Art Authenticator Sues The New Yorker, Claiming Profile Defamed Him
Google Tried Bidding Geeky Numbers For Nortel Patents; How About $3.14159 Billion?

Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?

Free Speech

from the permission-culture dept

Tue, Jul 5th 2011 05:08am -

free speech?

Free Speech means you don’t
have to ask if you’re allowed
to say what you want.

I would kill myself
If I had faith in the Law
Thank God for no faith.

Filed Under: ,

149 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
149 Comments
Mr. LemurBoy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Contrary to popular belief, cartoons don’t always have to be funny. Sometimes they can be poignant or touching or just thought provoking. Comics are an art form. Just because we’re used to them being a vehicle for humor doesn’t mean they’re less legitimate when they aren’t.

This specific comic may not have made me laugh, but it did make me smile and make me think. I think that works.

Ikarushka (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What I don’t like about these cartoons is that I feel deprived of my basic human rights every time I share Nina’s works. Most of the stuff out there is copyrighted, so I have two choices: procure that stuff legally (buy or secure a permission), or pirate it. Here I have no choice but to share these cartoons legally. Nina trumps my basic right to pirate her wonderful works 🙁

garm (profile) says:

Freedom

When I read about such things as this I am always reminded of these words:

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It’s so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.

— Frank Herbert : God Emperor of Dune

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Permission Society

Nah, what are you talking about? Unlimited is fantastic! It holds TWICE as many photos as the 10 GB plan (but only 1/3 more videos).

For proof, see this:

http://www.virgin.net/allyours/bbandphone/index.html

Scroll down to find:

5 GB of online storage:
* 2000 photos
* 1000 music tracks
* 8 videos
* 400 documents

10 GB of online storage:
* 4000 photos
* 2000 music tracks
* 12 videos
* 800 documents

UNLIMITED online storage:
* 8000 photos
* 4000 music tracks
* 16 videos
* 1600 documents

Anonymous Coward says:

You are entirely free to express yourself, there are few restrictions. Cartoons and political commentary like this are usually made by people who haven’t spent a lot of time outside of the western world, and don’t realize that incredible freedoms that they have.

If you concentrate on the negatives, they will always appear to be much larger than they are. Nina’s cartoon as an incredible amount of negative navel gazing, and absolutely not very funny either.

boring as porridge,
so mindless and ever so dull,
nina loses again.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Cartoons and political commentary like this are usually made by people who haven’t spent a lot of time outside of the western world, and don’t realize that incredible freedoms that they have

Just because some people have less freedom than you doesn’t automatically mean you have ample freedom. Should cities with better-than-average murder rates stop preventing murder?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The US already borders on having excessive free speech (see the “church” people protesting at funerals), rather than a lack of it. Even in Canada where you are at Marcus, there is a near unlimited amount of free speech.

What is the issue? Nina is still hurting from the pouding she got from the copyright industry making Sita, and can’t let go of that feeling, failing to admit to herself that perhaps she made some errors along the way.

Free speech doesn’t mean that everything is absolutely free. What restrictions do exist are so small, that most people in the world wouldn’t complain.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The US already borders on having excessive free speech (see the “church” people protesting at funerals), rather than a lack of it. Even in Canada where you are at Marcus, there is a near unlimited amount of free speech.”

LOLwut? Excessive Free Speech? I love the concept of the serfs having too much freedom in the eyes of the Lords….

“What is the issue? Nina is still hurting from the pouding she got from the copyright industry making Sita, and can’t let go of that feeling, failing to admit to herself that perhaps she made some errors along the way.”

Congrats. You win the Side Swipe Award of the day, in which you take argument A, fail, and then switch to argument B, which has been debunked already, in a sad attempt to make some semblance of a point, and fail again. You award comes with twenty motivational tapes by Deepak Chopra to help get yo mind, right, as well as two complimentary novelty Chopra eyebrows, valued at thirty-seven dollars a piece.

“Free speech doesn’t mean that everything is absolutely free.”

That’s true. And a hot dog isn’t a vibrator….but what’s your point?

“What restrictions do exist are so small, that most people in the world wouldn’t complain.”

I want to hilight this idiotic statement, because it’s important. This thought is borne of the same mind juices that produce “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”. It’s an inability to recognize that the United States (and to some degree by extension, our North American neighbors) are built on a very simple concept: striving for the ideal.

Using your logic, the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s never should have happened, because those people had it waaaaaay better than when they were enslaved, so they shouldn’t have been complaining. Based on your logic, Chinese and Irish railroad workers who were getting their heads kicked in while being prejudized against should have kept their mouths shut, because at least they weren’t enduring a worse oppresive regime or a potato famine.

Based on your logic, this country wouldn’t progress, because we’d be so busy basking in our own unfinished business to ever reach a little further for the next rung on the ladder.

Based on your logic, we’d never have had these freedoms to begin with if you had been in charge all those years ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

There are a few good debaters on this site, that is for sure. Sadly, you aren’t one of them. You managed to miss the point on each item, and you tried hard to cloud the issue by swinging around the civil rights issues of the 60s. You need only to drag in Hitler and perhaps Ghandi to complete the mindless picture you are trying to paint.

The church’s speech in their protest was sufficiently excessive to some that it went all the way to the supreme court. Obviously, in a society that is willing to tolerate speech this hateful and this disruptive, we have little to worry about. It is the sort of speech that isn’t tolerated in very many places at all.

