[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Censorship and Free Speech In the United States, we have the First Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees us certain things. 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. This is less of a concern to some countries, such as China. However, modern communication capabilities can affect free speech in a lot of ways, both enhancing and diminishing, depending on how it is used. No matter how you look at it, freedom of speech will be affected in every country. What's The Difference? Censorship and free speech are often seen as being two sides of the same thing, censorship often defined as ``the suppression of free speech''. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this definition, but for my purposes, I find I need better definitions. My definitions have no particular force, of course, but when grappling with problems, one must often clearly define things before one can even begin discussing the problem, let alone solving it. Thus, I will establish my own personal definitions. There is nothing necessarily wrong with the traditional definitions, but it turns out that the analysis I want to do is not possible with a fuzzy conception of what ``free speech'' is. Free Speech It's typically bad essay form to start a section with a dictionary definition, but since I want to contrast my definition with the conventional dictionary definition, it's hard to start with anything else. Free speech is defined by http://dictionary.com as free speech The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government. This definition misses some critical aspects of our common usage of the term. For instance, free speech is of no value if nobody is allowed to listen to the speech; people in solitary confinement have perfectly free speech, but that does not mean that we would have considered it an acceptable solution to lock up Martin Luther King Jr. in solitary confinement and let him preach what he may; along with the obvious unjust imprisionment we would consider this to be an obvious example of trampling on free speech. We should also consider the right to free speech as the right to listen to anybody we choose (subject to possible exceptions later), thus free speech The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public without censorship or restraint by government. I use ``experience'' here as a general verb: One listens to a speech, watches a movie, reads a book or webpage, etc. Since I don't want to define free speech in terms of censorship, lets remove that and put in its place what people are really afraid of. free speech The right to express any opinion in public, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public, without being pressured, denied access, arrested, or otherwise punished by the government. This definition really only applies to people in a government-controlled territory, like a public park. If one looks around at all of the various ways of expressing ourselves, we find that the government does not own very many of them. In common usage of the term ``free speech'', we expect ``free speech'' to allow us to say that a corporation ``sucks'', express our opinions about pop music stars, and review movies, without the non-governmental entities we are talking about, or that own the means of expression, being able to suppress our speech merely because they don't like it. Considering both the target of the speech and the publisher of the speech is necessary. Suppose I use an Earthlink-hosted web page to criticise a Sony-released movie. If Earthlink can suppress my speech for any reason they please (on the theory that they own the wires and the site hosting), and have no legal or ethical motivation to not suppress the speech, then in theory, all Sony would have to do is convince Earthlink it is in their best interest to remove my site. The easiest way to do that is simply cut Earthlink a check exceeding the value to Earthlink of continuing to host my page, which is a trivial amount of money to Sony. In the absence of any other considerations, most people would consider this a violation of my right to ``free speech'', even though there may be nothing actually illegal in this scenario. So if we allow the owner of the means of expression to shut down our speech for any reason they see fit, it's only a short economic step to allow the target of the expression to have undue influence, especially an age where the gap between one person's resources and one corporation's resources continues to widen. Hence the legal concept of a common carrier, both obligated to carry speech regardless of content and legally protected from the content of that speech. The ``safe harbor'' provisions in the DMCA, which further clarified this in the case of online message transmission systems, is actually a good part of the DMCA often overlooked by people who read too much Slashdot and think all of the DMCA is bad. The temptation to hold companies like Earthlink responsible for the content of their customers arises periodically, but it's important to resist this, because there's almost no way to not abuse the corresponding power to edit their customer's content. I also change ``opinion'' to expression, to better fit the context of this definition, and let's call this ``the right to free speech'': the right to free speech The right to express any expression in public, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public, without being pressured, denied access, arrested, or otherwise punished by anyone. There are standard exceptions to free speech, for instance ``libel'', ``slander'', ``threats'', and ``community standards.'' In my opinion, these are not deeply affected by the Internet era, with the exception of what the definition of a ``community'' is. I want to leave that for later. Thus, my final definition is the right to free speech The right to express any expression in public, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public, without being pressured, denied access, arrested, or otherwise punished by anyone, subject to somewhat fuzzy, but fairly well-understood exceptions. It should be easily seen that this accurately reflects what we've known as free speech into the Internet domain (and indeed any other domain with equal ease). We can express, subject to the usual limitations, anything we want on a web page, in an e-mail, or with an instant message, and we are free to receive those expression. Unlike people behind restrictive national firewalls in countries such as China where there is no guarantee of free speech, we are largely allowed to access anything we wish. Though it's not directly related to the definition of free speech, I'd like to add that we expect people to fund their expressions of free speech themselves, and the complementary expectation that nobody is obligated to fund speech they disagree with. For instance, we don't expect people to host comments that are critical about them on their own site. By far the most important thing that this definition captures that the conventional definitions do not is the symmetry