How Free is Too Free?

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

"More than this." Answered the man shackled to the wall. But that aside, do you think a line could be drawn where too-much-freedom reigns supreme.

This spawned from a conversation with my buddies at a diner. Somewhere near midnight, munching on breakfast pancakes and steak, we got into a discussion about the military. The cast of this little discussion is myself, a silly if not verbal madman chewing on pastries and gesturing with a fork, my friend who's rather outspoken about his political views, and my ex-girlfriend who's now engaged to a military man. Obviously, not the best setting for a political discussion, especially where opposing views are involved.

This started a conversation on how insurgents in the Middle East check places like CNN and Fox News for accurate reports on where our troops are headed, which immediately launched an offensive on the idea that journalists have no place on the war-zone.

The counter-point that arose was free-speech, which enables a journalist to report whatever they hell they want, free country. This met a lot of opposition, there was a lot of tension, names were called, and I was tempted to wrap my car around a telephone pole on the way back so that kinda discussion would never happen again. But, another topic for another time.

I ask you, Escapists, how much freedom is too free? After all, if we were free to ignore the laws, or never have them, how polluted would the world be in favor of big business profits? What about the constant revelation of information to anyone who looks for it? Should some things be unfit to broadcast, or are we right in allowed just about anything be posted for the media and press?

Personally, I feel there should be a moral limit to what we say. Not mislead or hide, per say, but certain things that could simply not be mentioned. Do we have to say which city troops are going to, or can't we simply say "A new base is being set up in x area." without getting specific?

Well, I'm sure we could, but I'm also sure we won't. Really, I think freedom costs a bit, that bit is sometimes security. I think lines should be drawn, though, although it's really tough to say where.

What do you guys think?

 

[Mistah Kurtz]

Benjamin Franklin obviously did not have anarchy in mind when he said his famous security/freedom quote. In order to have some freedoms (such as life) you have to give up other freedoms (such as murder). Anyone who believes that those words were set and stone and meant to be taken literally and at face value is a fool.

 

[Eiseman]

The balance between having freedom and having security will always swing one way or the other. It all depends on the times. Like how after 9/11, every American was a-okay with having their clothes stripped and body cavities searched to make sure no jackass was gonna hijack another plane. I exaggerate of course, but the point remains. We were cool with that for a time. Nowadays, however, people generally want their rights back. Personally I'm sick to death of the Patriot Act.

So to answer your question, no, I don't think you can ever draw a line between freedom and security. It's the times that decide where the line goes.

 

[Random Argument Man]

You can be free, but we will always have a restraint. You can do anything in a society, but break its laws, they will give their respond. Not happy with this? No problem, you can live in nature. However, you will be on the restraint of survival.

For freedom of speech, even if you have it, others have it too. Conflict of ideas is common.

 

[nmmoore13]

The only limit on freedom is the restraint of the obstruction of others rights.

 

[Treblaine]

There is too much freedom only when people are free to oppress other people's freedoms.

Paradoxically you need laws (opposite of freedom) to protect other's freedom, like the right the freedom of speech is not a limitation on just the government but a mission to the government to prevent anyone stopping other people saying what they gotta say. (that is why the MPAA has no legal powers)

It should be the duty of every government to preserve the well-being AND rights of it's citizens whether they are an abused minority, those threatened by foreign invasion/occupation, workers oppressed by a powerful corporation or even the government must protect it's citizens from it's own legislature as they pass oppressive laws.

As to the reporting on the government/military, I believe that free information is as vital to a free society as freedom of speech so that should not inhibit journalists or internet usage. However, freedom of speech does not mean a mob boss can order a hit on a defiant store owner or a religious nut can order a terrorist attack or a psycho can make phonecalls threatening to kill someone. Though they are simply talking this should cover freedom of speech but this was clearly an effort to BREAK THE LAW.

The same can apply to journalism, aiding the enemy in a conflict or war is treason even if unintentional. They should know that the public 'don't need to know' exactly how many troops are in whichever town at any one time, they just want to know that they are doing a good job and that they aren't committing any war crimes. Journalists have a bad habit of just spamming endless information when they should be reporting on what the public need to know and not reporting on what the insurgents need to know.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Generally, I don't approve of any exercise of freedom that inflicts suffering on another person without their consent.

