[scottiB]

Originally posted by mikerally:
The people or Iraq are actually free to say anything they want as long as the topic of the conversation/message isn't anti-Saddam Hussein/Anti-Regime/Plotting an Uprising/Spy related (essentially anything against the establishment). <snip>

What does freedom of speech matter in America? If all of those against the establishment are never listened to anyway?

"Free speech" doesn't mean "all speech is allowed except those that disagree with the government." It also is immaterial if the banned speech is only a small percentage of actual public conversation. It's either free or not.

If those who speak against "the establishment" aren't satisified that their voices aren't being heeded, they then can excercise another right, the right to vote, to expel the members with which they disagree. To that end, they can publically campaign, form parties and coalitions whose values are different from the current ruling party, publishing them themselves, granting interviews to media, or grabbing a crate and orating on a street corner. Whether they're elected is not guaranteed, but that they can is what's paramount.

I'm sure you didn't need my goofy civics expostion, and I can empathize with your attitude, but, really, the implication that freedom of speech in America is valueless because it doesn't automatically invoke change is a tad extreme.

[zigzag]

scottiB and Millenium are correct - people too often confuse freedom of speech with popularity of speech. The fact that no one is interested in what you're saying doesn't mean you're being censored - it just means that no one's interested. But everyone assumes that what they have to say should be printed on page 1.

It reminds me of people who are always saying that "If only more Americans educated themselves and voted, things would be better!" They're under the illusion that all of those non-voters would arrive at the same conclusions that they have and would vote the same way that they do. If things don't go their way, they conclude that there must be something wrong with the system.

[mikerally]

Um, if the fruit tastes like crap because of sanctions due to Sadaam's actions, then yea. Sadaam's secret police might get rather upset. Consider that 60% of Iraq are dependent upon the government for food then criticizing the food is, in effect, criticizing the government.

That is ridiculous, you could be just as easily be complaining about the the shop you are getting your food from. You are not going to be flogged or beaten for saying that.

Consider this. Most of us here on this forum would be tortured and killed just for expressing our views. Think about that.

This is a political forum, this is the very subject that has the taboo, how can you expect me not understand that?

I'm just trying to point out the way people are ranting about freedom of speech, asif to say you can't open your mouth at all in Iraq without being persecuted - are far from reality themselves - just look at the journalists reporting live from Bagdad - granted they're not allowed to say anything - but from the reporting I've heard, it sounds like they have fair amount of freedom (not as much as they would in the USA of course).

"Free speech" doesn't mean "all speech is allowed except those that disagree with the government." It also is immaterial if the banned speech is only a small percentage of actual public conversation. It's either free or not.

Yes "Free Speech" means you can say anything you want.

But guess what - you can't say anything you want in America either.

You can get prosecuted and punished for revealing Government/Military secrets and any related information.

And if you create an encryption algorhythm to share information that the US Government can't decrypt - and you share the information on how to do that you can be jailed for that too.

You can get prosecuted/sued for liabel.

---

And my final point is? There are no real extremes about what freedom of speech is - the freedom of speech between America and other countries are a lot closer than you think - and it means very little when you're beaten up about the colour of your skin and not what you say.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Yes "Free Speech" means you can say anything you want.

But guess what - you can't say anything you want in America either.

You can get prosecuted and punished for revealing Government/Military secrets and any related information.

And if you create an encryption algorhythm to share information that the US Government can't decrypt - and you share the information on how to do that you can be jailed for that too.

You can get prosecuted/sued for liabel.

---

And my final point is? There are no real extremes about what freedom of speech is - the freedom of speech between America and other countries are a lot closer than you think - and it means very little when you're beaten up about the colour of your skin and not what you say.

I didn't say that one can say anything that one wants--yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to ape a much used example. The spirit of free speech is that one can say whatever one wants as long as no one else is harmed. In America, spraypainting racial epithets on someone's house or burning a cross on a front yard is illegal.

Your examples of state secrets can be interpreted as a threat to a country's safety--and, perhaps, intellectual property theft. Personally, I signed an NDA with my employer. I doubt I could publish any my firm's trade secrets and claim free speech. The encryption example is murkier, but I think that most citizens of most countries would concede that right if they believed (or were propagandized) that the encryption would threaten their collective safety. Citizens, whether by direct vote or through their representatives, decide where, when, and to what extent to limit their freedoms.

