Define *Free Speech* if you can...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Why don't you just admit we're saturated with advert? Everything is about advert. Which shows get picked for TV and which get cancelled (ouch), the so-called "news" (gotta keep that audience tuned for yet another chance to sell! sell! sell!!), which search engines are gonna make it and which aren't, and it has nothing to do with the content itself and everything to do with advertising dollars. Because its all geared to that demographic which spends thoughtlessly (males age 19-45). So everything we see... or don't see... is about avert... gotta be flashy and quick, have happy endings (or gory ones, look at the crap that Wulf comes up with), and mostly it has to make you NOT THINK. Because thinking is anathema to advert, dontcha know.

---

Admit? Oh yeah, big time, totally admit and completely agree with that stance. I love Children of Men for the chilling look at the future of 'adverts' with the giant video screens all over the fronts of buildings ("love" as in, "brilliant, they so got that right"). That they cover up the architecture (art) is a bonus and telling metaphor.
You are familiar I assume with Noreena Hertz? I'm just catching up on her work, looks interesting.
It's kind of a runaway train though, stopping it from getting to CofMen stage is... I lay odds it's impossible. In fact, I bet there are advertisers out there salivating over those images from that movie - if they hadn't already thought of it, "just waiting for the technology and we'll cover the world with screens... retna scans to tell how many eyeballs have looked at each ad for how many milliseconds..."

As to your other question, I think you made the distinction earlier; they're not buying free speech, they are buying access.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Content, context, access, harm, honesty.

---

Boiled down to 5 words, those are correct, and the best listing of the criteria for judging the issue I have ever seen.

Quote:

---

The other big concept is access. Sure, you may be free to spout your spiel on a streecorner... or in a free speech zone three miles from anything...

---

That is exactly an improper restriction of the right. Free speech on public property, or even private property used in a public manner, should not be abridged to benefit the government or a private entity. The convention parking lot may be private property, rented by the XX Party to convene and present its message, but that doesn't give them exemption from the right of others to oppose. Conversely, inside the convention hall is , pretty much, a private area, where the party can control what is expressed. But all of what is expressed, and that which is suppressed, and how, should be reportable.

Quote:

---

And I see NOBC touched on those issues while I was typing!

---

Great minds running in the same channel...

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you guys are taking the whole concept of "free speech" waaaay beyond what it was intended by the FF. "Free speech" wasn't mean to imply that you can say anything that pops into your head under any circumstances. It's my understanding that the concept of "free speech" was that you couldn't be prosecuted by the government for criticizing the government. It doesn't apply to what you might say about your neighbor, OR about the company you work for- which will fire your *ss so fast you won't even know what happened if you should even breathe a hint of criticism about it.

MY definition of "free speech" goes farther than what the FF intended. If we could just get to THAT point, it would be great.

---

You are correct on both fact and your improvement on it. Restriction of government response to free speech is the essence of the right. They are the folks who can put you in jail or have you executed for what you just said. But even that restriction is not absolute, there are some limits to what is acceptable.
Similarly, there should be some limits to private or corporate response to free speech: Enron is gonna fire you if you blow the whistle on Ken Lay, but should not be able to. If you blow the whistle on your employers' defective product, illegal activity, or publicly expose serious violations of its own safety or quality policies that public harm or injury, you should be protected.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

There's also Freedom From Speech. The Mute Button is one of the great inventions of our time.

---

As are the DVR and the iPod. No radio, no commercials on TV. :)

---

ahhh the DVR... that should be a right protected by the constitution.
Has this ever happened to you? You're NOT watching tv and something happens and you aren't quite sure what you just heard or saw and you instinctively reach for the rewind button?? Scary.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Still not here, but ghosting:

No limits to free speech. This is not a matter of what should or shouldn't be said, that is a matter that should be developed by a functional society. Limits on free speech, all of them, regardless of topic, medium, etc, are about power: It's all about who gets to say what can be said.

Govt. is probably the closest thing to evil that I have seen in world, some govts. more than others, but if you want to see death, suffering, slavery, environmental destruction and general dehumanization, the front runners will always be govts. Given this, what fool would trust the power of who can say what to a govt, knowing full well what govt. wants, and that it will use any power given to it to get what it wants: to eternally cling to ultimate power, a machiavellian infinite loop.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Okay, here's what I found. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.

---

Interpretations contain: Commercial Speech--

Quote:

---

Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is speech motivated by profit. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. Restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny.

---

Restrictions include:

Quote:

---

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.

---

There's a lot of complexity involved, and it appears that the courts have a lot of room to maneuver and interpret what constitutes legal "free speech".

Also, what I don't think I saw mentioned is that it's not free speech and not covered by the First Amendment if it's done in a magazine, newspaper, web site, etc., which is privately owned; one of the complaints here by PN and others is that their rights to free speech are constrained and it's i

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME