7 ms·

This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. I think I've heard that video games th

by csense 14y ago

This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. I think I've heard that video games that feature Nazis -- even if they're strictly enemies -- can't be sold in France and Germany. It really makes you appreciate how powerful the US Constitution is. Maybe the Tea Party was on to something...

chunkyslink 14y ago
> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. Seems Bradley Manning was as naive as you. You are of course joking right? I'd like to draw your attention to this if you think that freedom of speech in the USA is any better than anywhere else. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/...
- csense 14y ago
  The Manning case is a little different than this. He systematically leaked tons of classified information that he had access to as part of his job. I'm not going to take the discussion off topic by taking a position either way on whether his actions were right or wrong. I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified, but also believe that criminalization of the burning poppy and "die and go to hell" comment discussed in the article goes too far. (Interestingly, "criminalization" isn't a word in my browser's spellcheck dictionary, but "decriminalization" is. I'm running Chromium 20.0.1132.47 (the latest in the main repos as of this writing) on Linux Mint 13.)
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified Torture is never justified.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      csense never said it was.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        I never said he did.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    Bradley Manning is not a case of free speech. He only ever had access to the information he leaked under a completely unambiguous agreement with the US government to maintain the secrecy of it. That, of course, does not justify torture. Even in a theoretical Jack Bauer world where it's OK to torture the bad guy to find out where the bomb is, it is clear that Manning had no such information. He should be tried in a court of law and be punished, for what he did was unambiguously criminal, but he, like anybody else, enjoys the constitutions protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
tomflack 14y ago
> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. That made me cringe. A lot. My first-world western country doesn't live up to your "standards" of freedom of speech because we have different standards. We value speech differently.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. Whatever else you can say about the US, our First Amendment is rightfully the envy of the world.
  - nsns 14y ago
    And your Second its cause for constant anxiety.
    - csense 14y ago
      Your anxiety is misplaced. I've lived in the US my entire life and I've never witnessed a crime involving firearms. If gunpowder had just been invented, and guns only existed in the hands of a few companies, scientists, and inventors, then gun control might work. But since the USA was originally (from Europe's viewpoint) a vast, wild frontier, guns have been very common throughout the USA for all of its history. Pretend that firearms were magically outlawed in the US tomorrow. But there are millions already in circulation. So people who are determined to get a gun, aren't concerned about following the law, and are willing and able to pay, would certainly still have access to the weapons. A firearm ban would only punish conscientious, law-abiding citizens who want firearms because they're a fun hobby, or to protect their families from armed criminals. And then there's the other reason for the Second Amendment: Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever. If a future US government somehow manages to undo all the Constitutional safeguards and exercise unchecked power, or finds some clever way to be really crappy to the citizens while remaining within the letter of the law and the Constitution, the people can always withdraw their consent to be governed, and, being armed, can have a decent chance of winning. Remember that the Second Amendment was approved not long after the USA's independence from Great Britain, and its authors had personal experience with armed revolution against an oppressive government. Many people who are unfamiliar with firearms tend to have a visceral reaction: They're scary and bad. Think about how many people who are unfamiliar with computers tend to have a similar reaction. Try to move past your prejudice and try to find reasons for your beliefs. If you can, great -- let's have a debate! If you can't, please spend 30 minutes thinking about your worldview; try to make it logical and consistent by changing beliefs and/or thinking up new lines of reasoning.
arrrg 14y ago
No, there are countries that do not agree with the moral evaluation of freedom of speech that the US constitution and the Supreme Court made and make. There is nothing to live up to. It’s not an issue of progress, it’s on issue of a different moral worldview. Americans taking freedom of speech on top of everything else as axiomatic are ridiculous and arrogant. I think freedom of speech is important and I do think what happens in the UK is overreach, but I personally prefer putting human dignity above freedom of speech.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  No, there are countries that do not agree with the moral evaluation of freedom of speech that the US constitution and the Supreme Court made and make. That's not quite the right way to look at it. The right way to look at it is to understand that the authors of the US constitution didn't believe that any state-sanctioned approval of its citizens' speech was "moral." (Whether their intent has been faithfully upheld by later jurists and legislators is a different question.) I think freedom of speech is important and I do think what happens in the UK is overreach, but I personally prefer putting human dignity above freedom of speech. Keep thinking the issue through. You will eventually find yourself wondering how it can be moral for you (to say nothing of "dignified") to use violence to keep your fellow citizens or subjects from saying original but forbidden things.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    I think my statement is quite correct and your reframing doesn’t change anything about that. It is and remains a moral evaluation. Plus the believe of the axiomatic nature of freedom of speech just drips out of you. We just have different perspectives, I guess. No, I don’t think using violence to prevent speech always has to take away dignity. It does in the vast majority of cases, not every case, though.
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      "Arrogance?" That's amusing, coming from someone who apparently believes that it's moral to tell other people what they can say.
tommi 14y ago
> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp There is still lot to improve in most of the countries.
kevinprince 14y ago
RE Nazis: In Germany it is ilegal to display the Swastika and deny that the holocaust happened. Call of Duty sold very well in Germany, the enemies just didnt have Swastika's on and had green blood.
glomph 14y ago
Can you imagine if there was a comment like this in response to every article about how terrible the United States is in terms of Human Rights Issues saying 'We have to remember that the United States doesn't really live up to First World Standards with respect to [list omitted for brevity]' http://www.hrw.org/united-states/ http://www.hrw.org/united-states/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2012 https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2012

by csense 14y ago

chunkyslink 14y ago

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. Seems Bradley Manning was as naive as you. You are of course joking right? I'd like to draw your attention to this if you think that freedom of speech in the USA is any better than anywhere else. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/...

