Censorship and the expectations of society
-
This came to mind after the recent flap over Australian censorship. Hope it's an acceptable topic for the lounge as it's intended to be philosophical and educational rather than inflammatory in nature. America was founded on a collection of principles that placed a high value on the freedom of the individual, and to that end attempted to place limits on the power of the state. Freedom of speech, for example, is something that we still have to fight for on a regular basis, but at least we have a leg to stand on since our higher principles were enumerated in our Constitution. In fact, we considered our freedom to say what we please so important that we gave it its own amendment. I haven't expended significant effort on the study of world governments and their origins, so to a large degree I'm ignorant of their founding principles. And this is what I'm wondering about. I know that America was founded in part on free speech, and we put that in writing. Does, say, the Australian government contain the same written guarantees to her citizens? What about England, India and all those other places we come from? For example, when someone protests Internet censorship, are they holding up a piece of paper saying, "Hey - you're trampling on our rights" or are they instead saying that they wish that they had those rights? It may seem a subtle distinction, but it's not. The former is a matter of holding officials' feet to the fire when they cross the line, reminding them of the written constraints of their power. The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself. Since revolution is typically a violent and disruptive affair, I consider the distinction between the two significant. And without a dedicated effort to change the government, the latter is also just pissing in the wind - nothing accomplished and a generally unpleasant experience as well. So, using Internet censorship as a working example, I'd love to learn more about where the rest of you come from. Does your country actually guarantee you this freedom of speech, or are the things we hear about censorship more of an idealistic appeal for change?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
-
This came to mind after the recent flap over Australian censorship. Hope it's an acceptable topic for the lounge as it's intended to be philosophical and educational rather than inflammatory in nature. America was founded on a collection of principles that placed a high value on the freedom of the individual, and to that end attempted to place limits on the power of the state. Freedom of speech, for example, is something that we still have to fight for on a regular basis, but at least we have a leg to stand on since our higher principles were enumerated in our Constitution. In fact, we considered our freedom to say what we please so important that we gave it its own amendment. I haven't expended significant effort on the study of world governments and their origins, so to a large degree I'm ignorant of their founding principles. And this is what I'm wondering about. I know that America was founded in part on free speech, and we put that in writing. Does, say, the Australian government contain the same written guarantees to her citizens? What about England, India and all those other places we come from? For example, when someone protests Internet censorship, are they holding up a piece of paper saying, "Hey - you're trampling on our rights" or are they instead saying that they wish that they had those rights? It may seem a subtle distinction, but it's not. The former is a matter of holding officials' feet to the fire when they cross the line, reminding them of the written constraints of their power. The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself. Since revolution is typically a violent and disruptive affair, I consider the distinction between the two significant. And without a dedicated effort to change the government, the latter is also just pissing in the wind - nothing accomplished and a generally unpleasant experience as well. So, using Internet censorship as a working example, I'd love to learn more about where the rest of you come from. Does your country actually guarantee you this freedom of speech, or are the things we hear about censorship more of an idealistic appeal for change?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
I don't know much about it, but I think a lot of the rights enshrined in the American Bill of Rights (and other constitutional documents) have their roots in the Magna Carta. I believe that's where the concept of a man's house being his legal 'castle' was first spelled out in writing. IIRC.