I repeat again, What restrictions do exist are so small, that most people in the world wouldn’t complain. Take someone from Cuba, put them in the US, and ask them to tell you where they feel more free. They will tell you that in the US they are entirely free. That US level of free speech protection is the envy of the world, perhaps the closest thing to absolute free speech.

We don’t have to give up a seat in the bus to get it, we don’t have to use segregated water fountains to maintain it. All of your 60s civil rights play is just that, a play. There was no limits on free speech, only limits imposed by the very constitution you protect. You know, the one that so clearly defined slaves? Your argument isn’t about the 1st amendment or free speech, and just seems to be out there to generate sympathy and misdirect the discussion. Nice move!

As for Nina herself, there is no denying that her copyright hating ways are as a result of the errors she made in producing Sita. Before that she didn’t care, now she is writing humourless cartoons and railing against all sorts of things. The conclusion is very easy to draw.

Americans are incredibly free, have incredible free speech laws that most others in the world envy. Only true navel gazers in the US could complain.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

The only point I was initially trying to make was that saying “other places have it worse” is a facile argument, and you (should) know that if you are half as smart as you try to sound.

Moreover, do you not see the inherent idiocy of arguing against the fight for freedom on the grounds that you already have it? Do you not realize that the moment you become complacent about your rights, the moment you take them for granted, people begin to whittle them away?

Do you not realize that at absolutely every single step along the way to the level of freedom you enjoy today, someone could just as easily have said “okay folks, this is good enough, lets stop here” as you are trying to say now?

Freedom is not about looking back at the past and patting yourself on the back for having improved things. It’s about looking forward to the future and making sure that, at all times, people are becoming more free and not less.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Marcus, you are making another meaningless cover argument, mostly I think to try to support your undying love of remix artists over more original artists.

You never stop to fight to maintain the rights you have. To argue differently would be stupid. However, smart people can understand and accept the concept that even free speech has it’s limits within a polite and fair society. Those who choose to focus on the small areas where they feel they have given up freedom are the people who will fail to appreciate all the freedom they already have.

The level of freedom we have today is a result of the choices made hundreds of years ago, not the self-justifying whining of a cartoonist today.

Freedom is all about looking back at the past, and learning not to make the same mistakes in the future. It’s also about learning when it is time to celebrate all that you have, rather than whining about the small things you don’t have.

There is no endless “more free”, unless you move on to a no-government, no rules, no constitutional approach where you would be absolutely free to do whatever you want. However, your neighbors would be free to do what they want, and what they want may get in the way of what you want. By your logic, both would be free to do what they like, even if they hurt the other. Freedom isn’t an absolute, because you aren’t living alone. There are always other people with their bucket of freedom on the other side. At the edges, freedom isn’t a hard line, it’s a fractal border as your freedoms bump up against other people’s freedoms, and the “system” provides the rules that let us resolve the differences and make the two sides mesh.

Nina’s whining would be dull but somewhat relevant in Cuba or Iran, but seems mostly like sour grapes in the most free country on earth.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Marcus, you are making another meaningless cover argument, mostly I think to try to support your undying love of remix artists over more original artists.

Still harping on that, huh? Well, makes sense – you totally ignored the comment in which I refuted it and listed many “original” artists I consider among my favourites. Can’t stand being wrong, huh?

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“You never stop to fight to maintain the rights you have. To argue differently would be stupid.”

Frog meet room temperature water.

“However, smart people can understand and accept the concept that even free speech has it’s limits within a polite and fair society.”

And the government should be the one to say what is a polite and fair society?

“The level of freedom we have today is a result of the choices made hundreds of years ago”

So the equal rights movements, the women’s suffrage movement, that all happened hundreds of years ago? The racism that comes from the police and is ignored by the higher ups, that doesn’t exist? The constant push to get people who are just stating their beliefs to shut up, that doesn’t happen?

“Freedom is all about looking back at the past, and learning not to make the same mistakes in the future.”

Remember that, you’ll need it.

“It’s also about learning when it is time to celebrate all that you have, rather than whining about the small things you don’t have.”

How can one celebrate all we have when the underlining foundation is crumbling around us? Yeah, we have a house, but if we don’t fix the cracks in the foundation, it’ll come crashing down on top of us.

“There is no endless “more free””

While there is a “more free” to strive for, it’s metaphysical and cannot be put on paper. That’s not a reason to stop striving for it. It’s also not a reason to let the freedoms we already have fall away.

“Nina’s whining would be dull but somewhat relevant in Cuba or Iran, but seems mostly like sour grapes in the most free country on earth.”

Sure, AC.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I think the laughable concept here is that you are doing what many seem to do in democracies: They blame the “gubbermint”, while not being politically active or working to fix it.

The government is of the people, by the people, for the people. You may not like the choices that are made, but it’s the government of all of the people, not blog whiner wannabes. Trying to act like the govenrment isn’t your fault and is your enemy is entirely laughable, because the government is you (collective). Shoot yourself in the foot, it has the same effect.

Further, you have tried to drive the discussion off the tracks by looking at things like the equal rights amendment and others. We aren’t talking about massive human rights, we are talking about Nina thinking she has the right to use other people’s works, to use other people’s words, and other people’s efforts as her own.

