A question for Americans

[yamitami]

Okay, most of this kind of debate is caused by not understanding what free speech means.

Free speech means that the government cannot censor a person or entity. The only exceptions have to do with security, like how it is reckless endangerment to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or having to do with how locations of covert teams on enemy soil are classified.

So, barring a military game made with classified information or something, video games do not fall under the category of safety and national security so they cannot be censored out of existence. Then again if we keep going down the path of socialism then they're just going to throw the constitution out and then they can censor video games or ban fried foods.

 

[Woodsey]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

oh my, here we go again...
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.

As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...

Such as?

And I was being literal with it, the point is you need a cap on it at some point to stop the inevitable mad men who really do believe the xenophobic shit they say, and who add fuel to any racial tensions (just using that as an example).

Such as the law against disturbing a public place, i think that would be a good law to start with...

So you don't have freedom of speech then. What's free about being told where and when you can say things?

And an ellipsis does not replace a full stop, stop using it on every sentence. /grammar rage

There is a difference between talking and yelling... Yelling gets your voice into a wider area than just talking thus disturbing the public peace.. It doesnt really matter what you yell it will still be annoying to other people...

As for your gramma nazism, taken from wikipedia: "An ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in speech, an unfinished thought, or, at the end of a sentence "

Nuff said..

Not on every sentence (an ellipsis is also '...', 2 dots means nothing) - it's to indicate a longer pause such as a lost thought. It doesn't replace a full stop constantly.

You're really missing the point too - stop being so literal. People should not be allowed to make claims that incites hate or violence against others, no matter how they do it.

So when Mad Magazine calls Bernie Madoff an evil disgusting excuse for a human being that should be stopped?

I mean after all that's clearly expressing hatred for someone.

Face it, sometimes people have good reasons to hate others.

That's not quite the same - expressing hatred for a singular person who has evidently done wrong is not the same as condemning groups because of race, sexuality or anything like that.

 

[Nekros22]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Where do you people live, fucking Narnia? It's not like we've got guns to our heads telling us what to say. There are perfectly reasonable laws in place to stop morons from inciting hatred against any and all groups.

Those aren't reasonable laws those are stupid laws. If you hate a group then why should you not be allowed to express that hatred?

What are you afraid of exactly?

Ever heard of the KKK? They hated a group and they expressed it quite a bit - you're saying that sort of thing is justified? Even taking it away from those that lynched people to the people that spoke out against blacks and incited the hatred of them into others, you think that should in any way be protected?

Ok, the only way you can "incite" hatred into someone is if that someone already agrees with you. It's not like the KKK went up to black families and said "We're gonna go lynch the Washingtons down the street cause they're black and black people are bad!"

You are glamorously oversimplyfing this. Freedom of Speech isn't "justified" by anything; it's a basic human right. If some redneck from the boonies wants to scream about how blacks and Jews are ruining the world then he has every right to say so. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't justify it, it doesn't affirm it. The same right he's using to proclaim his hatred is being used to denounce it by other, more intelligent people.

You can't make exceptions to the rule or else the rule will go away.

 

[Jedisolo75]

It's a difficult question. For one thing, nobody is banning anything, just making it a crime to sell to minors. The only things that are banned are things like child pornography and such. Also, a person can say whatever they want, within reason. Libel and Slander are not protected forms of speech in America, and for valid reasons. Once you are an adult you can choose to watch and hear whatever you want, or to make any movie of game that you want, but you can't sell it to minor's. I don't find that to be really restrictive at all.

 

[Woodsey]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Where do you people live, fucking Narnia? It's not like we've got guns to our heads telling us what to say. There are perfectly reasonable laws in place to stop morons from inciting hatred against any and all groups.

Those aren't reasonable laws those are stupid laws. If you hate a group then why should you not be allowed to express that hatred?

What are you afraid of exactly?

Ever heard of the KKK? They hated a group and they expressed it quite a bit - you're saying that sort of thing is justified? Even taking it away from those that lynched people to the people that spoke out against blacks and incited the hatred of them into others, you think that should in any way be protected?

Ok, the only way you can "incite" hatred into someone is if that someone already agrees with you. It's not like the KKK went up to black families and said "We're gonna go lynch the Washingtons down the street cause they're black and black people are bad!"

Huh? Of course not.

With enough propaganda and even the slightest link to someone to blame and you'll start getting people on your side.

We're not born with predetermined ideas on everything.

 

[Mr. Omega]

NO OFFENSE AMERICANS!

Their laws only suit them when in suits them. The people running their government are happy to be hypocrites.

It's supposed be but everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days. So slowly it's going away in my opinion.

