Is it time to put a muzzle on free speech? page 16

[kenn]

Because people do things all the time without thinking about the possible consequences. Do you ever consider, when you see a bunch of people shooting guns in the air in celebration, that what goes up must come down, and at the same speed?

Again relevance

[cori93437]

But you wouldn't shout it in the air, would you. You'd post it on facebook, or maybe a (as you seem to prefer) youtube video for everyone to see. You'd make sure that your words were heard by as many people as possible and make that little girl's life a living hell. And how do you know it wouldn't kill her (or at least her spirit) in the end?

Despite popular belief most states already have laws on the books to address bullying, harassment, and hazing including cyber/online, phones, text, and other issues. This also falls under the "stalker" laws in many states.
There are also specific school policies to deal with these issues.
So yeah... it's covered.
There isn't really 100% "free speech" particularly when you are talking about the things said "to" and "about" a specific person.

I'm not saying that things can't still get out of hand.
Things do.
If reported properly it can most often be handled... but sometimes there are children/young people who are really sensitive or have other issues already that make it too much.
But that's the thing... there are always tragedies.

It's been illegal for teens to drink and drive for how many years... any yet how many die?
So, if a person makes a video and posts it to youtube about how to make those fruity "bombpop" drinks and promotes them as looking and tasting exactly like yummy popsicles... and SAYS it's fine to drive after 5 of them (because they've done it and they were fine LOL)... then a teen drinks 5 of them and drives... Who is responsible when that teen dies in a DUI accident? Or kills other people in a DUI accident?
IMO, the teen is... and ONLY the teen.
That teen KNEW it was illegal and dangerous to drink and drive. But decided to do it anyway because of what some drunken idiot on youtube said.
People are responsible for their own actions. End of story.

[Tercio]

I'm sure this worked wonderfully 250 years ago, when everyone's opinions stopped at our shores. My thoughts however, were along the lines of careless speech that results in the death of innocent people half a world away. It's all well and good to point the finger at the murderers as responsible, but if you knew your words could result in the death of others, would you still say them? Or would you consider that not every culture thinks/reacts the same as Americans and temper your speech?

I'm all in favor of free speech, but I think I would choose my words more carefully, considering the current climate of the modern world.

Ok Nady. I think I get it. You say because of the increasing interconnectedness of the world we should be sensitive of other cultures and (self)censor ourselves to avoid offending them. Well what about if there is something about their culture which I find offensive and others may too. I don't know, maybe something like their treatment of women? Yeah, that will do. Are you going to encourage them to change that? If so, how? Or is this sensitivity only to work in one direction?

[cori93437]

Because people do things all the time without thinking about the possible consequences. Do you ever consider, when you see a bunch of people shooting guns in the air in celebration, that what goes up must come down, and at the same speed?

I already explained why this is not relevant...

And I do not ever see a bunch of people shooting in the air in celebration, because I don't hang around with complete idiots.

[Nady]

Ok Nady. I think I get it. You say because of the increasing interconnectedness of the world we should be sensitive of other cultures and (self)censor ourselves to avoid offending them. Well what about if there is something about their culture which I find offensive and others may too. I don't know, maybe something like their treatment of women? Yeah, that will do. Are you going to encourage them to change that? If so, how? Or is this sensitivity only to work in one direction?

IDK~ Do we sink to their level? Copy their behavior? Or try to change things? Maybe just try to be better ourselves.

I already explained why this is not relevant...

And I do not ever see a bunch of people shooting in the air in celebration, because I don't hang around with complete idiots.

I think I missed that explanation~ and you've never watched news reports showing people shooting guns in the air while cheering their 'victory'

[JoPaleo]

I never said free speech should be stopped. I don't believe it should be stopped. Maybe I can explain it better~

Ever hear of Shannon's law? Words are like bullets~ when used constructively, they do their intended job. Make differences, improvements. But shoot your mouth off just because you can and not care where those words land, then you're no different (IMO) than the gun shooting *right to bear arms* American who's bullet fell from the sky and killed Shannon while she was on the phone in her own back yard. Who's fault is it? Hers?

If freedom of speech was all encompassing, then bullying would be okay. So would slander. But they're not. I just wondered if it's time for our freedom to be tempered with some wisdom~

And IMO, it's the American's fault in the example given. Of course it wouldn't be the little girl's fault. But like someone else said earlier: words will never be like bullets. They are just words. Those words can be expressed through facebook, twitter, whatever but those words will never kill. The person actually shooting a gun kills the person. You say: "those words land, then you're no different (IMO) than the gun shooting" - I guess we can agree to disagree there. So no, it's never time to put a muzzle on free speech, IMO.

