US freedom of speech compromised
05-11-2011, 03:39 AM
#1
Newb
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 43
Total Cats: 1
US freedom of speech compromised
Timo Soini of the true Finns party tells the truth about European bank bailouts in Wall Street Journal. Seems his opinions were too hot to handle as the article was partially censored the next night after publishing.
Current censored version:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ntId%3D2456164
Original text with changes redlined:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bla...ism-redlined-0
Current censored version:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ntId%3D2456164
Original text with changes redlined:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bla...ism-redlined-0
Reply
0
0
05-11-2011, 07:36 AM
#2
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
he was able to speak. what they did to his words is another thing. It's called editing. Honestly, it looks like they just got rid of some commentary.
Anyways, the constitution says "congress my make no law" - no law was made, the WSJ edited his work before publishing. If they chose not to publish it at all, it still wouldn't violate freedom of speech. However, if they refused to let employees watch **** at work, that's another thing.
THIS is an example of no freedom of speech:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/...against-women/
This guy had to go to court and was convicted of "hate speech" over some "offensive" cartoons.
In Syria, they just kill you.
Anyways, the constitution says "congress my make no law" - no law was made, the WSJ edited his work before publishing. If they chose not to publish it at all, it still wouldn't violate freedom of speech. However, if they refused to let employees watch **** at work, that's another thing.
THIS is an example of no freedom of speech:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/05/...against-women/
This guy had to go to court and was convicted of "hate speech" over some "offensive" cartoons.
In Syria, they just kill you.
Last edited by Braineack; 05-11-2011 at 08:24 AM.
Reply
0
0
05-11-2011, 04:43 PM
#4
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
This is one thing that really bugs me about Americans in general. They all seem to think that the concept of "freedom of speech" is universal.
It isn't.
The constitution protects you from censorship by the US Government (specifically, the Congress, as Brainey pointed out.) Though not expressly stated, this protection is also generally interpreted to extend to state and local governments as well.
There is absolutely nothing at all which prevents a private or commercial entity from censoring speech within whatever property it controls, however. A newspaper or broadcast station is free to restrict the content of what it chooses to publish, just as we here on the forum are free to control the content of what gets posted. A few weeks ago I deleted a bunch of post-whoring from some guy who subsequently PMed me threatening to sue me on the grounds that I'd violated his freedom of expression. Folks like that just don't get it...
It isn't.
The constitution protects you from censorship by the US Government (specifically, the Congress, as Brainey pointed out.) Though not expressly stated, this protection is also generally interpreted to extend to state and local governments as well.
There is absolutely nothing at all which prevents a private or commercial entity from censoring speech within whatever property it controls, however. A newspaper or broadcast station is free to restrict the content of what it chooses to publish, just as we here on the forum are free to control the content of what gets posted. A few weeks ago I deleted a bunch of post-whoring from some guy who subsequently PMed me threatening to sue me on the grounds that I'd violated his freedom of expression. Folks like that just don't get it...
Reply
0
0
05-11-2011, 05:19 PM
#5
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
This is one thing that really bugs me about Americans in general. They all seem to think that the concept of "freedom of speech" is universal.
It isn't.
The constitution protects you from censorship by the US Government (specifically, the Congress, as Brainey pointed out.) Though not expressly stated, this protection is also generally interpreted to extend to state and local governments as well.
There is absolutely nothing at all which prevents a private or commercial entity from censoring speech within whatever property it controls, however. A newspaper or broadcast station is free to restrict the content of what it chooses to publish, just as we here on the forum are free to control the content of what gets posted. A few weeks ago I deleted a bunch of post-whoring from some guy who subsequently PMed me threatening to sue me on the grounds that I'd violated his freedom of expression. Folks like that just don't get it...
It isn't.
The constitution protects you from censorship by the US Government (specifically, the Congress, as Brainey pointed out.) Though not expressly stated, this protection is also generally interpreted to extend to state and local governments as well.
There is absolutely nothing at all which prevents a private or commercial entity from censoring speech within whatever property it controls, however. A newspaper or broadcast station is free to restrict the content of what it chooses to publish, just as we here on the forum are free to control the content of what gets posted. A few weeks ago I deleted a bunch of post-whoring from some guy who subsequently PMed me threatening to sue me on the grounds that I'd violated his freedom of expression. Folks like that just don't get it...
Reply
0
0
05-11-2011, 05:41 PM
#6
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
I only just noticed that the OP is from Scandinavia.
