Defining the Global "Freedom of Speech"

[MrBishop]

I just know that I'm going to get flack for this but...it's got to be said

We are becomming a global village. SLowly but surely, the internet, satelite TV, Email and the Media are making it easier and easier to spread our words, images, events and opinions to a global market.

Freedom of speech is something that is protected by most nations to one degree or another, as is the freedom of the press, but there are no global rules, laws or definitions as to what "Freedom of Speech" encompasses.

Without this global definition, the rule of the 'lowest comman denominator' is enacted. In this case...complete freedom without limits. Some of you may call this the highest comman denominator, but I'm thining that this isn't the case.

IMHO - no limits = chaos

If you could influence the definition of the 'freedom of speech' on a global scale, what limits (if any) would you like to see?

Which types of messages whould fall outside of the freedoms that we should all enjoy?

 

[outside looking in]

I voted for the miminal limits; those being protection from libel and slander, as well as some restraints on making known information which compromises national (or global, whatever) security. IOW, pretty close to the way the US handles freedom of speech.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

I voted for the miminal limits; those being protection from libel and slander, as well as some restraints on making known information which compromises national (or global, whatever) security. IOW, pretty close to the way the US handles freedom of speech.

No mention of Child Porn as a form of freedom of speech?

Would you consider something like "Denial of the Holocaust" as accepteable? Too easy an answer...you can do better, I'm sure.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

If there were limits, it wouldn't be free.

Who decides where the lines are? Which government? Which church? What if I don't agree with their positions? Who articulates the definition? And who chooses the person/s who form that definition? And how are the voters chosen who select the individual/s who select the committee that comes up with that definition?

There is no way to define what is acceptable and what is not without disregarding someone's beliefs. We are a world made up of a multitude of cultures, philosophies, belief systems and wisdom traditions. I am free to participate in any or none of them if I so desire. Some of these cultures practice traditions that are distasteful to me, but I would never expect them to stop simply because their rituals don't sit well in my world view.

There's plenty of garbage out in the world, not just on the net, that I find abhorrent. But to limit one's freedom to speak what he/she thinks, no matter how vile, I find the most abhorrent of all. I have the choice to change the channel, close the book, surf to a different site, etc. I expect others to do the same. Chaos is not necessarily a bad thing; amazing things can eventually emerge from it.

 

[outside looking in]

Re: Defining the Global

No mention of Child Porn as a form of freedom of speech?

Would you consider something like "Denial of the Holocaust" as accepteable? Too easy an answer...you can do better, I'm sure.

sigh.

Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. That's where you draw the line. Your right to child porn interferes with the child's rights. Your right to freely swing your fist ceases when you get close to my face. Your right to freely spread misinformation ceases when it damages my reputation.

etc., etc., etc.

Denial of the Holocaust should be protected speech. Why would you think otherwise?

This really isn't a difficult issue to get your hands around. The same concept applies to all "freedoms," not just that of speech and press. I'm surprised you couldn't gather that from my initial response.

 

[AlladinSane]

Re: Defining the Global

What do you mean by protected speech?

 

[Professur]

Re: Defining the Global

Have you ever heard of the term Lese Majesty? Look it up.

 

[AlladinSane]

Re: Defining the Global

Are you talking to me? Nope I never heard it...

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

Have you ever heard of the term Lese Majesty? Look it up.

leze majesty (both: l

z m

´j

st

) ([size=-1]KEY[/size]) [Fr. lèse majesté, Lat. laesae maiestatis (crimen)=(crime of) violating majesty], offense against the dignity of the sovereign of a state or of a state itself. The offense as such first appeared in Rome, though not defined with great exactness. Lese majesty seems to have been considered originally as a violation of the fundamental laws of the Roman state, a crime against the Roman people. When the Roman Empire replaced the republic, the crime became an offense against the person of the emperor, but it still included cases that were more generally designated treason; all attempts to upset the state, as well as actions or words derogatory to, or dangerous to, the state were interpreted as offenses against the sovereign’s person. This personality cult became the main element in the term lese majesty, which in time was applied especially to physical or verbal attack on the sovereign. The legislation against the crime passed into Germanic law, and feudal law heightened the personalization of the concept because of the personal nature of the feudal bond. In most modern states the specific crime of lese majesty is confounded with, and included in, the crime of treason. The decline of absolute monarchies hastened the disappearance of the crime, although it remained in German law until the fall of the German monarchy in 1918. While in some modern countries verbal or written attacks on the form of government, the head of the state, or public officials are made crimes analogous to lese majesty, in countries such as the United States that recognize the right to freedom of speech, the concept of lese majesty is severely restricted.