It really would be nice if we had absolutely no violence in this world (or would it? hmmm....I think that's another thread on it's own, lol!), but this is what our world is about right now but it doesn't mean that we should put a muzzle on free speech.

[Uncephalized]

I never said free speech should be stopped. I don't believe it should be stopped. Maybe I can explain it better~

Ever hear of Shannon's law? Words are like bullets~ when used constructively, they do their intended job. Make differences, improvements. But shoot your mouth off just because you can and not care where those words land, then you're no different (IMO) than the gun shooting *right to bear arms* American who's bullet fell from the sky and killed Shannon while she was on the phone in her own back yard. Who's fault is it? Hers?

If freedom of speech was all encompassing, then bullying would be okay. So would slander. But they're not. I just wondered if it's time for our freedom to be tempered with some wisdom~

Oh gods, you really don't understand the difference, do you? If someone fires a bullet and it hits someone, clearly they are at fault. WORDS ARE NOT FUCKING BULLETS. WORDS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. For a video to "cause" harm, someone has to choose to act in response to it in a way that harms. This choice is not under the control of the person who said the words. Is it stupid to intentionally provoke someone you know is prone to irrational violence? Sure. But the government emphatically should not be in the business of legislating common sense.

Bullying is characterized by persistent, aggressive harassment in situations where the victim can't escape the bad treatment--this is not the case when someone has done nothing but post a video on a website. This is not an aggressive action, and the people who might be offended by it are perfectly free not to watch it--no one is following them around blaring it out at top volume and forcing them to be confronted by it constantly, which would be bullying/harassment. They freely chose to watch it, and it is their own insanity that then leads to violence in response.

It's also clearly not slander, because it didn't make any false statements that would lead to material harm to a living person. Seriously, these are not complicated principles.

There are clear reasons why these things are exceptions--they are definable and cause measurable, direct harm. Going down the censorship road to appease violent zealots harms everyone interested in freedom--it's how they win and begin establishing theocracy, by punishing ideas that contradict their beliefs with violence.

[Nady]

And IMO, it's the American's fault in the example given. Of course it wouldn't be the little girl's fault. But like someone else said earlier: words will never be like bullets. They are just words. Those words can be expressed through facebook, twitter, whatever but those words will never kill. The person actually shooting a gun kills the person. You say: "those words land, then you're no different (IMO) than the gun shooting" - I guess we can agree to disagree there. So no, it's never time to put a muzzle on free speech, IMO.

It really would be nice if we had absolutely no violence in this world (or would it? hmmm....I think that's another thread on it's own, lol!), but this is what our world is about right now but it doesn't mean that we should put a muzzle on free speech.

You're making a judgement based on your values, your upbringing regarding words. How do you know how other cultures react to critical words? What if what you think is a silly name, they think it's a smear on their honor? To say *words will never hurt me* isn't even true here in America. Ask anyone that's been called 'fat' all their lives.

[Uncephalized]

Because people do things all the time without thinking about the possible consequences. Do you ever consider, when you see a bunch of people shooting guns in the air in celebration, that what goes up must come down, and at the same speed?

Just have to address the physics here--bullets do not fall at anything close to the speed with which they leave the barrel of the gun--this would only be true in a vacuum. Air resistance ensures the terminal velocity of a bullet is much lower than its initial muzzle velocity. It's certainly still possible that it could seriously injure or kill someone but it's not going to have anywhere near the impact energy of being shot on a horizontal trajectory.

[cori93437]

I think I missed that explanation~ and you've never watched news reports showing people shooting guns in the air while cheering their 'victory'

Here you go...

Nevertheless I stand by my last statement...

"Just because people don't necessarily agree with you, it doesn't mean that your right has been removed."

And I do not agree...
What a person says re:speech, in reference to making a video about a religion or a government or whatever... to which a person reacts and murders people.
The ACT of murder committed by the reactive person is where the fault lies.

That's my opinion.

The "Shanon's Law" analogy is not applicable because the person pulling the trigger of the gun which fired the bullet which killed Shannon is an identifiable person who did not intend the outcome, but committed the distinct act (pulled the trigger of the gun), thus committing at the very least manslaughter, not murder (as murder is intentional).

A person creating a video saying that "Muslims suck and I hate them", that person did not pull a trigger, they were just saying stupid things. But may have possibly, MAYBE, angered another person who made a distinct decision to consciously go out and MURDER. That person and only that person who makes the decision to commit the crime bears the guilt at that point.
Big difference.

The bullying and slander laws are also very different...

Re: shooting in the air...
It seems that you're right I've seen that representation in Hollywood movies... sort of a third world thug military coup celebration thing...
I marked it off as ridiculous behavior and moved on.
I'm not aware of any people who would actually act that way... because it's really stupid. *shrug*