Regardless of these restrictions, as long as I don't harm others or impede their rights, I can speak, write, paint, sing, and march to whatever I want, for whatever reason, at any time--as I'm sure you can.

The definition of free speech that I had in mind when I originally replied was the one you defined: the ability to publicly voice an opinion that ran counter to the government's. It's the definition, I'd argue, that would spring to most people's heads when they hear the term.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding the racial violence pertaining to free speech, but it does dovetail with your assertion of minority voices having little effect. The sit-ins, boycotts, and marches during the American Civil Rights Movement sparked social change beyond their numbers.

[BkueKanoodle]

While the professor does have the right to say what he wants, he still has to face the repercussions of it from an outraged public.

I find it ironic that anytime somebody says something against the US the first thing out of their supporters mouths is "consitutional right! He can say whatever he want"

Need I remind them that the US constitution also states on Article III section 3

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

While this professors comments may not fall under this definition, other media personalites who give interviews on iraqi tv praising the iraqi army and thus providing them "psychological comforta nd encouragement" may not enjoy the same protection.

[cpt kangarooski]

scottiB:

The spirit of free speech is that one can say whatever one wants as long as no one else is harmed. In America, spraypainting racial epithets on someone's house or burning a cross on a front yard is illegal.

As speech, or as conduct involving damaging property or trespassing? Certainly there's nothing illegal about racial epithets or burning crosses per se. It's the 'someone else's house or yard' that is the bad part. See, for example, the RAV case.

As for the thing about developing encryption, courts are warming to the concept that source code at least is speech, being nothing more than a very precise way of communicating an idea, much as one might formally use logic or mathematics or even the way that ordinary language is used in law. And I'd argue that such a law is a prior restraint at worst, and a content-based restriction at best, and in neither case narrowly tailored (as it tends to restrict use of it that is not a threat to national security or policing) nor effectual (since it can be developed abroad). So I see comparatively little _actual_ regulation there.

[mikerally]

The definition of free speech that I had in mind when I originally replied was the one you defined: the ability to publicly voice an opinion that ran counter to the government's. It's the definition, I'd argue, that would spring to most people's heads when they hear the term.

I agree with you on that point.

My comments were targeted towards those who made it out to be so much more. Frankly I was fed up about how people kept preaching it like it was the Bible or something - and face it - a lot of people including the media do, the phrase "freedom of speech" doesn't stop ringing in my head, anybody would think they were trying to brainwash me.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
While the professor does have the right to say what he wants, he still has to face the repercussions of it from an outraged public.

I find it ironic that anytime somebody says something against the US the first thing out of their supporters mouths is "consitutional right! He can say whatever he want"

Need I remind them that the US constitution also states on Article III section 3

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

While this professors comments may not fall under this definition, other media personalites who give interviews on iraqi tv praising the iraqi army and thus providing them "psychological comforta nd encouragement" may not enjoy the same protection.

AAAAAAAAAAAmen

Freedom of speech means that your govt cannot control or limit what you say. It doesnt mean that you can just say what ever you want at any time with out repercussions. I think this guy should just be shot by a firing squad or immediatly deported.

[pal05]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
http://www.conservativefrontline.com

This makes we want to throw up. And just to think, he aparently cheered on by 3000 students of Columbia liberal univ all feel the same way. Why do we let these people live here?

Hi,

i think you should sell your computer cause it is evil why?

Here's to the crazy ones.

__The misfits.

____The rebels.

______The troublemakers.

________The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things differently.

They?re not fond of rules.

____ And they have no respect for the status quo.

You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,

____ disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can?t do is ignore them.

______Because they change things.

They invent.____They imagine.____They heal.

__They explore.____They create.____They inspire.

____They push the human race forward.

Maybe they have to be crazy.

How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song that?s never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?

We make tools for these kinds of people.

While some see them as the crazy ones,
___we see genius.

Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Copyright � 2003 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.

apple.com/thinkdifferent

Yeah but you are right, people wo think different should banned out of the USA.
Europe have no problem to take people that think different and say what the think.

www.pal05.net

[pal05]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
AAAAAAAAAAAmen

Freedom of speech mean that your govt cannot control or limit what you say. It doesnt mean that you can just say what ever you want at any time with out repercussions. I think this guy should just be shot by a firing squad or immediatly deported.

that's the way Saddam Hussein does, nice to see that some american citizen are not better then Saddam...

[fxbezak]

This has nothign to do with thinking differently from others, its about thinking maliciously against the lives of people who are defending your right to say the stupid things liberals mostly, but everyone says.

[pal05]

You mean like every German at WW2 should behind Hitler and his army cause the figthing for the German's?
If the War is IN the USA i'am with you. But the USA has everytime the choice to don't make War. The reason why the do it is also dubious. So i see no reason why citizen in the USA say that this doesn't make any sense to them like many million people around the world (without to fear that the would loss theire jobs).

[fxbezak]

No. Hitler was a terror to his own people and a threat to world society as a whole. Everyone except the liberals knows this is a war against saddam and his thug group, a group that tortured, killed, and raped people in his own country. No one is forcing that idiot at columbia university to live here if he hates this country and what it stands for. Maybe HE should go live in mogadishu... if he is love so much with it.

The US is not a terrorist nation and the president does not go around setting up rape camps for americans. nor does he pack americans in trains only to build the very same death camps they would later be burned it.


And yes, as you said, we do have a choice to not make war.. but how long are you going to let a house burn , before you reaslize that there are a load of people inside that can be saved from a raging fire. We TRIED to not have war, but the inept UN and the countries like France, who were selling weapons to Iraq, stood in the way of liberating and protecting the people of Iraq... we had no choice.

so the moral of the story is....
say what you want.. but get the hell out if you dont like it here.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
scottiB:
As speech, or as conduct involving damaging property or trespassing? Certainly there's nothing illegal about racial epithets or burning crosses per se. It's the 'someone else's house or yard' that is the bad part. See, for example, the RAV case.

Your right regarding trespassing; however, if I planted a cross on my front yard facing my African-American neighbors and ignited it every evening, I think I'd probably be accused of racial intimidation and not protected by free speech (though I'm not an attorney and don't know the letter of this law--thank God).

I agree with your suppositions regarding encryption: it is original communication and is free speech. It's a murky legal issue, balancing what may be a perceived threat to a country's security against, essentially, the ability to protect one's right to privacy. I'm beyond my scope here, so I dare not add further.

On-topic (and I haven't read the entire thread): What the prof said may be distasteful, but I have no issue with his right to say it. If Columbia has an issue with it, they can dispense penalties.

During this war, I pass protesters a few blocks from my home a few days a week. I think some of the slogans are a tad naive, but I smile and encourage them through my open windows. I applaud perhaps not what they promote as much as they have the ability to do it freely--and are doing it. Occasionally, though, some are pretty vociferous and, frankly, obnoxious. I then exercise my right not to listen.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by mikerally:
I agree with you on that point.

My comments were targeted towards those who made it out to be so much more. Frankly I was fed up about how people kept preaching it like it was the Bible or something - and face it - a lot of people including the media do, the phrase "freedom of speech" doesn't stop ringing in my head, anybody would think they were trying to brainwash me.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by scottiB:
I think some of the slogans are a tad naive, but I smile and encourage them through my open windows. I applaud perhaps not what they promote as much as they have the ability to do it freely--and are doing it. Occasionally, though, some are pretty vociferous and, frankly, obnoxious. I then exercise my right not to listen.

I would agree with this assessment.

[typoon]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
While the professor does have the right to say what he wants, he still has to face the repercussions of it from an outraged public.

I find it ironic that anytime somebody says something against the US the first thing out of their supporters mouths is "consitutional right! He can say whatever he want"

Need I remind them that the US constitution also states on Article III section 3

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

While this professors comments may not fall under this definition, other media personalites who give interviews on iraqi tv praising the iraqi army and thus providing them "psychological comforta nd encouragement" may not enjoy the same protection.

