Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[decado]

That's possible, but I do understand that as a European, the only time I ever hear about Americans defending free speech it's the KKK claiming they have a right to march, or the Westboro Baptist Church championing their right to picket funerals.

 

Well, that's the only time you should hear about it.  This is kind of like saying "The only time I hear about prison sentences is when someone is going to jail."  Of course that's when you hear about them: that's when they're relevant.  

 

Likewise, you hear a lot about freedom of speech issues when there is a particularly contentious case floating around the media, precisely because it is contentious. You don't hear about free speech most other times because there isn't much to say about it: we enjoy the freedom of expression, and we use it every day.  It is uneventful.

 

 

At the same time, the only time I ever hear Americans (keep in mind, through the filter of European media) criticizing free speech it's when it actually matters, like Snowden or Wiki Leaks where the government lies to your faces and prosecutes those who tell the truth.

 

You are mixing up a lot of stuff, here.

 

First of all, you can hear plenty of Americans voicing their opinions on both of those issues (and plenty others) who fall on both sides of the line.  But you seem to be confusing "Freedom of Speech" with a host of other laws and regulations.  Nobody is tackling the Edward Snowden revelations under the banner of free speech, because that really isn't about speech (or, more accurately, freedom of the press).  It is about whistleblowing, spying, and the lengths to which a government should be allowed to snoop on their citizens.  It is not a 1st Amendment issue, it is a (specifically) 4th amendment issue.  

 

 

 

I mean, I don't think the UK ever came close to passing a Patriot Act.

The UK didn't need a Patriot Act.  You guys already have surveillance cameras everywhere. Edited May 12, 2014 by decado

[Malcador]

Well, if you think about it, free speech arguments will always crop up over controversial opinions, otherwise you'll be pressed to find anyone caring.  And it's about the cops shutting you up, not some people telling you off.  Not sure why you Euros see it as a scam, but hardly surprising.

[Hurlshort]

The crazy thing about free speech in the US is how many people make a really good living by pushing the boundaries of free speech.  There are gigantic media properties entirely devoted to complaining loudly about the President.  

[ShadySands]

It's funny because I've had similar discussions with my Euro wife because for a long time she thought it was crazy that people here could say such outrageous and offensive things.

 

I've also found that she, her friends and family are much more defensive about criticism leveled towards their respective countries than I'm used to. I'll limit it to people I know because I don't want to generalize Europeans or Eastern Europeans

[decado]

I've noticed that a cultures that doesn't value free speech runs the risk of creating crybabies and over-sensitive jerks.

Edited May 12, 2014 by decado

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@ShadySands

Perhaps the reason for said sensitivity is due to a lack of people constantly bitching about how ****ed up their country is.

[Gromnir]

It's funny because I've had similar discussions with my Euro wife because for a long time she thought it was crazy that people here could say such outrageous and offensive things.

 

 

is no need to feel bad 'bout generalizing. as we said earlier in this thread, the way Free Speech is viewed beyond the boarders o' the USA is fascinating. Chinese Constitution protects freedoms of speech, but such freedoms don't mean anything if government can ignore such protections, yes? Sweden is very protective of freedom of the press. nevertheless, if a Swedish journalist wrote something that offended muslims he could be in trouble and freedom o' speech protections would take a backseat to the muslim's "dignity." etc.

 

from an American pov, protecting polite speech, protecting speech that offends nobody, is kinda pointless.  if nobody is offended, why would such speech need protections? we tried to explain to an individual in another thread that protecting Liberty and protecting Democracy is frequent adversarial. he didn't understand.  nevertheless, in the United States we accept that, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," and we don't let the Democratic process or current notions o' what is acceptable trample 'pon the individuals' freedom o' speech. US Constitutional protections o' speech is unique, but more important, our cultural values is different. even so, is not as if all Americans think it is ok to burn koran or crosses or flags. many Americans is disturbed by such and is often shocked that people is allowed to get away with such things.  typical American has some fuzzy threshold regarding what speech is beyond the pale... which is why we don't let The People decide what is and ain't legal. 

 

also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference. say bad stuff about your boss' mother is not gonna be protected by the Constitution.  free speech doesn't get you freedom from prosecution for tangential related crimes or torts. you steal documents or software or whatever, and then try to use freedom o' speech to hide and you is gonna get burned. similarly, if you write a story that is claiming that Bob has syphilis and it ain't true, you is gonna face libel... though famous people get less protection than average folks. 

