Freedom of speech?

[Arvedui]

A lot of countries have a constitution that calls for Freedom of Speech. You can say whatever you wish, and be protected by the constitution. Still, in the same countries, you might have to stand before a jury for things you have said.
One example from my own country:
In the beginning of december, a infamous neo-nazi was trialed by the supreme court for anti-jewish statements, and was found 'not guilty.' This raised a lot of 'concern' among various intellectuals who were concerned about the struggle against racism.
An other example, from no country in particular:
If you say something about a person, you face the risk of being sued.

What is your opinion on Freedom of speech? Should there be some limitations on freedom of speech, or should that freedom be total? Could everything exept personal attacks be allowed? What about freedom of speech vs. conserving your country's way of life? Should racists or revolutionaries be allowed to speech freely?

There is deliberately no poll here, as I want opinions.
You'll get mine later.;)

Just to make it clear: The question conserning moderators in this or any other Forum is NOT a topic in this thread. Try to stick to society as a whole.

[Gloer]

is the same man who locks the gate to his garden to keep the raven birds away.


BTW: I think it is blasphemy that Tolkienforum should have a mindless computer programme censoring words from our texts.

[Ciryaher]

We have a machine do it because some people have the bad taste to use such language. There are young members of the forum, and I know for sure that many parental units would not approve of this site if we allowed profanity and other questionable materials to be posted/used. Besides that and more importantly, there is no need for such language on this, an intellectual (for the most part) site for discussions on the works of JRR Tolkien. To further my point, I will quote the addage that Profanity is the crutch for a weak mind

In America, we are free to speak basically whatever we want, as long as it isn't a threat of violence or threat of committing a crime. For instance, the Ku Klux Klan could talk about how "non-whites are destroying the white way of life" which is of course not true, but not a threat, either. On the other hand, if the White Aryan Resistance were to say "We are going to kill every <insert racial slur here> in the world! Sieg Heil!" there'd be a bit of a problem, and they'd get into serious trouble.

[Gloer]

Don't you think that talking about "non-white people " can be as derogative as well as even more patronising than using the original positively referring adjective such as coloured or asian, or african or what ever?

You may say that certain expressions hold emotional charge as such. Then if you aim to limit the usage of these expressions you in fact are in breach of constitution since substitution can not be equal. If it was you should also remove the substitute expression (ad infinitum).

On the other hand if words are thought as neutral and drawing their meaning only the context they are used in, then I find it very hard to categorically exclude certain vocabulary and at the same time wrongly accuse the users of such vocabulary for opinions they never presented.

Parental organisations are behind me in this I am sure. Eh... I hope...any sensible parent there ?
:confused:

PS. I would like some one to tell me what is the adjective describing Aragorns laugh in Bree when he meets the Hobbits for the first time. It has five letters and it was automatically sensored because of Authors obvious bad taste. Anyhow, I'd like to know. I don't have the english translation(nor finnish at the moment) so I can't check. It really starts to bug. Let me guess... was it gaily? (we'll see if this is censored then maybe...)
---
no!?
---
well answers???

[Ciryaher]

Again, there isn't any need to say those four and five letter words that Spock referred to as "colourful metaphors".

Words like q-u-e-e-r and c-o-c-k when used to refer to weirdness and roosters (respectively) there's nothing wrong with. The censoring program is so strange....ah well. That's the beauty of english! There are a thousand other words that mean the same things without the negative connotation.

Also, when I used the phrase "non-white" I was using a general term that is least offensive, rather than the many, many racial slurs that I know but will not repeat here.

[Gloer]

Aragorn's laugh was *****.

I am relieved.

[DGoeij]

Kind of a hard question isn't it? I think highly of the constitutional right in our country to speak up about things freely, but it also means I have to live with people explaining how the holocaust never happened, or that the state of Israel has all the right to smash civillian homes. And sometimes people see their right of Freedom of Speech as their right to Spit in Your Face and Call You a Rotten Lowlife.
We have laws that outlaw insults and such, but Freedom of Speech is deemed of higher value, so you can get away with a lot of things. I don't like that very much, but I do think it is far more dangerous to strongly restrict what's allowed to be said in a country.

[Arvedui]

You mirror my opinion exactly DGoeij.
Freedom of Speech should be exactly that. To live with people who deny what wrong has been made by for instance the Nazi's, is the prize we all have to pay for living in a democracy. It also has the same value for us, meaning we have the right to tell those people what we think of their opinions.

[FREEDOM!]

That's the beauty of english! There are a thousand other words that mean the same things without the negative connotation.

Exctly, the other day i got in trouble for using a bad word, but i was not using the word in a bad way, i was using it to mean extremely, or very!

but yet i got 4 warning points for it.

if it is ok with Ciryaher i will say it. but not till i have his permission

what was that word aragorn said Gloer??? if u say it just put spaces in it. and it won't sensor it.

[Athelas]

There seems to be a movement against it these days in the US: "Politically Correct Speech." Nobody is handicapped anymore, now they are "challenged," but I notice there aren't many "challenged" parking spots around. I'm not sure what passes for the PC version of "retarded." Might I suggest "Differently Ensmartful?":rolleyes:

[Gloer]

as being weir. Aragorn gave a weird laugh.
But he used a better word for it Aragorn's laugh was q u e e r...or so i think. I still haven't been able to check it. It fits though.