But that gets messy in a hurry. If I were to break up with my girlfriend right now, it would cause her to suffer terribly (just humour me, okay?). Does this mean I shouldn't be allowed to break up with her? If a parent refuses to buy a particular toy for their 3-year-old kid, that kid might be terribly upset, so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to say no?

The trick is to take the long view. If I were genuinely unhappy in my relationship (hypothetical, again with the humouring), it would be better in the long run for both of us to break up. And every child must learn to understand that we can't always get everything we want. That lesson is of greater long-term benefit to the child than the toy. So if you think long-term, then the principle works just fine, right?

Wrong. We allow our prejudices to distort our view of the future, and even if we didn't, we still couldn't see it with perfect accuracy. To return to the OP's theme of militarism, there are many people who believed (in good conscience, as far as they knew) that invading Iraq would make things better in the long run. Others disagreed, claiming that it might bring short-term satisfaction at the expense of creating a whole generation of terrorist orphans. To see clearly through our own preconceptions is extremely difficult. It requires that you have regular contact with people you disagree with. Few are willing to tolerate that.

 

[varulfic]

The only limit on freedom is the restraint of the obstruction of others rights.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say (only I phrased it in a more stupid way). What you do with your own life and your own property is no ones business but your own.

 

[s0ap sudz]

The only limit on freedom is the restraint of the obstruction of others rights.

Yuppers...

 

[The Potato Lord]

I heard a quote somewhere that sums up how the line should be drawn:
"My right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins"
I don't remember who said it(If you do know i would greatly appreciate it if you told me) but I agree with them.

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

JS Mill dealt with this issue best, he describe what is the personal sphere of freedom i can only swing by fist to the point were your nose begins. essentially this means any self regarding action one that has no effect on anyone but me i should have total freedom, when my sphere overlaps with another person then my liberty is restrained and my actions governed by licence. so the line of personal freedom is absolute unless our action impinge upon another. So from absolute freedom or anarchy or the state of nature, we move to the regulation of the social contract, essential you swap unlimited freedom for security of the rule of law in that your right to life is protected by limited the right to murder of others. John Locke excellent two treatise (which formed the basis of the US constitution) is an excellent piece on this. No when it comes to freedom of the press (though i was under the impression that the SOP of embargo any information on specific military operations and mission until there completion was still in effect) and of speech its a slippery slope, start claiming things are for national security has been the trick of every totalitarian government of the 20th century. The Nazis took over germany to protect it from a terrorist threat. I don't think many in the press wouldn't risks soldiers lives unless they felt it was important. the press is the fourth estate its a check on government power without whom governments would be far more dangerous and corrupt, if weren't for woodward and bernstein they'd of been 4 more years of nixon. ultimately it should be for the press to make the judgement not government because once they have that kind of power well your only a hop skip and step away from totalitarianism.

 

[meatloaf231]

That was... really philosophical.

I really think that the press needs to lay off the military. Journalists don't have any place in war zones, especially because their main concern is not "letting the people know the truth! Oh, how valiant!", it's their ratings. Journalists care about getting the biggest stories for themselves/their network, not what the stories are. It's the prestige they are after.

Also, pretty much what other people are saying. Freedom ends when you start getting into other people's business to be "free".

 

[Death Magnetic]

We need laws to maintain a slightly safe society. Other than that we can rant and perform anything we want.

 

[varulfic]

That was... really philosophical.

I really think that the press needs to lay off the military. Journalists don't have any place in war zones, especially because their main concern is not "letting the people know the truth! Oh, how valiant!", it's their ratings. Journalists care about getting the biggest stories for themselves/their network, not what the stories are. It's the prestige they are after.

Also, pretty much what other people are saying. Freedom ends when you start getting into other people's business to be "free".

That's kind of an unfair generalization, don't you think? Sure there are those who go to great length to make a story as sensational as possible, far from everyone though, and even if they don't provide a completely objective view they are still important. Without the media, we would have no knowledge at all about what happened in the war. I mean how else do you suppose the public gets their information about war - from the military? That would certainly be nuanced and objective information.

