|
| Thread: World Topics 2017 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
posted February 18, 2017 02:45 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 03:00 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
It's not. It proves the point that if you have no free speech, your problem is NOT that you have no free speech.
And on the other hand, if you HAVE free speech, that doesn't mean you don't have any problems.
And while in the past free speech may have been a really important thing and indicator, things are changing, going away from speaking FREELY to speaking TRULY.
I have no problem with agreeing to disagree here. I don't see any practical, factual points you'd make - it's more like an emotional thing.
Nothing means you won't have any problems. That would be utopian. Free speech is not part of any problems though, it's part of potential solutions. An environment of free speech will be more fruitful than an environment of censorship. You can't illegalize lying and "having no problem with agreeing to disagree" is part of free speech, not the other way around. If free speech is no more a problem these days FOR YOU, that's because you already have it. Already having it is not an argument against it and if you are not in favor of putting people in prison for "not speaking the truth," I can't see how the problem of "speaking truly" is in anyway related to your argument.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 05:58 PM |
|
|
I AM in favor of penalizing people who lie in public (basically with an agenda). It doesn't even matter whether they unknowingly lie. With the current ability of basically everyoen to make themselves heard, you cannot just say everything you like. You never couldn't anyway, because you obviously have to respect individual rights (tabloids and VIPs come to mind).
The one downside is that not all facts are openly accessible (there is a lot of secrecy which creates its own problems) - so they who control the truth also control the rest.
Anyway, I don't see how you can't see that telling lies is the problem coming with free speech. Free speech doesn't gain much, if those in power not only keep secrets, but also lie.
I mean, what good is free speech, when you CAN say that voting YES to a constitutional change allowing the president to effectively gain dictator status, when the country is swamped with lies, half-truths, false promises and subtle threats? In fact, if those in favor are clever, they can always point to the fact that people are actually allowed to point to it, that things cannot be so bad.
So, once again: if you do NOT have free speech you have a lot more problems than that, which free speech won't solve. And if you DO have free speech, it's pretty irrelevant with a view on the powers that are.
Free speech is just one puzzle piece and not the most important.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 06:48 PM |
|
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 07:03 PM |
|
|
JJ, <imo> You, "naturally" have focused now on "Content", that seems to be where your Passion is focused in this thread.
Truth is related and important of course but that steers us to a much different aspect that means a much larger discussion and is a broader topic than; whether we have the right to say what is on our mind or not?
You want filters based on your bias, be that good bad or indifferent but I think that is very dangerous ground. Further, we have an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored and that is invasive Technologies that are already blocking free-speech. Unless what has already happened is halted, then worse can happen. As matter of fact many "tools" are already in place and not for good reasons.
You, "correctly", notice that I said correctly please, want Truth to lead public discourse but how the hell can we get there behind a wall of vested-interests already pulling all the levers of Power if we cannot even agree, let alone "safeguard" that inside Free-Speech resides the marketplace of the human imagination & experience where bad-ideas, downright crap and even hostile thinking, etc. can be visibly destroyed by reason? If those debates are cut-down before they can even occur, to expose the growing masses of non-thinkers that are running on pure emotion?
I really do not understand you (that's NOT just on you)in this thread. Though I am making the effort.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 08:16 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I AM in favor of penalizing people who lie in public (basically with an agenda). It doesn't even matter whether they unknowingly lie. With the current ability of basically everyoen to make themselves heard, you cannot just say everything you like. You never couldn't anyway, because you obviously have to respect individual rights (tabloids and VIPs come to mind).
I think it would be easier to try to enforce human sexual behavior than it would be to enforce human tongues.
It would take pages to dissect all of the difficulties on what is or isn't a lie and when a person is or isn't saying it publically.
Enforcing laws on slander or libel are somewhat easier to achieve, but laws related to enforcement on truth: almost impossible. And people are allowed to want a dictator if that is what they want. Dictators have been with us for thousands of years and many of them were popular among both the elite and the common people. That is because to some extent it is integrated into our DNA to desire a strong rule of law and a clear chain of command for resolving disputes. It isn't an urge which can be truly controlled, and trying usually makes the urge stronger. The burden falls on those who think differently to prove that the alternative is more valuable or has more to offer.
Not to mention the political and personal profiteering to be gained by simply charging an opponent legally for a crime against 'telling the truth' to try to destabilize them. That kind of law would be easy to weaponize.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 08:28 PM |
|
|
I think, we have to see that the times are changing.
In much earlier times free speech meant something different than nowadays, because there was no way to ADDRESS a lot of people. That changed only with newspapers. I mean, sure, you can hold a speech on some market place - so what? 50 people are listening, then what?
