Free Speech Coalition ?

Free Speech Coalition ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aneirin -> Free Speech Coalition ? (3/17/2011 4:46:52 AM)
The Free Speech Coalition, aside from the fact that it seeks to support the adult entertainment industry from unwanted government or other authoritarial intrusion, does it not also imply that freedom of speech in whatever capacity is to be upheld ? Or is there freedom of speech and freedom of speech, in that there are differnet levels of freedom in speech that is acceptable ? But, is freedom of speech good for us, healthy, or is it certain forms of speech shoud be filtered out, moderated so to speek, and if so what qualification necessitates another's moderation of the spoken word and it's use in the formation of sentences to make up communicable information exchange ? And, if freedom of speech is not upheld, then what is the point communicating if it appears we are not allowed to speak what our true feelings are on a matter? Now I believe most of us here are able to discern the communication we are reading and fully able to moderate our own use of language, and of course we are fully able to not read what we don't like, so, when external moderation it appears is required, is that not a form of censorship ?

joether -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/17/2011 10:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin The Free Speech Coalition, aside from the fact that it seeks to support the adult entertainment industry from unwanted government or other authoritarial intrusion, does it not also imply that freedom of speech in whatever capacity is to be upheld ? Or is there freedom of speech and freedom of speech, in that there are differnet levels of freedom in speech that is acceptable ? But, is freedom of speech good for us, healthy, or is it certain forms of speech shoud be filtered out, moderated so to speek, and if so what qualification necessitates another's moderation of the spoken word and it's use in the formation of sentences to make up communicable information exchange ? And, if freedom of speech is not upheld, then what is the point communicating if it appears we are not allowed to speak what our true feelings are on a matter? Now I believe most of us here are able to discern the communication we are reading and fully able to moderate our own use of language, and of course we are fully able to not read what we don't like, so, when external moderation it appears is required, is that not a form of censorship ? Have you been living under a rock or another planet for the past few months? Or comatose on medication? Goggle 'Westboro Baptist Church and Supreme Court Ruling'. That should help in answering all your questions rather quickly. From how free is our speech, to how healthy certain degrees of said freedom of speech are in play.

Termyn8or -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 12:19:07 AM)
When a freedom is limited it is gone. Case closed. T^T

ChiDS -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 12:36:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or When a freedom is limited it is gone. Case closed. T^T Indeed, I agree 100%

joether -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 1:22:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or When a freedom is limited it is gone. Case closed. So according to your 'arguement', I should be allowed a fully loaded M-249 for hunting. And I should be allowed to shout 'FIRE" in a crowded theater. Also, I should be allowed to slander every person I hate in print form without lawsuit or penalty. And that's just the basic stuff. Want to try the really 'modern day' era US Constitutional questions?

Termyn8or -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 1:47:00 AM)
joe, maybe it's our turn. Let's just take this down to basics. If you make it necessary for me to kill you to enforce my rights, I have every right to do so. You stick a gun down my throat in my house, whatever happens to you is your problem. You have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. This has been misinterpreted. You still have that right, but if harm comes by exercising that right, you are, and well should be in trouble for it. As a kidnapper of one of your loved ones, I would have the right not to reveal their location. Exercising that right might make the court case go worse for me. I have the right to take the fifth, and not reveal things in a court, thus causing wrong (or right) decisions. When people really had rights (not in our lifetime) they came with responsibility for their actions. You have the right to drive your cattle down main street, but if somone gets trampled, don't come crying to me. Free speech also includes the right to lie, and the supreme court has decided that the media is indemnified from any consequences of lying. Even though they are seen as a reliable source, the law stands. What's more, if there is really a fire, I am waiting for someone NOT shout fire and see a bunch of people burn to death. Rights don't mean you can do whatever the hell you want anytime and anywhere you want. Like guns, you only use them when you need them. I found nothing in the Constitution, ten commandments or even the code of Hamurabi that says I don't have the right to crank up the tunes right now, at 4:38 AM. But that would infringe on the rights of my neighbors to have a relatively peaceful existence if they want it. Rights are for peaceful people with honor. When they abuse those rights then it is time to punish them, but the trend has been to take rights away. That is impossible. So punish and get it over with, and if that means a hanging, so be it. You shout fire in a crowded theater and someone dies, they are just as dead and you are just as responsible as if you had blown their head off. Rights do not in any way absolve anyone of the consequences of their actions. The problem on this planet is that those who can cuse the most bullshit in the courts win, and the rest be damnned. T^T

