See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Censorship and Free Speech
Source:
jerf.org
URL Source: http://www.jerf.org/writings/communicationEthics/node5.html
Published: Dec 3, 2005
Author: ?
Post Date: 2005-12-03 08:40:00 by A K A Stone
Keywords: Censorship, Speech, Free
Views: 1496
Comments: 206
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 (1-12) not displayed.
.
.
.
#13. To: 82Marine89 (#12)
well, thank-you for answering. I'd say you're dysfunctional and sick. Since 1980 about 1.2 million Iraqis have died directly due to US policy. If you want me to give you a brief accounting of that number I will. That country did not attack us. Instead, the US intervened into Iraqi affairs to install puppet named Saddam Hussein in power. It is this type of wrong-headed aggression by the US that you support. Thus you and people like you are not only a horrible ugly blight on our country, but you also represent a grave danger to america in that forces will be arrayed against us aimed at destroying us completely because of citizens like you.
I do agree with this statement. But there is a difference between public and private property. Forums are the private property of the owners and, as such, the owners have the right of freedom of association and alternatively the right of freedom of non association. Please read our mission statement on the homepage. I do feel that Zipporah and I very fair. We welcome honest debate and good faith participation here no matter the point of view.
I am glad Freedom4um is here to provide a forum for communication. At the same time I don't mind reminding you that the owners of media have a moral obligation to facilitate communication within our nation. But people get very offended very easily at free expression because our disagreements are so deep. and they love to use their power over the communications mediums as an excuse for squelching the free speech that they do not like.
as you know, Red, the MSM is no longer a watchdog of the government. they're an arm of it. their agenda is to promulgate the false L/R paradigm and to further the NWO agenda. my husband watches it only to hear "what isn't the truth." ;)
I like your new tagline.
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
you're right. The MSM is propaganda. The L/R paradigm is used by those who rule us against us. You & your husband do the right thing in supporting this forum.
I'd say you're dysfunctional and sick. That's what my shrink said. Do you know him?
Quit making sense. You might confuse him. And yes you do a great job. I am definitely a minority viewpoint here and have yet to have my point of view censored.
thanks!
pretty funny, but no I don't know your shrink. perhaps rather than me telling you that you are 'dysfunctional and sick' it would be more accurate for me to say that you are more dysfunctional and sick than is normal. We're all dysfunctional and sick, that is true. But you Marine - you stand out on this score as a real achiever. after all, you support the war, and yet there is no reason for this war. Can you tell me please, where is an example of even one time when Iraqis insurgents or terrorists attacked us here in America? Because you said that one reason you support this war is because you think we should fight them over there rather than over here. But is there an example you can show us of even one time when some Iraqis attacked us over here?
you Marine conceal the fact that you are pro-war on this forum. You censor yourself. Over on LP you openly ridicule people who are anti-war. You do not do that here.
U.S. Embassies and military bases are American soil Iran Hostage Crisis, November 4, 1979: After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the US, Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon released, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981. Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut, April 18, 1983: Sixty-three people, including the CIA’s Middle East director, were killed and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. Kidnapping of Embassy Official, March 16, 1984: The Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon. Other U.S. citizens not connected to the U.S. government were seized over a succeeding two- year period. TWA Hijacking, June 14, 1985: A Trans-World Airlines flight was hijacked en route to Rome from Athens by two Lebanese Hizballah terrorists and forced to fly to Beirut. The eight crew members and 145 passengers were held for seventeen days, during which one American hostage, a U.S. Navy sailor, was murdered. After being flown twice to Algiers, the aircraft was returned to Beirut after Israel released 435 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. Kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988: U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel W. Higgins was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while serving with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO) in southern Lebanon. Attempted Iraqi Attacks on U.S. Posts, January 18-19, 1991: Iraqi agents planted bombs at the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia’s home residence and at the USIS library in Manila. World Trade Center Bombing, February 26, 1993: The World Trade Center in New York City was badly damaged when a car bomb planted by Islamic terrorists exploded in an underground garage. The bomb left 6 people dead and 1,000 injured. The men carrying out the attack were followers of Umar Abd al-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who preached in the New York City area. Attempted Assassination of President Bush by Iraqi Agents, April 14, 1993: The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack 2 months later on the Iraqi capital Baghdad. Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996: A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the US military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack. Empire State Building Sniper Attack, February 23, 1997: A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine." U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998: A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs), and 247 Kenyan citizens. Approximately 5,000 Kenyans, 6 U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. Embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing 7 FSNs and 3 Tanzanian citizens, and injuring 1 U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. Embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Laden responsible. Attack on U.S.S. Cole, October 12, 2000: In Aden, Yemen, a small dingy carrying explosives rammed the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others. Supporters of Usama Bin Laden were suspected. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.