Crap. I've always assumed that only Americans misinterpreted the US constitution in this way. Now it looks like the disease is spreading.
Oh, well. On the plus side, it's nice to see a bunch of religious extremists burning someone else's flag for a change.
Hooray for Denmark!
(I think I saw Finland doing something oppressive, too. We should probable persecute them, just to be safe.
)
Crap. I've always assumed that only Americans misinterpreted the US constitution in this way. Now it looks like the disease is spreading.
Oh, well. On the plus side, it's nice to see a bunch of religious extremists burning someone else's flag for a change.
Hooray for Denmark!
(I think I saw Finland doing something oppressive, too. We should probable persecute them, just to be safe.
)
Reply
0
0
05-12-2011, 01:18 AM
#7
Newb
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 43
Total Cats: 1
Yes, by "compromised" I meant it is not really of much value since the mainstream media is reluctant to publish views that go against mainline politics or the corporate/banking/military sector. Not far off from China then - same result only methods differ...
By the way EU is going a step further. They have been secretly been preparing laws to control internet access in an attempt to ban any sites they see unfit. Look out for similar stuff in the US. These trends seem to be global.
By the way EU is going a step further. They have been secretly been preparing laws to control internet access in an attempt to ban any sites they see unfit. Look out for similar stuff in the US. These trends seem to be global.
Reply
0
0
05-12-2011, 07:40 AM
#9
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
This is one thing that really bugs me about Americans in general. They all seem to think that the concept of "freedom of speech" is universal.
It isn't.
It isn't.
Reply
0
0
05-12-2011, 08:06 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norrahammar, Sweden
Posts: 611
Total Cats: 7
Hey Juri, are you Finish perhaps? My first guess, judging by the name.
Eller är du svensk?
Here in Sweden, we have had a few cases of people claiming that demonstrations with "Hate *******!" themes are covered by the same "freedom of speech" laws.
Stupid people... they are all around us.
Eller är du svensk?
Here in Sweden, we have had a few cases of people claiming that demonstrations with "Hate *******!" themes are covered by the same "freedom of speech" laws.
Stupid people... they are all around us.
Reply
0
0
05-12-2011, 12:03 PM
#14
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Yeah, you're pretty much allowed to express any sentiment you want, insofar as first amendment protection is concerned. Even "hate speech" is specifically protected, as evidenced by the fact that groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the modern **** party, and the Catholic Church continue to operate freely within the US.
There are a few specific forms of speech which are prohibited, and each one is continuously tested in court against the First Amendment.
You may not, for example, deliberately encourage others to violence. So if someone stands up and starts telling people that they must take up weapons and go kill some individual or burn a building to the ground, that would be illegal.
Defamation is also illegal. This would be making any statement which you know to be false against a specific person or group, with the intend to causing some form of harm to them. There is a fine line to be trod here. Simply saying "God hates ****", for instance, is not defamation, as it is very broad and not likely to cause actual harm to anyone. But if a specific person is campaigning to be elected as head of the local school board and you start claiming that this person is a homosexual child molester, then you would be guilty of defamation. (The exception, of course, would be if that person actually was a homosexual child molester, in which case you would not have broken the law.)
And then, of course, there are the relatively new and still quite uncertain issues of things such as reciting aloud the DeCSS source code (in violation of the DMCA) and publicly airing classified material (Wikileaks, etc.) I'm not sure that anybody has really firm answers to these questions yet.
Brief summary: In the US, you can say (or print) almost anything you like, and the government may not censor you except in very specific instanced. HOWEVER, commercial organizations such as newspapers, TV / radio stations, web forums, etc., may "censor" anybody they please, insofar as that they are allowed to control the content of their own publications. The steps of a government building are an open platform. The pages of a newspaper are not.
There are a few specific forms of speech which are prohibited, and each one is continuously tested in court against the First Amendment.
You may not, for example, deliberately encourage others to violence. So if someone stands up and starts telling people that they must take up weapons and go kill some individual or burn a building to the ground, that would be illegal.
Defamation is also illegal. This would be making any statement which you know to be false against a specific person or group, with the intend to causing some form of harm to them. There is a fine line to be trod here. Simply saying "God hates ****", for instance, is not defamation, as it is very broad and not likely to cause actual harm to anyone. But if a specific person is campaigning to be elected as head of the local school board and you start claiming that this person is a homosexual child molester, then you would be guilty of defamation. (The exception, of course, would be if that person actually was a homosexual child molester, in which case you would not have broken the law.)
