A question for Americans

[feather240]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?

And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?

And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.

Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .

You assume that ethics will remain the same over time, but they will change. There will eventually be a day when the majority of people will not only want some horrible murderous thing to be real but will see it as the right thing to do. Under your law all who disagree will be silenced.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Responding to the original poster, the short answer has been covered in this thread already, which is to say, we have quite a lot of free speech. More than most, not as much as some, but enough to say definitively, yes, we have it.

Long answer:

The concept of free speech is certainly not an absolute. Even countries that have have the most protected liberties of expression (Denmark is at the top, I think) figure some speech should be restricted if it causes harm or endangers others. The most common example is yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater. But I can also think of others, such as inciting a radical faction to violence or revealing sensitive information on current military or intelligence operations.

Interestingly, while we can't declare our intention to commit crime or assassination (which really isn't a violation of free speech so much as a confession to premeditation), it gets fuzzy when we talk about what we'd like to do but would not, out of a sense of decency or fear of consequences. It is on this that, for example, the forces that pushed Scott Roeder to assassinate Dr. Tiller [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller] (namely Operation Rescue and Bill O'Reilly) are able to evade arrest since there's no certain connection between them and the active gunman. I'd wager, though, that radical islamic entities that were similarly vocal about the need for someone to attack a target would be arrested and tried, after all. So we don't necessarily have equal free speech. Hate speech is acceptable towards certain targets, not towards others.

The big issues in the US are not about politics or violence, though, but about sex. Where we don't mind a bit of Holocaust denial, racial supremacy rallies or debate about the recognition of Palestine (or Israel's heavy handedness in contending with the Strip), we get freaked out that our kids might learn about sex prematurely and try it out without our authorization. The US is a bit uptight that way.

I've This Film Is Not Yet Rated [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.240909-Regarding-the-supreme-court-and-video-games-WE-CANT-LOSE-I-present-facts-not-opinion#8705912][/I] explains well the dangers of having the MPAA as monopolistic black-box (non-transparent) source for parental film ratings.

Despite all signs that Jack Thomson is a maniacal alarmist, we are still frightened that video games are corrupting our children, as we were of rap music, collectable card games, tabletop Role Playing Games (I'm surprised no one's complained about vampire LARPers in their full gothic and cultist regalia) and Rock and Roll that might have had backmasked Satanic messages... and even Elvis' hip gyrations. All corruptors of America's fragile youth.

Fortunately, the legislators and if not them, the courts have proven a bit more reasonable about this with each of these issues. I expect they will continue this trend, but I've been proven wrong, and the US has been proven stupidly reactionary before.

Incidentally, we still freak out about books [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_commonly_challenged_books_in_the_U.S.] let alone movies and games. But so do all nations.

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?

And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?

And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.

Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .

You assume that ethics will remain the same over time, but they will change. There will eventually be a day when the majority of people will not only want some horrible murderous thing to be real but will see it as the right thing to do. Under your law all who disagree will be silenced.

Under my law that murderous thing would have been hard to be fully set in motion as they'd be arrested and would be met with a counter movement powered by the government.

 

[Death God]

One thing that got me about the "Free speech" is that they aren't allowed to say "I want to kill the president, or something along those lines, unless it is to tell someone else they cannot say it >.>
Seems "Free" is defined by the government...
I think I'm within my rights to say I want to kill anyone, be it my neighbor, my cousin, some important government person, whoever. Lucky me. I just can't actually do so, even to protect myself :3

Appropriate.

That is so true and so damn funny.

OT: If an actually person is saying it (I.E. Not a game/movie/T.V./ect.) and it has in no way anything to do with harming someone or something, then yes. We are allowed to say it. So in other words, free speech never has existed. If it did, the world would be slightly happier.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Ahhhhh, my friend that is the crux of the problem. Very intelligent question btw. So our ammendments/ freedoms are the most debated topics here. Esentially someone can cry "1st ammendmant!' and halt the country and all its legislature. So esentially people interpret our constitution, the same as people interpret the bible, in any way they want/benefits them. And what the majority says goes. And the majjority is expressed through the Supreme Court. Which is appointed by the president. Who is elected by the people. So in a sense we have free speech in acuality we have profitable speech. Whoever kisses up the most can say whatever the fuck they want. And then certain assholes, like Mr. Lee, will come around and use "profitable speech" to press their own personal crusade. And since Mr. Lee is an elected official he automatically gets a free pass labled "go lead your crusade" and only the highest of high powers (the courts) can stop him, or inversly complete his goal. So there you have it.

 

[GWarface]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

I'm not saying punish people who think this band sucks and such. I'm talking about threats and speech that promotes hate or instills fear into someone else. Everyone should be entitled to peace right? Or are you too edgy for that as well?

And sure, it's obviously going to be there for quite some time. But it's a lot more reasonable to do something or at least try to do something, than just let it happen. It's better to stop one hate speech, than none. So what you're saying is that just because we can't stop them all, it shouldn't really matter?