-
This came to mind after the recent flap over Australian censorship. Hope it's an acceptable topic for the lounge as it's intended to be philosophical and educational rather than inflammatory in nature. America was founded on a collection of principles that placed a high value on the freedom of the individual, and to that end attempted to place limits on the power of the state. Freedom of speech, for example, is something that we still have to fight for on a regular basis, but at least we have a leg to stand on since our higher principles were enumerated in our Constitution. In fact, we considered our freedom to say what we please so important that we gave it its own amendment. I haven't expended significant effort on the study of world governments and their origins, so to a large degree I'm ignorant of their founding principles. And this is what I'm wondering about. I know that America was founded in part on free speech, and we put that in writing. Does, say, the Australian government contain the same written guarantees to her citizens? What about England, India and all those other places we come from? For example, when someone protests Internet censorship, are they holding up a piece of paper saying, "Hey - you're trampling on our rights" or are they instead saying that they wish that they had those rights? It may seem a subtle distinction, but it's not. The former is a matter of holding officials' feet to the fire when they cross the line, reminding them of the written constraints of their power. The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself. Since revolution is typically a violent and disruptive affair, I consider the distinction between the two significant. And without a dedicated effort to change the government, the latter is also just pissing in the wind - nothing accomplished and a generally unpleasant experience as well. So, using Internet censorship as a working example, I'd love to learn more about where the rest of you come from. Does your country actually guarantee you this freedom of speech, or are the things we hear about censorship more of an idealistic appeal for change?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
the fact that we "free speech" is a double bladed fine edge sword. One end of the blade we can say what we want even if it hurts others. A person can say what ever they want about another group and get away with it by claiming free speech. The "hopes" about free speech is that common sence is used. Living in Alberta Canada I'd like to think there is free speech however there are times when the government, speical interests groups deny or try to hold that right. When Bill or Leg writings get pushed through quickly or behind closed doors to muzzle or syfle debate. When you believe strongly against war or policy and some other group turns and says " well your not supporting the troops" or " your not patriotic". I agree there is some parts of the world where they do heavy censorship like a cloud over the people, yet the people under that cloud still speak the ideas. and "free" always comes with a cost. Just my thoughts on the topic. :) I like discussions like these.
///////////////// Groucho Marx Those are my principals, if you don't like them… I have others.
-
This came to mind after the recent flap over Australian censorship. Hope it's an acceptable topic for the lounge as it's intended to be philosophical and educational rather than inflammatory in nature. America was founded on a collection of principles that placed a high value on the freedom of the individual, and to that end attempted to place limits on the power of the state. Freedom of speech, for example, is something that we still have to fight for on a regular basis, but at least we have a leg to stand on since our higher principles were enumerated in our Constitution. In fact, we considered our freedom to say what we please so important that we gave it its own amendment. I haven't expended significant effort on the study of world governments and their origins, so to a large degree I'm ignorant of their founding principles. And this is what I'm wondering about. I know that America was founded in part on free speech, and we put that in writing. Does, say, the Australian government contain the same written guarantees to her citizens? What about England, India and all those other places we come from? For example, when someone protests Internet censorship, are they holding up a piece of paper saying, "Hey - you're trampling on our rights" or are they instead saying that they wish that they had those rights? It may seem a subtle distinction, but it's not. The former is a matter of holding officials' feet to the fire when they cross the line, reminding them of the written constraints of their power. The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself. Since revolution is typically a violent and disruptive affair, I consider the distinction between the two significant. And without a dedicated effort to change the government, the latter is also just pissing in the wind - nothing accomplished and a generally unpleasant experience as well. So, using Internet censorship as a working example, I'd love to learn more about where the rest of you come from. Does your country actually guarantee you this freedom of speech, or are the things we hear about censorship more of an idealistic appeal for change?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
I'd have said that in all countries the current application of the laws is what is applicable - nothing to do with what the countries rules were founded upon. These things change over time, and are subject to interpretation. In Germany (for example) I believe it is still illegal to promote anything Nazi, or to deny the holocaust. That is surely an infringement of free speech? it is illegal in many countries to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of gender, (dis)ability, colour, creed, religious beliefs or sexuality - but the term 'discriminate' is subject to interpretation. If (for example - please note this is NOT my view) a person BELIEVES that xxxxx people ( insert minority in place of xxxxx) are inferior/evil/the true master race/sons of God/devil's Spawn, there's an extremely fine line between allowing them freedom to express their views, and stopping them from doing so. I personally find it offensive that someone thinks that they know better than me what is acceptable to me, as an adult. Assuming that by doing something I do not harm any other non-consenting adults (and obviously no 'children') then I cannot really think of any justifiable reason why I should not pursue whatever that is. This goes for anything that is produced without that same harm being shown to apply to those partaking in their production. Is not the all-but-slave worker sitting in some grimy hut sewing training shoes just as (if not more so) taken advantage of as some porn actress? If someone, with their consent, is willing to drop their pants to make a buck - then why not? And if I (an adult) want to watch - why not? Sure - I don't want my kid subject to it in all its internet enhanced glory - but the solution here is surely not to try to censor it from everyone, but to make it legit and above board. in the same way that drugs should surely not be freely available - but (I feel) should certainly be available to any adult individual that wants to have some) so should just about anything. So (in a somewhat verbose answer to your question) - no, my country (and I believe no country) guarantees this freedom of speech (or, more accurately, delivers on such a guarantee) so yes, idealistic could be the description
Christopher Duncan wrote:
The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself.