Since you asked & IMO, something in the way of censorship had to be done if it were to flourish.. I let it run as one big flamewar initially because everyone (including myself) still had some grudges left over from FU that were never fully aired. But, it had to stop at some point, or at least be toned down some. If I were interested in keeping it, this would have heppened to some degree, eventually. None of this matters however, because it's LLP's site now, however.. to do with as LLP may see fit. I don't want to come on and monday morning quarterback it and hurt peoples feelings. So, I'll just leave it at that. Additionally, the concept of free speech ends at the private property line. You know, the right to speak freely on public land which you support through your labor and fund with your tax dollars is quite a different thing from expecting to give a lecture from atop someone's coffee table in their living room. That pretty much summarizes my feelings on speech.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
I have never hidden the fact that I support the WOT. Let me ask you something. Why have you become a shill for AKA Stone?
the information you provided is unconvincing. There have been some criminal attacks over a long period of time, but as to who it is that is behind these attacks is very much in question. The Iraqis have not attacked the US, yet the US has attacked Iraq.
if all you can imagine is legal technicalities, then I guess this can be a true statement, if you choose to live in a strange sick paradigm where you assume that only the law defines all standards we live by. If you value free speech, then you will use your private resources to promote it and protect it. The bible says that we should come together and reason with one another. That is a value that you do not apparently recognize, and you feel that it is perfectly OK to squelch free speech if only you own the medium of communication. from a legal point of view it may be legal to squelch free speech if you own the medium of communication, that does not make it right. Your imagination is sorely lacking if this does not immediately come to the front of your mind. The concept of free speech does not end at the private property line. Only a person either incredibly stupid or fascist or brainwashed could think so. You treat the government and the law as an idol. If you don't know what that means, I will define it for you. It means you worship the law.
The Iraqis have not attacked the US, yet the US has attacked Iraq. Unconvincing? That is factual data. They are not criminal attacks, they are terrorist attacks and the people behind them are Muslim fundamentalists. Again, why have you become a shill for AKA Stone?
In 1993 an undercover FBI agent set a bomb that destroyed a parking structure at World Trade Center in NYC and killed at least 6 people. This was terrorism. This was done by an undercover FBI agent at the instruction of the US government. These are facts according to the sworn testimony of the US citizen in US court who actually did the terrorist act. This calls into question all of the 'facts' you mentioned as we just don't know who is behind the terrorism. It is absurd to think that the muslim world is at war with us. There have been some incidents. This is not a war of 'them' against 'us'.
Provide a link to that fairy tale.
Does this mean you support stripping Americans of their basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?
