Amerika

[EnderAndrew]

I was trying to respond to Walsingham's post mainly.

 

However, if you follow someone around threatening to kill them, then you are a stalker and there are stalking laws. You can file a restraining order to keep this person away from you.

[EnderAndrew]

I should point out immmediately that at no point have I mocked you for saying you lived in a Free Society. I can undersatnd you feeling on the defensive, but don't accuse me of doing things I haven't done.

I didn't say you did. I said I was mocked. I was by Musopticon, Hades, kirottu, Lucius, and Commissar for merely making the statement that my country is a bastion of freedom. You merely drive the point home for me. We value freedom in the US where democracy is seen as overrated by so many other societies.

 

I think you are corrrect to point out that there are problems of interpretation. However, interpretation is why we have a judiciary. There was a debate in the House of Lords two months ago lamenting the fact that we seem unable to grasp the fact that we cannot legislate for every possible eventuality and interpretation. They were arguing that new laws should have included in them the spirit of the law which they were intended to serve.

If you can't clearly define a law, how do you enforce it? How do you word it in the first place?

 

If you can't single out the behavior that is wrong, then why pass legislature in the first place making it illegal? I'm beginning to think that you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

We have laws against violence to the person, yet we do not pay any attention to claims by radical feminists that pornography is actually violence upon the women pictured. They attempt to get the law against violence applied in their favour and the judiciary and govt say 'no'. Simple. I am saying that laws about free speech can be applied in a similar way.

I know women who have stripped for a living. I know women who have posed for internet websites. Not a single one of them has felt exploited, let alone seen themselves as victims of violence. Calling a willing contract violence is frankly absurd.

 

HBO is running a great series right now called Cathouse about a legal brothel in Vegas and every single women there genuinely seems quite proud of what she does, how much money she makes, and how much fun she has making it. We are quick to portray this women as victims, yet they would argue otherwise.

 

You are also - as you know - correct about a problem with advocating change to laws. I am in favour of legalising marijuana (though I don't use it). How am I to express the desire to change the law? It is a tough one, and as I say i think it must come down to the judiciary and public opinion.

Here is the problem with your own arguement. You can't express that you want to legalize pot since it is currently illegal. You would be advocating breaking the law. Should you censor yourself?

 

I think you should. And no law would ever change, and people would be forced to unhappily live under poor laws because you can't object to them. Man, I love your system.

 

However, I don't think you are being realistic when you say that advocation of a crime has nothing to do with its being committed.

No, in a court of law we don't punish people for talking about illegal activities. You can only be punished for actually committing them.

 

You say they are the same thing. Since you have discussed supporting pot in this very thread, by your own logic, you should be prosecuted.

 

Don't you see the hyprocrisy?

 

I'm betting you don't.

[Walsingham]

You're seriously disappointing me, Ender. I would have thought over the last coupel of months you should have learned more about me than to suppose I don't see some of th eflaws and weaknesses you describe. Why would I mention the dilemma over pot legalisation if I didn't know it was a problem?

 

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. You simply put forward an absolutist statement that freedom of speech was either all or nothing. I'm saying it is the nature of all legilsation to appear that way, where in fact it is not, and what happens is that legislation draws not a line, but a zone, the policing of which is left to the judiciary.

 

What I would like, if you don't mind, is an answer from you regarding the utility under some circumstances of being able to silence demagogues who are organising violence.

[213374U]

I know women who have stripped for a living.  I know women who have posed for internet websites.  Not a single one of them has felt exploited, let alone seen themselves as victims of violence.  Calling a willing contract violence is frankly absurd.

 

HBO is running a great series right now called Cathouse about a legal brothel in Vegas and every single women there genuinely seems quite proud of what she does, how much money she makes, and how much fun she has making it.  We are quick to portray this women as victims, yet they would argue otherwise.

I'm not really interested in this thread anymore but I thought this is interesting.

 

Actually, psychologists suggest that women that sell their body for a living are always suffering from some kind of emotional disorder, often a childhood trauma. The fact that they "appear" normal and "seem" happy doesn't preclude the possibility that they can be emotional wrecks. Don't take my word for it, though. Do some research on the matter and see what you can dig up. Prostitution isn't just another job, and while I'm all for it being regulated (as it's obviously impossible to suppress completely), I no longer think it's "okay" and I won't be supporting it by being a consumer of prostitution.

 

Plain ol' smut, on the other hand... "

[alanschu]

However, if you follow someone around threatening to kill them, then you are a stalker and there are stalking laws. You can file a restraining order to keep this person away from you

 

But isn't that infringing on his free speech? He's just expressing an idea isn't he? (this is a serious question, not poking fun).