So that Means that Peter Arnett could be charged for treason right?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
His quotes from the rally are well documented. Getting unbiased information wasn't difficult at all, unless you feel that word-by-word, quoted statements made by DeGenova at the rally are biased.

So, it's ok for Person A to make a statement, but not ok for Persons B, C, and D to disagree? That's undemocratic.

This outrage is as democratic as it gets. The government is not even remotely involved here.

An overwhelming majority of citizens have taken offense to De Genova's statements, and are utilizing THEIR free speech rights to disagree with him.

... And noone - even "liberals" (!) - tried to deny this freedom of speech!

What is rather undemocratic, IMO, is that some people demand that someone be "punished" for saying things that aren't in line with the current trend.

As for De Genova, personally, I have no problem with someone being - even vehemently - against the military. Why? Because, personally, I'm obviously not against the military (or the police, etc.) as individual persons (most are nice guys/gals, after all) - but certainly I tend to despise them as an institution of concentrated "power" (if one can call it so). Of course, De Genova might have exaggerated with his opinions (violence is never good, IMO: it should be used only in extreme situations, for defensive purposes) - but that's no valid reason to (instrumentally) over-react and try to demonise him!

My main problem with the so-called "conservatives", etc. is that they often tend to demand that people who "think different(ly)" be punished by some form of preexistent, status quo institution - often, an institution based on privilege and violence!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by scottiB:
Your right regarding trespassing; however, if I planted a cross on my front yard facing my African-American neighbors and ignited it every evening, I think I'd probably be accused of racial intimidation and not protected by free speech (though I'm not an attorney and don't know the letter of this law--thank God).

But Cpt. Kangarooski is a law student and is giving you a pretty good account of the law in the area. For a couple of reasons, if you posted political speech (which a burning cross is even if it is hateful) in your front yard, that would be protected. You couldn't be prosecuted and it is doubtful even if you could be told to take it down on aesthetics grounds (e.g. zoning). This is an area of law that the Supreme Court has examined in depth.

Of course, there are always things that could change the analysis such as if you lived in a subdivision with a reciprocal covenant restricting yard signs. But the basic rule is that speech doesn't lose its protected status just because it is obnoxious to the majority. Quite the opposite, that is exactly when speech needs its protection most.

But as you and others have pointed out, the first amendment protects against government restrictions on speech. It doesn't mean you get freedom from criticism for your speech, or that a private employer (such as a university) is required to subsidize it by giving its employees a platform.

[typoon]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
No. Hitler was a terror to his own people and a threat to world society as a whole. Everyone except the liberals knows this is a war against saddam and his thug group, a group that tortured, killed, and raped people in his own country. No one is forcing that idiot at columbia university to live here if he hates this country and what it stands for. Maybe HE should go live in mogadishu... if he is love so much with it.

The US is not a terrorist nation and the president does not go around setting up rape camps for americans. nor does he pack americans in trains only to build the very same death camps they would later be burned it.


And yes, as you said, we do have a choice to not make war.. but how long are you going to let a house burn , before you reaslize that there are a load of people inside that can be saved from a raging fire. We TRIED to not have war, but the inept UN and the countries like France, who were selling weapons to Iraq, stood in the way of liberating and protecting the people of Iraq... we had no choice.

so the moral of the story is....
say what you want.. but get the hell out if you dont like it here.

Amen. You know that it would never happen that they would leave because they hate it here. Thy enjoy there freedoms in the US and wouldn't want to give that up.

He can say what he wants but he should also remember that he CAN say that here. Try something like that in China, they would arrest you and through you in Jail and throw the key away. That is if they didn't execute you for Treason. Some people forget how good WE in the US have it. They also seem to forget that the Men and Women of the Armed forces allow them to have the freedom to say what they want.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... And noone - even "liberals" (!) - tried to deny this freedom of speech!

What is rather undemocratic, IMO, is that some people demand that someone be "punished" for saying things that aren't in line with the current trend.

As for De Genova, personally, I have no problem with someone being - even vehemently - against the military. Why? Because, personally, I'm obviously not against the military (or the police, etc.) as individual persons - but certainly I tend to despise them as an institution of concentrated "power" (if one can call it so).

