Slate Columnist Eric Posner Questions the value of American Free Speech

[EnglishEdward]

The world is quite content with it.

The Freedom of Speech amendment was one of the few
good things to come out of that unreasonable rebellion.

 

[Vylinius]

I have a hard time with the sometimes problems that come from Free Speech. I've always loved the idea of voicing your opinion no matter who you are but some opinions just bug me. Like the insane claims that Obama is muslim, nazi, or whatever. The worst part is that people believe these insane claims that are presented in the media by people and instead of just saying out right that they are lies some media gives them an equal say to those not saying such insane things. I find my best compromise is not to attack Free Speech but to attack the Speeches made by these people that we should have something larger than the media to monitor the media and its only purpose should be to remove insane statements like these and show them for what they are idiocy. Then again everything is ripe for abuse but if we operate that anything that can be abused shouldn't be policy then we might as well sit around and do nothing as pretty much every form of government and government action is open to abuse by someone with enough power and in a system already corrupted enough to allow it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I have a hard time with the sometimes problems that come from Free Speech. I've always loved the idea of voicing your opinion no matter who you are but some opinions just bug me. Like the insane claims that Obama is muslim, nazi, or whatever. The worst part is that people believe these insane claims that are presented in the media by people and instead of just saying out right that they are lies some media gives them an equal say to those not saying such insane things. I find my best compromise is not to attack Free Speech but to attack the Speeches made by these people that we should have something larger than the media to monitor the media and its only purpose should be to remove insane statements like these and show them for what they are idiocy. Then again everything is ripe for abuse but if we operate that anything that can be abused shouldn't be policy then we might as well sit around and do nothing as pretty much every form of government and government action is open to abuse by someone with enough power and in a system already corrupted enough to allow it.

This is a little incoherent, but you seem to be complaining about the "Shape of the Earth, opinions differ" tripe. I agree that it's quite stupid, but it's a symptom of the need for artificial "neutrality" on the part of the media.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Stating a fact is not an opinion.
Stating a falsehood and claiming it's a fact isn't an opinion either. It's either ignorance or a lie.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Its still free speech obviously.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Stating a fact is not an opinion.
Stating a falsehood and claiming it's a fact isn't an opinion either. It's either ignorance or a lie.

The problem, in America anyhow, is that someone will say "The Grand Canyon started forming 17 Million Years Ago" and someone else will say "That can't be true because the KJV 1611 is literally true in all of its particulars."

Hence, the poor overheated media stooge says "Age of the Grand Canyon: Opinions Differ."

 

[Lay_Lay]

If some hypothetical nation had a twisted morality that permitted murder, had a culture/system that encouraged young girls to get into prostitution... USA would not permit that. USA would get in their business and try to stop the murderous, poisionous culture. That is our Morality.

This time it is our culture which has the twisted morality that permits abortions, and we have a culture/system that encourages young girls to value their body above their mind. That is sick! (to the Islamist, not me I don't give a hoot.) But the Islamist cannot stand idle while we pervert Allah's creation. His Morality includes not talking trash about Mohammed Ali.

 

[Cutlass]

If some hypothetical nation had a twisted morality that permitted murder, had a culture/system that encouraged young girls to get into prostitution... USA would not permit that. USA would get in their business and try to stop the murderous, poisionous culture. That is our Morality.

This time it is our culture which has the twisted morality that permits abortions, and we have a culture/system that encourages young girls to value their body above their mind. That is sick! (to the Islamist, not me I don't give a hoot.) But the Islamist cannot stand idle while we pervert Allah's creation. His Morality includes not talking trash about Mohammed Ali.

For large numbers of American conservatives, that is fundamentally their goal.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Its still free speech obviously.

Depends.
If I say that a certain restaurant uses rat meat, or that a certain politician deals with cocaine and it isn't true it's not free speech, it's slander.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Depends.
If I say that a certain restaurant uses rat meat, or that a certain politician deals with cocaine and it isn't true it's not free speech, it's slander.

True, and this is where the "swinging arms and other people's noses" complications come in.

If a Christian says "All atheists are hellbound fools who deny God's existence so they can practice their perversions and rebellion and we should pass a law that requires their imprisonment and execution" then I would say that is very borderline, but still falls within free speech.