To put it into terms you understand, it would be as if in granting women the vote, the “gubbermint” had removed the right of men to vote. What Nina wants isn’t a level playing field, she wants a funnel that pours content and completed art into the top, so she can put them in a cup and claim them as her own. She wants the people who make the art to have less rights, so that she can have more. It’s an unfair trade.

As for your foundation analogy, I have to agree. But painting a fake crack on a strong structure and then claiming the need for urgent change is just dishonest. That is what most of this stuff is about.

So yes, her whining likely comes off as sour grapes to people who live with a controlled press, limited media, and so on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Oh Marcus, come on. Your entire style is to just keep pluggin away, and never admit anyone else could be right. You made a personal attack, because you could no longer win. That makes you a prick. Now get back to work creating copyright works for your boss before they realize you are wasting their money!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Actually, I usually just switch to personal attacks when I get tired of arguing with your circular logic. It’s a lot more fun. And my point stands: you clearly don’t know what the phrase “sour grapes” means. That makes you an idiot.

And are we really harping on the work thing again? Need I remind you one more time that I am a freelance worker?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

A freelance worker doing work for hire, giving other people material that they copyright. Correct me if I am wrong, but everything the newspaper you do work for publishes comes with a copyright notice, right? So basically, make a living off of copyright loving companies, and bitch about it.

How quaint!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

In case you didn’t notice, we live in a world where it is almost impossible to escape copyright.

I don’t actively defend my copyrights, ever. People are free to do what they want with anything I create. I sell my skills and talents – in the case of the National Post, they pay to me generate all sorts of different materials for them.

Now yes, I personally don’t think they need copyrights on what I create, but that’s their decision. I don’t rely on copyright to make money from my work – I never attempt to retain or re-sell rights to anything. I get paid for my scarce presence and attention, not the infinite goods I produce (and I mean that quite literally – I bill most of my freelance work by the hour, not by the project)

But I am also realistic enough that I’m not about to go on a hunger strike until every publication in the world renounces copyright. What you call “bitching” I call being part of an ongoing effort to educate people about the realities of intellectual property and, in the long run, hopefully bring about meaningful change. In the mean time, if content companies that hire me want to own the rights to my work (rights I never wanted in the first place, and rights that I think are somewhat meaningless), then I can accept that, because I don’t expect the world to change overnight.

It’s also worth noting that I am not a copyright abolitionist. I think some amount of copyright protection has a place in society – but I think we have strayed so far from that place that it’s almost impossible to see the issue clearly. If I do stray into arguing for abolitionism, it’s because I feel like we need to start the debate about what copyright SHOULD be from a blank slate (the natural state, in which there is no copyright) instead of trying to start it from the convoluted, oppressive status of copyright today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

What is not natural is to have someone create something, and not be able to profit from their work. It is not natural that people wait for someone to create something, and immediately take control of it and give it away without concern.

It is not natural that we wouldn’t have systems in place that allow us to share not only the content we love, but also the costs of making it. It is not natural to have a society of free loaders.

What is really funny is that if copyright was abolished tomorrow, you would be out of work and likely unable to ever find a paying job in your field again. I cannot imagine anyone with the desire to shoot themselves in the foot like that.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

Do you have some sort of dossier on my career that I’m not aware of? Because, as far as I know, you are basing all this on a two-line descriptor in my profile, and possibly my sparse LinkedIn page, or something like that.

You really have no idea what I do for a living. Suffice to say, the question of copyright ownership has literally never come up in my career. If copyright were abolished tomorrow, my various clients wouldn’t suddenly magically know how to build websites and write marketing copy and design logos – so I think I’d be just fine, thanks

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

What? You work for a publisher, working on a weekly insert amongst other things, and helping them with their online stuff.

I suspect your “various clients” are all in the same boat, and they would be unable to pay for your work considering they could just steal the same from everyone else if copyright was abolished.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Re:

Ugh, this is just silly. For one thing I have no idea what “weekly insert” you are talking about… and the majority of work I do for the National Post is supplementary tools for their sales team, and marketing materials, not “helping them with their online stuff” whatever that’s supposed to mean. And my clients (especially for website design) come from a variety of industries – publishers, hotels, charities, manufacturers…

So I repeat: you really don’t know anything at all about how I make my living, so why are you making wild assumptions based on extremely vague information?

I know you really want to believe that the world would collapse in on itself without copyright, but I think you’ll discover that’s not the case.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

What is not natural is to have someone create something, and not be able to profit from their work. It is not natural that people wait for someone to create something, and immediately take control of it and give it away without concern.

I hope you think about this for a second, and realize exactly how wrong you are.

This was, and is, exactly how culture is transmitted. It’s how religions are created, and political ideologies spread. It’s how knowledge is passed from person to person.

On a more mundane level, I’ll give you an example. If someone tells you a good knock-knock joke, is it wrong to tell it to someone else? Do you feel guilty unless you pay the guy that told it to you?

No. Nobody does. The thought probably never enters your mind.

It is not natural for creators to demand profit from what they create – that’s why so few can actually do it. It is natural for people to take creative expression and repeat it as widely as possible, without a second thought. (And without “taking control” of it in the least.)

You can argue that copyright is better than what came before it. You can argue that it is an economic necessity, or a public benefit. But the notion that it is “natural” is completely insane. It is the opposite of what is natural.

