A question for Americans

[volcanblade]

It's the same with taxes! Everyone is up in arms over the 6% sales tax here in Massachussets. They don't want to pay to help their community. I mean where do they think the money for repairing the streets comes from? The fucking Toothfairy? How about our schools hmm? Do they think the teachers work pro bono? THAT IS NOT HOW THE WORLD WORKS PEOPLE!! SMARTEN UP!!!

Nice to see someone else from Massachusetts who can figure that one out.

Anyway Freedom of speech is hard to define in terms of government. Give too much leeway and you there will be issues, be too strict and things get ugly. On top of this freedom of speech is only an issue when talking about Congress. Now as much as I may have issues with Congress at times they do tend to either get things done semi-logically or not at all and usually have reasons for calling things violations of free speech. So yes even if it is somewhat limited I think we do have freedom of speech

 

[Dastardly]

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?

Really, the question sometimes stems from a misunderstanding of exactly what "free speech" was intended to protect. The founding fathers weren't looking to protect porn, or anything of the sort. It was intended to allow people to express dissent toward the government, because the nation was founded on the idea that sometimes it's necessary to throw off the chains of an oppressive government by force.

The sad fact is that not all forms of "expression" are valid. If a person is expressing a legitimate point of view, that's one thing. If a person is just trying to get a reaction out of folks, like the age-old "yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre" example, that's not the sort of thing we need to spend time and effort protecting.

Regardless, the issues of "banning" video games (source?) aren't about free speech. They're usually about decency, and what can/can't be sold in certain places. You don't want dildos next to baby bottles, and you don't want games with nudity on the cover next to WiiKittens or something.

The government hasn't been stepping in to regulate the CONTENT of games. Lately, they've started butting in on the availability of games to minors (though they're backing the wrong horse on that). It's not an issue of "free speech," though, and nothing the government is doing is to limit that.

People just like to be reactionary about anything that even LOOKS like it might be limiting a "Freedom." Especially people who are not Americans, since we're often referred to as the "land of the free," as a way of saying, "Oooh, you think you're soooo free, well look at THIS." It's not really expressing a valid viewpoint, it's just being a dick to a culture you don't understand... usually because you THINK you understand it because of all of the entertainment we export (which is usually us making fun of and exaggerating aspects of our OWN culture).

Basically, that's all that's going on. Freedom of speech? Working as intended. I could go on a street corner right now and wave signs, shouting at the top of my lungs, that the president is a Nazi-homophobe-retard-from-space. I could publish pamphlets to the same effect, making them freely available to the public. And no police are going to come banging down my door, no jail time or fines will be assigned to me.

But if I yell "FUCK FUCK FUCK" in the middle of a preschool playground, I'll be hauled off in handcuffs. As I should be. If I'm wearing a shirt that has your grandmother being double-penetrated by two goats on it, while I'm standing in line at Toys 'R Us, I'll be asked to leave... likely in a squad car. As I should be.

Those aren't prudent exercises of my "freedom." That's being a dick and infringing upon the freedoms of others. That is not protected, and was never intended to be. These other examples of things people are calling "censorship" aren't being pushed by the government. They're being pushed by OTHER CITIZENS, and the government largely stays the fuck out of it. Except for California--they can sod off.

 

[Blitzkreg]

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?

I hate to make this politically charged, but Democrats tend to go for more government control (the free speech example is perfect) while Republicans tend to promote smaller government with less control. So a conservative America would have more free speech to answer your question.

 

[CaptainKoala]

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?

Remember that guy in the U.K. that got arrested for internet trolling? That won't happen in America, in other places, you can go to jail for speaking out against abortion and gay marriage. You can say anything about any topic no matter how true or false it may be. And its protected free speech.

The only thing you can't do is infringe on other peoples' rights, or threaten to do so.
The first amendment:
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.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

We have it (for now), but it's quickly fading.

 

[krugerrand123]

It does not feel like it.

 

[Veritasiness]

The above statement is very correct: Freedom of speech as a right guaranteed in the US Constitution applies only when that speech has to do with the government. It doesn't apply in private places (say, on the Escapist or in a private home), it doesn't apply to organizations, buisnessplaces or clubs (again, the Escapist forums or a local restaurant) or to corporations, which are allowed to determine how they wish their employees to behave (within reason and while representing corporate interest).

Recently, governmental free speech has been corrupted in some ways in the interests of national security: you're not allowed to discuss planning to kill the President, you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, and so forth.

Basically, free speech doesn't protect trolls.

I hate to make this politically charged, but Democrats tend to go for more government control (the free speech example is perfect) while Republicans tend to promote smaller government with less control. So a conservative America would have more free speech to answer your question.