 

[meatloaf231]

That was... really philosophical.

I really think that the press needs to lay off the military. Journalists don't have any place in war zones, especially because their main concern is not "letting the people know the truth! Oh, how valiant!", it's their ratings. Journalists care about getting the biggest stories for themselves/their network, not what the stories are. It's the prestige they are after.

Also, pretty much what other people are saying. Freedom ends when you start getting into other people's business to be "free".

That's kind of an unfair generalization, don't you think? Sure there are those who goes to great length to make a story as sensational as possible, far from everyone though, and even if they don't provide a completely objective view they are still important. Without the media, we would have no knowledge at all about what happened in the war. I mean how else do you suppose the public gets their information about war - from the military? That would certainly be nuanced and objective information.

Haha, yes I suppose that's true. But if the military wasn't allowed to keep secrets, then they would never get anything done.

Still, my point wasn't that the journalists are completely bad, just that they are a little pushy about stories. It is good that they are reporting about things, but they are a bit aggressive about it and do so sometimes for the wrong reasons.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

That was... really philosophical.

I really think that the press needs to lay off the military. Journalists don't have any place in war zones, especially because their main concern is not "letting the people know the truth! Oh, how valiant!", it's their ratings. Journalists care about getting the biggest stories for themselves/their network, not what the stories are. It's the prestige they are after.

Also, pretty much what other people are saying. Freedom ends when you start getting into other people's business to be "free".

That's kind of an unfair generalization, don't you think? Sure there are those who goes to great length to make a story as sensational as possible, far from everyone though, and even if they don't provide a completely objective view they are still important. Without the media, we would have no knowledge at all about what happened in the war. I mean how else do you suppose the public gets their information about war - from the military? That would certainly be nuanced and objective information.

Haha, yes I suppose that's true. But if the military wasn't allowed to keep secrets, then they would never get anything done.

Still, my point wasn't that the journalists are completely bad, just that they are a little pushy about stories. It is good that they are reporting about things, but they are a bit aggressive about it and do so sometimes for the wrong reasons.

Which is really what this thread is about. Should there be a governmental law requiring certain information from being released to the general public, or should a moral line be drawn by the reporter? Or how about a line drawn by the media provider, the reporter's boss or head company?

An interesting premise, all things considered.

 

[howard_hughes]

I've dealt with this topic before, for instance a well known organization that's sole purpose is to propagate hate and fear and shall remain nameless wantws to protest something in front of the state capital building. They went through all the proper channels and got their permits (surprisingly they were very professional about the whole thing) and on that particular day 4 other organizations that opposed the hate group's ideals showed up unannounced and protested the protesters. Now, the police did nothing except separate the different groups to keep them from killing one another and I believe that if the situation were reversed the police would have had no qualms with arresting the hate group's members.

Anyway back on topic, if you're not breaking any other laws while you are disclosing your opinions then by all means continue. The dissemination of information if vital to a healthy society, except if the information in question can cause harm to others (the list the FBI has for those who were witness to a criminal act for instance comes to mind) I honestly believe that reporters are naturally competitive and sometimes they tend to say too much. To pass further laws against aiding or unwittingly informing the enemy would be futile; similar to the laws that are on the books for discharging a firearm from a moving vehicle while at the same time it's illegal to have a loaded firearm in reach of the driver while said vehicle is in motion.

No, a society that's completely free can't be considered a true society since its members would live in fear for their very lives (see Somalia) Therefore we've elected to abide by freedom restricting rules for the good of the all.

I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.

If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast.
--William Tecumseh Sherman

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Haha, yes I suppose that's true. But if the military wasn't allowed to keep secrets, then they would never get anything done.

You mean they wouldn't be able to kill people without our knowing about it?
Yes. That's quite true. Personally, I'd rather everyone knew who was getting killed and how. Especially if it were my own country's military, which supposedly represents my people.

 

[Knight Templar]

In OZ our media is smart enough to avoid droping names when talking about war movements. If your news is teling the world where your troops are then they, not the idea should be removed.