Any Mouse (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Read that, because it is important. It is among the most important paragraphs in US government. NO LAW. That includes RELIGION /and/ SPEECH. You are suggesting that we don’t like the speech (speech) of one church (religion), so we should stifle it. Can you not see how that is two strikes against this singular rule?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

This is a ruling that proves the concept: The US has so much free speech, and so much protection, that even speech that almost all of us dislike is still very much protected (by a stunning majority of the court).

It is the case that makes all of Nina’s whining of the subject just that, whining. Your rights are more protected, you have more free speech, and you have more general freedom than at any other time in history. Quit whining!

garm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

— Voltaire

Freedom is a never ending struggle. We should strive for a society where everyone can say anything they want, and when we arrive there we will have to hope that this society is an ethical society where people do not say things only with the intent to hurt others.

But even if this proves to be impossible I will always chose to live in such a society. Such things is a small price to pay for me being able to say what I want.

The second we let others decide what we can and can’t say is the second we give up and accept the tyranny of others.

AJ says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’m still a little fuzzy on the term “excessive free speech”. Obviously you can’t yell “Fire” in a theater (unless there really is a fire), reasonable people can understand why that type of speech is limited, but other than that, why would you want speech limited unless your intention is repression?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

As someone else mentioned, you get the old “Your rights stop at the tip of my nose”. Excessive free speech is the point where your nose starts to get compressed to allow for other’s rights. The church case is an example where the collective nose is certainly feeling the pressure.

The “fire” example is also very common, because in absolute free speech, there would be no issue. Once you accept that there are some limitations, the discussion is on which ones, and not if. When you work as a society and trade off X for Y for Z, not everyone will be happy. But in the end, your free speech (and other freedoms) have to exist in the real world, not in a theoretical vacuum. They have to mesh with the rights of others and sometimes with the old “greater good”.

My feeling is that Nina is trying to pull the blanket of free speech more her way, more to her remix / copy / regurgitate style of art, which ignoring who or what loses coverage to get it done. She would like the result, without concern for what it does to others. It’s incredibly selfish, which pretty much defines a generation of whiners who feel that the world owes them everything.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

But in the end, your free speech (and other freedoms) have to exist in the real world, not in a theoretical vacuum. They have to mesh with the rights of others and sometimes with the old “greater good”.

But in the end, copyright law (and other entitlement cultures) have to exist in the real world, not in a theoretical vacuum. They have to mesh with the free speech rights of others and sometimes with the old “greater good”.

There, FTFY.

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Haha, wow you’re grasping at straws now, huh? Of course – the fact that I used a standard internet “FTFY” joke PROVES that I have never created anything original! Why didn’t I see it before?

Tell me, did you come up with the word “tard” to call me just now? HOW HORRIBLY UNORIGINAL OF YOU!

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Phew – it took longer than usual, but you’ve finally run out of things to say. I guess we can lay this one to rest.

Might want to look at the badges that adorn several of my comments and exactly zero of yours. They indicate that a few more than three people agree with me – and as it stands, you don’t even have the balls to admit that you agree with yourself, since you choose to make all your arguments anonymous.

See you on some fresher threads!

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

The church case is an example where the collective nose is certainly feeling the pressure.

No. The “collective” is miffed because someone is saying something they don’t want to hear, which is exactly what the first amendment was created to protect. The collective “nose” is not the same as “prevailing public opinion”; specifically, the quote refers to the rights of others, not merely their wants and desires. You do NOT have the right to be protected from all speech that you find offensive. Westboro was an open and shut case, really, precisely because there was no “nose” being punched.

If they were on public property that other demonstrators were also free to use for their own advocacy (whatever that may be), then no rights were being infringed upon and no nose was “feeling pressure”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Chris, the question is the right for someone to have a funeral ceremony in peace. Nobody was denying the church the right to express their opinions, only that their presence at the funerals to do so was getting dangerously close to “punching the nose”, as it were.

SCOTUS didn’t agree.

I am not sure that the graveyard is public property.

On the plus side it may end up creating a new industry, providing barriers and sound blocking equipment to make funerals private once again. It is truly sad that people in their moment of grieving have to deal with these yahoos, but that is the price of freedom, no?

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Chris, the question is the right for someone to have a funeral ceremony in peace.”

Gonna have to disagree with you there. While there is protection for individuals and groups to peacefully gather (to do things like bury their loved ones), there’s no explicit protection thereof… except protection that the government won’t try to stop you. There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right that you can have an assembly for whatever reason and not be bothered by someone you dislike.

The laws that may come into play would be trespassing (on the part of the owner of the cemetery… not usually public land); noise ordinance (the WBC unfortunately is smart enough to make sure they stay on the safe side of those) and public gathering regulations by local municipality (many have rules that you have to have a permit and/or stay w/i designated spaces)… none of which have anything to do with freedom of speech.

SCOTUS didn’t agree that there’s some basic right to bury the dead in peace because it’s not up to the government to regulate such things… that should be a matter of common human decency, but there’s always going be a group who disagree on what is decent.

Chris Rhodes (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Chris, the question is the right for someone to have a funeral ceremony in peace.

That’s not a right. (Good thing too. Otherwise, the first amendment would be useless.)

“Look, you have the right to free speech, but not on the public sidewalk in front of my mall. People have the right to shop in peace.”
“Look, you have the right to free speech, but not in front of the capitol building. Politicians have the right to legislate in peace.”

I am not sure that the graveyard is public property.