And so you're one of those people who likes saying these things? You can say whatever the fuck you want. I agree. But I'm saying when it comes to hate speech and threats, it's not alright.

Complete and utter free speech would make countries so much more worse.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. At all .

I do get what you are saying, actually quite well thank you, and i partly agree...
But i just cant see how removing freedom of speech because a couple of idiots cant shut up, is going to make this world a better place to live in...

You say remove free speech in such a way that it makes it sound like we should be oppressed to the point where we have to think about what we're going to vocalize. I'm just saying that if you're spreading such harsh words, that you shouldn't be protected by rights. What the hell is the use of rights if it can be used to infringe upon someone else's peace and peace of mind?

And a couple of idiots? Like you said, turn on the TV, it's not just a couple of idiots saying terrible things.

Everyone spreads harsh words when agry... be it at a demonstration, political rally or whatever... Should they have their rights removed? Hell, even politicians spead this mouthshit all the time. Thats their job... I would like to see you convince them to remove their own rights they made up themselves...

And logical people can control themselves when angry. I guess I might have worded it a bit wrong. I don't mean you can have rights, but if you say this or that, they're gone. I just believe that our rights should be reduced and restricted. And most politicians don't spread hate speeches. And I know what I say will go against MANY peoples beliefs. But they're just my beliefs and I sure as hell don't expect them to be appreciated by many and certainly not recognized.

What things can you say and not say? Thats very interesting for me...

Do you understand what I meant by saying that though? I don't think I made myself all too clear. What I don't mean is that you can have rights taken away from you. I just mean that our rights should be restricted. Like the right to say you hate this ethnicity, or this race or gender.

So you can say anything, exept that you dont like another race, ethnicity and propably sexuality?

Hate speech, yes. And threats and such. But more in the sense that you think that said group should be below the other people and such. Opinions and preferences are fine, but they should stay at that.

We almost agree on this, but i really wouldnt think that making the "bad group" be seen as lesser people would help anything at all, it would propably make things worse... Outcast people tend to make radical decisions...

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

Do you understand what I meant by saying that though? I don't think I made myself all too clear. What I don't mean is that you can have rights taken away from you. I just mean that our rights should be restricted. Like the right to say you hate this ethnicity, or this race or gender.

No one should be punished for speaking their mind, especially when repressing evil ideas does nothing to rebut or discredit them.

This idea holds true for American society, and is hopefully a line in the sand that we'll stick to.

Of course, we haven't had a war on our soil for 150 years, nor anything like what Europe's had. You folks over there don't have laws fruitlessly trying to beat back an idea so much as actual movements.

I'm actually Canadian. And I think those people could be reformed and what not. I don't believe they should be stuck in a jail and rot to death in there.

 

[ApophisMP]

Unless you are a white conservative-ex or current military-middle class-male from the south, then yes you have freedom of speech.

 

[Pebkac]

Keep in mind free speech doesn't apply to the escapist forums, or any forums on the internet. They aren't public spaces; they are privately owned. The owners get to decide the rules. If you say something too offensive or disruptive, they have the right to delete messages, probate, ban, etc. Other private institutions also have this right. You can get thrown out of a bar for saying the wrong things.

(Internet forums are also not places, but that's beside the point)

 

[cobra_ky]

No, Americans do not have free speech. And when you enter a new public arena, speech becomes even more limited.

Here at the Escapist, for example, you are not allowed to say whatever you want. If anybody finds what you say offensive, it gets reported. After a review of the complaint and comment, restrictions are placed against the user who perpetrated the infraction. Certain speech is limited in certain circumstances.

The United States is no different, although inflammatory statements are dealt with far more leniently. Threats on the other hand, are dealt with more strictly. If I were to say "I'm going to rape your mom in the face" on any internet forum, it would be considered inflammatory slander that is not taken very seriously. If I were to say it to a co-worker or a classmate, for example, it would be dealt with far more seriously.

As long as nobody can hear you, everyone on the planet has free speech. As soon as you enter the public arena, free speech is lost.

The Escapist forums aren't a public arena. When you registered an account you agreed to limit your speech in here in a variety of ways, and i'm pretty sure they reserve the right to ban you for any reason they want.

edit:annnnnd i got ninjaed.

 

[Pebkac]

it's a complicated issue. Simply put, however, America has the most lenient laws governing "freedom of expression" of any western culture. Won't give much evidence, but perhaps the best one is that the government can't block websites.

Yeah, that is a pretty hard thing to prove. Especially when there's so many different kinds of expression and different metrics. For example, reporters without borders ranks the United States as number 20 in freedom of the press:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

But you are right; it is a complicated issue.

 

[interspark]

everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days.

Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?

well thats a load of crap, injuries can heal in hours, a good insult can last weeks

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

If you believe America has free speech, perform this simple scientific test.

Stand in a shopping mall, get someone to film you.

Start speaking audibly to passers by, saying "I hate N***ers, and i hope everyone here agrees with me. N****ers will be the death of us all." and repeatedly say it over and over.



If you last beyond 10 minutes before security chucks you out, id be amazed. If you made it past 30, id be dumbfounded and shocked.

Make it a full hour and you can say the U.S has free speech.




The truth is - NO country has true "free speech". Americans just like chest thumping and using the claim its in their constitution as a means to belittle other countries and make themselves feel superior.

They dont have it, and the reason they dont have it is because in reality you dont want it. Because common sense and a civilized country require intelligent people to step in when nutbags, sickos, degenerates and low-life evil people would seek to abuse it.

Except it only protects you from the government infringing upon your rights. If you go into a mall, a private establishment not owned or run by the government, they have every right to chuck you out if they want to. Now, you -could- stand outside on a sidewalk and do just that, think Westboro Baptist Church, and the government, the mall, or nobody else could do anything. ...that is if a passerby doesn't punch you. Get my point? Private =/= government.

 

[MikailCaboose]

everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days.

Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?

That and the Golden Rule, and yet it's never fully followed, now is it?

 

[RobCoxxy]

What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

That's the MPAA, mate, and they're mostly religious right.

Uh no they're the film industry.

Actually, they're not. The MPAA's "ratings board" is a seperate body, "everyday people/parents" who decide what the ratings are.

Except they're all 40+ and right wing.

So anything that goes against traditional Christian values tends to get R/NC17 ratings.

You kidding me? [/quote]

Nope, I'm genuinely not. Sex/drugs give films an instant NC17 or R rating. Violence is fine, though for some reason.

Any film depicting sex or drug use is really hard to get an NC17. There's no way it'll get a lower rating.

Pulp Fiction
Scarface (although for that one they had to fight for an R rating)
Harold and Kumar
Every stoner movie ever
The Hangover
Most recent comedies (they all have sex in them, though not explicit)[/quote]

...Yes. All NC17/R. It's hard for most of these to convince lowering from R to NC17. It's usually fine for more mainstream movies but anything independent, or indeed, artistic cinema, meaningful cinema with anything "risque" is bumped to NC17/R, ruining the film's chances of getting any success at all.

If you spent maybe two minutes looking up R rated movies you would know that sex and drugs are used all the time in movies. I will agree that many movies might receive a higher rating than necessary for sexual scenes or images but that is all that will happen, a higher rating.

Also the vast majority of film companies and actors/actresses are liberal so I don't know how you got the idea that film or the ratings system in America was run by a Christian company.

If you spent maybe two minutes looking up R rated movies you would know that sex and drugs are used all the time in movies. I will agree that many movies might receive a higher rating than necessary for sexual scenes or images but that is all that will happen, a higher rating.

Also the vast majority of film companies and actors/actresses are liberal so I don't know how you got the idea that film or the ratings system in America was run by a Christian company.[/quote]

Yes. Depicted in R rated movies. As I said. You're not going to get sex/drugs portrayed in a PG-13, but you will get gratuitous violence.

What the hell are you on about, "liberal"?

The ratings board is as right wing as they come. And seriously, your coutry's "liberal" is my country's Conservative, so I really don't see what you mean by saying your liberals are too left.
You said yourself they get a higher rating and "that's it".
But you need to realise that this drastically affects how many people can see a film, how many cinemas will actually show the film.

Yet more ways that the religious right are managing to make sex appear "terrible" while violence is fine and dandy.

Any film depicting sex or drug use is really hard to get an NC17. There's no way it'll get a lower rating.

I can't remember the last time I saw an NC17 rating on anything except hardcore porn. What America are you living in?

Well, stop just watching Transformers and other boring mindless crap then.
And also: I'm a British film student. I do this 24/7.

 

[silver wolf009]

As compared with many places in the world, where you might be shot for even uttering a complaint about someone, yes we do indeed have free speech. Do we have free speech as per the dictionary definition? Absolutely not.

So you have free-er speech?

Free-er-ish.

I have noticed that as a country, we seem to pride ourselves on free speech, but there has been certian occasions (such as World War 1 or the Great War as it was known then) that freedom of the constitution has been taken away.

The exception that proves the rule? I dont thinks so, but I am happy that we are relativly well off in what can be said compared to other places as has been mentioned by Samwise.

 

[supersixfour]

Just a question, do you really have free speech if the government decides what speech is protected or not? For instance, the government can decide that videogames aren't protected as free speech, and ban them. What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

they can censor games but they can't really ban them unless esrb ratings don't matchup with content, at least ive never seen a game banned i wouldn't put it past some of those right wing jackasses in washington to try to ban video games. But this is what the debate is about this november, whether or not they are considered art , which is protected by the first amendment, its pretty obvious that they are, but the old farts in washington don't know that.

 

[sirkai007]

One thing that got me about the "Free speech" is that they aren't allowed to say "I want to kill the president, or something along those lines, unless it is to tell someone else they cannot say it >.>
Seems "Free" is defined by the government...
I think I'm within my rights to say I want to kill anyone, be it my neighbor, my cousin, some important government person, whoever. Lucky me. I just can't actually do so, even to protect myself :3

Saying things like "I want/will kill..." is not protected speech because it creates clear and present danger. Look it up in the Constitution.