freedom of speech

[gb2000ie]

Bart, you're on point in saying that the media must exercise responsibility (and be accountable). That just ain't so in today's world. Reporters lie constantly, pay informants for faulty tips and never are forced to properly acknowledge their deceit or failures. It's not about facts anymore, just about using any sensationalistic technique to get ratings.

Even if a legal battle is won that silences a hate-monger, the press will run to them first to get their 'reaction', rather than trumpet the cause of responsible use of free speech.

There is a lot of BS media these days - CNN have really*gone down the toilet - getting people to choose the news they want to hear in text polls - common - what happened to it being the job of news agencies to make sense of the mad complex world for us. Cronkite must be turning in his grave! Needless to say Fox is still the dogs - but then it always has been.

What we need is both good reporting, and good editorial - with a clear distinction between the two. Agree with her or not - Rachel Maddow does a good job at editorial - she has good researchers - she gets her facts right, and on the rare occasion she doesn't she is honest enough to correct herself in the next show. What Maddow is NOT is news - it is pure, editorial.

In fact - you'll find editorial everywhere these days - and much of it a LOT less well research and factually based than Maddow. What's really bloody hard to find is actual factual news - sans editorial.

I don't know of a single US station that does that - and in Europe the only example of it I know is EuroNews. I guess the BBC World Service is also quite good at covering world stories - but again - they have lots of editorial and chit-chat thrown in.

It really is so hard to get good news!

I'm reminded of something some famous senator once said "Everyone has the right to their own opinion - but no one has a right to their own facts" - that distinction seems to have been lost in the media somewhere. They seem to be obsessed with 'balance' - even when the facts are clear, they insist on muddying the water for 'balance'. Some things are simply true - it's OK not to have 'balance' when you're reporting facts! The earth IS round, the sky IS blue, we DO orbit the sun etc..

It's not an infringement on anyone's free speech to say "no - you're wrong - the facts are clear and demonstrable - you are wrong".

I think I know where news was lost - when it became seen as entertainment. If you think you're in the entertainment business - then you just have to do all the silly and sensational stories, and you like debate and controversy - so the incentive is to manufacture it, even where none exists. You propagate lies to entertain and call it news.

B.

 

[jaxfltop]

I always thought the freedom of speech ended where another person pursuit of happiness began. I believe that we should be allow to build up a militia to hunt down those bastards who would actually do something like that to a grieving family and then claim that their religion demands it and the government permits it. Well common courtesy forbids it!

 

[gaybot9000]

there is no such thing as "freedom" anyway so this whole hoopla is over nothing

 

[diklik]

I always thought the freedom of speech ended where another person pursuit of happiness began. I believe that we should be allow to build up a militia to hunt down those bastards who would actually do something like that to a grieving family and then claim that their religion demands it and the government permits it. Well common courtesy forbids it!

Common courtesy is one of the least common occurrences on the planet, today.

 

[gb2000ie]

I always thought the freedom of speech ended where another person pursuit of happiness began. I believe that we should be allow to build up a militia to hunt down those bastards who would actually do something like that to a grieving family and then claim that their religion demands it and the government permits it. Well common courtesy forbids it!

And your right to bear arms and assemble ends where their right to life begins.

Also - you are flat-out wrong. The right to the pursuit of happiness does NOT mean the right never to be annoyed by someone else. You're making a populist argument that is pure hot air.

B.

 

[Tjerk12]

Common courtesy is one of the least common occurrences on the planet, today.

Well, Diklik, my dear friend, I don't think it is that bad at all. When you see the reactions to this thread, gay people seem to have a lot of common sense. I am also an oldie (65 now), but I have great confidence in the young generation. They are a lot of years younger (and prettier), but they'll make it.

 

[gb2000ie]

Common courtesy is one of the least common occurrences on the planet, today.

I dunno - there are certainly a lot of selfish people in this planet, who are too self-absorbed to give a crap about anyone else, let alone to be nice to them - but there have always been ass-holes on this planet.

Our society has evolved to become a lot more informal - so if you consider courtesy to be doffing your cap etc., then you'd have a point. But I don't think that's either correct or reasonable.

Young people are just as offended by these protests as older people, if not more so. There are more older people who agree with Phelps than younger people.

Teenagers have always been inconsiderate, self-centred, and devoid of courtesy - I was a prat when I was a teen, my brothers were too, but we grew out of it. In fact, if you look at the science of being a teen, the mad hormones you have running riot in your system have the effect of inhibiting a person's sense of empathy. This means that, at a biological level, teenagers find it harder to see things from other people's point of view. I think that explains a lot!

I'm going to join Tjerk12 in expressing my confidence in the future of our young people.

B.

 

[diklik]

@ Bart and Tjerk -

Can't argue or gainsay your points. I too find promise in younger men, but essentially after they've mellowed into their mid-twenties. I've dealt with teens professionally, and the raging hormones are not a theory, they are true! Adrenalin, testosterone, prostaglandin and other fun body chemicals do tend to inhibit the parietal and premotor cortex and the medial prefrontal cortex --- the parts of the brain that deliver empathetic responses.