[Walsingham]

I know women who have stripped for a living.  I know women who have posed for internet websites.  Not a single one of them has felt exploited, let alone seen themselves as victims of violence.  Calling a willing contract violence is frankly absurd.

 

HBO is running a great series right now called Cathouse about a legal brothel in Vegas and every single women there genuinely seems quite proud of what she does, how much money she makes, and how much fun she has making it.  We are quick to portray this women as victims, yet they would argue otherwise.

I'm not really interested in this thread anymore but I thought this is interesting.

 

Actually, psychologists suggest that women that sell their body for a living are always suffering from some kind of emotional disorder, often a childhood trauma. The fact that they "appear" normal and "seem" happy doesn't preclude the possibility that they can be emotional wrecks. Don't take my word for it, though. Do some research on the matter and see what you can dig up. Prostitution isn't just another job, and while I'm all for it being regulated (as it's obviously impossible to suppress it), I no longer think it's "okay" and I won't be supporting it by being a consumer of prostitution.

 

Plain ol' smut, on the other hand... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, but a possible confounding factor is that only a damaged individual would participate in an occupation with so much stigma attached. Legalise, regulate, unionise, and perhaps the stigma would be removed. Then perhaps non-damaged individuals would participate, and the actual activity would be less damaging.

[Lucius]

1 - The Patriot Act is a bit of a media creation.  It passed with huge support from both parties.  It allowed various intelligence agencies to communicate together, allowed the government to monitor computers they owned, etc.  Did you know before the Patrior Act, the 9/11 terrorists used public computer terminals at libraries because they knew they weren't monitored?

 

Corporations (such as the one I work for) can legally monitor what I'm typing right now on their computer, but the government can't do the same on computers they own, because it is against the law.

 

Most said that that Patriot Act was a very necessary step to allow law-enforcement agencies do their jobs.  Kerry was a big proponent of it.  Now the media throws the Patriot Act around as the worst thing in history.  I keep asking what rights it took away, and no one has any answers.  But they've heard it is bad, so clearly it must be.  Again, see chicken little syndrome.

 

2 - My wife is currently debating this very issue in one of her classes, and many of the students feel that freedom of speech should not be absolute.  Feminists groups for instance push for the censorship of pornography for instance even though they can't define it.  The problem is where do you draw the line?  Freedom of speech must remain an absolute or it is worthless.  To quote a dead French dude, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

3 - Allowing for change is a necessity for any government to work.

 

4 - Historians have no qualms creditting Athens which did nothing to really spread Democracy beyond its borders.  Again, I feel this comes down to people feeling comfortable praising an underdog, but afraid to give credit to a superpower for fear of inflating their ego.  I don't believe it is a sin to give credit where credit is due.  I don't claim I live in a perfect country by any means.  But I do take pride in certain things.

 

5 - I think the bicameral system is good to prevent oppresion from the minorities and oppression from the majority.  Our Constitution does not create nor recognize specific parties.  In fact, George Washington didn't belong to a party when he was President, though he later became a Federalist.  If our political parties were able to form, dissolve and change over the years, I imagine the same could happen again someday, but right now I think we as a population (as influenced by the media) are too gung-ho about our two political parties.  I feel they are really hurting the country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what can you and I conclude after this little comparison? I sure as hell don't know. Your society doesn't sound more free than mine. :D

[Commissar]

I didn't say you did.  I said I was mocked.  I was by Musopticon, Hades, kirottu, Lucius, and Commissar for merely making the statement that my country is a bastion of freedom.  You merely drive the point home for me.  We value freedom in the US where democracy is seen as overrated by so many other societies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incorrect. I mocked you for suggesting that the US is more "free" than any other society on earth, and that the US has done more to spread democracy than anybody else, times two, or whatever.

[Laozi]

I know women who have stripped for a living.  I know women who have posed for internet websites.  Not a single one of them has felt exploited, let alone seen themselves as victims of violence.  Calling a willing contract violence is frankly absurd.

 

HBO is running a great series right now called Cathouse about a legal brothel in Vegas and every single women there genuinely seems quite proud of what she does, how much money she makes, and how much fun she has making it.  We are quick to portray this women as victims, yet they would argue otherwise.

I'm not really interested in this thread anymore but I thought this is interesting.

 

Actually, psychologists suggest that women that sell their body for a living are always suffering from some kind of emotional disorder, often a childhood trauma. The fact that they "appear" normal and "seem" happy doesn't preclude the possibility that they can be emotional wrecks. Don't take my word for it, though. Do some research on the matter and see what you can dig up. Prostitution isn't just another job, and while I'm all for it being regulated (as it's obviously impossible to suppress completely), I no longer think it's "okay" and I won't be supporting it by being a consumer of prostitution.