However, a newspaper means, next day people all around country may read about it.
So at this stage we are ar free speech AND free press, obviously.
Then we got telephone. Then RADIO, and some time after that TV. Satellite links. The internet.
Now, everyone can hold a speech and put it on youtube. Everyone can say everything they want. A plethora of nutcases are doing exactly that. Free speech? Well, everyone is talking, and a lot of people are talking a lot of crap.
Also, a lot of people are telling a lot of lies.
So what is "free speech" actually WORTH now, that EVERYONE can and does utter their opinion on everything, although most people have no idea about what they are opining? And it's not even their fault, because they are simply polled every minute.
Free speech has become a mass article like everything else and completely lost its meaning. Because SPEAKING never bevor was so cheap. (And it isn't the first nor will it be the last thing - try and find "workers" or "proletarians".)
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 08:35 PM |
|
|
Tell that to a Thai person who insults the king, even in a very indirect way. If you say something on Facebook you will be legally reprimanded.
Speech CAN be enforced, even in a social media world, and maybe even especially in a social media world, since it is all available in print. Speech is cheap because we - and many governments - permit it to be. That's not altogether a bad thing.
How do you make it not cheap? You work for it, just like anything else. Among those who matter, a case study means a lot more than somebody theory crafting on Facebook. So yeah, in the 21st century speech has become more inflated because it is used so liberally ('liberally' meaning 'with very little inhibition') but it is still possible to make speech carry more weight depending on what you say and how you say it and why you say it, and with what sources of authority you use. When I say something, people generally value my input more than when frosty says something. That's because I've built more social capital here.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 08:54 PM |
|
|
False information is a plague of our times yes, but the solution is not restricting free speech imho. It is educating everyone to critical reading, and always checking multiple sources.
Things are getting difficult when one side is screaming that New York Times is fake news, because they don't like what they post. And too many people want to live inside their own bubbles, "immigration is bad, so I only believe those articles that enforce my idea of it, all else is fake news" Or vice versa "all immigration is a richness of culture and can't be bad"
More money needs to go into education. And in a way that teaches critical thinking above all else.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:13 PM |
|
|
Look, this is about whether free speech is the most important thing in civilization, and I do NOT think so.
There has been a time where this was a lot more important. But it's only part of the bigger COMMUNICATION issue.
In reality, free speech is, NOW, difficult to avoid or prohibit. It's still the ACTION that counts.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:22 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:56, 18 Feb 2017.
|
JJ, your examples make me think you are mixing apples and oranges here. There are crimes involving words coming out of your mouth but are not related to free speech. If I'm an insider and I speculate the market for profit or if I frame somebody with a crime they are not guilty of with an agenda or if I threaten or coerce someone abusing my authority, these are not thought crimes. Free speech is about speech that is regarding matters of opinion. So if I frame you with murder and you sue me, my lawyer won't be basing his defense on free speech anyway, however if you sue me for a blog in which I wrote "JJ is an ass, I wish a meteor crashes into his house while he's taking a dump," then we are talking about a case of free speech.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:37 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Look, this is about whether free speech is the most important thing in civilization, and I do NOT think so.
There has been a time where this was a lot more important. But it's only part of the bigger COMMUNICATION issue.
In reality, free speech is, NOW, difficult to avoid or prohibit. It's still the ACTION that counts.
This is a case of taking something for granted because it has been around long enough and it is established. We would all still die if we didn't have agriculture, but agriculture in most places is well established and organized and can provide for our needs in great excess. It's not something we think about.
Youre kidding yourself that we can't prohibit speech. You might not be able to strain every grain of sand - and you never could - but you can definitely prosecute people enough to make certain speech have to go underground and become taboo.
Saying that human dialogue is no longer such a big issue is a very absurd and confused portrait of reality.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:40 PM |
|
|
Well, why would I sue you? I'd just blog that I would be so thankful if something untoward would happen to you, that I would be prepared to make a donation to an organisation I've not yet decided.
I could also write in my blog any number of lies about you, connect you with muslim terror organisations and more - provided of course, I'd OPINE it. I THINK you have done this and that, and I THINK you have ties to here and there, and I THINK the world would be better off without you.
Free speech? Nope. War. Because words can be weapons.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:47 PM |
|
|
Blizzardboy said:
Youre kidding yourself that we can't prohibit speech. You might not be able to strain every grain of sand - and you never could - but you can definitely prosecute people enough to make certain speech have to go underground and become taboo.
Saying that human dialogue is no longer such a big issue is a very absurd and confused portrait of reality.