Aneirin -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 6:18:14 AM)
T, you have the logic on this one, free speech should walk hand in hand with responsibility for our actions, but I understand responsibility for one's actions appears to be a dying ideal these days, which if true declares that we are in effect devolving into a childish mentality, we are unlearning. Freedom of action and reponsibiity for that action is a balance that should be maintained, as it is the self moderation we can do to ensure a more balanced approach to our modern lives and an approach if we do well at negates the need for external moderators, but I suppose despite how good the majority is, there is always the minority that just don't get it. but if the majority are able to self censure, then they also should have the ability to dumb down the antagonists.

Moonhead -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 6:24:07 AM)
Is it worth pointing out that the Free Speech Coalition is composed of pornographers who (by and large) don't give a flying fuck about free speech so long as it isn't the government taking action to stop them selling pornography? They certainly weren't in favour of Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer having free speech around the turn of the '70s. There's some pretty unpleasant quotations from Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt about how important it was to shut up these whining feminists from back then, if memory serves.

DarkSteven -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 6:31:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin The Free Speech Coalition, aside from the fact that it seeks to support the adult entertainment industry from unwanted government or other authoritarial intrusion, does it not also imply that freedom of speech in whatever capacity is to be upheld ? Or is there freedom of speech and freedom of speech, in that there are differnet levels of freedom in speech that is acceptable ? But, is freedom of speech good for us, healthy, or is it certain forms of speech shoud be filtered out, moderated so to speek, and if so what qualification necessitates another's moderation of the spoken word and it's use in the formation of sentences to make up communicable information exchange ? And, if freedom of speech is not upheld, then what is the point communicating if it appears we are not allowed to speak what our true feelings are on a matter? Now I believe most of us here are able to discern the communication we are reading and fully able to moderate our own use of language, and of course we are fully able to not read what we don't like, so, when external moderation it appears is required, is that not a form of censorship ? 1. Freedom of speech is a guarantee against GOVERNMENT censorship of speech. In my own household, I retain the right to determine what's acceptable or not. Similarly, collarme also rules that are more restrictive than the government's. 2. External moderation IS a form of censorship. But it's not affected by freedom of speech, which applies to the government.

Aneirin -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 7:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Is it worth pointing out that the Free Speech Coalition is composed of pornographers who (by and large) don't give a flying fuck about free speech so long as it isn't the government taking action to stop them selling pornography? They certainly weren't in favour of Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer having free speech around the turn of the '70s. There's some pretty unpleasant quotations from Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt about how important it was to shut up these whining feminists from back then, if memory serves. Yes, I am aware the free speech coalition is primarily aimed at the adult entertainment industry, and by industry that meaning those that seek and derive profit from their actions, but is that saying those that seek and derive profit from their actions are somehow unclean because they are in a hopefully profit making industry ? That is, does anyone that seeks to make money, or in more common parlance, work for a living, are they to be thought of in a lesser fashion, because of what they do ? In which case anyone that says anything through the course of paid work, work, whatever it may be, should be treated as insincere. And then what about those that do not work for a living, are their words worth more than those that contribute monitarily to society ?

