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

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 porn 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.

In his homeland he got virtually no coverage! :-)

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...

So true.

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. :D)

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.

the US gov't already wants to control the internet and has considered laws on internet IDs and being the nation's only service provider.

Kinda like when people post shit on forums and then cite "freedom of speech" meanwhile the forum is privately owned and the owner can say what can and can't be said....yet some people get all pissy when they're told they can post specific words and whatnot.

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 niggers!" themes are covered by the same "freedom of speech" laws. :facepalm: Stupid people... they are all around us.

They would be covered here. I dunno about the outer realm.

Sorry, I express myself poorly. The demonstration is of course legal. Screaming negative things about coloured people or other ethnic groups while you are demonstrating isn't.

That's legal here.

free speech includes hate speech.

all or nothing. see: "god hates fags"

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 Nazi 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 fags", 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.

This is what I was trying to express (learned a new english word to: Defamation). And just as for you, this is a fine line. Technically, you may say: "I think coloured people are lazy and stupid", since it is your opinon. But you may not say: "we should kill all coloured people".

But we also have a law against what is called: "incitement against specific ethnic group", meaning: you can't scream: "We should hate all niggers", while demonstrating.

I don't know how "God hates fags" 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 Nazi 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.

USPS faces a $238 billion dollar deficit and this is what they care about? Every little bit when you want to control the public.