The Paradox of Free Speech

[naudiz]

And calling someone a traitor for exercising that right. I think it's interesting, and I wonder what others' thoughts are on the matter.

As for myself, I think one of the greatest things about living in a free society is the right to express oneself, even if that means complaining about the very same society providing that right. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and if people don't speak out, ultimately it's freedom that suffers.

One example is flag burning. I don't do it, and I wouldn't. However, it doesn't particularly bother me. The flag is a piece of cloth, and everything else attached to it is symbolism. Ironically, it's a symbol of the freedom of, among other things, self-expression. To make burning that symbol unconstitutional does it more damage than fire, I think. More flags can be produced, but if what that flag symbolizes is rendered meaningless by a curtailing of self-expression, that damage isn't so easily repaired.

I guess what bemuses me is the idea that expressing oneself is traitorous. It's well and good to go along with the guys in charge, regardless of what they're doing, but is that what America stands for? Is that how our country came to be?

I believe that if one truly cherishes freedom, freedom of speech in particular, then one must cherish it even when someone exercises that right to say something one doesn't want to hear. I believe it was Voltaire who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "I don't support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Rock on, Volty.

 

[Starblayde]

You can say anything you want, unless it offends someone.

Simon Cowell on Pop/American Idol? Yup, thats it

 

[bluespoke]

I believe it was Voltaire who said (and I'm paraphrasing), "I don't support what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Rock on, Volty.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

[naudiz]

Thank you, bluespoke.

 

[REDWAVE]

Yes!

As a political dissident, I know first hand what a cruel joke the "guarantee" of free speech in the Constitution is. You have freedom of speech until you say something that threatens the power of the ruling class, then you are subjected to vicious repression. The massive police brutality at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968, the murder of four students at Kent State by National Guardsmen in 1970, and the recent mass arrest of 650 peaceful protesters in Freedom Plaza in Washington, D. C. are just some of the many examples which could be given.

 

[Lost Cause]

Freedom must be consistent in belief...

From freedom of speech, to freedom to own a firearm. If one is denied, all forms of freedom are eventually denied. Burn a flag, deride your government, protest in the streets, ride your motorcycle without a helmet, or whatever. I defend everyone's right to express their freedom, but you must be prepared to defend mine also, regardless if you participate in it or not. You must defend gay rights as well as gun rights, not so easy of a task for anyone to declare. I don't believe in selective freedom, nor it's use to deny another. Arguments should be based on facts, not emotional (cause of the month club) hysteria. I strongly object to a politician taking the oath of office ("Defend the Constitution"..etc) in the morning and pushing a bill to deminish it before the day's out.
It's a long, slow rode to change.....

 

[bluespoke]

Re: Freedom must be consistent in belief...

From freedom of speech, to freedom to own a firearm. If one is denied, all forms of freedom are eventually denied. Burn a flag, deride your government, protest in the streets, ride your motorcycle without a helmet, or whatever. I defend everyone's right to express their freedom, but you must be prepared to defend mine also, regardless if you participate in it or not. You must defend gay rights as well as gun rights, not so easy of a task for anyone to declare. I don't believe in selective freedom, nor it's use to deny another. Arguments should be based on facts, not emotional (cause of the month club) hysteria. I strongly object to a politician taking the oath of office ("Defend the Constitution"..etc) in the morning and pushing a bill to deminish it before the day's out.
It's a long, slow rode to change.....

Hey LC, I don't believe a lot of what you believe but I believe in Voltaire!

 

[naudiz]

Point taken, REDWAVE.

There is a trend I've noticed on college campuses called Free Speech Zones. There is an article I found on Google about it here, but the crux of it is that free speech (protests, demonstrations, picketing) is only allowed in designated areas. I wish I could find the link to the article where in a recent event attended by the president, people waving signs supporting him were allowed on the street, while people with signs protesting his policies were designated to a 'Free Speech Zone' fenced off and out of the way. Protesters who left that designated area faced arrest.

One comment I heard on the incident is, "I thought our entire nation is supposed to be a Free Speech Zone."

Now, I understand there are some limits to self-expression. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater poses a threat to the lives of others. However, waving a sign that says, "The President Sucks!" being kept out of the way where no one can see it? Something like that isn't threatening the president's life. It's threatening his ego. Last I heard, that wasn't a crime.

I believe in the idea of preserving national security. I think the safety of citizens around the world is of incredible importance. However, murder my ideals, and you're taking away what it is I live for. Not only that, but it does lend an edge of victory to those determined to undermine the spirit of freedom. In essence, it could be construed as letting 'them' win.