 

[paul_valaru]

I voted no limits, you start with limits, it leads to bad places, as for things like child pornography, I don't see them as freedom of speech issues, the people who make/use it can be stopped under exploytation laws.

People who deny the holocaust can be ignored, which is what they deserve to be, anyone who doesn't want to hear racist bigoted ignorant views can either ignore those people, or argue with them.

But once you say, "you can't say that" it leads to other things, other forms of censorship.

Libel laws should also still exist, if you say something untrue, you should still have to pay for it, I think libel laws are seperate from free speech.

Freedom of speech is a very touchy thing, and I beleive it should exist, but it should also be defined, you can say I hate *insert ethnic slur here* and it's stupid, but not against the law to say it, but if you say *kill all *insert ethnic slur*s to a group, you should be responsible for your actions.

It's a slippery slope, I agree it would be great to shut up all these hatmongers, but to erode a right, starts you on the hill to loosing the right, Fight for your rights, or you will wake up with them gone.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

sigh.

Your rights end where someone else's rights begin. That's where you draw the line. Your right to child porn interferes with the child's rights. Your right to freely swing your fist ceases when you get close to my face. Your right to freely spread misinformation ceases when it damages my reputation.

etc., etc., etc.

Denial of the Holocaust should be protected speech. Why would you think otherwise?

This really isn't a difficult issue to get your hands around. The same concept applies to all "freedoms," not just that of speech and press. I'm surprised you couldn't gather that from my initial response.

I found your responce to leave too many loopholes around. Children's rights vary with nation and state.
Misinformation has it's own interrpretive states. (What one person holds true is not what another holds true).

I agree with the limits on one freedom infringing on another, but which freedoms rule. Do the rights of the child interfere with the freedom of expression of child pornographers or the other way around? Which freedom is being limited?

We take it for granted that certain freedoms/rights exist, but which is more important? They cannot exist on an equal ground or there won't be a stop-point on any of them.

 

[paul_valaru]

I don't find that child porn has anything to do with speech, if it is going to be a global freedom of speech law, then other laws with be expanded globally as well, such as those governing the exploitation of children.

a quote, from the US supremem court, the case was silly, but I like they way they summed up freedom of speech

The constitutional protection accorded to the freedom of speech and of the press is not based on the naive belief that speech can do no harm but on the confidence that the benefits society reaps from the free flow and exchange of ideas outweigh the costs society endures by receiving reprehensible or dangerous ideas.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Defining the Global

I don't find that child porn has anything to do with speech, if it is going to be a global freedom of speech law, then other laws with be expanded globally as well, such as those governing the exploitation of children.

a quote, from the US supremem court, the case was silly, but I like they way they summed up freedom of speech

Nice quote

Here's the thing...the Internet is comsidered a HUGE excersize in freedom of speech. Art is protected under the same term, posters, pamphlets, mailings etc...are also protected under this umbrella.

None of those are actually 'speech' or spoken. That's why I'm asking for a definition of the freedom of speech. What should and should not fall under it's protective umbrella.

One vote from Paul: Kiddie porn is out

 

[paul_valaru]

Re: Defining the Global

Nice quote

Here's the thing...the Internet is comsidered a HUGE excersize in freedom of speech. Art is protected under the same term, posters, pamphlets, mailings etc...are also protected under this umbrella.

None of those are actually 'speech' or spoken. That's why I'm asking for a definition of the freedom of speech. What should and should not fall under it's protective umbrella.

One vote from Paul: Kiddie porn is out

Ok, my defention, it covers all intellectual property, art posters opinions, unless it oversteps onlto someone elses right, ie slander, or libel.