AP Worldstream 09-03-2003 Dateline: WASHINGTON The FBI missed opportunities to thwart the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by failing to heed an informant's warnings, a new book says. Emad Salem, an ex-Egyptian army major recruited by the FBI, infiltrated a group led by blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman as the conspirators planned the bombing. But at a crucial point, Salem had a falling out with his FBI handlers and withdrew from the plot after agents told him he would have to testify in open court, according to the book, "1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI: The Untold Story." "Don't call me when the bombs go off," Salem is quoted as telling the FBI, according to author Peter Lance, a former ABC television correspondent. The Feb. 26, 1993, explosion in the trade center's underground garage killed six people, injured more than 1,000 others and caused half a billion dollars in damage. After the bombing, Salem told the FBI the blast could have been prevented if agents had listened to his advice and placed two of the conspirators under surveillance, according to Lance's book. The book also said law enforcement agencies overlooked evidence in 47 boxes seized three years before the bombing that would have alerted investigators to the terrorist threat Abdel-Rahman posed. The evidence included a bomb-making formula and threats by the sheik in Arabic writing that were not translated until after the blast. The boxes were seized in the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. FBI officials had not read the book and could not immediately comment. Copyright 2003, AP News All Rights Reserved
I'm not going to provide a link Marine. I will only cite that it is history. I first read it from a New York Times article. But it is also published in a book about the incident. The hard cold facts are that in US courts testimony occurred by a US citizen that he himself did the terrorism of 1993 at the WTC at the instruction of the FBI. This testimony was used to convict the Egyptians who were members of the group that pulled off that criminal act. This is history. and it proves that we simply cannot trust the US government to tell us who committed this criminal act or that criminal act because the US government has itself used its own undercover agents among 'muslim' organizations for the purpose of engendering terrorist acts that are then used to justify a broad war against the Iraqis.
see #31 Marine. You are a fool Marine to support this war. When Americans come back with no arms or no legs or unable to walk you cheer for this. When americans come back and have been poisoned by DU dust and thus they can't control their bowels, their intestines deteriorate until they die, you cheer for this. When Americans kill innocent civilians in Fallujah you cheer. When little Iraqi babies and little American babies are born with birth defects because of the DU dust you cheer. As I said 1.2 million Iraqis have died because of US policy since 1980. You cheer for this. Yet there is obviously no justification whatsoever for this aggression. We humans are dysfunctional, sick and broken. It is our condition. But you marine, you love this dysfunctionalism, you love human depravity, you excel at it, you love war for the sake of war. You are the worst enemy of our soldiers who are over in Iraq now. You do not want them to come home, you want them to be destroyed by that war.
does the marine support Bush? A female friend of mine has engaged herself in conversation via internet with various soldiers over in Iraq. One of them is a sergeant responsible for a number of people below him. He said he lost 2 soldiers last week. My friend's soldier friend is on his 3'rd tour in Iraq. He is very dis- heartened. He can't understand why body armour and other supplies are inadequate. He watched Bush's speech the other night and was enraged at Bush. You Marine, you hate this soldier. You want him to die. You want him to engage in a horrible war where he will be at best emotionally wrecked, or possibly disabled for life or killed. This is what you want for him. and yet by your own admission the Iraqis have not attacked us. I asked you plainly and clearly for any information documenting that the Iraqis had attacked the US. ANd you came back with a long list of shady criminal acts committed by many individuals over a long period of time, but none that could resemble an attack by the Iraqi nation on the American nation. By your own admission you simply believe that war is good. If so, then why aren't you over there?
I'll dissent on this concept, Red. For example, I'm not about to listen to an administration spokesperson come and lecture me on the merits of the war or the wonders of homosexuality, from my own kitchen. He's going to shut up and he's going to leave, one way or the other. I'll see to that personally and IMO, I'll be in the right when I do. It's about property rights.. a concept that's, in and of itself, nearly as critical as the right to speech.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
your logic fails completely Marine. Either you are lashing out in confusion without any idea what you're saying or you are purposely dealing with me in bad faith. Let me see if I can communicate through the marine-skull. Free speech is not merely a legal concept. It is a value as well. and people who own the mediums of communication if they support free speech as a value, then they will not gloat over their legal ability to cut people's free speech off. If you cannot follow this logic Marine, then I'd say you're horribly sick and dysfunctional, just as I diagnosed you earlier. Marine is a fellow who supports Bush. marine is a fellow who supports the Patriot Act, and then he tries to accuse his enemies of being against the constitution. Marine is a fellow who supports the war and hates our soldiers.
you make a good point.