And then, of course, there are the relatively new and still quite uncertain issues of things such as reciting aloud the DeCSS source code (in violation of the DMCA) and publicly airing classified material (Wikileaks, etc.) I'm not sure that anybody has really firm answers to these questions yet.
Brief summary: In the US, you can say (or print) almost anything you like, and the government may not censor you except in very specific instanced. HOWEVER, commercial organizations such as newspapers, TV / radio stations, web forums, etc., may "censor" anybody they please, insofar as that they are allowed to control the content of their own publications. The steps of a government building are an open platform. The pages of a newspaper are not.
Reply
0
0
05-12-2011, 05:07 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norrahammar, Sweden
Posts: 611
Total Cats: 7
But we also have a law against what is called: "incitement against specific ethnic group", meaning: you can't scream: "We should hate all *******", while demonstrating.
I don't know how "God hates ****" would work here... It is an interesting one. You are after all free to express you religious beliefs. As said, it is a fine line...
Fun fact: actually doing the **** salute is consider an incitement and is therefore illigal, unless you do it in you own home.
Anyway, it was just a side note about Swedish law. Back on topic.
Reply
0
0
05-23-2011, 02:06 PM
#16
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
After U.S. Postal Service Complaint, Burger King Agrees to Modify Ad
The U.S. Postal Service wants Americans to know that even the temptation of French toast sticks and a Double Crossain'wich wouldn't stop its letter carriers from delivering the mail on time.
After unleashing its lawyers, USPS has struck a settlement with Burger King over an ad campaign launched last year that featured a letter carrier getting distracted from his job by delicious Burger King breakfast food.
Apparently, the Postal Service did not appreciate the portrayal. In the ad, a letter carrier in a uniform resembling that of a Postal Service employee sang about the joys of Burger King's new breakfast menu. The offending verse was: "With pancakes and eggs on my plate, the mail has to wait."
According to a Postal Service statement issued Friday, the agency asked the fast food giant to stop airing the ad, arguing that Burger King used its logo and uniform without permission while portraying a letter carrier in a "less than favorable light."
Though Burger King denied wrongdoing, they reached a settlement allowing the company to use a uniform similar to the official Postal Service garb, minus the logo. Burger King is expected to air a "revised" and "more positive" commercial -- one that presumably leaves viewers feeling better about the work ethic of their letter carriers.
Postal Service representative Dave Lewin confirmed to FoxNews.com that the settlement was reached. Asked what the revised commercial would look like, he said only that "another commercial featuring a letter carrier will be broadcast at some point." He said Burger King would adhere in the future to "the appropriate trademark permissions and/or licensing requirements."
The U.S. Postal Service wants Americans to know that even the temptation of French toast sticks and a Double Crossain'wich wouldn't stop its letter carriers from delivering the mail on time.
After unleashing its lawyers, USPS has struck a settlement with Burger King over an ad campaign launched last year that featured a letter carrier getting distracted from his job by delicious Burger King breakfast food.
Apparently, the Postal Service did not appreciate the portrayal. In the ad, a letter carrier in a uniform resembling that of a Postal Service employee sang about the joys of Burger King's new breakfast menu. The offending verse was: "With pancakes and eggs on my plate, the mail has to wait."
According to a Postal Service statement issued Friday, the agency asked the fast food giant to stop airing the ad, arguing that Burger King used its logo and uniform without permission while portraying a letter carrier in a "less than favorable light."
Though Burger King denied wrongdoing, they reached a settlement allowing the company to use a uniform similar to the official Postal Service garb, minus the logo. Burger King is expected to air a "revised" and "more positive" commercial -- one that presumably leaves viewers feeling better about the work ethic of their letter carriers.
Postal Service representative Dave Lewin confirmed to FoxNews.com that the settlement was reached. Asked what the revised commercial would look like, he said only that "another commercial featuring a letter carrier will be broadcast at some point." He said Burger King would adhere in the future to "the appropriate trademark permissions and/or licensing requirements."
USPS faces a $238 billion dollar deficit and this is what they care about? Every little bit when you want to control the public.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Doppelgänger
Insert BS here
1
09-16-2010 11:27 PM
JasonC SBB
Insert BS here
27
09-20-2008 01:09 PM
