89transam

I had an argument with someone about this the other day. I argued that we should limit free speech as it can sometimes be a saftey issue, such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded building. To me it is even more important now that terrorism is such a threat, if we limit the channels they can communicate in perhaps they will be less effective?

Interested to see what you guys think

__________________
I'd rather be rich than stupid.

vox_rox

As a Canadian, I maybe have a different take on this, especially since we have somewhat different laws when it comes to these types of things.

However, having said that, I honestly can't see how you can use a word like "freedom" and then say you want to "limit" it. Which is it? If, in fact, you want to limit free speech, then that is to say that you want to revoke the right to free speech and replace it with certain limited ability to express yourself within the confines of new legislation.

Simply put, do what you want, but call it what it is. Limited Free Speech is not "Free Speech." Period.

So, do it. Take away the right to express one self freely. Take away the right public assembly. Take it all away. It's only a constitution anyway, and I'm sure the framers had a reasonable expectation that someday, someone like Geo. W. Bush would find a perfectly good reason to thrust the country into a state a martial law simply because a badly conceived war on terror, a foolhardy war in a foreign country, and an innate inability of a commander in chief to function on any recognizable intellectual level.

The slippery slope starts with the smallest of concessions, and ends with the most appalling violations of rights and trusts, and ANY limit placed on your freedoms, especially for no proven good reason, are the first step down, and the footing just gets worse from there.

Peace,

Pierre

__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---

Willravel

Freedom of spech is meant to safeguard truth. If I am privy to something bad and I can't tell anyone, then the truth is hindered. If I figure something out and can't share the information, that information will be lost with me. While it's obviously wrong to lie or mislead, it is (imo) more imporant to always have acces to and be able to share the truth. Yelling 'Fire' in a crowded building can actually lead to being charged with malicious mischeif, disturbing the peace, inciting a riot, and any injuries that result from the act.

Lebell

It would be sad if we (the US) put limits on on-line communications. I would rather keep things as free as we have been, lest we emulate Europe or...Canada

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Coppertop

If I wanted that I'd move to China thankyouverymuch.

Zyr

Considering the spread out nature of the internet, if the US wants to try to limit speech online, I'd love to see them try. No other country would be stupid enough to try to limit it's people's rights. They wouldn't stand for it. Of course, if it's in the name of "The War on Terror" then what person would oppose it? You wouldn't want to be labeled a terrorist, would you?

What good would limiting speech on the internet do anyway? What are people going to be saying that would help terrorists?

__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."

Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602

mackyroo

If advocating, protesting, or whatever may come to keep Freedom of Speech in America - labels one as a terrorist, who are we fighting now?

__________________
Official Bullshit.

shakran

Ben Franklin answered your question 200 years ago:

What's the point of defeating the terrorists if doing so changes us into an anti-American society?

Redlemon

I can't think of an example where this would work. Can you give me a concrete example of limiting a communication channel?

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

vox_rox

Yup, I'd put a smiley there too Lebell! You crack me up. Emulate Canada? Europe? Man, I just about peed my pants, and I'm FROM Canada.

Peace,

Pierre

__________________
---
There is no such thing as strong coffee - only weak people.
---

Master_Shake

I honestly don't see the connection. How would limiting free speech online deter terrorism? What kind of limitations are you talking about?

Are you advocating that we eliminate all anonymity in online speech?

Are you suggesting that we should prohibit speech on certain topics?

Are you considering that expressing certain viewpoints should be criminal?

I think any of the above are terrible ideas - see John Stuart Mill at http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/free/Mill_w.html - but if you come up with some other proposal I would be happy to consider it.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

archpaladin

There are a couple of things we need to note on this one:

Firstly, you can't really limit a communcations channel at all. This particularly goes for electronic communications. As long as some form of networking exists, you can hide information in data transfer in countless ways (a famous eg. is steganography), and the people who are often the most clever in coming up with new ways to talk are the people that really need to say something. The alternative is to cut off internet communcation, but do that and you'll have an army of internet-addiction-withdrawn preteens quickly mobilized into an army. Not to mention the disruption to business.

Second, because you can't limit a communications channel, you can't limit free speech either, because people can always use covert means of communication to say whatever they want. The people whose speech ends up getting restricted are generally people whose speech you don't need to restrict, ie. the law-abiding citizens. Not to mention that this breeds a growing distrust of government, which leads to Very Bad Things.

The best alternative, in my view, is to encourage free expression, not limit it. Open expression allows people to get ideas out in the open and can allow society to moderate its own discussion. In the same mindset, the best defense against terrorism is to know and understand your neighbors, because this way you build a web of trust and a close-knit community. Then you don't have to pose questions like these.

__________________
This space not for rent.

Lebell

Last time I checked, the governments of certain countries (cough..canada..cough) put limits on what their news agencies could report and citizens of those countries had to go online to get their news from other countries (cough..the US..cough).

And just because you like them, here's another

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ObieX

I would just type, "NO" but there is a minimum letter requirement to post.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Redlemon

Yo! 89transam! You coming back to this thread or what?

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

RogueHunter65

How would limiting the use of online speach for the masses deter terrorists? Why would this be effective?

First of all, If they wanted to talk to each other to plot something, I think they could get around any type of block the government could insititute.

Also, If I was a terrorist, I would not use the internet to communicate at all. It leaves too much of a trace to my location. I would use a satelite phone instead.