If another Christian says "We need to organize a military junta and go door to door shooting anyone who won't bow before God in the face after making them dig their own grave" then that is over the line. IMHO, anyhow.

 

[ParkCungHee]

This time it is our culture which has the twisted morality that permits abortions, and we have a culture/system that encourages young girls to value their body above their mind. That is sick! (to the Islamist, not me I don't give a hoot.) But the Islamist cannot stand idle while we pervert Allah's creation. His Morality includes not talking trash about Mohammed Ali.

The only Muslim I know with an opinion on the matter preffered Joe Frasier, actually.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The problem, in America anyhow, is that someone will say "The Grand Canyon started forming 17 Million Years Ago" and someone else will say "That can't be true because the KJV 1611 is literally true in all of its particulars."

Hence, the poor overheated media stooge says "Age of the Grand Canyon: Opinions Differ."

Do you really think one or both of those opinions should be outlawed?

If some hypothetical nation had a twisted morality that permitted murder, had a culture/system that encouraged young girls to get into prostitution... USA would not permit that. USA would get in their business and try to stop the murderous, poisionous culture. That is our Morality.

This time it is our culture which has the twisted morality that permits abortions, and we have a culture/system that encourages young girls to value their body above their mind. That is sick! (to the Islamist, not me I don't give a hoot.) But the Islamist cannot stand idle while we pervert Allah's creation. His Morality includes not talking trash about Mohammed Ali.

We shouldn't get involved, so there.

Depends.
If I say that a certain restaurant uses rat meat, or that a certain politician deals with cocaine and it isn't true it's not free speech, it's slander.

Should be considered free speech.

True, and this is where the "swinging arms and other people's noses" complications come in.

If a Christian says "All atheists are hellbound fools who deny God's existence so they can practice their perversions and rebellion and we should pass a law that requires their imprisonment and execution" then I would say that is very borderline, but still falls within free speech.

If another Christian says "We need to organize a military junta and go door to door shooting anyone who won't bow before God in the face after making them dig their own grave" then that is over the line. IMHO, anyhow.

I'd actually say the second one is the borderline one, while the first one is clearly freedom of speech.

If someone said the second one right now I don't think it should be illegal because there's clearly no clear and present danger of it actually happening.

On the other hand, if a group of conservative Christians gathered around(Insert hypothetical city in Mississippi here) and said they were going to start a military junta in the city, and there was a chance of it happening, then you can intervene because there's a clear and present danger, IMO.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Do you really think one or both of those opinions should be outlawed?

Outlawed? No, obviously not. You know me better than that.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I do know you better than that but the way you worded that made it sound like you wanted to arrest young earthers en masse

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Should be considered free speech.

Really ? Really ?
The right to destroy someone's business, carreer, family or life by spreading lies is a freedom more worthy of protection than the reputation of someone who hasn't done anything wrong ?
How can you possibly justify that ?

 

[GhostWriter16]

The fact that I say it does not make you required to believe it.

That said, I was thinking more of the politician situation, since its pretty much established precedent that public figures are open to any kind of criticism, and I think it should be that way.

I'm not so sold on the restaurant thing being legal.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Why does a restaurant owner deserve better protection than a politician ?
I don't mind people saying whatever they want as long they can prove it's true, but slander is slander

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why does a restaurant owner deserve better protection than a politician ?
I don't mind people saying whatever they want as long they can prove it's true, but slander is slander

Would you have arrested the 25% of the US that said Obama was from Kenya?

You can't outlaw conspiracies

Plus US elections would have to be banned...

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Would you have arrested the 25% of the US that said Obama was from Kenya?

Not arrested. Fined.

You can't outlaw conspiracies

Of course you can.

Plus US elections would have to be banned...

If that's the case your political culture is a steaming pile of manure and can only be improved by restriction on lies about candidates.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not arrested. Fined.

I strongly disagree with you. Thank God the US is sane.

I don't agree with those people either, but are you kidding me? You're going to fine someone for exercising their right to freedom of speech.

(My grandmother would be fined on a daily basis)

If that's the case your political culture is a steaming pile of manure and can only be improved by restriction on lies about candidates.

I don't think that's the only way to fix it. I agree that our political culture is crap though.

I'd disagree with you on the reason however. Its not that both sides have merit to their ideas, but that none of them do.