Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fear and Freedom of Expression

Page 2 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

10 Jan 2015, 4:29 am

androbot01 wrote:
George Carlin was not murdered, tomato. His heart silenced him.

If secret forces were dispatching trouble makers, they surely would have gotten rid of John Stewart.

I don't mean that George Carlin was murdered. I posted it for the message. "Freedom of expression" could instead be called "right to express yourself". Freedoms and rights go hand in hand. Might is right is the only right there ever was.

Why would they have gotten rid of John Stewart? I stopped watching Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert a long time ago. I think they both are very politically correct.

Quote:
The remarks were apparently made by Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, probably one night in 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
source: http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm

More often than death it's about losing your job, or having your article rejected, or being threatened in a way that the public never finds out about, or you know what would happen so you never say certain things. It's the same with forums, you can't say anything you want there. Certain views will get you banned or your post deleted.



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

10 Jan 2015, 4:54 pm

Oh and also there's the factor of influence. The more influential you are the less free you are to express yourself I would think in a lot of cases. Sure there's the might is right aspect of that, but at the same time nobody cares what you say if you're only heard by a dozen people, unless that's a dozen presidents or whatnot, but you get my point. If you are someone who could make millions of people change their behavior by just typing a few words and sending them out then you have to care very much what you say. You might have power but the higher you stand the longer the fall I guess. Or whatever.

But regarding the topic, yes freedom of expression is perhaps relative, and yes it probably happens that things are done to decrease freedom of expression. Don't know about those examples because I really haven't cared about the world lately.



Last edited by tomato on 10 Jan 2015, 5:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

10 Jan 2015, 4:57 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
My earnest question to you is, isn't it already like that? Name me one person who says what they want whenever they want. No one I know ever does that. We all curb our expression to some extent because we have to live in a society and there are rules we all must follow and some of those rules simply say we cannot say whatever we want whenever we want to. If you can think of one person who can be successful not ever having to mind what they say please tell me how they do it because I cannot think of any example.


I often self censor because I am afraid of hurting someone's feelings. But here's the thing: when I say "afraid of hurting their feelings" I don't mean afraid that they'll kill me. I mean I don't want them to feel sad or hurt because I have an uncharitable thought. That is a truly major difference. There is such a huge difference between censoring yourself because you don't want to be rude or unkind and censoring yourself because you don't want to be murdered. It is the latter that needs to be fought back against.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

10 Jan 2015, 5:00 pm

tomato wrote:
Oh and also there's the factor of influence. The more influential you are the less free you are to express yourself I would think in a lot of cases. Sure there's the might is right aspect of that, but at the same time nobody cares what you say if you're only heard by a dozen people, unless that's a dozen presidents or whatnot, but you get my point. If you are someone who could make millions of people change their behavior by just typing a few words and sending them out then you have to care very much what you say. You might have power but the higher you stand the longer the fall I guess. Or whatever.


Yes. But there is a world of difference between a world leader censoring himself so people will re-elect him and censoring himself so as not to anger would-be assasins. The latter situation is analogous to the Charlie Hebdo attack.



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

10 Jan 2015, 5:08 pm

Janissy wrote:
tomato wrote:
Oh and also there's the factor of influence. The more influential you are the less free you are to express yourself I would think in a lot of cases. Sure there's the might is right aspect of that, but at the same time nobody cares what you say if you're only heard by a dozen people, unless that's a dozen presidents or whatnot, but you get my point. If you are someone who could make millions of people change their behavior by just typing a few words and sending them out then you have to care very much what you say. You might have power but the higher you stand the longer the fall I guess. Or whatever.


Yes. But there is a world of difference between a world leader censoring himself so people will re-elect him and censoring himself so as not to anger would-be assasins. The latter situation is analogous to the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Well in that case I would have to refer to that video again for my view. Any big leader has to be very diplomatic to avoid being killed. To try to change that would be to try to change nature.



Persevero
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 245

10 Jan 2015, 5:30 pm

Your rights to free speech end when the basic human rights of another human being begin.



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

10 Jan 2015, 5:40 pm

Persevero wrote:
Your rights to free speech end when the basic human rights of another human being begin.

I someone backs that up with force yes, such as money to pay for law making and law enforcement. Otherwise it is in my view just empty words and means nothing.



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

18 Jan 2015, 11:55 am

tomato wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
George Carlin was not murdered, tomato. His heart silenced him.

If secret forces were dispatching trouble makers, they surely would have gotten rid of John Stewart.

I don't mean that George Carlin was murdered. I posted it for the message. "Freedom of expression" could instead be called "right to express yourself". Freedoms and rights go hand in hand. Might is right is the only right there ever was.