 

child p0rn is considered symbolic speech, but it ain't protected. "obscene" speech isn't protected, but try and define is not easy. p0rn is not necessarily legal obscene. fighting words ain't protected, but we not got time enough to explain fully.  yell "fire," in a crowded theatre is not protected.  attempts to protect children get a slight lowering o' the standard... google "bong hits for jesus," and "seven dirty words" if you is genuine interested.

 

am understanding we didn't clear up the issue at all. regardless, while it is best not to make generalizations, shady would not be making a mistake in thinking that europeans see free speech fundamental different than does Americans.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sannom]

also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference.

That's funny, I was always under the impression that it was Americans who had the hardest time with that concept.

[Orogun01]

I've noticed that a cultures that doesn't value free speech runs the risk of creating crybabies and over-sensitive jerks.

I would say the same about one that doesn't understand what free speech is

[Gromnir]

 

also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference.

That's funny, I was always under the impression that it was Americans who had the hardest time with that concept.

 

not at all. example is bruce being confused 'bout donald sterling's situation.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

It's funny because I've had similar discussions with my Euro wife because for a long time she thought it was crazy that people here could say such outrageous and offensive things.

 

 

is no need to feel bad 'bout generalizing. as we said earlier in this thread, the way Free Speech is viewed beyond the boarders o' the USA is fascinating. Chinese Constitution protects freedoms of speech, but such freedoms don't mean anything if government can ignore such protections, yes? Sweden is very protective of freedom of the press. nevertheless, if a Swedish journalist wrote something that offended muslims he could be in trouble and freedom o' speech protections would take a backseat to the muslim's "dignity." etc.

 

from an American pov, protecting polite speech, protecting speech that offends nobody, is kinda pointless.  if nobody is offended, why would such speech need protections? we tried to explain to an individual in another thread that protecting Liberty and protecting Democracy is frequent adversarial. he didn't understand.  nevertheless, in the United States we accept that, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," and we don't let the Democratic process or current notions o' what is acceptable trample 'pon the individuals' freedom o' speech. US Constitutional protections o' speech is unique, but more important, our cultural values is different. even so, is not as if all Americans think it is ok to burn koran or crosses or flags. many Americans is disturbed by such and is often shocked that people is allowed to get away with such things.  typical American has some fuzzy threshold regarding what speech is beyond the pale... which is why we don't let The People decide what is and ain't legal. 

 

also, is tough for folks outside the US to grasp that our Free Speech protections is a prohibition against government interference. say bad stuff about your boss' mother is not gonna be protected by the Constitution.  free speech doesn't get you freedom from prosecution for tangential related crimes or torts. you steal documents or software or whatever, and then try to use freedom o' speech to hide and you is gonna get burned. similarly, if you write a story that is claiming that Bob has syphilis and it ain't true, you is gonna face libel... though famous people get less protection than average folks. 

 

child p0rn is considered symbolic speech, but it ain't protected. "obscene" speech isn't protected, but try and define is not easy. p0rn is not necessarily legal obscene. fighting words ain't protected, but we not got time enough to explain fully.  yell "fire," in a crowded theatre is not protected.  attempts to protect children get a slight lowering o' the standard... google "bong hits for jesus," and "seven dirty words" if you is genuine interested.

 

am understanding we didn't clear up the issue at all. regardless, while it is best not to make generalizations, shady would not be making a mistake in thinking that europeans see free speech fundamental different than does Americans.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

This has  been a particularly interesting post, thanks for trying to explain how the whole free speech works in the USA as it is confusing for an outsider. Let me ask you something, we know in the USA you can sue someone for making slanderous comments. But can you sue and win a case for offensive comments. For example lets say I'm gay and some news presenter is very homophobic directly about me. Could I sue?

[Gromnir]

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. 

 

as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. 

 

as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

This raises an interesting perspective. In the example I mentioned the person is gay, he or she is not denying this. So you cannot slander them by saying "you are gay". But the person attacking them says things like " all gays needs to rounded up and up in concentration camps, the less gays in the world the better"

 

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? I can apply this example to any minority group that is typically discriminated against, I am just using homophobia as an example in the USA context

[Meshugger]

I, for one, find the American system of free speech superior to any other in the world. It should be the base standard for any free society.

[Gromnir]

 

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. 

 

as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? 