RCdc -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 7:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Is it worth pointing out that the Free Speech Coalition is composed of pornographers who (by and large) don't give a flying fuck about free speech so long as it isn't the government taking action to stop them selling pornography? They certainly weren't in favour of Andrea Dworkin or Germaine Greer having free speech around the turn of the '70s. There's some pretty unpleasant quotations from Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt about how important it was to shut up these whining feminists from back then, if memory serves. Yes, I am aware the free speech coalition is primarily aimed at the adult entertainment industry, and by industry that meaning those that seek and derive profit from their actions, but is that saying those that seek and derive profit from their actions are somehow unclean because they are in a hopefully profit making industry ? That is, does anyone that seeks to make money, or in more common parlance, work for a living, are they to be thought of in a lesser fashion, because of what they do ? In which case anyone that says anything through the course of paid work, work, whatever it may be, should be treated as insincere. And then what about those that do not work for a living, are their words worth more than those that contribute monitarily to society ? That isnt what Moonhead was getting at A. What he was saying is that the FSC have no other interest other than making themselves heard or have free speech and that those that oppose them should STFU. How does that advocate free speech?

Moonhead -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 7:20:31 AM)
Not what I'm saying at all, effendi. My issue with the FSC has nothing to do with the form and function of late capitalism. When the first conspicuous feminist presences made themselves felt in the media several of them (most notably Dworkin and Greer) had serious issues with teh pron, and went on record stating that they disagreed with it, and the way it presented and (they argued) exploited women. Hefner and Flynt's response to this was to lean on media outlets to try to keep these nasty feminazi manhaters from talking about them in anything resembling a public forum. Both these fine gents are members of the Free Speech Coalition, despite trying to curtail Greer and Dworkin's freedom of speech, when it came to speaking about them. This is why I find the spectacle of any body they belong to trying to pass itself off as a defender of free speech for all a bit hard to credit.

Termyn8or -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 11:26:11 AM)
I don't think the FSC really silenced anyone. I'm sure WBC has plenty of opinions about porn. Maybe the perception is that the FSC is for porn, but that doesn't mean for porn only I would think. Any group will take members, and people will join for their own reasons. The FSC should've executed whoever wrote HR4260. The FSC should've fought tooth and nail against USC2257. But they didn't, and if that's taken as a sign that they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, the evidence is glaring. Now only the big porn producers can operate, all the little guys are pretty much shut down. Sounds like a Walmart strategy to me, eliminate the competition. So just what does the FSC do ? Collect dues and have pig roasts ? Maybe I'm too far out of the loop, but I've heard no news of any of their actions, in court(s) or otherwise. If the banner is nothing more than a symbol of support, so be it. In the end one must fight for their own rights. If someone else fights for your rights, it is they who have them. Everybody has their own angle. I never heard a peep out of the FSC about USC2257. There should've been a march in Washington over this. Did I miss something ? My conclusion remains, don't believe much of anything you hear and only half of what you see, and don't trust anyone over thirty. (note that I am over thirty) T^T

Marc2b -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 11:42:01 AM)
Great topic. Unfortunately the weekend is upon us and I don't have time to enlighten everyone with my profound wisdom. [:)] Maybe (maybe) on monday.

Moonhead -> RE: Free Speech Coalition ? (3/18/2011 2:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I don't think the FSC really silenced anyone. I'm sure WBC has plenty of opinions about porn. Flynt and Hefner thirty odd years ago, not the group of which they are now members. They didn't silence anybody (unless you consider Flynt buying up and destroying Courtney Love's porno shots after she'd participated in the film whitewashing him at a point when the FSC was up and running) but they did their damndest to silence the first wave of feminists to reach the mass media, and their failure to manage this is more to Andrea Dworkin's credit than theirs. quote: So just what does the FSC do ? Collect dues and have pig roasts ? Maybe I'm too far out of the loop, but I've heard no news of any of their actions, in court(s) or otherwise. If the banner is nothing more than a symbol of support, so be it. In the end one must fight for their own rights. If someone else fights for your rights, it is they who have them. I think the only law that they've actually lobbied against so far is the one that was planned to avoid the distribution of child pornography on the sly, which they managed to kill. Censorship in general, they don't give a fuck about, but they don't want any photographer who might work for them arrested for taking pictures of underaged kids.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875