Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Isn't freedom of speech in the US the ability to say whatever you want and not be censured? Like, I could say, "Death to all baseball players" all I want, and no one can censure me BUT freedom of speech also doesn't magically protect me of the implications of my speech. That's it, I can still go to jail if I'm advocating to kill someone else or whatever.

In short, does it mean you can be an asshole and no one can force you to shut up about it, but you still can suffer the consequences of being a asshole?

This... really ain't the thread for it, but. No, not really. Again, the gov't part is important (and also not unlimited) -- you can holler all you want on a public square (noise and decency laws at a minimum allowing), but that doesn't mean you can do it anywhere at any time, i.e. toady is entirely within his rights to shut down or censure discussion on this forum, and similarly for pretty much every non-government organization. Our free speech laws indeed do not protect you from consequences, nor do they guarantee you access to any platform under any circumstances. They give you fairly specific protections from government intervention regarding speech and that's by and large it.

If a publishing company wants to literally censor the fucks out of your work before publishing (or doesn't want to, say, host or publish white supremacist propaganda, like some fairly major ebook distributors dumped, lately), that's probably going to be between you and them, with the right to say "nah" entirely theirs. If you're screaming outside someone's bedroom window at two in the morning, the cops can haul your ass off. So on and so forth.

[martinuzz]

Freedom of speech should only be limited there where the speech endagers other human rights through incitement, like the right to not be murdered, or discriminated against. Inciting lethal violence, in most circumstances, does not fall under free speech, nor does inciting racism or other forms of unlawful discrimination.

There is no human right to 'not be offended' though. If I want to call someone a motherfucking cocksucker (which I usually don't), I am free to do so.

[McTraveller]

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that I want profane speech censored. I don't care about that to be honest - what I care about is that's not what Freedom of Speech means.

Profanity only becomes a freedom of speech issue if the government starts imprisoning people for using swear words because the government doesn't like it.

I think it's definitely relevant to the thread here - when you have nations imprisoning people for "spreading lies" that aren't really lies but rather things the national leaders don't like, that's a freedom of speech issue.  And I fully admit that there are ways in which the US is heading down a dangerous path here, with the idea of "hate speech" laws because associating legality of speech with sentimentality makes it all too easy for groups - including the government - to start saying "this hurts our feelings, we feel like you hate us, therefore this is hate speech, therefore we can silence it..."

[martinuzz]

Sorry I didn't mean to give the impression that I want profane speech censored. I don't care about that to be honest - what I care about is that's not what Freedom of Speech means.

Profanity only becomes a freedom of speech issue if the government starts imprisoning people for using swear words because the government doesn't like it.

Fair enough. Although we are moving towards a society where non-government parties like Facebook or Google have more say over what you can or can't say than governments have, and that needs a wary eye.

Sure, in your example, Toady can rightfully moderate this forum and set rules on what can and cannot be said here.
But imagine, if Bay12 forums was the only medium in existence, or one of a handful of megacorps. Then the same rules would have become global censorship.

Also, it's nice that you can watch movies uncensored in movie theatres, and buy original albums. This does mean however that free speeches' audience is reduced to those that can afford to buy albums or go to the movies. In a way, silencing free speech, not by targetting the speakers directly, but by depriving them of their audience.

[brewer bob]

And I fully admit that there are ways in which the US is heading down a dangerous path here, with the idea of "hate speech" laws because associating legality of speech with sentimentality makes it all too easy for groups - including the government - to start saying "this hurts our feelings, we feel like you hate us, therefore this is hate speech, therefore we can silence it..."

Governments will use hate speech laws to silence dissenters if need be. That's for certain. If I remember correct, there was some instances where people protesting against police brutality were accused of "hate speech" against cops (can't remember in which country or if the accusations actually led to anything).

[Lord Shonus]

Or use a free/cheap streaming service. Or a cheap used DVD. Or a number of other ways to watch your media. The bleep bleeep thing is found only in the least common way (by far) to consume media. A lot of the really popular songs never made it to the radio at all, and the radio edits are very rarely encountered.

[martinuzz]

If I google any song, google will recommend me the censored version instead of the original (often with the audacity of even calling it 'original version' in the title). That bleep bleep thing is found in the most common way to consume media.
What's worse, if you do not know the original, you won't even hear the bleep bleep anymore, because editors have gotten real good at making it blend in with the music, as in the example Marley song I posted.

[Lord Shonus]

Funny, I can only find the radio edits of stuff when I specifically add "radio edit" to the search. Almost like Google searches are algorithm based and not universal.


Take it from somebody who actually lives here. Our shit is not fucking censored to the degree you think it is.

[Strongpoint]

Guys... Can you move your discussion about free speech elsewhere, please?