 

[diklik]

Our society has evolved to become a lot more informal - so if you consider courtesy to be doffing your cap etc., then you'd have a point. But I don't think that's either correct or reasonable.

I'm cool with and very much in favor of easy informality. It's the careless attitude toward other humans and their basic rights and feelings, that I abhor. I believe in holding the door for those infirm or just as a courtesy, the same way I make a 'hole' in the line of traffic to allow someone to enter. Little things that need no real thank-you from the recipient, but that make me feel satisfied that I don't contribute to a bad day for others.

Doffing one's cap died a needed death, long ago. The only acknowledgment of superior status I've ever given was saluting superiors in the military, a very long time ago. If it hadn't been required I wouldn't have done it.

 

[Tjerk12]

b.t.w. Diklik and gb2000ie, it is a pity that we don't live in the same town. I think it would be nice to talk and be together.

 

[gb2000ie]

b.t.w. Diklik and gb2000ie, it is a pity that we don't live in the same town. I think it would be nice to talk and be together.

LOL - I think we could indeed spend many happy hours talking about stuff over a few beers!

B.

 

[diklik]

And your right to bear arms and assemble ends where their right to life begins.

Also - you are flat-out wrong. The right to the pursuit of happiness does NOT mean the right never to be annoyed by someone else. You're making a populist argument that is pure hot air.

B.

While that populist argument sounds nice and it feels warm and fuzzy to embrace, it won't fly. Being annoyed and doing something about it that's legal and not physically injurious is pursuing your happiness. Hunting them down and killing them (or otherwise harming them) simply puts one below their base and scuzzy level. That's essentially what Phelps and his crowd really want - to be martyred by some shotgun-wielding proponent of rights. Then, that moron bunch can righteously demand more laws that allow them to speak their dirt and for good people to be silenced.

The best defense against that hate speech is to lobby for tougher legislation that prohibits freedom to speak or incite specific hatred. If enough folk make enough noise about it, even the media will have to pay attention and devote airtime to that cause. There are lots of liberal-minded folk with financial resources. Perhaps they need to form a loose coalition and hire the best investigators to tail, shadow and report on all the activities of Fred Phelps and his congregation. Betcha they'll find civil laws broken, criminal conspiracies of one sort or another, and lots of shady dealing. Exposing that to the light of day in the public eye is often the only quick fix that silences those assholes.

I can offer a case in point. Jimmy Swaggart is/was a known Pentecostal preacher with what used to be a nationwide television following of so-called Christians. Swaggart loved to preach damnation to gay people and to those who visited bars and used alcohol. Of course he never spoke much about his cousin Mickey Gilley ( a former country singer who once owned the largest saloon in the USA); or his other more notorious cousin Jerry Lee Lewis who married (and later divorced) his 13 year old cousin. Swaggart was discovered by New Orleans police in a convertible, totally stoned on booze and pills (verified by a blood test), and with three known prostitutes in the car with him. Gullible as people can be, they accepted his mealy-mouthed apology and he went on preaching for some years after that. However, he shied away from speaking against sex and drugs, etc. Expose the nutcases for what they are, and you'll score more winning points than any physical force might achieve.

Perhaps we can restate the premise as: "My freedom to exist and live peaceably without hatred or harassment trumps your presumed right to spew that hatred".

 

[diklik]

LOL - I think we could indeed spend many happy hours talking about stuff over a few beers!

B.

Well, I'm up in Canada, Tjerk's in the NL, and you're in the UK, unless I've guessed wrong. At least the distance is cyber-bridgeable.

 

[gb2000ie]

Well, I'm up in Canada, Tjerk's in the NL, and you're in the UK, unless I've guessed wrong. At least the distance is cyber-bridgeable.

Why guess? It says where I am next to every post I write

And you were close - out by 100 miles or 100 years, which ever you prefer.

B.

 

[diklik]

Why guess? It says where I am next to every post I write

And you were close - out by 100 miles or 100 years, which ever you prefer.

B.

OUCH, damned clumsy of me not to read carefully. Eire it is, and my apologies to ya. I can tell you that I once enjoyed a large Guinness as it should be properly served, in a small but very nice pub in Limerick. I was properly instructed in the origin of that beverage by a quaint gent of the region. My employer was the original designer and builder of the cable television systems throughout Eire, and I went there to help brief some of the tech staff on some upgraded technology.

Sadly, I haven't yet been to Tjerk's homeland. Perhaps one day before I get too old to travel.

 

[bijou]

I see the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness" here. That phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence. While the FFs felt it important to subscribe to PoH, that phrase or any hint of happiness is not codified into law via the Constitution. It should be remembered that the DoI is not a doent that ensures legal rights under law.

A great deal is made of the US founding doents. The Declaration of Independence is not a founding doent but a rather sweeping social manifesto. The US Constitution is however, a founding doent and in law the only one that makes any impact on our daily lives.

As an aside, I think it interesting that when the D of I is read aloud by politicians, great emphasis is put on Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, but these following lines are almost always omitted, ... That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, [Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Yes, the Constitution does allow for amending, but abolishing the government? Not very likely.