Why would they have gotten rid of John Stewart? I stopped watching Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert a long time ago. I think they both are very politically correct.

Quote:
The remarks were apparently made by Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, probably one night in 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
source: http://www.constitution.org/pub/swinton_press.htm

More often than death it's about losing your job, or having your article rejected, or being threatened in a way that the public never finds out about, or you know what would happen so you never say certain things. It's the same with forums, you can't say anything you want there. Certain views will get you banned or your post deleted.
Just now got an example of what I was talking about here. XFilesGeek sent:

Quote:
If you continue to post in this manner, you will be permanently banned.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2015, 12:39 pm

You made that post eight days ago, why now?

Tomato, you seem frustrated. Hugs!



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

18 Jan 2015, 12:55 pm

androbot01 wrote:
You made that post eight days ago, why now?

Tomato, you seem frustrated. Hugs!

It wasn't about that post, it was about a post in the thread on rape culture. Frustrated? Why?



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2015, 1:07 pm

tomato wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
You made that post eight days ago, why now?

Tomato, you seem frustrated. Hugs!

It wasn't about that post, it was about a post in the thread on rape culture. Frustrated? Why?


Ah, the one where you said that women in Sweden deserve to be raped? Lol. No surprise there.

I may be projecting about your frustration, but I see signs in yours posts that remind me of my of my own feelings of frustration with the world. Sorry if I'm off the mark. Misery loves company.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Jan 2015, 1:17 pm

For one thing, I don't believe Sony was hacked by North Korea. I don't believe they would hack a motion picture company over some silly movie. However, I do believe governments might try to hack governments and all that so yeah, this is a concern for any nation.



tomato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 510

18 Jan 2015, 1:21 pm

androbot01 wrote:
tomato wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
You made that post eight days ago, why now?

Tomato, you seem frustrated. Hugs!

It wasn't about that post, it was about a post in the thread on rape culture. Frustrated? Why?


Ah, the one where you said that women in Sweden deserve to be raped? Lol. No surprise there.

I may be projecting about your frustration, but I see signs in yours posts that remind me of my of my own feelings of frustration with the world. Sorry if I'm off the mark. Misery loves company.

I said I don't exactly cry my heart out. It makes no difference to the point I made in this thread.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

18 Jan 2015, 1:26 pm

Janissy wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
My earnest question to you is, isn't it already like that? Name me one person who says what they want whenever they want. No one I know ever does that. We all curb our expression to some extent because we have to live in a society and there are rules we all must follow and some of those rules simply say we cannot say whatever we want whenever we want to. If you can think of one person who can be successful not ever having to mind what they say please tell me how they do it because I cannot think of any example.


I often self censor because I am afraid of hurting someone's feelings. But here's the thing: when I say "afraid of hurting their feelings" I don't mean afraid that they'll kill me. I mean I don't want them to feel sad or hurt because I have an uncharitable thought. That is a truly major difference. There is such a huge difference between censoring yourself because you don't want to be rude or unkind and censoring yourself because you don't want to be murdered. It is the latter that needs to be fought back against.

You admit there is something in it for you, as in, if you don't hurt their feelings, rather take them into consideration, they will like you. If you are callous toward them on a regular basis, they won't wish to see you prosper and will be indifferent when you are upset over something because they will recall all the times they were upset and you didn't care.
What you wish to see is their feelings not being harmed, and the expectation, at a later time, when you need them to be understanding, they will return the favor.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2015, 8:37 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
For one thing, I don't believe Sony was hacked by North Korea. I don't believe they would hack a motion picture company over some silly movie.

I think you are underestimating the childish, narcissistic nature of Un.

tomato wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
tomato wrote:
androbot01 wrote:
You made that post eight days ago, why now?

Tomato, you seem frustrated. Hugs!

It wasn't about that post, it was about a post in the thread on rape culture. Frustrated? Why?


Ah, the one where you said that women in Sweden deserve to be raped? Lol. No surprise there..

I said I don't exactly cry my heart out. It makes no difference to the point I made in this thread.

It's the reason you posted in this thread, I think. I'm with the moderators on this one. The phrase "to not cry my heart out," suggests lack of sympathy with an unfortunate. Usually for a reason, and I believe you mentioned something about their behaviour?



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

18 Jan 2015, 9:53 pm

All things in moderation..... including moderation.

If we were always reactive, then everyone would be at each others throats all the time.
If we were always moderate, then people would be 'pleasant' but bad things wouldn't change.

What gets me down these days is how reactive people are... to the point of being proactively reactive.
For example, people who always talk about 'haters,' and people who always have to talk with attitude.
That kind of "expression" is self perpetuating.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.