 

Plain ol' smut, on the other hand... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I have to totally agree with numbers here. I've know alot of strippers in my time, and more often then not they have been addicted to some sort of drug. Even those who don't have a "physical' addiction, more often then not evolve some sort of sickening mental addiction. Where as our and alot of societies seems to treat women as *items* in almost every facet, its an entirely different thing to participate freely in such things. Just the idea that money and some sort of "power" is enough for these women to want to be a part of it seems sick enough for me.

[Commissar]

I know women who have stripped for a living.  I know women who have posed for internet websites.  Not a single one of them has felt exploited, let alone seen themselves as victims of violence.  Calling a willing contract violence is frankly absurd.

 

HBO is running a great series right now called Cathouse about a legal brothel in Vegas and every single women there genuinely seems quite proud of what she does, how much money she makes, and how much fun she has making it.  We are quick to portray this women as victims, yet they would argue otherwise.

I'm not really interested in this thread anymore but I thought this is interesting.

 

Actually, psychologists suggest that women that sell their body for a living are always suffering from some kind of emotional disorder, often a childhood trauma. The fact that they "appear" normal and "seem" happy doesn't preclude the possibility that they can be emotional wrecks. Don't take my word for it, though. Do some research on the matter and see what you can dig up. Prostitution isn't just another job, and while I'm all for it being regulated (as it's obviously impossible to suppress completely), I no longer think it's "okay" and I won't be supporting it by being a consumer of prostitution.

 

Plain ol' smut, on the other hand... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I have to totally agree with numbers here. I've know alot of strippers in my time, and more often then not they have been addicted to some sort of drug. Even those who don't have a "physical' addiction, more often then not evolve some sort of sickening mental addiction. Where as our and alot of societies seems to treat women as *items* in almost every facet, its an entirely different thing to participate freely in such things. Just the idea that money and some sort of "power" is enough for these women to want to be a part of it seems sick enough for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, the every-stripper's-a-drug-addict argument. And, of course, it's due to the stripping. It couldn't possibly be because the majority of strippers come from low-income blighted areas. The drug use and mental disorder statistics for such communities are almost identical to the stripper community, such as it is.

 

You can use personal observation all you want, but then so can I. I've dated two strippers in my lifetime; neither were addicted to anything, though one had a habit of stealing from customers. I wasn't very fond of her. The other was rather down-to-earth. Smoked a little grass on the weekends, and that's about it. No kids, no crazy home situation, and she was making about double what I was and didn't regret it for a second.

 

You know, I think if the social stigma attached to strippin' and whorin' was lifted - as it's slowly starting to be by swanky, trendy clubs like 40 Deuce - I think you'd see a great decline in the number of "problems" associated with sex industry workers. Personally, I'm far more disgusted by people like Fallwell and Roberston whoring out Christianity to make themselves millionaires than I ever would be by a girl who's found a way to make four thousand bucks a month working two days a week.

[Calax]

Doesn't the US have any slander laws?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, we do. we have both libel and slander laws but they are VERY DIFFICULT to implement...

 

I can say that we have limited free speach. From personal experiance primairly.

 

Ender you say that we have absolute free speech. Well then why can't I say that the easiest way to get the highest "kill count" in a school shooting is to pull the fire alarm before you start? I wrote that and the local poliece got hold of it and had a choice, either send me to county mental health or to write me up and toss me into court for a "terrorist act" now wouldn't i be able to say that and not be driven off in a poliece car if we had absolutely free speech?

[EnderAndrew]

However, if you follow someone around threatening to kill them, then you are a stalker and there are stalking laws. You can file a restraining order to keep this person away from you

 

But isn't that infringing on his free speech? He's just expressing an idea isn't he? (this is a serious question, not poking fun).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No one is stopping him from saying what he wants to say. However a restraining order would keep him away from you.

[Calax]

Actually there are laws stopping him from saying things. see my above post...

[Cantousent]

Egads, the reading! My eyes!

 

Okay, well, good job with the thread so far, guys. There is some heated debate, but no outright hatred. Woo Hoo!

 

As far as free speech goes, it depends. If speech can constitute an action, then it should be viewed as such. The famous "kill the umpire" thing. I don't know the law, but I do know that there are several cases where speech is considered unlawful. For instance, what about folks who have access to state secrets? What about state secrets themselves? A state must have secrets and those secrets must be kept. How about folks who exort others to carry out crimes? Are they allowed to speak freely but then bear some responsibility for the crime once committed? These are the things that we must consider.

 

Anyhow, I haven't read the thread between Commissar's goodnight post and this page, but I look forward to the give and take.

[EnderAndrew]

Slander is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. You can be sued for slander, not criminally prosecuted. When I took journalism courses, we covered libel pretty thoroughly.