required of true free speech. Free speech is not merely defined in terms of the speakers, but also the listeners. Censorship For structural symmetry with the Free Speech section, let's go ahead and start with the dictionary definition: Censorship Censorship is the act of censoring. OK, that was particularly useless. The best way to understand my definition of censoring is to consider the stereotypical example of military censorship. During World War II, when Allied soldiers wrote home from the front, all correspondence going home was run through [human] censors to remove any references that might allow someone to place where that soldier was, what that soldier was armed with, etc. The theory was that if that information was removed, it couldn't end up in the hands of the enemy, which could be detrimental to the war effort. The soldier (sender) sent the message home (receiver) via the postal service as a letter (medium). The government censors intercepted that message and modified it before sending it on. If the censor so chose, they could even completely intercept the letter and prevent anything from reaching home. This leads me naturally to my basic definition of censorship: Censorship Censorship is the act of changing a message, including the change of deletion (complete elimination of the message), between the sender and the receiver. Censorship is not always evil; few would argue that when practiced responsibly, military censorship as described above is truly ethically wrong. Censorship is a tool like anything else, it can be used to accomplish good or evil. But like war, censorship must be used sparingly, and only when truly necessary. The Middleman - Not Censorship There is one last thing that we must take into account, and that is the middleman. Newspapers often receive a press release, but they may process, digest, and editorialize on the basis of that press release, not simply run the press release directly. The Internet is granting astonishing new capabilities to the middlemen, in addition to making the older ways of pre-processing information even easier, and we should not label those all as censorship. Fortunately, there is a simple criterion we can apply. Do both the sender and the receiver agree to use this information middleman? If so, then no censorship is occurring. This seems intuitive; newspapers aren't really censoring, they're just being newspapers. You could look at this as not being censorship only as long as the middlemen are being truthful about what sort of information manipulation they are performing. You could equally well say that it is impossible to characterize how a message is being manipulated because a message is such a complicated thing once you take context into account. Basically, since this is simply a side-issue that won't gain us anything, so we leave it to the sender, receiver, and middleman to defend their best interests. It takes the agreement of all three to function, which can be removed at any time, so there is always an out. For example, many news sites syndicate headlines and allow anybody to display them, including mine. If a news site runs two articles, one for some position and one against, and some syndication user only runs one of the stories, you might claim that distorts the meaning of the original articles taken together. Perhaps this is true, but if the original news site was worried about this occurring, perhaps those stories should not have been syndicated, or perhaps they should have been bound more tightly together, or perhaps this isn't really a distortion. Syndication implies that messages will exist in widely varying contexts. Like anything else, there is some flex room here. The really important point is to agree that the criterion is basically correct. We can argue about the exact limits later. So, my final definition: censorship Censorship is the act of changing a message, including the act of deletion, between the sender and the receiver, without the sender's and receiver's consent and knowledge. In terms of the communication model, censorship occurs when somebody interrupts or interferes with the medium such that a message is tampered with while traveling from the sender to the receiver. The Difference Going back to the original communication model I outlined earlier, the critical difference between the two definitions becomes clear. Free speech is defined in terms of the endpoints, in terms of the rights of the senders and receivers. Censorship is defined in terms of control over the medium. The methods of suppressing free speech and the methods of censoring are very different. Suppression of free speech tends to occur through political or legal means. Someone is thrown in jail for criticizing the government, and the police exert their power to remove the controversial content from the Internet. On the receiver's side, consider China, which is an entire country who's government has decided that there are publicly available sites on the Internet that will simply not be available to anybody in that country, such as the Wall Street Journal. Suppressing free speech does not really require a high level of technology, just a high level of vigilance, which all law enforcement requires anyhow. Censorship, on the other hand, is taking primarily technological forms. Since messages flow on the Internet at speeds vastly surpassing any human's capabilities to understand or process, technology is being developed that attempts to censor Internet content, with generally atrocious results. (A site called Peacefire http://www.peacefire.org has been good at documenting the failures of some of the most popular censorware, as censoring software is known.) Nevertheless, the appeal of such technology to some people is such that in all likelihood, money will continue to be thrown at the problem until some vaguely reasonable method of censorship is found. Combating Censorship and Free Speech Suppression The ways of combating suppression of free speech and censorship must also differ. Censorship is primarily technological, and thus technological answers may be found to prevent censorship, though making it politically or legally unacceptable can work. Suppression of free speech, on the other hand, is primarily political and legal, and in order to truly win the battle for free speech, political and legal power will need to be brought to bear. These definitions are crafted to fit into the modern model of communication I am using, and I have defined them precisely enough that hopefully we can recognize it when we see it, because technology-based censorship can take some truly surprising forms, which we'll see as we go. Summary * Free speech is the right to express any expression in public, and the corresponding right to experience anybody's expressions in public, without being pressured, denied access, arrested, or otherwise punished by anyone, subject to somewhat fuzzy, but fairly well-understood exceptions. * Censorship is the act of changing a message, including the act of deletion, between the sender and the receiver, without the sender's and receiver's consent and knowledge.