No, that's incorrect. In fact, the modern-day Republican party is exceedingly pro-"values" and would greatly limit our speech if they had their way, as they support "family values" and morally motivated laws. The modern "conservative" movement does not advocate for smaller government or more freedom, it advocates for more of the former and less of the latter, but in different areas and for different reasons than the Democrats.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

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 disagree with what you are saying, but I would die to allow you to say it."
Paraphrased from Voltaire. I think.

Do I hate racists and homophobes? Yes. Do they have the right? Yes. Would I stand up for them in court for their right to do what I hate? Yes.

 

[conflictofinterests]

American, checking in.

I gather this is mostly about video game censorship. I would like to point out that while legislation in question is quite ham-handed and is likely to be quite ineffective to boot, censorship of children's media is not uncommon, and not evil.

The concept is rooted in the fact that children are different than adults. Their brains are not fully formed, and their mental mechanics function differently. Those who disagree with all censorship tend to admit only this far. Those who agree with censorship, though, also realize that children are also much younger than adults, and as such have not experienced enough to be able to properly judge the merits and faults of any concept put before them.

Ideally, it is at the point of the introduction of such concepts that parents, guardians, or other knowledgeable adults make available their evaluations and the reasoning behind them as substitute for the child's own experiences, thus enabling the child to think for his- or her-self in a similar pattern.

What proponents of censorship are trying to do is minimize the amount of parenting they have to do by minimizing the amount of concepts their children come home with. This could have the positive effect of stalling difficult concepts from reaching the child until they have the foundations of their own thought and value process firmly in place, or it could have the negative effect of having the concept reach the child before such a time and without the social constructs of how to properly deal with it.

Fluffy random thoughts:

Spoiler

I guess it's kind of like Abstinence Only education, except for ideas instead of babies and STD's. It tends to be about as effective as well.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

"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."
-SnootyEnglishman

Well said. I agree.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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

this is what i love about the movie law abiding citizen, he openly admitted to wanting to kill him and thought about it over and over again but they weren't allowed to touch him just yet =]

Well, this question starts to get into some unusual areas in American Constitutional law. To give a basic, blunt answer: yes. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the government tried to break up a peaceful rally, there would be popular outrage and likely some impeachments.

However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.

So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.

good post and completely agree to it.

 

[Jarcin]

This is a concern I have often had. The government is trying, unintentionally I hope, to be a protective Big Brother but that goes completely against it's core values. While I believe that regulation is in order, a regulation that bans games takes it to far. That's what ratings like M are for and if they need a higher rating then so be it, but you shouldn't be able to just say "This is offensive it's gone" when item's like pornography and other outlets are free to do as they speak under protection of art and speech.

When the government is able to regulate the nonphysical (The content inside the game) they are only one step closer to regulating the physical aspect.

 

[paragon1]

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?

You mean the one that's massively overextended, and made up entirely of volunteers? Volunteers who'd have something of a problem with attacking their own country? Assuming you could find an officer willing to issue said orders?

 

[Ace of Spades]

It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market".

Regulating the stock market actually has a legitimate purpose of maintaining people's confidence in the fairness of the market, but regulating video games is closer to preventing people from buying games because the government is afraid that they they will cause harm to underdeveloped minds. I personally think that is a weaker reason for regulating something. Obviously, ratings should exist, but the public's access to a developing medium should not be needlessly restricted.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Free Speech was killed by Political Correctness, but there was no arrest, trial or public outcry.

 

[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?

You mean the one that's massively overextended, and made up entirely of volunteers? Volunteers who'd have something of a problem with attacking their own country? Assuming you could find an officer willing to issue said orders?

Heh, for a nation that places so little faith in governments, and implies little faith in humanity through the adoption of capitalism to a greater extent than many other countries, it is surprising that you place so much faith in the integrity of your own people.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with this, as both of us are judging purely speculatively with little knowledge. What I can do, however, is point to other countries where armies massacre their own people regularly either at the bequest of their rulers or to further their own ends. The soldiers don't even need to be told.

 

[maturin]

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?

I hate to make this politically charged, but Democrats tend to go for more government control (the free speech example is perfect) while Republicans tend to promote smaller government with less control. So a conservative America would have more free speech to answer your question.

You're thinking of libertarians.

Limited government as debated in the two party system seldom refers to anything but how tax dollars are allocated. Right wing politicians are and historically have been staunch supporters of the most odious violations of personal liberty.

Or feel free to explain Jim Crow, sodomy laws, warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act.

We have it (for now), but it's quickly fading.

The only thing that's quickly fading is my patience with all you apocalyptic types. Unemployment is high so everything is about to go under. The future looks grim until you look at the past. The violations of the Constitution during WW1 were more flagrant and met with less resistance than those of the McCarthy era and the government has been getting more careful ever since. The only danger is that society will stop defending itself, and that doesn't mean occasional bouts of Tea Party hysteria but a close watch on government agencies and emerging technologies.