What in this post is not just a claim without any foundation. "Saying X is absurd"? Please.
You don't even realize how you make my point.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 09:48 PM |
|
|
Interesting choice of words, Erdogan said exactly the same while defending the ban of some books, that "some books are worse than bombs."
Framing me with having ties to terrorist organizations would be... framing indeed, if you are not openly speculating but fabricating evidence. The rest would be free speech and since it wouldn't be admissible as evidence anyway, you would be free to speculate indeed. You can't ban conspiracy theories.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 10:05 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Well, why would I sue you? I'd just blog that I would be so thankful if something untoward would happen to you, that I would be prepared to make a donation to an organisation I've not yet decided.
I could also write in my blog any number of lies about you, connect you with muslim terror organisations and more - provided of course, I'd OPINE it. I THINK you have done this and that, and I THINK you have ties to here and there, and I THINK the world would be better off without you.
Free speech? Nope. War. Because words can be weapons.
Just because you give it the form of an opinion doesn't mean one cannot scrutinize the statement within. You could say "I think the Moon is made out of cheese" and far from people being gullible and take your word for it, they would more immediately demonstrate that what your belief affirms is wrong. With an eye on your example, one could sue you for slander and win. Opinion doesn't make whatever you spout inconsequential. But what's that got to do with free speech anyway? Is free speech bad to you because people can make false or uneducated claims? I don't think so.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 18, 2017 11:48 PM |
|
|
artu said:
You can't ban conspiracy theories.
HC could since it is a private website 
But even then not really, since there would be the obvious disagreement about what is or isn't a conspiracy theory in any given instance. One solution is to just appoint somebody to decide what is or isnt truth. Yay! What could go wrong? 
So JJ's modified McCarthyism of prosecuting liars and demagogues would lead to just as much political infighting and targeting as it would on this website. His aim here is to stem the tide of anti-establishment politics through the hammer of the law. It was a dumb idea in the 50s and it's a dumb idea now.
The world isn't going to be taken over by fake news or people that feed on human passion and discontent. Bad ideas might not lose in the short term but they do in the long term. Gotta chill. Drink a beer. Have some kebab. Adopt a ferret.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 12:22 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:23, 19 Feb 2017.
|
Yo JJ, why wouldn't you say that Capitalism's demand for truthful news and all that would ultimately regulate free speech for you? That was your argument a thread ago, how about you help yourself on what you preached?
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 10:16 AM |
|
|
This thread is a good example for what I mean. Look at my first post:
Quote:
I disagree [with the claim that free speech is the cornerstone of civilization]. In fact, I think that jurisdiction and laws are the cornerstone of civilization - we can afford free speech only because there is a jurisdiction that allows to take legal action against abuse of free speech, aka LYING.
looking at "Free Speech" is actually misleading, because the important thing with the "speech part" is, how many people you actually reach. Today, you can reach the whole world, and as we currently see, fact-checking becomes important.
Now what are we arguing about? Are you all of the opinion that free speech is indeed the most important thing? Are you implying that I'm against free speech? What ARE you arguing AT ALL?
Look what your last points are: that free speech is limited by the laws that protect the individual, and that's excatly what I've been starting with.
I*m not arguing against free speech - it's just not the Holy Grail of civilization, imo. Not NOW, when any nutcase can reach the whole world. When you are asked your opinion every step of the way. And when news are fabricated and combined with strong opinions, words can indeed become weapons. Starting with WW2 every critical decision has been accompanied by lots of propaganda. Free speech is, in the end, just a word like, say, "democracy" or "justice" or "equality". It's basically an idea of a principle that a constitution (the law and jurisdiction) should respect and address, in the interest of freedom. Still, free speech will do squat against, say, a law making gay relationships illegal.
In the end, think about religion - which is also free speech (in the sense that a book is written speech). People CLAIM, a creator being said this and that and ORDERED them to do this and that, deckared this and that sin. And as soon as people start to ACT on those words, things start to become crappy. "Free speech" always comes with the problem that it may people bring to do something silly.
That is no argument against free speech, but only the opinion, that free speech must be part of the system of checks and balances as well. It is therefore just ONE piece in the big puzzle of civilization, not THE CORNERSTONE.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 10:59 AM |
|
|
|
If we can't openly debate ideas then there can be no laws worth their salt. Society will only be dictated by the Powerful which usualy means (as NOW) the wealthy. We can have No great Science either, just the powerful saying what is "sound Science"; as a matter of fact that's already happening...look no farther than global-warming. The "Concensus" sounds like corruption coming to power.
|
| |
|
|