I don’t think it was either, which is why, IIRC, Westboro was on the nearest public property (the road).

Mike Mixer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

There is no such thing as excessive free speech. Even those hideously ignorant protesters should have the freedom to do what they do as long as they don’t hurt anybody. As far as the rest of the world, the inability to complain has led to religions thinking they can run governments by making it illegal for anyone to complain about any religion. Nobody ever said that free speech was absolutely free, you still have to endure the judgement of others as to whether your speech is appropriate. However, that should not give anyone the license to curb speech before it is spoken on the off chance that said speech may be inappropriate

darryl says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“As far as the rest of the world, the inability to complain has led to religions thinking they can run governments by making it illegal for anyone to complain about any religion.”

First, do you honestly believe that the US is the ONLY country that is able to complain ??

Second, do you believe that the US Government is not deeply driven (and RUN) by the Religious left ?

Third, do you understand the “ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE” that relates to the “seperation of church and state”, do you know what that means, do you also understand that is a specific case in the constitution that states that “FREE SPEECH” is not the untimate goal of the constitution.

And that there are many situations (constitutional situations) that show that constitutionally ‘free speech’ is very low down on the list of things you have a ‘right’ to do.

You DO NOT have “free speech” simple as that, if you did, you would be able to teach religion in schools, and you are not allowed to do that !!!!..

Yes you have a narrow form of limited ‘free speech’ WHEN AND IF the US Government, the surprime court, and the police decide it is ok for you to do so.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The US already borders on having excessive free speech (see the “church” people protesting at funerals), rather than a lack of it.

They’re only allowed to do that because it doesn’t really threaten copyright industry profits. Let them start infringing some copyrights and then see how quickly they get hauled off!

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 5th, 2011 @ 6:13am

Are you suggesting that I don’t have to stop and wonder if I’m allowed to express myself? Copyright law has gotten so out of control that I literally violate it on a daily basis. Were I a person of any amount of notoriety I would live in constant fear of being sued. That’s not freedom, is it?

The Infamous Joe (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 5th, 2011 @ 6:13am

I shared a clip of family guy on youtube to make a point about how stupid my friend was being. Since I was not making fun of the clip (parody), but instead using it to comment on something else (satire) and since the clip has since been taken down, and linking to infringement seems to be a crime, there is a good chance I violated a law.

You’ll never take me alive, copper.

Bengie says:

Re: Re:

We “concentrate on the negatives” because the negatives add up. We’re getting close to Soviet Russia.

You can already be held indefinitely without reason and guilty until proven innocent.

I’ve already read stories after 9/11 how “missing” people who were later found innocent, and were returned to their families but but the people didn’t remember who they were because they were tortured so badly.

Is that the kind of USA you want to live in?

Discovery channel had a special of about 30-40 years ago when the CIA would experiment on civilians. They would have doctors claim someone had depression and lock them away from their families and sedate them. Then they ran electro-shock experiments and used untested drugs.

After 10-15 years of the family not seeing their missing family member, the person would be returned, unable to even speak or feed themselves.

Of course they didn’t release this “classified” information until the head people who organized these experiments were dead from age.

This is the kind of shit that happens in the USA.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If you concentrate on the negatives, they will always appear to be much larger than they are.

If you ignore the negatives and always view the world through rose tinted glasses, you’ll find those negatives start to grow until its too late to stop them.

Someone already mentioned the frog analogy below. If we’re not on guard against any assault on our freedoms, they will slowly stripped away, with each tiny step eventually adding up.

Any diminution of our freedoms is cause for resistance against those taking them away.

Ikarushka (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I lived in Soviet Union for 20 years, so I have an acute feeling how fragile freedom is. Those who take today’s freedoms for granted usually don’t notice dangerous tendencies, but I feel them with my skin. Freedom is not a stable state: leave it unattended and it will slip to dictatorship. 100%.

After 9/11 my former boss said that if putting handcuffs on him during a flight makes him safer, he would gladly abide. I was so flabbergasted that I could not argue at that time. Now I know what to say: yes, handcuffing makes you safer, but one day authorities decide not to take off those handcuffs upon arrival – all for your safety.

Nina Paley (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I grew up in the US during the Cold War, where our media always compared us to the repressive Soviet Union, and made a big deal about welcoming brave fleeing artists who could be “free” here as they couldn’t there. When it recently looked like I might have to flee the US to make my own art, I thought about that. When I see people going to jail for sharing information, I think about that. When I think of Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, I think about that. When I stand in long lines waiting to be scanned and groped at the airport, when my friends are prevented from traveling because they don’t have the right “papers,” when every building in New York is guarded by ineffective underpaid security theater guards, I think about it. I think about it every day. Oh, how the mighty have fallen – but our hollow self-righteousness remains.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Marcus, you don’t ask straight forward questions. You are a prick who focuses on one small part of a discussion, and ignores all the other points and relevant information. Debating with you is like having a discussion with a 2 year old child, they get focused on one thing, and they ignore everything else.

Why don’t you go remix yourself?

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

No, you string the discussion around through a maze so that you don’t have to answer to anything. You raise one point, I respond, you say that’s not the point and I’m focusing on the wrong thing, so I follow you to your next point, and you say that’s not the point either. Basically every time I’m right, I’m “missing the point” according to you, which I admit is a pretty bulletproof debate tactic (or it would be if you weren’t so transparent about it)

Anyway, this is getting old. Though I STILL really want to know what “weekly insert” you were talking about.