 

that isn't what we said. review. we said no slander. we didn't speak to iied or privacy or other such stuff, in part 'cause facts is kinda shallow. 

 

now, in regards to your new questions, in the US if you can prove that the individual were attempting to incite direct and imminent lawless action and that such lawlessness were likely, the first amendment is gonna offer no protection, but again, is only in the case o' imminent violence or lawlessness. just a general hate-filled rant 'bout how all ________ should be "rounded up"? nope. sorry. 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government. the founders were quite mindful o' the notion that if laws were enacted that chill debate or curb dissent, such laws could be used to stifle any unpopular or subversive speaker. yeah, nazis and gay-bashers is kinda contemptible, but those same laws that would be used to quiet nazis and gay-bashers today coulda' been used to silence civil rights speakers back in the 50s and 60s. btw, the American Revolution were never all that popular with the local populace... is not like we had a huge anti-English sentiment here even at the time o' the Boston Tea Party. heck, the tea tax actual resulted in lower tea costs-- folks being hurt most were smugglers, like John Han****. the Founders recognized the value o' allowing unpopular speakers to have a voice. so, let the gay basher rant and rail. 

 

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." J. Brandeis (Whitney v. California)

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. 

 

as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? 

 

that isn't what we said. review. we said no slander. we didn't speak to iied or privacy or other such stuff, in part 'cause facts is kinda shallow. 

 

now, in regards to your new questions, in the US if you can prove that the individual were attempting to incite direct and imminent lawless action and that such lawlessness were likely, the first amendment is gonna offer no protection, but again, is only in the case o' imminent violence or lawlessness. just a general hate-filled rant 'bout how all ________ should be "rounded up"? nope. sorry. 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government. the founders were quite mindful o' the notion that if laws were enacted that chill debate or curb dissent, such laws could be used to stifle any unpopular or subversive speaker. yeah, nazis and gay-bashers is kinda contemptible, but those same laws that would be used to quiet nazis and gay-bashers today coulda' been used to silence civil rights speakers back in the 50s and 60s. btw, the American Revolution were never all that popular with the local populace... is not like we had a huge anti-English sentiment here even at the time o' the Boston Tea Party. heck, the tea tax actual resulted in lower tea costs-- folks being hurt most were smugglers, like John Han****. the Founders recognized the value o' allowing unpopular speakers to have a voice. so, let the gay basher rant and rail. 

 

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." J. Brandeis (Whitney v. California)

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Okay thanks for explaining, you have answered most of my questions

[Malekith]

 

 

 

am speaking very generally about defamation here, so keep that in mind, nevertheless, is odd you use a defamation example. common law defamation is, by definition, making a false statement 'bout somebody that causes them harm. slander and libel is the two flavors o' defamation. truth is, therefore, typical a defense. again, am speaking only to your "slanderous comments" question. 

 

as an aside, it seems that in russia, a news presenter who is not homophobic or who fails to identify a person's homosexuality is negligent and can be sued. weird. am joking... kinda.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

These are clearly offensive comments and inciting violence or at least hate towards gay people. Yet if I understand what you are saying the gay person has no legal recourse? 

 

that isn't what we said. review. we said no slander. we didn't speak to iied or privacy or other such stuff, in part 'cause facts is kinda shallow. 

 

now, in regards to your new questions, in the US if you can prove that the individual were attempting to incite direct and imminent lawless action and that such lawlessness were likely, the first amendment is gonna offer no protection, but again, is only in the case o' imminent violence or lawlessness. just a general hate-filled rant 'bout how all ________ should be "rounded up"? nope. sorry. 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government. the founders were quite mindful o' the notion that if laws were enacted that chill debate or curb dissent, such laws could be used to stifle any unpopular or subversive speaker. yeah, nazis and gay-bashers is kinda contemptible, but those same laws that would be used to quiet nazis and gay-bashers today coulda' been used to silence civil rights speakers back in the 50s and 60s. btw, the American Revolution were never all that popular with the local populace... is not like we had a huge anti-English sentiment here even at the time o' the Boston Tea Party. heck, the tea tax actual resulted in lower tea costs-- folks being hurt most were smugglers, like John Han****. the Founders recognized the value o' allowing unpopular speakers to have a voice. so, let the gay basher rant and rail. 