People should be able to say, post write what they want, but if you are saying something is a FACT you better damn well have your backup ie holocaust deniers, they say it isn't real, they say it's a fact it didn't happen, they should be sued by the survivors, for emotional stress, etc.

Kiddie porn is OUT, it's exploitation of children.

KKK shit is in, unfortunately, cause they are expressing thier opinions, but there are ways of handling that, I remember one news story, they KKK had permits for a parade, police needed to proctect them, all their guards that day where african american......I laughed.

I'm afraid that with any limits, more things will be brought under the umbrella of what is NOT protected, KKK is shut up, but then the next week CNN is stopped from telling us what war atrocities so and so (a freindly nation maybe) have done in *pick your political hotspot*

Again, I must emphasize,letting someone say something racist etc. might be a neccessary evil, but putting up with someone inciting a riot is not covered by freedom of speech.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Re: Defining the Global

How would you feel if someone posted Nabokov's novel Lolita on the web? What I consider literature someone else could view as child pornography.

 

[paul_valaru]

Re: Defining the Global

How would you feel if someone posted Nabokov's novel Lolita on the web? What I consider literature someone else could view as child pornography.

erotic fiction, no one was hurt, it stays

BTW great novel.

but we ban that (or any sickos fantasy writings) next we ban Huckelberry Finn due to it's use of non PC language.

then we ban the Bible, cause of the violence.

I know that is too far, the bible thing, but it could happen.

 

[tonksy]

Re: Defining the Global

then we ban the Bible, cause of the violence.

I know that is too far, the bible thing, but it could happen.

actually...if you believe the bible, then you believe that this will one day be true as in revelations it goes on about people renouncing god and banning prayer and all that stuff...kinda makes you wonder...i am sorry i don't have any actual verses to quote but i never really studied revelations much beyond that normal edification....plus *shrugs* if you believe the bible, then you believe you will not be around for this anyway...

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Re: Defining the Global

but we ban that (or any sickos fantasy writings) next we ban Huckelberry Finn due to it's use of non PC language.

then we ban the Bible, cause of the violence.

I know that is too far, the bible thing, but it could happen.

Exactly. That's why I voted for no limits...

 

[outside looking in]

You are not free to commit libel.

You are not free to make public information which is given in confidence.

You are not free to transfer information to a third party which is damaging to a person, company, or government (i.e., classified information, trade secrets, etc.).

etc.



These are all covered by defining the lines between one freedom and another. Perhaps this is what Bish is really asking about... where to draw lines between freedoms. It isn't easy in practice, mostly due to the number of laws that have to be considered, but it is a very straightforward and unambiguous concept. Judge each case on an individual basis, but always use the above guidline for reference; that reference being whether it harms others or conflicts with other existing rights.

For those who voted "no limits" I'm truly amazed. I'm one of those who feels freedoms of speech like the Phelps statue and flag burning are guaranteed by the Constitution, but I'm certainly not naive enough to think that freedoms shoudn't have limits. All freedoms have boundaries; otherwise the entire system of freedom would collapse (anarchy isn't a stable system).

You are free to drive your car... but only if you are of a certain age, physical condition, licensed, only in directions in certain lanes, and only to a specified maximum speed. You are free to fire a weapon, but only in certain places and only pointed at certain targets. You are free to smoke cigarrettes, but not in certain areas. You are free to walk around swinging your fists, but only at an acceptable distance from my face. You are free to say whatever you wish, excepting certain harmful and dangerous circumstances.

 

[paul_valaru]

Re: Defining the Global

actually...if you believe the bible, then you believe that this will one day be true as in revelations it goes on about people renouncing god and banning prayer and all that stuff...kinda makes you wonder...i am sorry i don't have any actual verses to quote but i never really studied revelations much beyond that normal edification....plus *shrugs* if you believe the bible, then you believe you will not be around for this anyway...

It's also all the violence and sex that happened in the past (if your a believer)
smiting, and plagues, and sex, and...man sounds like a fox reality show.

"MESSIAH" Out think Out wit Out martyr