Free Speech Zone? I don't like the precedent that sets.

 

[Eumenides]

Please excuse the fact that I am quoting from a movie, but it characterizes how I feel about free speech far better than I could:

The American President--

"The symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

 

[Lost Cause]

Me too, 'spoke!

If governments are allowed to exploit one group, it's only a matter of time before there's noone left to defend!

A good read: http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk/arbroath.html

Scotland Go Forth!

 

[RawHumor]

Re: Me too, 'spoke!

If governments are allowed to exploit one group, it's only a matter of time before there's noone left to defend!

Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but I am.

When people don't stand up for the government doing something to someone because they don't think it affects them, then sooner or later there's nobody left to stand up for you when it's your turn.

 

[Lost Cause]

Agreeing with me...

Is a death sentence here on the Lit! It means so much to me that we all get involved in the processes of government. And to not let it get to that edge of determining whether to go for freedom or slavery.

 

[naudiz]

Wow. Men who can reference the Declaration of Arbroath turn me on.

And you nailed it, RawHumor. This is why I don't get into the political threads so much. It's not about what I personally prefer, but about a guiding principle whose preservation is more important than me getting what I want in the here and now.

As for defending all freedoms, that's a very good point. I know a lot of people who are gung-ho about free speech but would gladly enforce gun control to the point of making owning any firearm illegal. I'm not a gun owner. I'm not a card carrying member of the NRA, but I am against the idea of revoking the constitutional right to bear arms. Personally, I think if they're going to teach sex ed. and driver's ed. in school, they should teach gun safety, too. I learned how to shoot, handle, clean, load, and unload a gun when I was seven. Saved my life once. A friend of mine the same age had her head blown off on accident by her brother, who had gotten into the gun case when his parents weren't looking. The difference there between responsible use and tragedy was education.

Where was I going with this... oh, right! You kids stay out of my booze!

 

[The Heretic]

Re: Freedom must be consistent in belief...

It's a long, slow rode to change.....

That is probably the most cogent argument I have heard anybody make for freedoms yet. Great post LC, but you misspelled road.

 

[Don K Dyck]

Great Thread . . .

Great thread, guys!! . . . freedom by name is worthless . . . freedom is expressed as actions, and "Being allowed" to perform those actions . . . being aloud - speaking out against those government policies that I believe will damage my country, those persons and corporations who would break generally accepted societal "rules" for their own personal/corporate aggrandisement . . .

Freedom is practised . . . by speaking about freedom . . . and by taking action when necessary to remind the politicians that they REPRESENT not rule!!

 

[Guest]

One example is flag burning.

I hear ya on this one. I was truely pissed off when several years ago folks were being arrested for burning the flag, and those that be were trying to pass a law against it. I've never burned a flag, but WOULD do so if I felt strongly about an issue against my government.

Good post.

Moon

 

[Guest]

What a great thread, Naudiz!

Really interesting and thoughtful posts here. Well done!

Is it the candy, or what?

 

[ma_guy]

I don't see the paradox here. While one is free to express themselves that doesn't mean that they have the right to use that speech to subvert the government through illegal means (which is what a traitor does..).

Using speech to incite a crowd to riot, to kill someone, damage property or to attempt overthrow of the government (note that I DIDN'T say "Change the government through means outlined in established law..") IS an act of treason.

The right of free speech also doesn't mean that anyone has to be forced to listen to what you have to say or print your views in publications. The right only restrains the government from acting to limit your speech, not another individual or a business acting on their own behalf. The freedom is a double edged sword.

That said, the use of the word "traitor" is over done. It's used more as a way to tell someone to shut up and quit making a fool of themselves than anything else and is no different than a lot of other tactics and insults used by many of the very people that have been posting in favor of free speech in the various threads today.

 

[naudiz]

I guess I just wonder if the people who accuse someone of being a traitor for exercising his/her rights realize just how ridiculous that sounds? Apparently not.

But yeah, the other side to the emotional-blathering coin is people claiming their rights to free speech are violated if someone tells them to shut up in a private venue. I wonder how many Americans actually understand the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment.

This is yet another reason why I tend to stay out of political debates. I enjoy intelligent debate, but when it degenerates into name calling and bullshit tactics instead of well reasoned arguments, count me out. if I wanted to watch a bunch of monkeys throw their own shit around, I'd go to the zoo.

 

[ma_guy]

Originally posted by naudiz
I guess I just wonder if the people who accuse someone of being a traitor for exercising his/her rights realize just how ridiculous that sounds? Apparently not.

Isn't calling those people names a form of stomping on THEIR free speech too? (and that's a serious question - not just being a PITA!)