 

Please quote exactly where the Patriot Act says you can be arrested simply for an expression of speech, and I will direct your lawyer to the Constitution.

[Calax]

Slander is a civil issue, not a criminal issue.  You can be sued for slander, not criminally prosecuted.  When I took journalism courses, we covered libel pretty thoroughly.

 

Please quote exactly where the Patriot Act says you can be arrested simply for an expression of speech, and I will direct your lawyer to the Constitution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nice dodge, but it still doesn't explain how I'm not allowed to write what I did before I got hauled off to county mental health...

[EnderAndrew]

If someone decides to commit you however you are not prosecuted in this country simply for saying things.

[metadigital]

...

America is quite arguably one of the "most free" nations on Earth, as well as a nation that has helped spread Democracy mainly through the spreading of democratic ideas (French Revolution and on) and personal freedoms in several parts of the world. We also managed to get into a war with Canada (inadvertantly or not), and without going into details, lost.

 

Personally, I think Americas biggest contribution to democracy is spreading the idea of democracy like no country before it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think one of the greatest devices for change in the world was Dynasty.

 

Seriously.

 

Do you know how many people in totalitarian states, once they received satellite tv, saw the endless coastline of mansions (with pools glistening in the warm sunshine) in the credits? Acting as a beacon of what-could-be, this helped the rest of the world see just what capitalism and democracy can provide.

[metadigital]

yeah, we do. we have both libel and slander laws but they are VERY DIFFICULT to implement...

 

I can say that we have limited free speach. From personal experiance primairly.

 

Ender you say that we have absolute free speech. Well then why can't I say that the easiest way to get the highest "kill count" in a school shooting is to pull the fire alarm before you start? I wrote that and the local poliece got hold of it and had a choice, either send me to county mental health or to write me up and toss me into court for a "terrorist act" now wouldn't i be able to say that and not be driven off in a poliece car if we had absolutely free speech?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty clever, actually, Calax (in a ghastly psycho-killer kind of way). What was the context? Were you writing a "how to" ..?

[EnderAndrew]

Except you can't be prosecuted for merely discussing a crime.

 

There is a magazine sold in the states called High Times. All the magazine talks about is smoking pot. If it were illegal to discuss illegal activities, then they couldn't sell the magazine. But you can openly talk about illegal activities, so long as you do not actually partake of them.

 

Free speech is an absolute in this country, protected by the highest law in the land. Anytime anything violates your free speech, you can argue it in a court of law that your constitutional rights have been violated.

[metadigital]

Slander is a civil issue, not a criminal issue.  You can be sued for slander, not criminally prosecuted.  When I took journalism courses, we covered libel pretty thoroughly.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are dodging the issue. The point is that there are limits to what can be said in (US) society: no absolute free speech.

 

I think you will also find that the British civilization is one of the freest in the world. There are many instances where "Mullahs of Hatred", who can't speak English, have been living at the taxpayers expense (with their extended families, for twenty years or more, receiving free cars and so forth), whilst preaching their litany of enmity and that the West should die.

 

If that doesn't belie the accusation that Britain has free speech, then I don't know what does.

 

You are also ignoring the fact that no law can be perfect: it is not possible to legislate for every criminal act. Laws that are less "defined" allow for more freedom of interpretation by the judiciary, who we assume will be able to interpret the law to its "reasonable" extent.

 

No system is perfect, however. Advocating absolute free speech may solve the "indefinite law" problem, but it doesn't solve the "incitement to hatred" problem.

 

My feelings are that neither system is perfect and both have benefits and penalties. You are attempting to measure them to come up with your answer.

 

[EnderAndrew]

I'm not dodging the issue. We're discussing law and what you can be prosecuted for.

 

You can sue for anything, and I mean anything. Slander and libel refer to specific damages that occur from speech, not the act itself. If I said you were a poopy-head, you could attempt to sue me, but legal precedent would say that you wouldn't win unless you can prove that damage occured from my statements.

 

Even then, no one will throw me in jail or stop me from making those statements. I might deal with civil repercussions from my statements, but I am free to make them.

 

I think you confuse freedom of action with freedom from repercussion. If I tell my wife that I really love Eru with all of my body (including my pee-pee) I am free to make that statement in this country, but no doubt there will be repercussions for that statement.

[Reveilled]

Apparently, it's illegal to say you are going to bomb a building.

[metadigital]

And what about that girl that said she had a bomb in her carry-on luggage and was arrested?

[EnderAndrew]

Again, you can not be prosecuted for merely talking about a crime, otherwise countless artists who talk about doing drugs would be charged.

 

With people threatening to blow something up, they are prosecuted on "conspiracy to commit" charges if there is proof they intended to carry out a crime.

 

Talking about a crime is not proof that you intended to commit it however.