man by most of Germany..... People still revere him....

Semper

How do we decide what's hate and what's not?

The same way we've always decided...by using the brains god gave us, and the experience life gave us. It's not real hard.

The enemies of free speech are quite simply the ones who would through some misguided altruism stop "hate" speech through legislation.

I have issues with certain exercises of free speech...Holocaust deniers, and other race baiters, but never the free exercise of that speech. If that makes any sense at all. I may abhor the words, but never the right to it. Ban one exercise of free speech, which one's next? That slope is far too slippery to tread safely.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by seagull]