Thanks, I think so.. Additionally, with regard to other forms of media (Internet forums, Radio & TV, print media, etc..) I kind of look it like a free market excersize. For every retarded shill that's spouting BS, there's an opportunity for an Alex Jones to break in and provide a a genuine and edifying product. and profit from his effort. IMVHO.
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
Well there is a difference between government intervention on speech and private enterprise.. if someone expects places like FR or some other site to be a haven of speech then they are making a wrong assumption for several reasons.. one is retribution by persons or groups against that particular site.. or the purpose of the person or poster .. such as harassment. If a poster is harassing another person on a site then the owner/webmaster has to attempt to protect other posters from harassment or someone who may be causing the majority discomfort in visiting and posting at that particular site. Much different than the government muzzling speech. I dont know what the issues were regarding you and any other site.. so I can't comment on your experience .. or what your or another poster's motives were or the decision of another site owner.
Click to see: Making a difference in Iraq
I do feel that Zipporah and I very fair. We welcome honest debate and good faith participation here no matter the point of view. I read your mission statement. It's a private website so they can do what they want. They just shouldn't pretend to be a site that cares about free speech or any kind of open debate. If they get their panties in a wad becasue something says something they disagree with, then how can their ideas be right for America. Their ideas and thinking are that of tyrants and murderers.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Open debate does not mean me grabbing you around the neck and yelling at you about my favorite brands of cognac. That's called assault, and it's wrong no matter who instigates it.
And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals - gwbush
You can't do that by typing words on the internet.
To love the government is to hate the American people!!!
Tell that to your favorite RICO prosecutor.
And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve -- I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals - gwbush
Hello all, I just wanted to let you know of a good friend of mine in the
Marine Corps. He has worked for me since he was 14 and I have known his family
since he was in elementary school, so his stories are in no way embellished.
He started his first tour at 19 years old in Afghanistan. Since they were
Marines they were the first ones in to the "target" area of each mission. At
first they were supplied with fresh water, rations and other necessities to "do
their job, and supposedly stop terrorism." As time passed, he and the others
would go several days without food, without fresh water, and without sleep.
They would only get these supplies once the Army moved in and set up camp. He
and the other platoon lived this way for months with no objectives and nothing
else to do but "shoot at anything that moved." He returned to the States after
his first tour for only three months. He continued to say "we weren't doing
anything over there but sweating and suffering--he said it was useless to be
there! Most recently he returned to Iraq (September)and was given a
slightly different mission. Armed with 7mm's, 50 cal's and scoped M16's they
were picked up each morning (either by helicopter or humvee) and dropped off at
a "target area" before sunrise. The only instructions given were to "kill
anything that moves." For the next two months, this was his daily job--shooting
anything that moved, whether they shot back or not. This continued until his
Humvee ran over a landmine, killing the passenger, maiming the other 5 in the
back seat and destroying his own right foot, face and ear drums. I
spent a lot of time on the phone with him while he was in
Bethesda Medical receiving treatment for his severe injuries and also after he
was discharged. He is extremely upset and disillusioned at
this "useless" war and the disregard for all human life. "We shot to kill
anything that
moved because we were told to", he said, and further that "there is no effort
to
restore
peace or supposed freedom to Iraq. We are just killing and dying."
Suicide Hotline! Please hold . . .
thanks for sharing that.
no problem. I would imagine there are more and more of these stories coming home with the maimed and the lucky-enough-to-still-be-talking.
Suicide Hotline! Please hold . . .
ping to right2bear's post above.
That, and your knack for starting
constant flame wars. That said, it is MY site, I will do what I want with
it. When you post articles, you normally post decent articles - but you could
not stop with the troublemaking, much like you are attempting to do here. Oh,
and your attack taglines were bothersome as well. When you went on MY site,
Told me to go f*ck myself, as well as one of my moderators (Mr. Holy Rollin'
Christian that you are), you crossed a line. You do not pay for the band
width there so STFU. It is private property. Don't try to play innocent victim
here - quite a few people here saw your troll tactics on Foil and FU. Even
TLBSHOW was behaving better than you could - you got upset that Dakmar posted a
thread here about 82Marine89 and immediately went to Foil to attack him. Be
thankful I deleted your posts, you made yourself look like a whiney pillow-
humping 13 year old girl. Now, to further "squelch" your *free speech*,
back on Bozo you go you freak. Inquiring minds want to know.
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. That's what I want to know.
I answered these questions once.
Comments (54 - 206) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#14. To: A K A Stone (#3)
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.
#15. To: christine (#14)
#16. To: Red Jones (#15)
#17. To: christine (#16)
#18. To: christine (#16)
#19. To: Red Jones (#13)
well, thank-you for answering.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#20. To: christine (#14)
But there is a difference between public and private property. Forums are the private property of the owners and, as such, the owners have the right of freedom of association and alternatively the right of freedom of non association.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#21. To: robin (#17)
#22. To: 82Marine89 (#19)
That's what my shrink said. Do you know him?
#23. To: 82Marine89 (#20)
I am definitely a minority viewpoint here and have yet to have my point of view censored.
#24. To: Red Jones (#22)
Can you tell me please, where is an example of even one time when Iraqis insurgents or terrorists attacked us here in America?
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#25. To: A K A Stone (#2)
What do you think of how they ruined your site.
#26. To: Red Jones (#23)
you Marine conceal the fact that you are pro-war on this forum. You censor yourself. Over on LP you openly ridicule people who are anti-war. You do not do that here.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#27. To: 82Marine89 (#24)
#28. To: Jhoffa_ (#25)
Additionally, the concept of free speech ends at the private property line.
#29. To: Red Jones (#27)
the information you provided is unconvincing. There have been some criminal attacks over a long period of time, but as to who it is that is behind these attacks is very much in question.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#30. To: 82Marine89 (#29)
#31. To: Red Jones (#30)
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#32. To: Red Jones (#28)
from a legal point of view it may be legal to squelch free speech if you own the medium of communication, that does not make it right. Your imagination is sorely lacking if this does not immediately come to the front of your mind. The concept of free speech does not end at the private property line. Only a person either incredibly stupid or fascist or brainwashed could think so.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#33. To: 82Marine89 (#31)
Provide a link to that fairy tale.
#34. To: 82Marine89 (#31)
#35. To: 82Marine89 (#32)
#36. To: 82Marine89 (#32)
#37. To: Red Jones (#28)
from a legal point of view it may be legal to squelch free speech if you own the medium of communication, that does not make it right.
#38. To: 82Marine89 (#32)
Does this mean you support stripping Americans of their basic rights as guaranteed by the Constitution?
#39. To: Jhoffa_ (#37)
#40. To: Red Jones (#39)
#41. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#42. To: christine (#14)
I do agree with this statement. But there is a difference between public and private property. Forums are the private property of the owners and, as such, the owners have the right of freedom of association and alternatively the right of freedom of non association. Please read our mission statement on the homepage.
#43. To: A K A Stone (#42)
#44. To: Dakmar (#43)
Open debate does not mean me grabbing you around the neck and yelling at you about my favorite brands of cognac. That's called assault, and it's wrong no matter who instigates it.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#46. To: Red Jones, 82Marine89 (#36)
#47. To: right2bear (#46)
#48. To: Red Jones (#47)
#49. To: tom007, Jethro Tull (#46)
#50. To: A K A Stone (#2)
I banned you over other issues and you know this - don't make me
have to tell the whole board why.
#51. To: CAPPSMADNESS (#50)
I banned you over other issues and you know this - don't make me have to tell the whole board why.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#52. To: 82Marine89 (#51)
Inquiring minds want to know.
#53. To: Red Jones (#52)
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
.
.
.