[Thread Locked] Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-157) not displayed.
#158. To: Jhoffa_ (#155)
Why are you continuously on the internet, especially on websites that I appear?
Because I enjoy it.. Why are you constantly popping up on places I frequent?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Its way too much.
Yes..
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Being an American, I don't advocate POT Parties ... but of course, its just a personal opinion.
Me either.. I think there's a long term damage issue that remains unaddressed. Anecdotal evidence? Maybe..
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Real Americans don't advocate POT. Of course, you knew that, didn't ya?
Well, I don't advocate pot.. No.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Well of course, you believe in governemt structures to ensure your goddamned existence.
Suppose our entire circuit consisted of a 2 Meg resistor.. That's allot of load.. Shit. How can we design the circuit to reduce that?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
And some purple, 14 ga wire. Of course.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
What happens you take away the guns, too? Take away the pot, take away ... just take away all aspects of personal liberty?
I'll do that tomorrow.. right now, I'm wanting to reduce the load on this circuit. 2 Megs, 14 gauge wire (figure 2 feet of it) ?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Or make the wire 12 gauge, if that's easier.. with green insulation. Still 2 feet, though...
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
I like 12AWG, myself. Its strong stuff capable of energy handling stuff.
Okay, so it's 12 AWG. (green) Now.. ?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Beats me. As always you totally suck.
Gotcha.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Bonus Question.. How many CONTINUOUS amps can you pull through your favored 12 AWG wire if the insulation is DARK blue?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Depends upon my length.
Good answer.. 1 foot.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
How much length ya need?
a foot
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
I see that you are leading the Spanish Inquistion, tonite. Man, as always you perform some weird shit.
You want one foot of wire to handle 15 watts of BS?
Well, it's not entirely my fault. I ate at Taco Bell. And you're not designing circuits, buck.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Lets place yourself into pespective, shall we?
Its all your fault.
You can't lie among us that known you .. can you? You aren't playing with us that have known you for over six years?
Change it to a 0ne watt LED. Other than that if it a 15 watt resistive load - that's what is is.
Your a liar. You add no intellect to any conversation. I went on marines thread posted by dakmar and said he was ok. Go back and read it you lame ass. Marine called me names on the thread at foil before I ever said a word about him. No censorship for the marine. He supports faggots and he said his sister was a lesbian. I commented maybe he was a carrier of the gay gene and you deleted that. I wasn't banned. I then posted two articles about free speech. You deleted them both. Because you are not a free speech advocate. I agree it's your board and you can ban me if you want. That doesn't change the fact that you are very shallow. All you post is pics of men rubbed down with vaseline. What does that add to any conversation. Other than that have a nice day.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
why don't you support our troops and want to bring them home. Because he was brainwashed to love the government no matter what.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Quit lying.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Then why did you delete a thread on free speech. Because you are a liar that's why.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Good answer.. Bonus question: Can you tell the age of a fruitcake by counting it's rings?
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
I guess it's time to tell us the truth.
Oh no .. all he cares about his government freebies. I asked him once if Mexicans hurt his business. He said no they work for me. He's part of the problem.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
That's a lie. Deleter of free speech articles. Your posting on this board to a thread that you deleted on your forum. That's strange.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
quit sending me pm's asshole
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Yeah he said 80 percent of them are mexicans. Like I said he is part of the problem. Lucky he doesn't live in Alabama where they just passed a law against that kind of shit.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
what I want to know is - why do you support this war? why do you support the Patriot Act? Why do you support Bush? why don't you support our troops and want to bring them home. Because he was brainwashed to love the government no matter what. I saw the Marine making comments on LP. He is an extremely pro-war type. He ridicules those who are not pro-war. He hates arabs like a klansman. he is extremely pro-bush. He supports the Patriot Act. If he does not support these things, then he should say so. If he does, then he should justify it. When I asked him for justification of the war - he said that in 1979 some IRANIAN students held hostage 50 americans who were later released unharmed. and he said that this is the justification for the American persecution of Iraq. Since 1980 there have been 1.2 million Iraqis killed because of the effects of US policies on Iraq. And the fact that a neighboring country's radical students held hostage 50 americans is his justification. I'm not making that up. If I'm wrong, then please let the Marine speak. I contend that anybody who is pro-war in this case is anti-American. As an American I don't really like the Marine's point of view. I've asked for explanations and clarifications. And I've received some excuses from the Marine, but nothing really satisfying as explanations or clarifications or justifications. If I am wrong, then please let the Marine speak. I also don't think the Marine has a reason for complaint of my focus on him - because the Marine started a vanity thread for the purpose of saying that Coral Snake was no good and should not be welcome here. I am going a lot easier on the Marine than the Marine was on Coral Snake. Coral Snake posts articles of substance here. the bible says we should come together and reason with one another. I am asking the Marine to do that.
Comments (199 - 206) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||