As some may know, I've been looking forward to fully using my expression of free speech. However, the quagmire I find myself in is where I use it, when I can use it, and what exactly free speech is. I agree with Voltaire and Ron Jeremy on the issue. Ron Jeremy, a male pornstar, said that "free speech offers protection for speech that you hate." Likewise, Voltaire suggested that he would fight for one's right to free speech regardless of whether he agreed with it or not. However, neither one answers what it is exactly.

Should free speech be a free-for-all? Should considerations of slander and libel be allowed? Should namecalling and labels be allowed to be affixed to people who do not wish to have those labels?

It's a tough issue. For myself, I feel that I should be able to express myself as fully as I can. If I make a mistake, I'll be the guy that makes the public apology. I feel that I have that ability. However, there are others who I would find this to be questionable. But even with that in mind, I do want my freedom of expression.

To me, I think I'm a person that doesn't put out the questionable material as much as I answer to it. I often state who I am and where I stand on something, and it is often the deliberation and explanation that becomes contested -- not my position. In addition, I would suggest that I often come into a hard position when I find myself in the minority and people are angered and upset to the point where they tell me to take my ideas and thoughts elsewhere. Very often, my reply is something akin to, "Listen, I'm not really bothered by how you feel. If you're asking me questions, you will get my answers. We don't need to talk about this if you don't want to."

I have yet to really find myself leading and talking from a pulpit, so I think I'm taking my freedom of expression and speech very graciously. But to this day, with all of this anger, and inconsistency on public and private fronts of free speech, I feel that no one has the clear definition on what it is. We get angry at pornographers, but then we have pockets that accept all speech from political and religious extremists. At the same time, we have pockets of intolerance to whatever opposing idealogy is present.

Speech, as it's conducted today, seems like a very regional thing. Some are so indoctrinated into their beliefs that even hearing anything to the contrary of their thought process is offensive enough. My question is why is it so acceptable for people with intolerances to spout off their idealogies, but then suffocate the rights of others to put out their views? Is simple speech that scary and delibilitating to their message? What is the real problem? Is it a matter of losing ground? Is it a matter of fear concerning influence?

I am convinced that the way we treat speech now only allows propaganda to thrive at its greatest potential. Our insular materials of speech and what we can accept from them has, perhaps inadvertently, allowed the extremism and misinformation to thrive greatly in pockets. And debate between opposing idealogies is suffocated because of the dealings with regionalized and perhaps marginalized zones of acceptance.

It's not perfect, but what could be better about speech? And if something needs to change, do you think we can ever truly deal with an enlightened, yet impassioned debate -- without the folly of anger, arrogance, and intolerance?

I'm a heterosexual male, for instance. I personally detest homosexual behavior, but I feel that men and women have their rights to make their decisions. I'm not about clobbering civil liberties and the unalienable rights, but I am about speaking out on my positions. I feel I should be able to do so without fear of slander and libel and physical threat. But truth be told, it's very scary out there. Even here, I feel threatened and engaged by simply offering my two cents. Should this fear be present? Should I feel like I can only express things in certain places, especially when I'm confronted with an issue and expected to give my answer?

Free speech is a catch-22 issue, and I feel like it's only a matter of enlightenment and civility that will truly allow for it. While slander and libel are questionable, it seems that there is a need to accept that as well. But it is quite the paradox.

Therefore, I ask again. What are the boundaries of free speech? And what is free speech?

God bless,

Jared

im going to exercise my free speech right now and admit no way in hell am i reading that whole thing

Do what you want.

Sometimes people seem to think that "free speech" means "free ride". That you can say whatever you want with no criticism or critique. Free speech is a romanticized phrase and everyone has their own fantasy about what it means. In theory, free speech gives you the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government. But even that is not held to be true.



Why do you feel that you have some kind of right to say anything you want without recourse? I mean, where do you draw the line. You want to be able to say you detest homosexual behavior without getting punched. What about if you walked up to someone and said "I detest you and want to kill your children" do you still think you should be able to say that without fear of slander and libel and physical threat? It's all just degrees. Free speech has more to do with socially acceptable behavior than the actual term "free speech" implies. Sure you can say whatever you want, but that doesnt void you from any criticism or recourse that may result from your action of speaking.

PS is "libel" your new word of the week or what. I've never seen it used so much in my life

It's interesting to look back at some of the Supreme Court cases and see how free speech has fared under challenge.