^ This times 1000

People are being a bunch of pansies now adays about political correctness that our speech is not only limited but being watered down to such a disgusting degree.

Our new Motto over here is "If everyone doesn't like it, you can't say it" ....-_-

This sums up my opinion quite well.

 

[spartan231490]

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

Disallowing threats like that is done on the basis that the fear you would inflict on the other person is damaging to thier state of mind and could push them to act differently, impeding thier freedoms. It's the same thing as not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater because someone could easily be hurt badly in the rush to escape.

 

[hotacidbath]

I'm seeing a lot of people here that don't seem to understand how the 1st Amendment actually works. Freedom of speech has nothing at all to do with whether some Joe Schmoe likes or dislikes what is being said, but instead protects the people from government infringement of speech. The fact that the KKK is still around is a good example of this. Have you ever been to or seen video from some sort of racist or offensive rally or protest? The police are often there protecting the offensive party that is hosting the rally. Why is this? Because they have the right to assemble and the right to spew their hatred. These come with reasonable limitations though. These limitations are that they can't incite a riot, they can't do anything slanderous or libelous, and they can't threaten bodily harm to anyone. A good quote to sum it up is "being offensive is free speech, death threats are not." The Westboro Baptist Church protests and says horrible things all the time and they have not been shut down for it. They protested in my town once and said that my best friend's father, who is a reverend, is going to hell. My friend had to walk into church that day and see posters saying awful things about her dad. It sucks, but they have the right to say these things. On the other hand, I have every right to be offended by their bullshit and tell them that I disagree.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The most important part of this is that CONGRESS shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. This does not apply in any way, shape, or form to any other private entity. The Escapist deleting an offensive post or banning a user doesn't violate freedom of speech. A magazine or TV station firing someone for being offensive does not violate freedom of speech. The only body in America that can violate freedom of speech is the US government. The MPAA, ESRB, and other such ratings boards are private, non-government entities and if they rate something as offensive then they are in no way violating freedom of speech. The government is not banning these things, the private ratings boards are.

 

[spartan231490]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

oh my, here we go again...
Because you have the right to say what you want, doesnt necessarily mean that you have to.
And even if you do, you have to be ready to defend what you said..
Freedom of speech is not a holy shield that makes you immune to your surroundings. If you talk shit, you better get ready to eat shit.

As an example; if i were running around Copenhagen and yelling that i wanted to slaughter and eat all immigrants, i would propably be the one to be slaughtered. Why? Because only idiots "run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like"... And we got other laws to handle them...

Such as?

And I was being literal with it, the point is you need a cap on it at some point to stop the inevitable mad men who really do believe the xenophobic shit they say, and who add fuel to any racial tensions (just using that as an example).

Such as the law against disturbing a public place, i think that would be a good law to start with...

So you don't have freedom of speech then. What's free about being told where and when you can say things?

And an ellipsis does not replace a full stop, stop using it on every sentence. /grammar rage

There is a difference between talking and yelling... Yelling gets your voice into a wider area than just talking thus disturbing the public peace.. It doesnt really matter what you yell it will still be annoying to other people...

As for your gramma nazism, taken from wikipedia: "An ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in speech, an unfinished thought, or, at the end of a sentence "

Nuff said..

Not on every sentence (an ellipsis is also '...', 2 dots means nothing) - it's to indicate a longer pause such as a lost thought. It doesn't replace a full stop constantly.

You're really missing the point too - stop being so literal. People should not be allowed to make claims that incites hate or violence against others, no matter how they do it.

So when Mad Magazine calls Bernie Madoff an evil disgusting excuse for a human being that should be stopped?

I mean after all that's clearly expressing hatred for someone.

Face it, sometimes people have good reasons to hate others.

That's not quite the same - expressing hatred for a singular person who has evidently done wrong is not the same as condemning groups because of race, sexuality or anything like that.

This is the first time you mentioned that

"People should not be allowed to make claims that incites hate or violence against others"

would you like me to find some more knits you can pick, i think you may have missed a few.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Okay, most of this kind of debate is caused by not understanding what free speech means.

Free speech means that the government cannot censor a person or entity. The only exceptions have to do with security, like how it is reckless endangerment to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or having to do with how locations of covert teams on enemy soil are classified.

So, barring a military game made with classified information or something, video games do not fall under the category of safety and national security so they cannot be censored out of existence. Then again if we keep going down the path of socialism then they're just going to throw the constitution out and then they can censor video games or ban fried foods.

Might want to read up, bud. Your free speech amendment also includes exception clauses for libel, slander, and 'fighting talk'.

