is this free speech?

justjoshingu · March 2008

going up to someone and saying F**k you after they cut in front of you in line?

saying F you after they tell you to shut up because you are being loud?

saying F you because they have a tshirt that says a band you dont like (ie creed)

saying F**k You because you feel like it and they have done nothing wrong.

saying f**k you because you feel like it but they are 65 years old and look crotchety.

saying f**k You because you feel like it and they are within 1 to 3 years of your same age.

saying f**k you because you feel like it and they are 16 years old.

saying f**k you and they are 10 years old and bothering you

saying f**k you because you feel like it and they are 5 years old.

so at what point does it become something we shouldnt do and something we shouldnt be allowed to do?

is there any point that we should be allowed to say what we want to who we want because it is free speech?

this is more just a topic discussion. i really just like to see what everyone thinks.

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

The irony here is that there's nothing free about saying f**k you. You're censoring yourself with those asterisks. Say "fuck you". It's good for the soul, never mind free speech.

norm · March 2008

Gonna save you fucker,....not gonna lose you
Feeling cocky and strong,.. can't let you go,...
Too important to me

Too important to us,... we'd be lost without you
Baby, let yourself fall,... I'm right below you now

And fuck me if I say something you don't wanna hear
And fuck if you only hear what you wanna hear
Fuck me if I care,... but I'm not leaving here

You helped me when I was down,... I'll help when you're down
Why are you hitting yourself?... c'mon hit me instead

Let's pick up your will,... it's grown fat and lazy
I'm sympathetic as well,... don't go on me now

And I'm not living this life without you, I'm selfish and clear
And you're not leaving here without me, I don't wanna be without
My best... friend. Wake up, to see you could have it all

Cause there is but you,... and something within you
It's taken control,.. let's beat it, get up let's go!

Oh you're in your own world, let's see the whole world
Let's pick up your soul

And fuck me if I say something you don't wanna hear
And fuck me if you only hear the treble in your head
Please help,... me,... to help you,... help yourself

Help me help yourself,... please want me to,... please let me to

Help you

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

In all seriousness, I'd like to bring up Isaiah Berlin's notion of negative and positive liberties, yet again. Berlin argues that there's a difference between saying fuck you against persecution, oppression and being marginalised (what he would call a "negative freedom", freedom from), and saying fuck you, I want extra privileges, not just basic rights ("positive freedom", freedom to). Okay, so this way of thinking is too reductive and binaristic, but I guess you have to debate with yourself ethically where positive and negative freedoms intersect or part.

An example of a grey area is the issue of gay adoption: is it a negative freedom (freedom from being seen as a couple whose social status and ability to raise a child is inferior to straight, adopting couples), or a positive one (not that it causes harm or oppresses anyone else's rights but, it could be seen as an extra freedom or privilege, on top of other fundamental freedoms, the denial of which doesn't necessarily constitute oppression)?

lalalalaaaaaaaa · March 2008

justjoshingu wrote:

going up to someone and saying F**k you after they cut in front of you in line?

saying F you after they tell you to shut up because you are being loud?

saying F you because they have a tshirt that says a band you dont like (ie creed)

saying F**k You because you feel like it and they have done nothing wrong.

saying f**k you because you feel like it but they are 65 years old and look crotchety.

saying f**k You because you feel like it and they are within 1 to 3 years of your same age.

saying f**k you because you feel like it and they are 16 years old.

saying f**k you and they are 10 years old and bothering you

saying f**k you because you feel like it and they are 5 years old.

so at what point does it become something we shouldnt do and something we shouldnt be allowed to do?

is there any point that we should be allowed to say what we want to who we want because it is free speech?

this is more just a topic discussion. i really just like to see what everyone thinks.

All that would fall under the freedom of speech as far as I can tell.

markymark550 · March 2008

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute right. There are exceptions and restrictions to free speech. If determined by the governing authority, obscenity can be in violation of free speech.

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

But how about thinking outside of the scope of the US constitution, and considering the notion of free speech in more global, moral terms? Mind you, saying that, the whole idea becomes more and more preposterous under proper scrutiny.

catefrances · March 2008

free speech has its limitations. you can't slander someone or they'll sure you arse. so just how free is free speech? and what do we censor if some things said are considered offensive? and how do we choose to so that?

chiquimonkey · March 2008

mehhhhhhh fuck off.

but seriously, while it's all protected under free speech, it could be construed as rude (especially to the elderly and young folks). don't need the government to tell you to act right

markymark550 · March 2008

I'm not just talking about about the US and the US Constitution.

There are other countries that if going up and saying "fuck you" to someone could incite violence or a public disturbance, they would consider that a breach of freedom of speech.

In moral terms, basically everyone is guilty of going against "free" speech. I don't know of anyone who is always decent, nice, and morally aware of their words and how their words affect others.

catefrances · March 2008

markymark550 wrote:

I'm not just talking about about the US and the US Constitution.