In my opinion, We should not limit free speach for on-line communication

__________________
I suffer from amnesia and deja vu at the same time... I think I have forgotten this before

WillyPete

I think the internet will develop it's own social rules that will transcend national rules.
Social mores will have a lot more to play in this than people asking for control.

Here at TFP we can talk about pretty much everything, but certain actions, or subjects, are not tolerated and are mediated. Pictures of children and direct attacks on other people are just 2 examples.
No-one is upset by those rules and a very large community both embraces and abides by them, usually of their own accord.

The internet is like a child and is still finding out its own rules about what is acceptable speech.
Places like the TFP will exert their standards through their poularity and that's the crunch.

Most people don't care what the terrorists and extremists say.
Most people roll their eyes at the mention of Farrakhan or that guy on Fox.
The problem is not freedom of speech, but that the media looking for sensationalism, give time and space for those people to be heard.
Left on their own, those people can be given freedom of speech without trouble. It's the VOLUME allowed to that speech, by your own papers and tv that cause the trouble.

Left to themselves, people will generally make an informed well-meaning decision.
Even so, there'll also always be the bottom ends of the bell-curve.

cybersharp

Absolutly not!

Terrorism is a act that can be commited by any in any society. As such for example: A preson walking down a populated street in any country could pull out a granade. Then that person could thow the granade at a govermental building. This would be a work of terrorism. Does that mean we should regulate who can walk and at what times these people can walk on that specific street? Because of the danger of there "maybe" being a person stupid enough to do so a truly worthless act? Of course not... I think that any regulation over the access over the internet because of the chance that some person MAY or MAYNOT do somthing considered terrorism to be very ill advised... There is not reason to restrict the majority to internet access regulations because of what a few individuals may or may not be capable of doing with it in the future. Conveying the crucial fact that the internet is not even a near needed thing to commit a act of terrorism... What next? We try to destroy our own shadows because they try to follow us?

Or are you advising that all nations submit themselves to having their goverments become communist goverment? Because after all, who would reguate this for security but the nations goverment. because of course only the GOVERMENT has the means, manpower, and knowledge to control such a venture...Of course... This would probably only breed more terrorism... 1 country should live by its own standards... No country has the RIGHT to force its own morals, standards, beleifs, onto anouther country... Inless by force this cannot be done anyway... Remember that simply because someone wins a fight though, that does not make them right.... To quote Ayn Rand... " I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of anouther man, nor ask anouther man to live for mine."...

In any case why do most country's go to war? Stupidity... War is a very usefull thing.. But it can not decide ultimatly who was right in any given situation. The main reason most countrys go to war anyway is because they forsee some gain. After all, why fight for nothing?.. Then again... Maybe people just LIKE too kill?....

__________________
0PtIcAl

roadkill

I'm in accordance with cyber.

I'm not going to loose my rights over something that is yet to be a real threat to me. We blow them up they blow us up. We say their leaders oppress their people. So to make the world better we should get oppressed by our leaders. Do we really think that following their example is a good idea? I don't think so.

cybersharp

I wonder if 89transam was worried about getting massivly flamed or somthing if he was to post again... Maybe he didn't want to talk after reading so many posts of people who did not agree with him and no one who did agree with him, but I would still rather that he post a response so we could get a better feel on what his thoughts are on this issue and why. I was just wondering if there was any other reasons he did not mention that he believed regulations being implemented on the 'www' would be a good solidly resonable course of action.

__________________
0PtIcAl

zeitgeist1

My pure response to your initial question is that you need to qualify what you mean by limit. Should the government restrict speech at its source? No. Doing so would impinge on the right in a way that makes it truely unfree. Conversely, regulating types of speech that may cause harm, like yelling "fire", is a limit that can be applied after the fact. This kind of ex post facto limitation on freedom of speech could be abused in the same way as the former limitation. Ideally, the internet doesn't really exist as a body within any one jurisdiction. As many sovereigns are finding out, what is legal in one place is illegal in another. Consequently, the question becomes where is certain types of speech legal. The interesting thing about the internet is how pervasive it is in society. Its a universal connector, hampered only by language barriers. The complexities of regulating something so incorporeal as the internet mean from a pragmatic posistion we should avoid any regulation at all. From a purely social perspective, societies should not limit any speech, period. It should be up to the individual to determine what we do and do not want to be exposed to. The state of techonology being what it is, that is well within the capability of the everyman. Simply put, no, governments should not be in the business of regulating freedom of speech on the internet.

Leto

hard examples please... I've never heard of the gov't doing this. On the other hand, I've heard many anecdotes (in this very forum) whereby citizens of certain countries (ahem... the US... ahem) have had to browse through certain external news services ( ahem.. CBC... BBC...ahem) to get balanced reporting...

(don't go digging up legal publicity bans on court proceedings... this isn't part of government policy)

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

soul_wisdom

It seems the push by the Administration and their followers/leaders has met with fruitful results. As evidenced by the supposition that free communication and other liberties associated with it are allowing the "terrorists" the ability to function more effectively here in the U.S. and abroad. Since the beginning of their rise to power they have done nothing but use propaganda and lies to say, that almost any freedom or pursuit not limited by government involvement, is somehow a crucial weak point in the elimination of the threat. The simple truth of it all would be, bullshit. Apologies if I have ranted off subject or thread but it just seems like the attacks of ill-convieved lies and double truths will never stop. I guess we can always just hope for the next election?.......right?

__________________
“Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so”

attr. Bertrand Russell