 

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." J. Brandeis (Whitney v. California)

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

Okay thanks for explaining, you have answered most of my questions

 

Not even in (most countries) Europe minorities have legal actions they can take for hate speach, unless harm in intended. Saying "women belong in the kitchen/ are useless outside bedroom" or "gays/trans are aberations" makes you an ****, not a criminal, unless they can prove you intend to harm someone. The only people that received backlash for rasist/sexist comments were athletes/celebrities/politicians where common opinion affects their job and they were forced by their teams/managers to publicly apologise. No Legal  actions were taken.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Malekith

[tajerio]

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

[Hurlshort]

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

 

 

uh...what?

 

The American Revolution is definitely a thing.  It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3.

[BruceVC]

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

 

 

 

 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

 

 

uh...what?

 

The American Revolution is definitely a thing.  It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3.

 

 

This is an interesting discussion. Now Tajerio is an intelligent person so I am looking forward to his clarification

[tajerio]

 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

 

 

uh...what?

 

The American Revolution is definitely a thing.  It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3.

 

 

It's definitely called a revolution.  There's a venerable and longstanding debate among 18th century historians as to whether the term is correctly applied in this case.  Obviously it depends on one's definition of revolution.  Economic and social change as a result of the war of independence were very limited indeed, and a lot of historians (myself included) include society-wide changes in those areas as part of their definitions of revolution.  It's also worth noting that the American system of checks and balances in government actually derives from the British system, and that the Founding Fathers, rather than seeking to revolutionize political forms, sought to correct abuses and perfect the system they already knew.  Really, only the American idea of free speech and the separation of the judiciary from the legislature and executive were major departures from the existing tradition.

 

To my mind, that's not enough for a revolution.  But obviously, since the debate's been going on for decades, there's plenty of room to disagree intelligently.

 

This is an interesting discussion. Now Tajerio is an intelligent person so I am looking forward to his clarification

 

Thank you Bruce

[Monte Carlo]

It wasn't a revolution. It was a Civil War between Brits. Ha ha ha ha haaaa.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

keep in mind that the US is a revolutionary government.

 

The rest of your posting in this thread has been great, and this isn't really on topic, but the government of the United States was not founded in or by revolution and does not owe revolution any significant philosophical debt.  

 

 

uh...what?

 

The American Revolution is definitely a thing.  It didn't just happen in Assassin's Creed 3.

 

 

It's definitely called a revolution.  There's a venerable and longstanding debate among 18th century historians as to whether the term is correctly applied in this case.  Obviously it depends on one's definition of revolution.  Economic and social change as a result of the war of independence were very limited indeed, and a lot of historians (myself included) include society-wide changes in those areas as part of their definitions of revolution.  It's also worth noting that the American system of checks and balances in government actually derives from the British system, and that the Founding Fathers, rather than seeking to revolutionize political forms, sought to correct abuses and perfect the system they already knew.  Really, only the American idea of free speech and the separation of the judiciary from the legislature and executive were major departures from the existing tradition.

 

To my mind, that's not enough for a revolution.  But obviously, since the debate's been going on for decades, there's plenty of room to disagree intelligently.

 

This is an interesting discussion. Now Tajerio is an intelligent person so I am looking forward to his clarification

 

Thank you Bruce

 

 

That's a fascinating perspective and a good post. I knew your initial comment was more multi-dimensional than what it seemed

[Gromnir]

uh...

 

it definite were a revolution. 

 

previous government overthrown by those ruled and replaced with new government?  seems like that is covered. you know, with root of word being REVOLT and all. sociological revolution is a different thing altogether... will let you and others decide on that point. not change that the fledgling US government were a revolutionary government.

 

btw, while you is way oversimplifying how much US government owes to british checks and balances, that didn't occur til US Constitution o' 1787. articles o' confederation established the first government o' the united states, and it didn't genuine have checks and balances.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps actual worth reading articles o' confederation, or at least reading 'bout them. helps clarify the revolution thing a bit too as it makes clear how the revolutionaries viewed themselves.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gromnir

[Monte Carlo]

In fact, to back up Gromnir's point, the Americans adopted French political traditions, an ersatz version of Napoleonic Code. The American justice system, for example, feels more familiar to a European than it does a Briton. The Americans don't have a Common Law system and deliberately chose not to have a Parliament. FFS their first dictionaries deliberately subverted the Mother countries' spelling to be less like that of the Colonial overlord (boo! Hiss!).

 

Nonetheless, there is a cohesive argument to be made that it was a Civil War of sorts.