Freedom of Speech, and Exploiting It

Remove all ads!

Read this.

After hearing this, and knowing what the site is like, I really had to think about this. Everyone agrees that the freedom of speech is a great thing, but then I starting thinking even more. Is it possible to exploit this? Many people find T-Shirt Hell very offensive, but once again, there is free speech. So I ask you, do you think that the site is within the realm of free speech?

 

I'm Religious, but I also like to go to Heavy Metal concerts. I've seen some really offensive shirts, but I've never felt a desire to see someone forbidden to wear them.

Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. On one side the freedom to share your views on anything you wish to. On the other side, the freedom that others have to disagree, slander or mock that which you hold importane, or even Sacred (one shirt I saw at such a show referred to Jesus as being a crude name for a female body part. The word used is one of the ones that SP will censor out). This is the price we pay for the freedom to speak our minds as we please.

 

Yes, they have that right, regarding freedom of speech. The problem is not that they make the T-shirts, the problem is that people actually buy and display them. IMO, people have every right to buy and display such items. Yet, their statements say more about themselves than it does the content of the shirts. There is no law against people being morons or jerks. Otherwise, we would have to build a whole lot more prisons.

[ June 08, 2005, 16:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I didn't really understand that story. What is so bad about a t-shirt that says 'Worse than Hell"?

 

I also like metal concerts, but I never wear offensive tshirts, I think too many metal 'fans' are more concerned about the image than the music itself.

I am sure that people here are familiar with the 'Jesus is a ....' tshirts, featuring a nun masterbating with a crucifix. To me there is not point to such an offensive shirt.

I read about a New York police officer that used 'Freedom of Speech' to defend himself as he was caught selling CD-Roms of himself masterbating in his police uniform! I wonder what statement he was trying to make?

 

I don't have a problem with people speaking their minds but I have a problem with people trying to be offensive for the sake of it, in order to be a pain in the ass. The freedom of speech should always protect the former but shouldn't protect the latter. Reasons -- "artistic" or "making a statement" don't count. There's no such right as a right to offend people. As with the idiotic trend of displaying underwear -- thong triangles, male boxers etc. "He/she wasn't being indecent or gross, he/she was making a fashion statement! ". How moronic. Anyway, having bad manners and being an idiot isn't a reason enough to go to jail. Desecrating religious symbols, however, might be. Imagine what would happen if he tried that on any religion other than Christianity.

 

On the other hand - if you start saying that only 'good' speech is free you have some serious retardation of the concept of free speech...

 

Indeed, it's mostly the people wearing these that are the problem not so much the people making the T-Shirts. I do think that everyone has the right to wear those kinds of shirts even if they are distasteful in my opinion. It's mostly about teenagers who feel the need to express themselves through the shirts ( ) and usually it will be a phase that will be over once they grow up a bit, when there starts to be a real practical need to look decent in public.

EDIT: I only notice the cloting of those I talk to and I don't talk to jerks wearing offensive t-shirts (or if I do I'm probably too drunk to even know who I'm talking to) and I don't go around looking at how people wear. If someone does then he's just getting what he deserves if he bumps into a offensive t-shirt.

 

Well, freedom of speech (allowing people to wear this stuff), or freedom of the press (allowing the site to produce this stuff) is taken too far sometimes. I found a very interesting site that discusses freedom of speech and all the issues therein.

John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle is discussed:

"....Mill also suggests that we need some rules of conduct that regulate the actions and words of members of a political community. The limitation he places on free expression is “one very simple principle,” now usually referred to as the Harm Principle, which states that

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

While Mills is referring to a political community, I think we can extrapolate from there. And on this vein.....I'm willing to bet, if someone wearing one of those offensive t-shirts happens to come across someone who is highly incensed and outraged by the t-shirt's message and that person were to strike or physically attack the t-shirt offender in some way.....it would be the latter that gets arrested for assault....regardless of the provocation. I have a huge problem with that.

[ June 08, 2005, 15:37: Message edited by: Spellbound ]

 

Anyone that buys those shirts, or has any association with 'Worse than hell' deserves what they get. Would they think those shirts were funny if they were mosested by their uncles, raped, or get some form or cancer? I really doubt it.

 

America allows freedom of speech to go to the extreme -- to the point of abusing the freedom of speech. I believe there comes a time when such speech becomes harmful to a significant enough portion of the population (either psychologically or sociologically) where the law should step in.

Note that I said harmful, not offensive.

 

Like calls for an Ayran Nation and for extermination of about anything else, that go under 'freedom of speech' in the US - and would bring you into jail for good number of years in Germany - because we do find them harmful, not offensive.