Basically, as it stands now, slander and libel are illegal of course, but it's fucking hell to prove them. Other speech is protected as long as it doesn't produce "a clear and present danger." That's the old "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" thing.


Of course, that doesn't mean you won't get a lot of flack, especially with the country so heavily divided on so many hot and controversial issues right now.

slander and libel aren't illegal. they're torts, which are civil wrongs, not criminal acts. and its not really as hard as you think to prove slander or libel since there are very clear cut elements of each and also very clear cut elements of general defamatory statements. the trick lies in proving damages, since most of the time measurable damages aren't accrued and courts aren't very willing to award damages based only on emotional distress.

free speech should not be a free-for-all. people must be held accountable for the things that they say. if you call me a whore, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so other than "its free speech."

you should be able to state your beliefs. you should be able to have discussions about your beliefs without being afraid that you're going to be ridiculed and ostracized. that's both a matter of free speech and basic human decency. but, unfortunately, that doesn’t often happen, and i honestly think that’s due more to the fact that some people perhaps aren’t as nice as they could be when dealing with beliefs and statements that they don’t agree with.

i guess i consider free speech to be anything that is said with a purpose other than being patently offensive or inflammatory. i remember when some artist made a piece that was called “piss jesus” or something to that effect. from what i can remember, the piece consisted of a jar of the artist’s urine, with a crucifix turned upside down inside the jar. i can’t remember what the artist’s reason for creating the piece was. but this is a good example. if the artist believed that, through this piece, he was making a point that could be reasoned out, i could see it being protected as free speech. however, if the artist was just trying to be inflammatory and offensive, i wouldn’t consider it to be free speech.

there’s a line, and its hard to determine where it lies, and its harder still to decide who gets to determine what is patently offensive and inflammatory. the community standard is, at best, a weak standard. new york city’s community standard of free speech is probably much “looser” than my small town’s standard. a town in the north’s standard is going to be much different than a similar sized town in the south’s standard.

Well, I feel as if I've seen a bit of web libel on me here with no accountability for it. If I didn't see it, I wouldn't use the word.

Likewise, I don't want to kill anybody, but I want civil debate. I feel one of the pitfalls is that there is little to no enlightenment with some people. They go straight to the juglar without dealing with the issues.

And I should be able to say virtually whatever I want without physical threat. We all should have that protection. Words are one thing. People can choose to accept them, fight them, or whatever. But if it comes down to fisticuffs or worse, that's just silly and barbaric.

Personally, I take the fight. Some people just say absolute untruths about me and I'm going to let my life lead the example of their untruth, all the while chipping away at the lies.

But even at some point, somebody wants a rest. And my question is, "Why?" Why can't we have that constant accountability. We sure do have 24/7 news to do it for us.

Anyway, I know it's not a free ride, but what's the most right thing to do? Leave free speech, as is? Leave people unprotected for physical harm? I don't know what the answer is, but I'd rather see more people being civil than going for the lowest common denominator. I, personally, have far and few between succumbed to that. I have fallen short, but I get better with time and the rage of debate. But that's the thing I also see. Debate, where is it anymore? Somebody says something and the immediate reaction is, "I hope you die!" or "Fag!" or something like that.

I'll tell you how I would like to see it. I wish I could hold each person accountable for their trespasses against me, get them to apologize, and then let them off with no additional reprisal and learn a lesson about respect and dignity and honor. Many of us are owed these things, but we never get it. I guess I'll continue the fight and go for the decency in people. Along the way, I'll stumble and succumb to things. But I'm trying.

By God, I'm trying.

God bless,

Jared

The law provides protection against physical harm. If you get punched, you can sue them. They can be arrested. etc.



Respect and dignity and honor are not things that are owed to anybody. If at all, they are earned. And they come from within, they dont come from someone else's action or inaction. If you respect yourself, people will respect you. If you show dignity, others will show you the same. Etc.
If you think that you are not getthing these things in your life, then look at YOUR actions. What are YOU doing to earn these things? You cant blame everyone else in the world because you dont think you get the respect you "deserve". It's easy to blame everyone else.

I have discussions with people all the time. Heated discussion at that. About all sorts of topics. But I dont get the same flack you seem to get and complain about. Why is that? We just do things differntly. Approach topics differently. Speak differently. You can voice your opinion in a way that's better suited for debate. It's certainly different for everyone, and there isnt one correct way to go about it. But if you find that your methods are yielding unwanted results, then I suggest you try a different method, instead of asking the entire planet to change how they view free speech.