There are other countries that if going up and saying "fuck you" to someone could incite violence or a public disturbance, they would consider that a breach of freedom of speech.

In moral terms, basically everyone is guilty of going against "free" speech. I don't know of anyone who is always decent, nice, and morally aware of their words and how their words affect others.

it depends on the context in which you are using the 'offensive' word.
i can say fuck off to someone and they wont be offended in the least. of course tis unlikely that i am being confrontational in this instance and just using it to express shock or revelation. or even if something stupid and dumb is said to me, a simple fuck off may well be my reply.
but then what if i change the tone in my voice and direct the fuck off at someone cause they are getting in my face or something of that nature?
how is it that one very short phrase can have so many meanings, dependent on the context? and when and how do we decide when it is offensive and when it is not?

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

markymark550 wrote:

I'm not just talking about about the US and the US Constitution.

There are other countries that if going up and saying "fuck you" to someone could incite violence or a public disturbance, they would consider that a breach of freedom of speech.

In moral terms, basically everyone is guilty of going against "free" speech. I don't know of anyone who is always decent, nice, and morally aware of their words and how their words affect others.

That's going right to my point about negative and positive freedoms, and where they intersect or part. It's the grey area that I think is the nub of the thread, as I read it. A rally - even in the US - says "fuck you, we're not fighting an immoral war", and the hired state goons turn on the crowd with tear gas, batons and then, guns. Kent State, 1970. The point at which a negative right (freedom from denial of speech) is portrayed not only as a (positive) freedom to speak out on alternative viewpoints but as a seditious activity threatening the peace and freedom of the populace - in doublethink, freedom as terror - is something that will always be exploited, twisted and confused in the public perception by crypto-fascist governments.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · March 2008

smash em in the mouth with a hammer...

is that freedom of expression?

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

smash em in the mouth with a hammer...

is that freedom of expression?

That would be determined as to who has the hammer, and how many other mouths it silences by proxy.

FinsburyParkCarrots · March 2008

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

smash em in the mouth with a hammer...

is that freedom of expression?

After all, smashing someone in the mouth with a hammer might not necessarily facilitate freedom of expression on the recipient's side of the blow, but if you're in a position of tyrannical power, it might well be thought of as an expression of freedom, to silence any perceived threat ...

RolandTD20Kdrummer · March 2008

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

After all, smashing someone in the mouth with a hammer might not necessarily facilitate freedom of expression on the recipient's side of the blow, but if you're in a position of tyrannical power, it might well be thought of as an expression of freedom, to silence any perceived threat ...

I think it would feel so liberating, that it could be easily considered freedom by proxy by the majority in a democracy.

and that, to me, is clearly within constitutional guidelines.

plus it even sounds nice to say....

justjoshingu · March 2008

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

After all, smashing someone in the mouth with a hammer might not necessarily facilitate freedom of expression on the recipient's side of the blow, but if you're in a position of tyrannical power, it might well be thought of as an expression of freedom, to silence any perceived threat ...

wow. you have verbage.. .. and i mean that in a good way. i honestly have never thought about positive and negative and umm...hold on i have to go re-read some of what you wrote cause its pretty in depth. ..

i think i have the right to say what i want to say, because i put deep thought into it and i will find a justification before i say it. i also will think ahead to what the ramifications are. if i tell someone to fuck off then i can expect an equal response. i think i have a right to say fuck you. and they have a right to respond. i dont have a right to say fuck you and then expect the govt to protect me from a response.

the reason i didnt say "Fuck" in the beginning of the thread is because , it seems that those threads that start off offensive get closed right away. and for some reason i wanted an intelligent conversation with intelligent people and i know that this board doesnt let me down.

Heineken Helen · March 2008

I think the fact that free speech has to be defined and limited... means it's absolutely fucking non existent

ooops sorry I meant f**cking

Nobody should face the court for using a word... whatever word that may be.

Heineken Helen · March 2008

catefrances wrote:

it depends on the context in which you are using the 'offensive' word.
i can say fuck off to someone and they wont be offended in the least. of course tis unlikely that i am being confrontational in this instance and just using it to express shock or revelation. or even if something stupid and dumb is said to me, a simple fuck off may well be my reply.
but then what if i change the tone in my voice and direct the fuck off at someone cause they are getting in my face or something of that nature?
how is it that one very short phrase can have so many meanings, dependent on the context? and when and how do we decide when it is offensive and when it is not?

so perhaps a law against negative tones should be enforced rather than words?

catefrances · March 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

so perhaps a law against negative tones should be enforced rather than words?

yes perhaps so. tis difficult at times for aussies not to be amused when this kind of shit comes up. for the most part we are irrreverant by nature and the odd 'curse' word doesn't seem to fucking bother us much, if at all.

EddiE · March 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Nobody should face the court for using a word... whatever word that may be.

Even a racist word?

is this free speech?

Comments

Categories