RoadWreckRob (profile) says:

We are all like frogs......

The sad thing about our country is that we are slowly but certainly being stripped of our freedoms a bit at a time. The constitution and the bill of rights have been ammended and changed by rulings of supreme courts and case precedence in shady trials that have reduced our rights as citizens of this great country. I know you’re waiting to see how this all links to the title (frogs and all). Here is the analogy that I was given years ago by my grandfather. It relates how changing the environment we live in by small degrees allows us to not notice things until it is too late to do anything about it.

“If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water what happens?
It will immediately jump out to save its life.

So what happens if you put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and slowly apply heat?
The frog will go on swimming around not noticing that the water is increasing in temperature until it is boiling and the frog is dead.”

The people in charge in out government know this and are changing laws that seem insignificant now but when added together in the end they will have changed the way our country is governed and we will have lost all of our freedoms.

Now the real problem is not that the government is slowly turning up the heat on our pot of water. The real problem is that so many of us realize this and we are still willing to stay in the water and swim hoping that someone else will deal with the problem myself included.

Get hopping mad about the indecencies that happen!!! But also do something about it. (I’m hollering at myself here too – lol)

Robert Shaver (profile) says:

We are all free to do anything ...

We are all free to do anything … but thee are consequences to every action. If you step off a cliff, no matter what you think your rights are, you’re going down.

I love Nina’s work but I think this cartoon has simplified a complex subject too far. It’s not clear that it is talking about legal rights … about laws that are supposed to delineate the boundaries where rights among different entities conflict.

Have you heard this, “Your rights stop at the tip of my nose” (the Internet is conflicted on who said it first). There are laws which cover when you are going to be prosecuted for hit me in the nose and when you are not. (Excessive force, for example.)

The free speech equivalent is that it is a procurable offence to shout “fire” in a crowded theater if it induces the occupants to panic and injure each other trying to get out.

Why is it not a good idea for a citizen to know about these legal, moral and social limits?

Peace,

Rob:-]

out_of_the_blue says:

There's a class of people who gain power by taking away freedoms.

Since I can’t unscramble the tangle above — you all seem /partly/ right but /shortsighted/ — I’ll just point out yet again that the fundamental war against freedom is ALWAYS started and kept going by The Rich; they’ve direct interest in it, supplies them with money and power now, and they want to expand that to total power.

EVERY bit of progress toward civilization has been wrested by overthrowing the existing Rich. EVERY bit of even /keeping/ your freedoms requires opposing The Rich as they seek to expand their “freedom” at the expense of the people. — That’s why I don’t go along with libertarian notions: The Rich are proven by all history to be THE major hazard and oppressors. You can’t “freely” compete with someone who’s /given/ more money at eighteen than you and all your relatives will /earn/ in a lifetime.

FAIR IS WHAT YOU WANT, not a pure “free”.

Eileen (profile) says:

I’d like to point out that the US is not the “most free country on Earth” by many objective measures (although I will admit that such a statement contains enough ambiguity to be almost useless except as a signal of chest-thumping patriotism/idiocy).

Here is one example:

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html

(We’re number 20. Oops.)

That’s without getting into the rising numbers of convenient disappearances of political dissidents, suspicious deaths of whistle-blowers (Sunny Sheu), or surveillance operations of run-of-the-mill activists. Even more frighteningly, some of these surveillance operations appear to stem from corporate interests, not the government (though disentangling the two is surely becoming more difficult).

There’s also the troubling trend in supreme court cases, which starting with Citizens United through the most recent class-action ruling, have become quite pro-corporation (or anti-the-masses).

Food for thought, AC.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Considering that they use a very wide scope to try to find “points” to give to countries, it’s not a very surprising result. As an example, the US media being “sponsor paid” means that there are always the chance for the media to be pressured by “we will stop buying ads”. I don’t remember any significant cases of this in the US in the last 24 months directed at the news media, do you?

Putting that sort of thing on par (by points) with armed government thugs shutting down newspapers or assassinating reporters is more than slightly dishonest and misleading. Reporters Without Borders really would do better to seperate it out, because the score for the US (and Canada for that matter) is rather misleading.

Pro-corporation doesn’t mean anti-the-masses. You don’t have to take away from one to satisfy the other. That is why when women were granted the vote, they didn’t stop men from voting. Not everything is zero sum.

abc gum says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Pro-corporation doesn’t mean anti-the-masses. You don’t have to take away from one to satisfy the other. That is why when women were granted the vote, they didn’t stop men from voting. Not everything is zero sum.”

Corporations do not care about the masses. This is not necessarily ‘anti-the-masses’, it just appears that way because corporations are of a single mind – maximize profits at all costs. It is simply the nature of the beast and is why there are regulations. These regulations, btw, appear to the corporation as ‘anti-the-corporation’.

Equating the Citizens United ruling to the nineteenth amendment is beyond dishonest.

Campaign financing is certainly not zero sum, who said it was?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yet, to maximize profits requires buyers. Buyers are the proof of demand and value. If you don’t like the price, don’t pay, don’t demand, and wait. Either the price will come down or someone will come up with a better solution. Heck, go out and make your own better solution, nobody is stopping you.

Your anti-business rhetoric is pretty overwhelming. Unemployed much?