Isn't the case, necessarily, though - governments Do change their minds and policies depending on the will of the people (in a democracy) at
-
I'd have said that in all countries the current application of the laws is what is applicable - nothing to do with what the countries rules were founded upon. These things change over time, and are subject to interpretation. In Germany (for example) I believe it is still illegal to promote anything Nazi, or to deny the holocaust. That is surely an infringement of free speech? it is illegal in many countries to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of gender, (dis)ability, colour, creed, religious beliefs or sexuality - but the term 'discriminate' is subject to interpretation. If (for example - please note this is NOT my view) a person BELIEVES that xxxxx people ( insert minority in place of xxxxx) are inferior/evil/the true master race/sons of God/devil's Spawn, there's an extremely fine line between allowing them freedom to express their views, and stopping them from doing so. I personally find it offensive that someone thinks that they know better than me what is acceptable to me, as an adult. Assuming that by doing something I do not harm any other non-consenting adults (and obviously no 'children') then I cannot really think of any justifiable reason why I should not pursue whatever that is. This goes for anything that is produced without that same harm being shown to apply to those partaking in their production. Is not the all-but-slave worker sitting in some grimy hut sewing training shoes just as (if not more so) taken advantage of as some porn actress? If someone, with their consent, is willing to drop their pants to make a buck - then why not? And if I (an adult) want to watch - why not? Sure - I don't want my kid subject to it in all its internet enhanced glory - but the solution here is surely not to try to censor it from everyone, but to make it legit and above board. in the same way that drugs should surely not be freely available - but (I feel) should certainly be available to any adult individual that wants to have some) so should just about anything. So (in a somewhat verbose answer to your question) - no, my country (and I believe no country) guarantees this freedom of speech (or, more accurately, delivers on such a guarantee) so yes, idealistic could be the description
Christopher Duncan wrote:
The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself.
Isn't the case, necessarily, though - governments Do change their minds and policies depending on the will of the people (in a democracy) at
I think you're confusing what freedom of speech is. Freedom of Speech ultimately means that you have the right to criticise the Government for its policies and actions without being persecuted for that criticism (unlike in China, Burma etc). It isn't about your right to use racial or religious slurs, viewing porn, to claim that a bomb has been planted in a cinema that is too crowded for your liking or anything else. A Government of the People and for the People - which is what democracy is all about - will naturally reflect the views of the majority and it can't help but do that if it is a true democracy. In a democracy the people own the government, the government does not own the people. But not many people realise this nowadays and believe they should be subservient to their government. And this is where Freedom of Speech comes into play: if you don't believe that your current government is serving your best interests then you have every right to criticise, harass and even set up your own political party without fear of being locked up, tortured or otherwise mistreated. But that isn't the same as demanding that all Jews/Blacks/Homosexuals/Catholics/Whoever should be exterminated and spouting those views here, there and everywhere or inciting those beliefs in others.