But yeah, the other side to the emotional-blathering coin is people claiming their rights to free speech are violated if someone tells them to shut up in a private venue. I wonder how many Americans actually understand the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment.

Very few...

This is yet another reason why I tend to stay out of political debates. I enjoy intelligent debate, but when it degenerates into name calling and bullshit tactics instead of well reasoned arguments, count me out. if I wanted to watch a bunch of monkeys throw their own shit around, I'd go to the zoo.

I thought the political threads WERE the zoo. But seriously, I've yet to find an on-line site where people can have a serious debate/discussion on "political" issues. They all are either controlled (i.e. moderated) by one view or the other or degenerate into garbage. Free, open, rationale debate doesn't exsit on the 'net from what I can see.

 

[naudiz]

Isn't calling those people names a form of stomping on THEIR free speech too? (and that's a serious question - not just being a PITA!)

Stomping on their free speech? Not at all. I'm not doing anything to prohibit them from saying what they say. I'm challenging it, but that isn't the same thing as forcing them to stop. You can say whatever you want, but you're responsible for what you say, and the way you convey yourself is ultimately up to you, but if I think it's a load of shit, I'm well within my rights to say so. This is what my friends call throwing the bullshit flag on a play.

The other side of the free speech coin is someone else's right to tell you you're full of shit. There's a difference between saying, "Yo, shut up, you're making an ass of yourself," and removing a post or wailing at the moderator to ban someone.

In other words, I would never try to ban anyone from calling someone a traitor inappropriately, but I might point out that they sound like a dumbass doing it.

As for the political zoo -- heh. I'll bring one of those crunchy-cones full of goat kibble the next time I wander into a heated debate. Fun for the whole family!

 

[ma_guy]

Stomping on their free speech? Not at all. I'm not doing anything to prohibit them from saying what they say. I'm challenging it, but that isn't the same thing as forcing them to stop. You can say whatever you want, but you're responsible for what you say, and the way you convey yourself is ultimately up to you, but if I think it's a load of shit, I'm well within my rights to say so. This is what my friends call throwing the bullshit flag on a play.

The other side of the free speech coin is someone else's right to tell you you're full of shit. There's a difference between saying, "Yo, shut up, you're making an ass of yourself," and removing a post or wailing at the moderator to ban someone.

In other words, I would never try to ban anyone from calling someone a traitor inappropriately, but I might point out that they sound like a dumbass doing it.

But isn't calling them a dumbass to the exact same thing as them throwing out other insults like "traitor"? For example:

person 1: "The government sucks!"
person 2: "You're a traitor!"
person 1: "You're a dumbass!"
person 2: "No! YOU'RE the dumbass!"

Person 2 first attempts to step on person 1's "speech" and then person 1 tries to step on person 2's and so on..

Whether a post is pulled or not, the intent behind the insults is to get the other person to back down and stop whatever it is that they're saying. They just go into the death spiral of "throwing the bullshit flag" on each other in doing it...

(that example pretty much sumarizes 99% of the political threads out there quite well too! )

 

[naudiz]

*laughs* Another stunning example of why I rarely talk politics.

In theory, the idea of intelligent debate, as far as I can see, is to point out the flaws in an argument in an intelligent and objective fashion. It's when it degrades into emotional outbursts that the point is lost. Sure, you have the right to screech at each other and flail about, but that doesn't necessarily make it the most intelligent option.

There are exceptions, of course. If calling someone a traitor became a serious enough accusation, we could be looking at slander or libel, both of which are illegal. I doubt these arguments get that serious, but it's something to consider.

Example, on another board, one poster said, in reference to a third party, that she abused her child by denying her life-saving medication on a regular basis. That's a pretty hefty accusation, and it turns out the person making the claim didn't have a shred of proof, but she didn't like the woman in question and drew her conclusions from the amount of time the woman spent online (i.e. obviously if she was spending so much time online, she wasn't working hard enough to earn enough money for the medication -- I wish I was kidding, but that was the crux of her accusation).

See, that's libel. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

So aside from wondering at what point calling someone a traitor borders on slander or libel, I don't really care. I think it's a paradoxical statement to call someone a traitor for exercising the rights upon which the nation stands, and that strikes me as kind of funny, but it's not keeping me up at night. It's just one of those things that makes me squint and go, "Huh?"

 

[ma_guy]

Well.. Ok... It doesn't keep me up at night either but I like debating and this was the only thread that I could find where there was a possibility of remaining civil. (SORRY! lmao)

 

[naudiz]

Goodness, don't apologize! We're in the same boat there. I've enjoyed this.