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance

And psh, socialism doesn't necessarily lead to that. The UK, if you judge it by its budget deficit, is one of the most socialistic countries in the world, yet you can pretty much say what you like- especially about the government. We have a long tradition of doing as such. Hell, some of our most popular newspapers publish libellous articles all the time.

 

[Danny Ocean]

When push comes to shove, as long as we have the right to bear arms our right to speech is protected. It's just unfortunate that so many people are willing to sacrifice their rights for passing social fads engineered by folks way more influential than they ever should be.

As one of my friends likes to say "guns are there for when the government gets out of control."

So, as long as you have your gun, people have to listen to what you have to say? That sounds like it could be hypocritical in some way.

And that second line genuinely made me smile. You really think your nation would have any chance against your military? The military that is more powerful than the next 17 militaries in the world combined? Really?

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Thumps up my man, finally one who gets the idea..

But spreading Bad Ideas is like giving away free knives at a playground, its not illegal but it is meant to make other people acting like you want.
Spreading the idea of wiping out the jewish race didnt came out that harmless if i recall correctly

 

[Therumancer]

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?

The goverment isn't supposed to be able to make such desicians, which is why the case starting tomorrow is such a big deal. The Goverment is effectively trying to take that right and it's up to "The Supreme Court" to stop them by saying it's unconstitutional for the goverment to directly control the media.

It's pretty obvious what the laws say, but the thing is that if The Supreme Court of the United States doesn't say "no, you can't do that" and uphold the laws, there is no higher authority above them. The only way to change things at that point is to effectively engage in armed insurrection. The American right to keep and bear arms being there specifically for cases like this.

The other problem though is that the odds of a bunch of gamers or media people taking up weapons and moving to kill politicians and the like are minimal. The fact that the people involved aren't scared of the citizenry is part of the problem I think.

At any rate you are correct, what's going on now shouldn't be happening, we have laws that say it shouldn't be happening that are central to our entire society, yet it's happening anyway, and that's why it's a big deal.

 

[Nekros22]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Where do you people live, fucking Narnia? It's not like we've got guns to our heads telling us what to say. There are perfectly reasonable laws in place to stop morons from inciting hatred against any and all groups.

Those aren't reasonable laws those are stupid laws. If you hate a group then why should you not be allowed to express that hatred?

What are you afraid of exactly?

Ever heard of the KKK? They hated a group and they expressed it quite a bit - you're saying that sort of thing is justified? Even taking it away from those that lynched people to the people that spoke out against blacks and incited the hatred of them into others, you think that should in any way be protected?

Ok, the only way you can "incite" hatred into someone is if that someone already agrees with you. It's not like the KKK went up to black families and said "We're gonna go lynch the Washingtons down the street cause they're black and black people are bad!"

Huh? Of course not.

With enough propaganda and even the slightest link to someone to blame and you'll start getting people on your side.

We're not born with predetermined ideas on everything.

I don't think you are understanding where I'm coming from. Despite what CNN would like you to believe, most people aren't stupid. What you're saying here is that the KKK can present a completely nonsensical and irrational argument, make a supposed link to it, and somehow get half the country, who for the most part do not agree with the KKK's views, to believe it.

It doesn't work like that. Let's say I believe I'm a dog. I'm not a dog, but I still believe it. If I make a link to my beliefs; say, I like the taste of newspaper, and posit this to you, it would not make my argument any more valid or convincing. The only people who believe what the KKK says are groups that are affiliated with the KKK or support the KKK.

 

[AssassinJoe]

It depends on who's in office and who it's about.

Don't make this about democrats vs republicans please. You sound dangerously close to making this about political parties, just saying.

OR it could sound like race, lack of common sense, the person in office's ideas and goals, what the person said that's in question, who the person is that it was said to, etc etc... Just saying

Ok first of all, I'm getting a hostile vibe from you. I'm not saying he is talking about political parties, I just don't want all the trolls in this forum to turn the discussion into democrats vs republicans. You gotta be careful what say isn't taken out of context otherwise you end up either with a huge, pointless arguement or explaining the meaning of what you said (kinda like I am now).

Second of all, I know this kid in real life, and he tends to say things that are controversial to certain political parties. He's like Brian from Family Guy, only a little more political.

So I hope I cleared that up without sounding like a troll myself.

 

[ArcWinter]

There is no such thinq as free speech in America, and there never has been.
"Freedom" has been replaced with "liberty." Those are the same, you say? Nope. They have become synonymous recently, but they are different. Freedom is havinq the ability to choose. Liberty is havinq the ability to choose out of choices presented to you. Free speech reguires freedom, which has never truly existed in America.

In addition, I present a guote from Ben Franklin - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


the qovernment only has power over those that consent to its authority but people never remember that