-
I'd have said that in all countries the current application of the laws is what is applicable - nothing to do with what the countries rules were founded upon. These things change over time, and are subject to interpretation. In Germany (for example) I believe it is still illegal to promote anything Nazi, or to deny the holocaust. That is surely an infringement of free speech? it is illegal in many countries to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of gender, (dis)ability, colour, creed, religious beliefs or sexuality - but the term 'discriminate' is subject to interpretation. If (for example - please note this is NOT my view) a person BELIEVES that xxxxx people ( insert minority in place of xxxxx) are inferior/evil/the true master race/sons of God/devil's Spawn, there's an extremely fine line between allowing them freedom to express their views, and stopping them from doing so. I personally find it offensive that someone thinks that they know better than me what is acceptable to me, as an adult. Assuming that by doing something I do not harm any other non-consenting adults (and obviously no 'children') then I cannot really think of any justifiable reason why I should not pursue whatever that is. This goes for anything that is produced without that same harm being shown to apply to those partaking in their production. Is not the all-but-slave worker sitting in some grimy hut sewing training shoes just as (if not more so) taken advantage of as some porn actress? If someone, with their consent, is willing to drop their pants to make a buck - then why not? And if I (an adult) want to watch - why not? Sure - I don't want my kid subject to it in all its internet enhanced glory - but the solution here is surely not to try to censor it from everyone, but to make it legit and above board. in the same way that drugs should surely not be freely available - but (I feel) should certainly be available to any adult individual that wants to have some) so should just about anything. So (in a somewhat verbose answer to your question) - no, my country (and I believe no country) guarantees this freedom of speech (or, more accurately, delivers on such a guarantee) so yes, idealistic could be the description
Christopher Duncan wrote:
The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself.
Isn't the case, necessarily, though - governments Do change their minds and policies depending on the will of the people (in a democracy) at
Freedom of Speech is an Inalienable Right in the US. However, it's the responsibility of the people to determine what is the greater good for the country in specific instances. The US is a republic which means we vote through our elected representatives to determine the greater good - not through mob rule.
-
This came to mind after the recent flap over Australian censorship. Hope it's an acceptable topic for the lounge as it's intended to be philosophical and educational rather than inflammatory in nature. America was founded on a collection of principles that placed a high value on the freedom of the individual, and to that end attempted to place limits on the power of the state. Freedom of speech, for example, is something that we still have to fight for on a regular basis, but at least we have a leg to stand on since our higher principles were enumerated in our Constitution. In fact, we considered our freedom to say what we please so important that we gave it its own amendment. I haven't expended significant effort on the study of world governments and their origins, so to a large degree I'm ignorant of their founding principles. And this is what I'm wondering about. I know that America was founded in part on free speech, and we put that in writing. Does, say, the Australian government contain the same written guarantees to her citizens? What about England, India and all those other places we come from? For example, when someone protests Internet censorship, are they holding up a piece of paper saying, "Hey - you're trampling on our rights" or are they instead saying that they wish that they had those rights? It may seem a subtle distinction, but it's not. The former is a matter of holding officials' feet to the fire when they cross the line, reminding them of the written constraints of their power. The latter can only be achieved by changing the government itself. Since revolution is typically a violent and disruptive affair, I consider the distinction between the two significant. And without a dedicated effort to change the government, the latter is also just pissing in the wind - nothing accomplished and a generally unpleasant experience as well. So, using Internet censorship as a working example, I'd love to learn more about where the rest of you come from. Does your country actually guarantee you this freedom of speech, or are the things we hear about censorship more of an idealistic appeal for change?
Christopher Duncan www.PracticalUSA.com Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes
Seeing as no one has yet answered your specific question IANAL but, in Australia we do not have a Bill of Rights or any other explicit Freedom of Speech provision, and our defamation laws & common law precedents have preferred harm (for want of a better word) over truth as a defence, although according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Australia[^] that is no longer meant to be the case. Note that Wikipedia link shows the state of defamation laws in other countries too, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country[^] shows similar details more directly answering the question.
Regards, Mark Hurd, B.Sc.(Ma.) (Hons.)
-
I don't know much about it, but I think a lot of the rights enshrined in the American Bill of Rights (and other constitutional documents) have their roots in the Magna Carta. I believe that's where the concept of a man's house being his legal 'castle' was first spelled out in writing. IIRC.
The Magna Carta is often misrepresented in this way. What it actually was was a document, signed by the king, giving rights ("freedoms") to noblemen, not to everyone. Something closer to democracy came later, and was then destroyed by the party system which the parties try to pass off as democracy, these days.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!