I suggest you check the history of a fellow called John Wilkes.

He was teh Larry Flynt of 18th century Brittain. The first modern test wheather Britain has free speech. He criticised the government in his paper "North Briton 45". Government seized all the copies of the paper. He fled to France.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRwilkes.htm

http://www.montaguemillennium.com/research/h_1771_dunk.htm

Any resemblence to the attempts for controlling the internet?


PS: Do not mix this man with John Wilkes Booth!

[faila]

I completely believe in th freedom of speech, uness inciting towards violence. For instance you coud say "I think all non-white peopl should die" or "We need to make a state for all white people and send them their" Obvioslythese statements are retarded, but the government should not try to stop them but, if one says "lets go kill all non white people" or "Lets forcibl removel white people out of our city" that is causin violence and should not beallowed.

I see no comparison in the way this board is run and the governent is run. In truththis site is allowed toberun how ever the owner wishes, and he can restrict our speach if he wills.

[Gloer]

I ***** **** ***, but this programme is ************ my writings. You don't have a **** do you?

****** has been taken to the limit of ********** *******.
Wouldn't you agree?

[reem]

i think that free speech can be dangerous in some cases when people use it to affect other people and make them act in a certain way.
and sometimes it's just harmless grumbling, but how do you know that harmless grumbling won't pave the way to a violent revolution or protest??
i believe in free speach, as long as it stays civilized...i don't know if you can consider it free speech when you put rules ad taps on it! but anything with completely no rules would turn out in a mess.
but you have to admit that free speech can be harmful and undesirable to ruling parties in some cases.
if someone was bad-mouthing me i would want them stopped! free speech or no free speach!
...maybe it should be allowed only in some subjects and not all...but then again...:confused: oh well.
reem

[faila]

Originally posted by reem
i think that free speech can be dangerous in some cases when people use it to affect other people and make them act in a certain way.
and sometimes it's just harmless grumbling, but how do you know that harmless grumbling won't pave the way to a violent revolution or protest??
i believe in free speach, as long as it stays civilized...i don't know if you can consider it free speech when you put rules ad taps on it! but anything with completely no rules would turn out in a mess.
but you have to admit that free speech can be harmful and undesirable to ruling parties in some cases.
if someone was bad-mouthing me i would want them stopped! free speech or no free speach!
...maybe it should be allowed only in some subjects and not all...but then again...:confused: oh well.
reem
a competent ruling government would allow critizism and use it to correct what they are doing wrong.

[Athelas]

about free speech is that the Nazis, KKK, Satanists, etc all freely speak out, which makes them easy to identify and keep tabs on.

[Gloer]

I have very hard time determining in what category I am.

So many people that have started ideologies and movements have been partially right but then again wrong.

Karl Marx on what signifficance the means of production has had in history. Unfortunately he thought he had figured it all out and that future can be predicted and planned. :p

Adolf Hitler was so right when he was strongly against Germany having overseas colonies because that would make France an african nation. Any contact with africa or Asia would inevitably back lash as deteriorating influence. Now look at Europe: full of Africans. Incredible that the man I thought was a raving looney had analytic capability to figure this out more than 30 year before the 60's and the beginning of the "Gastarbeiter" influx from ex-colonies. But then is this a bad thing? Many main stream politicians think so. What should be done?

Rudyard Kipling once stated that it was a white mans burden to send fort best of its breed to serve their captives need. He was right. The imperial administration of Africa and India was way too rigid and expensive. It was outsourced to the local people that made a lower bid for the government. Local people hired cheap local labour. The raw materials continued to flow but law and order often stalled. Kipling was and is absolutely right. The problem is that he phrased "white" as if colour of skin determined skill and ability to administer and create order! Funny how I feel Collin Powell is the one who carries the "white man's burden" in US Government. the burdon is there and to carry it one needs talent, skill, education and up-bringing.

[reem]

Originally posted by Athelas
about free speech is that the Nazis, KKK, Satanists, etc all freely speak out, which makes them easy to identify and keep tabs on.

hehe:p they would have to be pretty stupid to go blabbing though, wouldn't they!! no, but i think you do have a point there.
if they have any blood in their vains then they would get worked up about some policies and say something, and then you'd know who're you dealing with.
and some one said something about how a good government would use the negative comments about them to fix their wrongs?? well, i'm very sorry to say that there is no such thing as a good government. even if it start out ok it will 110% change to the worse later. power corrupts, my friends...it's a sad but true fact...alas!
we can see that in LORT, actually. it's a reoccuring theme. things start out with good intentions but get twisted along the way.
reem

[faila]

That was me that said a good government woul use negative comments for their benefit. And you are right their is no good govrnment. As Thomas Paine said in common sense "society in every state is a blessing, government even in its best state is but a neccesary evil and in its worst and intolerable one.

[reem]

a very true and profound statement:)
but what does it leave us with? i suppose then the conclusion is that free speach is only justified and good in some cases, but not all.
reem