 

In Finland that kind of talk would most likely put you in jail but it would depend on how you phrase it. If you're a good speaker and can avoid going under "arousing people against a group of people" (very crudely transelated) cathegory then it would be legal, but when you call for extermination of just about anything else that would be quite difficult.

Anyway I agree with T2Bruno, all harmful speech should be illegal but all offensive speech should not.

 

Sounds great. But how to draw the line? It's a very difficult thing to do.

 

Agreed it is difficult but you'd have to set the line somewhere anyway. Having all things that someone somewhere might consider slightly offensive would not do either.

 

IMO, a great "test" for whether or not something is/should be protected as speech is this; why do you want the speech prohibited?

If the answer is "because it's offensive," you're in the wrong.

 

In America the line is quite simple -- if the people in power don't like what you say it's harmful. If they think someone else won't like what you say it's offensive. And, for God's sake, don't piss off the minority voters.

But then I'm a little cynical.

 

I would draw the line on intent, goal, whatever. Expressing feelings? Fine. Well, in most cases maybe. But I wouldn't give the same protection to people who simply want to annoy others a bit. Words are words but when it comes to religious symbols, something is wrong. If you want to say that my religion is a pile of nonsense, I obviously won't smile and agree to disagree, but that's your opinion. But if you need to insult the religious figures and half the mortal clergy or draw a spiteful caricature of a religious symbol, well... not like I will assault you for it, but the matter is a whole lot different. I think such things shouldn't be allowed per se and benefit from the social aspect of tolerance. There should be no protective umbrella for that in common social life, in the media or on the political arena or in art. If it should be prosecuted in courts of law is another thing. Outlawing it and launching a crack down programme could have the exact opposite effect and only stir passions.

What I believe must be done on the legal level is treating all religions equally when it comes to protecting symbols, objects of cult, religious feelings etc. What you aren't allowed with regard to Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism or whatever other religion, you shouldn't be allowed with regard to Christianity.

Protections and rights were made to prevent minorities from becoming second category citizens. But this surely doesn't mean that the majority or just larger groups should become second category citizens, either.

This is not just about religion. If someone's proud of being black, why shouldn't his neighbour be proud of being white? If someone's proud of his hispanic heritage, why shouldn't his neighbour be proud of being a WASP? Proud of belonging to a minority? Okay. But the majority is also a group with some specific traditions, beliefs, complexes, problems, achievements, failures... unique in one word.

If someone said she were proud of being a black lesbian woman, practically all the politically correct society would clasp hands and dutifully fake amazement at her courage and "individuality". But if I said I were proud of being a white heterosexual male?

All too often freedom of speech becomes a big joke when it's used to prevent mainstream or majority from commenting on what a minority speaker said. Or from reacting to "statements". Or even to ban discussions which are inconvenient from the point of view of minority lobbies.

For example, a gay group of soi-dissant psychological or psychiatric pundits could always gather and start preaching on what kind of primitive nasty disorder "homophobia" is. But say something in the opposite direction and you're going to hear about pseudo-science, bigotry etc. Well, that's still just words, like yours, but you aren't normally allowed to use the same kind of language in talking back. Or you have a lawsuit coming your way.

 

You are probably not really being all that cynical here. Right after the Revolution those in power were looking closely at the free speech issue. To be sure, the Constitution provides for free speech regarding government's role and self-expression, since it is included in the Bill of Rights and not the original draft. So, a look at the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 might prove your point.

Of course the acts were passed under the pretense of national security - under the threat of war with France. But the real target was the political oppostition to Federalist power, which was spearheaded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Several people were arrested and fined for speaking out against the government. Someone was actually prosecuted for commenting in public that the then president, John Adams, had a "big butt."

John Adams, who is associated closely with the Sedition Act, was only marginally a Federalist. It was people like Alexander Hamilton, Rufus King, John Jay - the High Federalists - who benefited the most from the Act. The Act led to the formation of the Kentucky and Virginia Resoloutions, crafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madsion, as a reponse to the abuse of federal power and the rights of states.

The reason I bring all this up is because the acts helped lead to the downfall of the Federalist Party, and helped to create the first opposition party in American politics. John Adams lost after one term in the strange election of 1800 and Jefferson replaced him. Jefferson made a point to address government oppostion in his First Inaugural Address:

This goes to Regusa's point about allowing those who would want to bring down our current system and replace it with a fascist state. In the Jeffersonian, and American viewpoint, such errors of opinion are tolarated where reasonable people will almost always choose liberty and freedom over despotic oppression.

But this is a decidedly Jeffersonian viewpoint.

[ June 09, 2005, 02:03: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]