[Starver]

Isn't freedom of speech in the US the ability to say whatever you want and not be censured? Like, I could say, "Death to all baseball players" all I want, and no one can censure me BUT freedom of speech also doesn't magically protect me of the implications of my speech. That's it, I can still go to jail if I'm advocating to kill someone else or whatever.

In short, does it mean you can be an asshole and no one can force you to shut up about it, but you still can suffer the consequences of being a asshole?

Spoiler: I nearly posted this in the Ameripol thread, the other day... (click to show/hide)

...because it seemed relevent to a thing being said there. Now, it's not exactly about all the same things as this, but it is a good fit. However, probably not applicable under Russia...

...and there might be a better place to drill down into this subject, but we're here a doing it, so here we are!

[martinuzz]

Funny, I can only find the radio edits of stuff when I specifically add "radio edit" to the search. Almost like Google searches are algorithm based and not universal.


Take it from somebody who actually lives here. Our shit is not fucking censored to the degree you think it is.

Heh, I take your word for it. But that's really strange. It's almost as if Google uses only two algorithms then, one for 'domestic use' inside the US, and one for 'the rest of the world'.

Because this whole bleeping and blooping thing most definitly isn't anything Dutch. Over here, we see it as 'worrisome US influence' (because after all, Google is a US company). Only way I can make sense of that is if Google uses a 'rest of the world' (or perhaps, 'Europe as a whole') algorithm using the strictest country's rules as the norm.

Really, if I google most songs, not just the first hit, but the first 20+ hits only provide the censored versions. To listen to the originals I really need to add 'uncensored version' to the search term.

[Starver]

And now this "hero" promotes lifting actions from Russia ( https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1508201460487659528 )

It was so bloody obvious that the propagandist is just doing her job as ordered

Do you mean that, having actually got into an awful amount of trouble with the state, has probably been pressurised to do something like this rather than 'oops, lost in the legal system, somewhere between the Lubyanka and a Siberian gulag'? (Or whatever the modern equivalent is.)

Asking for sanctions to be lifted (if that's what it is) is probably an ethical compromise that works for both sides. Like a conscientious objector joining the front-line ambulance corps, or something. Cannot support the war, but can at least try to help those damaged by it. Yes, some COs wouldn't even do that (not even do 'war work', or whatever they personally judged as that, whilst in prison for refusing all the 'outs' they may have been offered), but everyone has their personal limits.

Maybe I haven't read enough about this situation, but from the headlines you're evoking, it seems you think this was "Putin's plans all along, she was never disloyal to his policies and it's all some 15-dimensional chess strategy that she was asked to disrupt things in such a scripted manner". Occam, to me, suggests that some straw indeed did break her roverbial camel's back, she did do that thing we thought we saw her do and that then leads to various psrudo-legal threats against her and her family that have been sugared with the concept of "...but none of us likes these sanctions, so how about we write up some things you can say about them, and maybe your two children won't have to worry so much about you or their own futures...".

For now, an angel might have had her wings clipped a bit, and may not be on such a riskily lofty pedestal as before, but hasn't actually returned to doing diabical desk-work in the lower circle of Hell.

Or so I'm thinking, but can only go on what I've read. If any of it was so obviously transparently plotted, you can bet that this would be further maskirova to cover up something even weirder, so I'm disregarding rabbit-holes.

[martinuzz]

Russia warns that companies, especially those from G7 countries that refuse to pay in rubles for their gas and oil will be cut off from supply.
The Russian state has ordered Gazprom last friday to switch all payments to rubles, and has given it 4 days to make the new payments system take effect.

I hope the US supplies of LNG are already on their way to Europe, we're going to need them.

[hector13]

I think Putin is woefully underestimating how much the West wants to wean itself off the teat of Russian fossil fuels.

This will result in short- and possibly medium-term pain to the West as they source new means of getting fossil fuels, but it will ultimately backfire spectacularly for Putin.

[wierd]

What it will do, is embolden and put pressure on govts, to fund projects like this one:

https://www.dw.com/en/sustainable-aviation-fuel-power-to-liquid/a-59398405

or this one...

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment-and-conservation/2018/06/petrol-made-carbon-sucked-air

while also putting the impetus in place to widely deploy wind, solar, and hydro plants in the Eurozone countries.


there will be roles where petroleum simply cannot be replaced. (It is a very shelf-stable, and versatile means of storing and transporting energy, that lacks any reasonable parity equal on the market.) Widespread adoption of energy production in other ways, can drive down the costs of producing that petroleum synthetically, such as via the above ventures, for those circumstances where it is essential to have availability, while weaning off its use in areas where it is not essential.


If anything, Putin's bullshit will help catapult clean energy.