csense 14y ago
The Manning case is a little different than this. He systematically leaked tons of classified information that he had access to as part of his job. I'm not going to take the discussion off topic by taking a position either way on whether his actions were right or wrong. I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified, but also believe that criminalization of the burning poppy and "die and go to hell" comment discussed in the article goes too far. (Interestingly, "criminalization" isn't a word in my browser's spellcheck dictionary, but "decriminalization" is. I'm running Chromium 20.0.1132.47 (the latest in the main repos as of this writing) on Linux Mint 13.)
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > I just want to point out that it wouldn't be logically inconsistent to believe that Manning's treatment was justified Torture is never justified.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    csense never said it was.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I never said he did.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Bradley Manning is not a case of free speech. He only ever had access to the information he leaked under a completely unambiguous agreement with the US government to maintain the secrecy of it. That, of course, does not justify torture. Even in a theoretical Jack Bauer world where it's OK to torture the bad guy to find out where the bomb is, it is clear that Manning had no such information. He should be tried in a court of law and be punished, for what he did was unambiguously criminal, but he, like anybody else, enjoys the constitutions protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

tomflack 14y ago

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. That made me cringe. A lot. My first-world western country doesn't live up to your "standards" of freedom of speech because we have different standards. We value speech differently.

CamperBob2 14y ago
Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. Whatever else you can say about the US, our First Amendment is rightfully the envy of the world.
- nsns 14y ago
  And your Second its cause for constant anxiety.
  - csense 14y ago
    Your anxiety is misplaced. I've lived in the US my entire life and I've never witnessed a crime involving firearms. If gunpowder had just been invented, and guns only existed in the hands of a few companies, scientists, and inventors, then gun control might work. But since the USA was originally (from Europe's viewpoint) a vast, wild frontier, guns have been very common throughout the USA for all of its history. Pretend that firearms were magically outlawed in the US tomorrow. But there are millions already in circulation. So people who are determined to get a gun, aren't concerned about following the law, and are willing and able to pay, would certainly still have access to the weapons. A firearm ban would only punish conscientious, law-abiding citizens who want firearms because they're a fun hobby, or to protect their families from armed criminals. And then there's the other reason for the Second Amendment: Revolution is the final defense against tyranny. Power corrupts, and the people who started the USA were under no illusions that the government they created was perfect and would remain so forever. If a future US government somehow manages to undo all the Constitutional safeguards and exercise unchecked power, or finds some clever way to be really crappy to the citizens while remaining within the letter of the law and the Constitution, the people can always withdraw their consent to be governed, and, being armed, can have a decent chance of winning. Remember that the Second Amendment was approved not long after the USA's independence from Great Britain, and its authors had personal experience with armed revolution against an oppressive government. Many people who are unfamiliar with firearms tend to have a visceral reaction: They're scary and bad. Think about how many people who are unfamiliar with computers tend to have a similar reaction. Try to move past your prejudice and try to find reasons for your beliefs. If you can, great -- let's have a debate! If you can't, please spend 30 minutes thinking about your worldview; try to make it logical and consistent by changing beliefs and/or thinking up new lines of reasoning.

arrrg 14y ago

No, there are countries that do not agree with the moral evaluation of freedom of speech that the US constitution and the Supreme Court made and make. There is nothing to live up to. It’s not an issue of progress, it’s on issue of a different moral worldview. Americans taking freedom of speech on top of everything else as axiomatic are ridiculous and arrogant. I think freedom of speech is important and I do think what happens in the UK is overreach, but I personally prefer putting human dignity above freedom of speech.

CamperBob2 14y ago
No, there are countries that do not agree with the moral evaluation of freedom of speech that the US constitution and the Supreme Court made and make. That's not quite the right way to look at it. The right way to look at it is to understand that the authors of the US constitution didn't believe that any state-sanctioned approval of its citizens' speech was "moral." (Whether their intent has been faithfully upheld by later jurists and legislators is a different question.) I think freedom of speech is important and I do think what happens in the UK is overreach, but I personally prefer putting human dignity above freedom of speech. Keep thinking the issue through. You will eventually find yourself wondering how it can be moral for you (to say nothing of "dignified") to use violence to keep your fellow citizens or subjects from saying original but forbidden things.
- arrrg 14y ago
  I think my statement is quite correct and your reframing doesn’t change anything about that. It is and remains a moral evaluation. Plus the believe of the axiomatic nature of freedom of speech just drips out of you. We just have different perspectives, I guess. No, I don’t think using violence to prevent speech always has to take away dignity. It does in the vast majority of cases, not every case, though.
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    "Arrogance?" That's amusing, coming from someone who apparently believes that it's moral to tell other people what they can say.

tommi 14y ago

> This is a reminder that even First World nations don't always live up to US standards with respect to freedom of speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp There is still lot to improve in most of the countries.

kevinprince 14y ago

RE Nazis: In Germany it is ilegal to display the Swastika and deny that the holocaust happened. Call of Duty sold very well in Germany, the enemies just didnt have Swastika's on and had green blood.

glomph 14y ago

Can you imagine if there was a comment like this in response to every article about how terrible the United States is in terms of Human Rights Issues saying 'We have to remember that the United States doesn't really live up to First World Standards with respect to [list omitted for brevity]' http://www.hrw.org/united-states/ http://www.hrw.org/united-states/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2012 https://www.amnesty.org/en/region/usa/report-2012