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I suppose you’d tell someone on medicine to not pay, not demand, and wait?

Regardless of whether I like any of the companies represented at my grocery store, I have to buy something. I need to eat!
And what about the things they hide? Until after I’m half-dead of disease, how am I supposed to know those really cheap burger patties are 20% bovine fecal matter?
What about the privatization of basic rights and necessities of life, like water, electricity, schooling?

Let’s look at this in a different light. What’s best for the buyer? Cheap prices and high value. Agreed?
What’s best for the corporation? High prices and minimal value. Agreed?

Perhaps in a world with an infinite amount of corporations competing in every market space, the corporations as a whole would work for the public.

abc gum says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“to maximize profits requires buyers. Buyers are the proof of demand and value. “

Not when you have a monopoly. Monopolies are supposed to be regulated. Regulatory capture has perverted this portion of the checks and balances between business and government (ie: the people).

“If you don’t like the price, don’t pay, don’t demand, and wait. Either the price will come down or someone will come up with a better solution.”

This approach may be applicable in certain niche environments, but it is not an answer to basic market problems. In fact, it is quite sophomoric in this regard.

“Heck, go out and make your own better solution, nobody is stopping you.”

That is incorrect. There are plenty of self serving autocrats standing in the way of the DIY crowd, from home gardening to fixing ones own vehicle.

“Your anti-business rhetoric is pretty overwhelming. Unemployed much?”

I was unaware that ones pov wrt business was a matter of employment requirement. This is a new one. Care to elaborate? In addition, I was unaware that a statement of fact was considered ‘anti-business’, not sure where this is coming from other than childish stupidity.

Helpful Jones (profile) says:

Free Speech?

Hmm…

Freedom of speech, eh? What about Fox News?

It seems Dailykos, Moveon, Huffington, MSNBC, etc and any other lefty source are all entitled to unfettered free speech – regardless if dripping with hate and no matter how vile. However, Fox News (the *sole* news outlet that does not lean left) prompts calls for a “fairness doctrine”. Not to mention the 1st amendment should also allow students of faith to pray at a graduation ceremony, but somehow that’s been twisted as well because someone else “might be offended” or that somehow equates to the federal govt establishing a national religion.

I call bullshit on all you ass-hats who try to argue the US Constitution guarantees freedom *from* speech or freedom *from* religion. You are fucking intellectually dishonest and deficient. I don’t care if you are a web troll in mommy’s basement or a supreme court justice with an agenda – anyone with a drop of common sense knows the concise meaning and full intent of the founding fathers was “FREEDOM OF” and not “freedom from” either speech or religion. There were NO caveats specified! Fucking leftist/progressives have since invented caveats in order to constrain the original intent to validate their fucked-up points of view (like a crucifix in a jar of urine for just one small example) because no-one would take them seriously otherwise.

I don’t give a damn about religion, but I’m not going to piss-backwards if someone wants to pray at a stinking grad ceremony. The fuck do *I* care if they do and why would you give a shit either?

A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves. -E. Murrow

Ignore that at your peril. Keep voting for bigger & bigger govt and losing your freedom of speech will be the absolute fucking *least* of your worries. You left-wingtards have created this fucking monster over the years and consistently subjected the country to various incarnations of Pelosi, Reid and Obama and *now* you have the unmitigated fucking gall to bitch about losing your rights??

YOU FUCKING VOTED FOR THIS SHIT!!

The rethuglicans want to regulate your bedroom. But the fucking dumbocrats want to regulate every-fucking-thing else from what lightbulb I can use to how much water my toilet flushes to what boutique fucking blend of gas I have to buy to what I can or can’t do on my own fucking property, to having to stand in a little painted square on campus just to state whatever’s on my mind and on, and on, and on.

Still think you’re hot-shit, cool, edgy and smarter than everyone else for voting democrat?

Fucking hypocrites, every goddamn last one of you. Shut-up and quit your fucking whining. You got *exactly* what you’ve asked for over the years and you’re damned determined not to stop until you’ve fucked it up for everyone else. Why? Because you fucking leftists don’t believe in freedom of speech. If you did, you’d be front & center resisting any thing resembling the fairness doctrine and defending Fox News. But fuck no, you *only* believe in desperately validating your point of view and unfortunately, Fox attracts more viewers. Hey, Sux to be you! So what does the left-tards want? Better shut Fox up with some reincarnation of the fairness doctrine because more viewers are attracted to right leaning news instead of your preferred “correct” news, right? And whatever constitutional right you have to get rid of or alter via left-tard court decisions is fine and dandy as long as your views gain majority acceptance and your feelings aren’t hurt.

Yeah, I know this lastest attmept at the pseudo fairness doctrine didn’t make it, but you fuckers are persistent if you are nothing else. You’ll keep trying as long as a single right-leaning news source or talk-show exists because you can’t abide fair competition when it comes to self-validation.

Bitching about your freedom of speech… Piss right the fuck off!

darryl says:

Americans ??? dont know right from wrong ?

Should Americans Have To Ask What They’re ‘Allowed’ To Express?

One would hope that “Americans” would have enough brains and common sense to be able to NOT HAVE TO ASK !!

Is it not possible for Americans to WORK OUT FOR THEMSELVES what is morally and ethically correct and what is not appropriate ?

Is there something about Americans that is significantly different to the rest of the world ? (the vast majority of the population).

