Conquer Club

It used to be the case that free speech arguments took into account the idea that free public discourse was vital to a functioning democracy. Recently, it seems like it's a cover for almost any kind of activity. In the UK, I'm thinking of the protests over libel laws, and in the US, the recent ruling that crushing kittens with high heels is free speech.

Here's Stanley Fish talking about the history of Free Speech:
NYTimes

crushing kittens with high heels is "free speech?"

Well, apparently corporations have free speech, too. So, I suppose the next is why can't they lie about their products all they want.

.. and, well, a lot worse....

PLAYER57832 wrote:crushing kittens with high heels is "free speech?"

Well, apparently corporations have free speech, too. So, I suppose the next is why can't they lie about their products all they want.

.. and, well, a lot worse....

Yeah, I'm pretty disturbed that something that started out as an argument for a free political forum ended up with a rush for the crappiest thing you can say, or just sheer opportunism. Idealism out the window, just cynicism, cheap legalism, and naked greed.

Symmetry wrote:and in the US, the recent ruling that crushing kittens with high heels is free speech.

What? This is the first I've heard of this.

i dont believe crushing kittens is free speech,
free speech is about voicing your opinion so it can be heard, acknowledge, thought about and lead to general social evolution
free speech does not mean lying about things it is about saying your opinion.
For example a racist should have the right to say "i hate blacks for this this and this reason" now society may reject that thought but they have the right to pronounce it.
They dont have the right to kill the kittens they would howver have the right to say "i want to kill kittens" but i dont think that should transcen into actually killing animals.
I am an idealist and free speech is essential to liberty.
And are you trying to say that corporations with free speech will lie because that is not free speech that is lying.

.

“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

The writer writes "Get it? We cherish the emblem by burning and spitting on it." I don't think he gets it.

Symmetry wrote:It used to be the case that free speech arguments took into account the idea that free public discourse was vital to a functioning democracy. Recently, it seems like it's a cover for almost any kind of activity. In the UK, I'm thinking of the protests over libel laws, and in the US, the recent ruling that crushing kittens with high heels is free speech.

Here's Stanley Fish talking about the history of Free Speech:
NYTimes

Actually crushing kittens under your heels ISN'T included under free speech, it's just that the US law that was recently overturned overshot its goal and effectively prohibited displaying pictures of such things even in the interest of reporting about them.

Animal cruely still isn't included under free speech in the US, the law will just have to be revised in order to differentiate between legitimate reporting and commercial trade of material for its own sake.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

The writer writes "Get it? We cherish the emblem by burning and spitting on it." I don't think he gets it.

No, what he is saying is that this flag represent freedom, and it is hypocritical to say you are celebrating freedom by limiting that very freedom, even if it is just rules that limit the desecration of the symbol.

The negative in this case is critical. He is not saying that we honor the flag by allowing its desecration. He is saying we fail to honor it by limiting the very thing it is to represent.. freedom.

MeDeFe wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It used to be the case that free speech arguments took into account the idea that free public discourse was vital to a functioning democracy. Recently, it seems like it's a cover for almost any kind of activity. In the UK, I'm thinking of the protests over libel laws, and in the US, the recent ruling that crushing kittens with high heels is free speech.

Here's Stanley Fish talking about the history of Free Speech:
NYTimes

Actually crushing kittens under your heels ISN'T included under free speech, it's just that the US law that was recently overturned overshot its goal and effectively prohibited displaying pictures of such things even in the interest of reporting about them.

Animal cruely still isn't included under free speech in the US, the law will just have to be revised in order to differentiate between legitimate reporting and commercial trade of material for its own sake.

OK, phew, some sense exists, it seems. Glad for the clarification.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

The writer writes "Get it? We cherish the emblem by burning and spitting on it." I don't think he gets it.

No, what he is saying is that this flag represent freedom, and it is hypocritical to say you are celebrating freedom by limiting that very freedom, even if it is just rules that limit the desecration of the symbol.

The negative in this case is critical. He is not saying that we honor the flag by allowing its desecration. He is saying we fail to honor it by limiting the very thing it is to represent.. freedom.

Okay, confusion has ensued.

The writer of the quote is a Supreme Court justice. He or she does get it (I can't recall who wrote that decision).

