4 ms·

Bravo. In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. and around the world, it's on the U.S. and its citizens to prot

Bravo. In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. and around the world, it's on the U.S. and its citizens to protect free speech and/or show their support for those who have been silenced around the world. If Google does that by donating some money, the message is still very clear and, at least from me, quite appreciated. Freedom is never free, and human life, sadly, seems like the ongoing and unending price.

blazespin 12y ago
This is not about free speech. There is no such things as "free speech" (look what happen to Snowden, for example). Try to publish plans for a nuclear bomb, for example, and see where free speech gets you. Try doing this extreme parody on sacred cows of the US and not expect a visit from the SS - sacred cows, such as certain family members of political entities. This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it. Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc). What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate. That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that. edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that. Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point. I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race. Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion. The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.
- rlucas 12y ago
  That's a particularly poor example (plans for a nuclear bomb) if you're trying to make the case that, at least in the US, there's "no such thing[]" as free speech. In fact, it was a form of plan for an atomic bomb that is the textbook case about prior restraint of speech in the US. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressiv...
  - blazespin 12y ago
    Prior Restrain is totally valid in the US and there are many many circumstances where it can be used. Try breaking a gag order, or tweeting your location while fighting in Iraq. Or quit the NSA and start revealing secrets. This whole idea anyone can say anything is simply not true, and frankly shouldn't be true. Some facts are very very dangerous. I certainly don't want simple plants for bomb making out on the internet.... I'll happily give up certain rights for that.
    - krschultz 12y ago
      You probably shouldn't make any arguments about free speech based on whether or not a soldier can say something. You sign a lot of papers and give up a lot of rights when you volunteer to serve or get a security clearance.
      - blazespin 12y ago
        Soldier, or whoever. It is totally unwarranted to put our forces in harms way whoever you are and such speech is certainly not protected regardless of who you are.
- loceng 12y ago
  Do you honestly think plans on how to build a nuclear bomb is reasonable and in the best interest of society? Banning porn videos with consenting adults that contain spanking in them is unreasonable. Easily accessible information on a step-by-step guide to building a bomb that can kill millions of people, is IMHO, not reasonable.
happyscrappy 12y ago
>In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. What efforts have been made to reduce free speech?
- wavefunction 12y ago
  There are constant and ongoing efforts by groups and individuals to restrict the freedom of speech in America as practiced by others. Timely examples are the "ag-gag" bills being pushed by corporations and the servants in the government to cover-up the abuse of animals at corporate facilities: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/fact-sheets/ag_gag.html http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farmin... There are many other efforts like this but aimed at all sorts of "causes."
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    That would be a dangerous precedent but would eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no chance for the types of speech restrictions common in Europe to be passed in the US. Nazi literature and offensive speech are bad but freedom of speech is mostly needed for speech you do not like.
longlivegnu 12y ago
Why are the efforts in the hands of the U.S.A.? It feels odd, especially when the U.S.A. could very quickly take a policy on censorship.
- tim333 12y ago
  I don't think the efforts are in the hands of the US particularly. It's pretty much global.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  I am not sure where you are getting your info on the US but it would be extremely difficult to enact a policy of censorship. It is political suicide to even suggest it and would need a constitutional amendment.

blazespin 12y ago

This is not about free speech. There is no such things as "free speech" (look what happen to Snowden, for example). Try to publish plans for a nuclear bomb, for example, and see where free speech gets you. Try doing this extreme parody on sacred cows of the US and not expect a visit from the SS - sacred cows, such as certain family members of political entities. This is about athiesm versus faith. It's about the right of those who believe religion to be worthy of extreme parody because they fundamentally disagree with it. Some people in the US are already criticizing Charlie Hebdo and obfuscating this as a free speech issue. This is dangerous because it's trivial to provide examples where free speech is a bad idea (e.g. extreme porn, bomb making, etc). What this needs to be couched as the right for those who don't believe in religion to make fun of it in whatever way they want to - regardless if its Muslim or Catholic or Christian, and that western nations should be willing to go to war over this right, which may very well happen at this rate. That all being said, I do think we could tone down the pornographic satire. Not sure that I'm willing to die for someone's right to do that. edit to add: For those who think "parody" is some paragon of rights we have in the US, try doing the extreme parody that Charlie is doing but with some of the real sacred cows in the US. For example, try that extreme parody with family members of certain political entities and see if you don't get a visit from the SS. Which, btw, I think is very well deserved as I do not believe that should be protected speech. I would have no problem see someone in the US locked up over that. Hopefully, I'm making my point clear with these examples. Some forms of speech I'd be willing to die for, and while Charlie Hebdo is a bit extreme for my tastes, they're certainly close to the point. I think the right to make fun of religion is very important because so much of it's just mystical nonsense that retards the advancement of the human race. Another good example, try making fun of the holocaust in certain European nations. I certainly would not be willing to go to war over that, but I really don't see a huge theoretical difference between that and making fun of muslim religion. The only real difference to me, is that I would be willing to fight for the right to make fun of religion. It's not really worth it to me to fight over the right to make fun of some historical event which, while I have no first hand experience of, seems pretty likely to be true.

rlucas 12y ago
That's a particularly poor example (plans for a nuclear bomb) if you're trying to make the case that, at least in the US, there's "no such thing[]" as free speech. In fact, it was a form of plan for an atomic bomb that is the textbook case about prior restraint of speech in the US. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Progressiv...
- blazespin 12y ago
  Prior Restrain is totally valid in the US and there are many many circumstances where it can be used. Try breaking a gag order, or tweeting your location while fighting in Iraq. Or quit the NSA and start revealing secrets. This whole idea anyone can say anything is simply not true, and frankly shouldn't be true. Some facts are very very dangerous. I certainly don't want simple plants for bomb making out on the internet.... I'll happily give up certain rights for that.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    You probably shouldn't make any arguments about free speech based on whether or not a soldier can say something. You sign a lot of papers and give up a lot of rights when you volunteer to serve or get a security clearance.
    - blazespin 12y ago
      Soldier, or whoever. It is totally unwarranted to put our forces in harms way whoever you are and such speech is certainly not protected regardless of who you are.
loceng 12y ago
Do you honestly think plans on how to build a nuclear bomb is reasonable and in the best interest of society? Banning porn videos with consenting adults that contain spanking in them is unreasonable. Easily accessible information on a step-by-step guide to building a bomb that can kill millions of people, is IMHO, not reasonable.

happyscrappy 12y ago

>In the face of continued pressure to make free speech a little less free here in the U.S. What efforts have been made to reduce free speech?

wavefunction 12y ago
There are constant and ongoing efforts by groups and individuals to restrict the freedom of speech in America as practiced by others. Timely examples are the "ag-gag" bills being pushed by corporations and the servants in the government to cover-up the abuse of animals at corporate facilities: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farming/fact-sheets/ag_gag.html http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/campaigns/factory_farmin... There are many other efforts like this but aimed at all sorts of "causes."
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  That would be a dangerous precedent but would eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no chance for the types of speech restrictions common in Europe to be passed in the US. Nazi literature and offensive speech are bad but freedom of speech is mostly needed for speech you do not like.

longlivegnu 12y ago

Why are the efforts in the hands of the U.S.A.? It feels odd, especially when the U.S.A. could very quickly take a policy on censorship.

tim333 12y ago
I don't think the efforts are in the hands of the US particularly. It's pretty much global.
happyscrappy 12y ago
I am not sure where you are getting your info on the US but it would be extremely difficult to enact a policy of censorship. It is political suicide to even suggest it and would need a constitutional amendment.