Or are you just coming to the realization that having to live by TWO sets of rules and laws is not as ‘free’ as living under ONE set, as most other happily do ?

Do you believe you have more freedom because you have a rule of law and a rule of constitution that you have to abide by ?

These rules and laws are in place for a simple reason, because it is clear that without them, ‘Americans’ would not know what is right and what is wrong !

You appear to need someone to take you by the hand and clearly state to you “this is ok, but this is not” you can do all the things on this list of rules as long as they do not break anything on ‘this’ other list of rules !

If you want to know what you are ‘allowed’ to do, it means you must have yourself little or no idea or “WHAT IS RIGHT TO DO”.

This appears from the outside as a massive and total country wide, social immaturity.

If you are talking to a 5 year old child you will say “Don’t do that, that is naughty”, if you are talking to an adult you would say simply “Do not do naughty things” as you would expect an adult to understand the difference between right and wrong.

But Nina, you appear (and speaking for your Nation), to consider that Americans need to be treated like the 5 year old, as you expect Americans to not be able to understand the basic differences between right and wrong..

It’s a sad essay on the state of the American population and their ability to comprehend morals and ethics.

Even with these two sets of rules and laws that you have to follow you constantly try to play one off against the other to try to ‘loophole’ you’re actions.

“Sure, what I am doing is illegal under the law, but if I can convince you it is right under the constitution I can get away with it, or visa versa.”

or

“It is not theft under the law, it is free speech under the constitution!”

And everyone else see’s that as you cannot define the difference between right and wrong, like the 5 year old you have to be told exactly what is right and wrong, but normall for adults you are expected to know the differnece, and simply not do the wrong things.

As you cannot work that out, someone has had to do that for you, so live with it.

What is an “American” anyway ???????

Is there a ‘race’ of type variation that is called “American”?

Nina where was your great, great, great grandfather from ?

From ‘America’, or from Italy, france, germany, africa, spain, south america, japan, china, UK, ireland, schotland, bulgaria, the bultics ?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Americans ??? dont know right from wrong ?

“Sure, what I am doing is illegal under the law, but if I can convince you it is right under the constitution I can get away with it, or visa versa.”

As much as you hate it, darryl, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US.

As you cannot work that out, someone has had to do that for you, so live with it.

Ditto.

What is an “American” anyway ???????

A citizen of the United States of America. Pretty straight forward.

Is there a ‘race’ of type variation that is called “American”?

Huh? What are you, some kind of racist?

Nina where was your great, great, great grandfather from ? From ‘America’, or from Italy, france, germany, africa, spain, south america, japan, china, UK, ireland, schotland, bulgaria, the bultics ?

Wow, from your great interest in Nina’s racial background, I guess you are a racist. I’m not surprised.

darryl says:

Constitution is not the law.

As much as you hate it, darryl, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the US.

NO it is NOT… it is the US CONSTITUTION

Do you notice that the word “CONSTITUTION” and “LAW” look somewhat different !!!!!

Does a police officer promise to ‘uphold the constitution’ or does he have to “uphold the law”.

If the constitution was “a law” then what is it then what the courts and police ‘enforce’ on a daily basis.

So if you get caught for killing someone, you are charged under the ‘constitution’, and NOT the law…

Sorry, but it is clear, that you (sadly as a US citizen) do not have a clue about how your country actually works…

Very sad…..

Gabriel Tane (profile) says:

@Darryl

“NO it is NOT… it is the US CONSTITUTION

Do you notice that the word “CONSTITUTION” and “LAW” look somewhat different !!!!!”

Kicking off the week with fail, huh?

The word “cheeseburger” and “fast-food” look different, but that doesn’t mean that they are polar opposites. In fact, much like the Law and the Constitution, one is nestled nicely inside of the other?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution … I’ll even give you the FIRST SENTANCE FROM THE ARTICLE:

“The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. “

Tasty, huh?
You’re right that the police do not ‘swear to uphold the constitution’… that’s because they don’t enforce the constitution. But the laws they enforce are derived from and authorized by the constitution. That’s why we see LAWS that are put in place which regulate sales of videogames being over-turned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional… or, not allowed by the Constitution. So, if the Constitution can trump a law, that would make the Constitution a Supreme Law.

“Second, do you believe that the US Government is not deeply driven (and RUN) by the Religious left ?”

I think you’ll find that it’s the religious right who has (unfortunately way too much) sway in our government. At least, they’re the ones making the most noise.

“And that there are many situations (constitutional situations) that show that constitutionally ‘free speech’ is very low down on the list of things you have a ‘right’ to do.

yes, and those situations are spelled out by the Constitution. No one around here has ever implied that the Constitution is applied in numerical order (except one AC, but we argued against him too).

“You DO NOT have “free speech” simple as that, if you did, you would be able to teach religion in schools, and you are not allowed to do that !!!!..

Yes you have a narrow form of limited ‘free speech’ WHEN AND IF the US Government, the surprime court, and the police decide it is ok for you to do so.”

Hate to break this to you (I lie… I love this), but it’s the Constitution that tells our government when we can have free speech, not the other way around.

Failing miserably four times in one day and in one post is not normal… but on Darryl it is.
Darryl… not even once.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Art Authenticator Sues The New Yorker, Claiming Profile Defamed Him
Google Tried Bidding Geeky Numbers For Nortel Patents; How About $3.14159 Billion?
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...