The writer of the article is a NY Times writer. He does not get it. That's who I was referring to.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

The writer writes "Get it? We cherish the emblem by burning and spitting on it." I don't think he gets it.

No, what he is saying is that this flag represent freedom, and it is hypocritical to say you are celebrating freedom by limiting that very freedom, even if it is just rules that limit the desecration of the symbol.

The negative in this case is critical. He is not saying that we honor the flag by allowing its desecration. He is saying we fail to honor it by limiting the very thing it is to represent.. freedom.

Okay, confusion has ensued.

The writer of the quote is a Supreme Court justice. He or she does get it (I can't recall who wrote that decision).

The writer of the article is a NY Times writer. He does not get it. That's who I was referring to.

OK, my bad, then. I misunderstood. (and rather wondered, to be honest, why you would have taken that position...lol). Yes, I agree with you.

I lost my free speech.

Damn military.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:“We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”

This might be one of my favorite quotes of all time. Clearly the NY Times writer doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't get it.

Actually, I would say he nailed it on the head.
In truth, I am on the fence on this one.
If the flag stands for freedom, then that should extend to the ability to use that symbol in protest.
I don't agree with such protests, but I do think making them illegal gives the act more power, not less.

On the other hand, if a symbol is not held up in a place of honor, is it really a symbol?

The writer writes "Get it? We cherish the emblem by burning and spitting on it." I don't think he gets it.

No, what he is saying is that this flag represent freedom, and it is hypocritical to say you are celebrating freedom by limiting that very freedom, even if it is just rules that limit the desecration of the symbol.

The negative in this case is critical. He is not saying that we honor the flag by allowing its desecration. He is saying we fail to honor it by limiting the very thing it is to represent.. freedom.

(1) Regardless of what some fancy lad at the New York Times writes, the United States flag does not "represent freedom." The United States flag is an heraldic identifier of 50 states operating in a corporate personality called "United States." Attempting to assign any greater significance to it is poetic but sophistic.

(2) Many nation-states regulate affronts to decency and incitement to disorder. It was just a year ago, I believe, when McDonald restaurants in Mexico had to remove advertising posters because they featured the Mexican flag which was, correctly, considered a crass display of the national emblem.

saxitoxin wrote:
(1) Regardless of what some fancy lad at the New York Times writes, the United States flag does not "represent freedom." The United States flag is an heraldic identifier of 50 states operating in a corporate personality called "United States." Attempting to assign any greater significance to it is poetic but sophistic.

Oh please .... symbols ARE poetic sophistry.

Speeches.
Buy one, get one free.

And that's not all. call within the next ten minutes and we'll double the offer.
That's four speeches for the price of one.
Pay only postage and handling.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
(1) Regardless of what some fancy lad at the New York Times writes, the United States flag does not "represent freedom." The United States flag is an heraldic identifier of 50 states operating in a corporate personality called "United States." Attempting to assign any greater significance to it is poetic but sophistic.

Oh please .... symbols ARE poetic sophistry.

word jumbles rarely make good posts

DirtyDishSoap wrote:I lost my free speech. Damn military.

You still have the right to free speech in the military. It is simply that, just like in the civilian world, there are consequences to your using speech that may happen to not be considered "free" (for instance, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater) and there are more things that fall under "not free speech" in those terms. It just happens that the consequences can be much more severe than in the civilian world, depending on the nature of the speech you are...err...freeing.

Am I allowed to burn a Soviet flag? =S

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
(1) Regardless of what some fancy lad at the New York Times writes, the United States flag does not "represent freedom." The United States flag is an heraldic identifier of 50 states operating in a corporate personality called "United States." Attempting to assign any greater significance to it is poetic but sophistic.

Oh please .... symbols ARE poetic sophistry.

word jumbles rarely make good posts

word jumbles rarely make good posts

InkL0sed wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:
(1) Regardless of what some fancy lad at the New York Times writes, the United States flag does not "represent freedom." The United States flag is an heraldic identifier of 50 states operating in a corporate personality called "United States." Attempting to assign any greater significance to it is poetic but sophistic.

Oh please .... symbols ARE poetic sophistry.

word jumbles rarely make good posts

word jumbles rarely make good posts

make rarely word posts jumbles good

Army of GOD wrote:Am I allowed to burn a Soviet flag? =S

In Soviet Russia, the flag burns you!