Jared try saying whatever you want whenever you want.
Let me know how you feel.

But here, Buggy, you don't get involved in the kinds of debates I do. I think that has a lot to do with it.

And complain is a strong word. I don't complain much. I sit back, analyze, synthesize and move on. Topics come and go. Threads fade. Debates end. You might come back to things later, but it's a cycle at best.

I don't blame anyone because it's a cycle and process. Buggy, I suggest you look at my dialogue a little more. I'm just throwing something out there for consideration and public dialogue. I'm not looking to change the world or anything. At best, I'm trying to maybe bring things up for consideration on this board. I'm not in power to change the world, save for building a few houses with Habitat for Humanity and going elsewhere.

God bless,

Jared

maybe if you didnt infer to everyone on the board that either they see things your way or will burn in hell, they wouldnt feel the need to call you names like asshat, douchebag, a brainless twit, the finger in RM's Peanutbutter or a shitload of other names i have seen or thought of on here.

its ok to have your beliefs, and i guarantee that people would respect you more, and might listen to your ideas if you would do the same instead of,

You're wrong and you will burn in hell for the rest of your damned life

playoffs?

I never said that Peeps. I mentioned my feelings about the afterlife and the possible consequences. I didn't wish Hell upon anybody or say that anyone was wrong. I don't know the end and I can't even assume I do. But in my faith, I noted a few things about the end and expanded upon them in context of my faith. People can take it or leave it. But I don't wish hell upon anyone. I truly don't.

God bless,

Jared

a bit delusional too huh, too bad the thread got deleted, i could point you right to it

The Relationship thread is still there where a lot went down. Please read the appropriate part, cut and paste it, and we'll discuss it in PM if you care to.

God bless,

Jared

i dont have a care to discuss this in PM, you said it, unless in your religious world you live in the words, Believe me, this will all be revealed. And you will either accept it or burn., mean something totally different than, believe me or you will burn, such as, i like napolean icecream the best cause you get the best of all three worlds.

I disagree with this. At least give me one single example. I have some very good friends who are conservative republicans (and christian). We debate all the time about religion, politics, sex, abortion, etc. It gets lively, but we have a good time debating. And of couse theres all the stuff we debate here on the board that I've been involved in. Abortion, animal rights, gays, religion. I think the difference is how we debate, not what we debate.



I'm sure there are some who might disagree with that. If your intent is not to complain, then it's possible you dont come across the way you think. This is just my opinion of course. We can discuss this provatly if you want.



Always a good thing, for sure. But this is a debate, yes? So I made some points about your post. Why not try and go through and respond to my points like a normal debate?

I respectfully disagree on a few cases. It's true to an extent, but not true on the whole. For example, you're on your deathbed. You're flat-out dying. You're in the hospital. You request a little help for something. But for reasons outside of what is acceptable (like priorities in disasters and whatnot), you are ignored. These people may not know you for anything, but it is their responsibility to serve you and help you and guide you as best they can. If they flat-out ignore you, and you need help and deserve it as a patient (paying or non-paying) should.

Every service that you pay for commands the respect and dignity for you. If everytime you went to McDonald's or wherever you like to patronize judged you and criticized you before even really knowing you, you wouldn't go there.

I would go so far to say that every human being deserves at least momentary respect before they open their mouth. If you don't know someone, it should never be your place to judge them and not give them respect. The benefit of the doubt falls to respect not mistrust and anger. At least, that's the way I've been raised and indoctrinated, but I think it makes sense since it seems to follow the Golden Rule that even people without spirituality seem to adhere to.

I respect myself. I love myself. If I didn't, I probably wouldn't be here at this point. I don't know where you're going with that, but if I may add, I think I'm doing fine there, whatever you are referring to.

God bless,

Jared

I can't assume to know what goes on in your outside RM life. But here, I notice that you don't participate much in threads I've created, for one reason or another.


I see a lot about prayer and whatnot. I know you've participated in a few. But in recent incidents particularly, not much was highlighted and expanded upon from your end of this table.

God bless,

Jared

I think I said in the later in the thread that I would accept it if I were wrong. But this is all in the context of my faith. That is what will happen when you are confronted by Christ. I didn't mean to condemn anyone and I'm sorry if anyone felt that way. That's not what I intended.

God bless,

Jared