My main problem with the so-called "conservatives", etc. is that they often tend to demand that people who "think different(ly)" be punished by some form of preexistent, status quo institution - often, an institution based on privilege and violence!

If the Military wasn't an institution how else would you suggest we defend the country? With Milita? Would it be better to have people in there houses with guns? I'm sorry but the institution of the military IS necessary. Without it there would be no way to defend the country.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by typoon:
If the Military wasn't an institution how else would you suggest we defend the country? With Milita? Would it be better to have people in there houses with guns? I'm sorry but the institution of the military IS necessary. Without it there would be no way to defend the country.

Well... of course, one example is Switzerland, with its "militia"-based form of self-defense (and "neutrality").

Personally, I would prefer some form of nonviolent popular defense, such as those promoted by peace researchers like Johan Galtung, etc. (see also this web site, BTW).

The main problem with the military, today, is that they are not a democratic organisation - which they very well could be, given certain conditions...

[typoon]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Well... of course, one example is Switzerland, with its "militia"-based form of self-defense (and "neutrality").

Personally, I would prefer some form of nonviolent popular defense, such as those promoted by peace researchers like Johan Galtung, etc. (see also this web site, BTW).

The main problem with the military, today, is that they are not a democratic organisation - which they very well could be, given certain conditions...

I'm still not sure I understand the nonviolent popular defense. I read the Transcend site and some of there issues about this war are wrong.
Being non-violent is all fine and good but non violence sometimes won't solve the issues at hand. soemtimes you NEED to use force to solve the problem. I doubt that if we used non violent means to get rid of Saddam from Kuwait it would have worked.

[scottiB]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
<snip>You couldn't be prosecuted and it is doubtful even if you could be told to take it down on aesthetics grounds (e.g. zoning). This is an area of law that the Supreme Court has examined in depth.<and snip again>

Thanks for info. I knew with every key I typed that I was leaping beyond my knowledge, yet I plowed through regardless.

I would fully support, though, limiting free speech regarding aesthetics and appoint myself Grand Aesthetic Arbiter. A little totalitarianism in the sake of taste is a just cause.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by typoon:
If the Military wasn't an institution how else would you suggest we defend the country? With Milita? Would it be better to have people in there houses with guns? I'm sorry but the institution of the military IS necessary. Without it there would be no way to defend the country.

Isn't the militia argument *precisely* how lack of weapons regulation is justified by the gun nuts?

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I think this guy should just be shot by a firing squad or immediatly deported.

Yes!

"Concentrate" all dissident thinkers into "happy camps". Just like you did with the Nips in WWII - except with the addition of happy fireworks ("firing squad" sounds so fascist, no?).

Of course, the minute this happens, the rest of the world will have legitimate reason to invade and bomb your country, to remove the Reign of Terror.

So you'd better watch out that your President doesn't start murdering his own subjects...oh, wait.

-s*

[pal05]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
And yes, as you said, we do have a choice to not make war.. but how long are you going to let a house burn , before you reaslize that there are a load of people inside that can be saved from a raging fire. We TRIED to not have war, but the inept UN and the countries like France, who were selling weapons to Iraq, stood in the way of liberating and protecting the people of Iraq... we had no choice.

good example
what if no one in this house crie for help?
what if no one in this house let you in?

The Iraq's don't asked for help and the don't wan't america in Iraq.
The USA bring the American Way of Life to Iraq
But face it, the Iraq don't wan't your way of life - the just hates the USA. The USA replaces the Iraq govermant to a USA friendly govermant and uses the oil to steal there resources.

If you want Weapons, you get Weapons - USA, France, Russia, GB all they sell Weapons not to Iraq but to Africa, Korea and so on...
That's not a reason against Iraq (Bin Laden is trained by the USA - we should boykot USA...)

sincerly,

[Sven G]

Originally posted by typoon:
I'm still not sure I understand the nonviolent popular defense. [...]

Here's an interesting synthesis on this matter, BTW.

Of course, the global point might be that we don't need oppressive institutions if people are able to manage conflicts in a constructive manner by themselves. Are they (actually, we) able to do this? Potentially, yes, if we are allowed to freely live and educate ourselves - which, probably, is the most difficult thing, also in our (not so) "free" western cultures...