I'll get this discussion started...

Agree2Disagree Forum

While most of my views on social/political issues slant, if not stand heavily to the left or liberal side, this is one topic where I tend to be somewhat conservative.

I love our freedom of speech; the ability to speak one's mind, even in opposition. Fahrenheit 911 is a perfect example of this. Even if you hated the film and regarded it as a collection of falsehoods and propaganda; the freedom and rights that allowed this film to be created, shown, and viewed, is an example of our freedom of speech. Furthermore, our rights are demonstrated by our abilities to have free and open discussion, as we do here on this forum, regarding social and political issues.

However, these rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., were instituted in our constitution at a time when such media as television and the internet, were not even conceivable. Now, with the ability to send and receive information, more quickly and to a wider audience; I believe that some caution should be exercised. Our freedom must be taken with a dose of responsibility.

So, let's discuss...
You may argue that there should be no restrictions on what is said or shown in the media or you may argue for increased responsibility.

If you believe that responsibility should be exercised, let's consider a few points.
1) What should be done to ensure that young audiences are not exposed to adult content on TV and on the internet?
2) What should be done to ensure the validity of information reported in news stories and the like?
3) How does propaganda in everyday media effect societal values? (This is more of a philosophical question) but, for example...we become desensitized to things, concepts, that we are continuously exposed to. For example, if you live by trains, eventually, you don't really hear them...they become part of the background noise. If we are continuosly exposed to images of violence and such things as extramarital affairs...do we become desensitized or more accepting of these things as well?

I do believe we become desensitized to things after prolonged exposure. It's almost as though we build up an immunity to things that were at one time pushing some limits. While I do tend to lean to the left on most issues, left seems to be slanting to an even more extreme angle than the typical left once was. Your train analogy is perfect!

We need to be very careful with young minds whose biggest moral influence, despite proper parental guidance, is television, the internet and propagated media. Such things are inescapable for most people. What we used to refer to as dreaming or fantasizing, some people are now referring to as reality. The sad reality of the aforementioned, is that some people seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between what is and is not real (transference).

I fear that because we have become so "liberated" in our ways of thinking, we may be on the brink of requiring a password protected society. Though I believe our civil freedoms have evolved into many marvelous aspects of basic human rights, we have also entered into an irreversible path to moral corruption. Our freedoms were extended to us, and we rightfully accepted and adapted to a way of life in a society that has become so ingrained in us , I don' t believe we will ever be able to undo what has already been done, at least not without a fight from people who don't believe there is a problem.

Because we have come so far, good and bad, I think our only option is to start filtering what already exists and try like crazy to not let it reach even further out of control than it already has.

Firstly: Although I don't believe all pornography is harmful, if people watch enough of it and to varying degrees of pornographic material, what was once considered "normal" or even "experimental" sexual exploration with our partners, will and has already become monotonous and considered "old" school, even though what is "old" or "soft" to a lot of people today, was considered "hard" and extremely liberal and experimental just a few short years ago. Adults will watch what they choose to watch and engage in the sexual activities of their choosing, but I wonder if we will reach a point where we are no longer able to meet the sexual demands of out partners. Because of the Internet, so much of it is exposed to children on a regular basis and I can't help but be concerned for their "normal" sexual development.

Like digital television, I would like to see basic cable companies as well as internet service providers institute a system that requires subscription to the elements of each service that the consumer wishes to utilize. You get what you pay for and if you try to access what you have not subscribed to, the service should simply be unavailable or at least require a password to be granted access to. Normally, I would baulk at my own suggestion, but because I am seeing more children who are "wise" beyond their years, I feel it's of importance to allow children to hold on to their innocence until human nature thrusts them into an already inevitable adolescence, puberty and adulthood. Media is a psychological game of cat and mouse preying on people who have and will continue to fall victim.

I believe we should encourage children to think freely and explore the depths of their personal limitations, but without exposing them to other people's sometimes twisted views of the world. Although I would miss reading journalistic writing tremendously, I would like to see the news presented in point form with basic facts, thus allowing the readers to truly form their own opinions and draw their own conclusions.

Unrealistic - perhaps!

I am the left leaning liberal of the early years of the 21st century. In a few years, although my outlook will not have changed, I will be considered as far right as right can go.

Hmm...interesting...

Perhaps there is no true right or left...perhaps there is just an "old-school of thought" and a "new school".

Freedom of speech was setup so a citizen can say what they want, about government, about religion, about anything political, or the way they feel about any law or subject.

It's a shield from the government to protect you from the government.

I don't know how it got grandfathered in with pornography. It's a shame it did, because most of the people you see in our culture fighting for free speech issues, are ACLU types fighting for porn.

Right wingers like me get stereotyped as being against it, when we are not. Most right wingers love free speech.

Also, not to crack on left wingers too much, but with recent happenings like the Dixie Chicks cracking on Bush over in England, or Alec Baldwin saying he would leave the country if Bush won, or Bill Mareh (spelling?) saying the 911 terrorists had courage to do what they did.....

All these incidents, the stars got ram-rodded. Bill M lost his job and had to go to HBO, the Dixie Chicks were ostracized and Alec Baldwin got a lot of heat.

They all started whining about free speech.

The thing is, you can say whatever you want in this country, and that's good. But anyone else can say what they want back.

And they are allowed to judge you.

Free speech is protection from the government, not from your fellow citizen.

If you stand up and say something smart or stupid, your peers can shut you down, talk back, condemn you, ostracize you, pigeon hole you, and generally make your life a living hell.

So, if you exercise free speech, don't think you are not getting the full deal if you get in trouble.

It's not a get out of jail free card you can use to say ANYTHING, and everyone else has to respect it.

We don't have to respect it.

The government can NOT put you in jail for saying what you want, but the public can judge you, belittle you, not go see your movie because of what you said, not buy your CD, lobby for you to get fired, etc.

Whidden,

I agree completely! It seems as though censorship issues and freedom of speech have become intertwined in the fray of what people are considering free speech. It seems to be focused on speech as well as actions. Maybe freedom of expression too?

Your sentiments are very true! People don't want to deal with the backlash when they say something that will upset people from opposing sides, but they're the first ones to stand atop the highest mountain claiming their rights to freedom of speech, and in a way, they're denying others the same rights for vocally disagreeing.

They don't freedom of speech, they want freedom from people telling them they are stupid.

I understand though, I get told I'm stupid all the time, it's not fun. But I don't whine about it.

I'm the Queen of stupidity!

Well, when it comes to freedom of speech what I don't like is the subject of "Free Speech Zones". This is something that few people even know about in our country.
I don't care if you are the president, a religious leader or a CEO. To qurrantine free speech in the manner I'll give links to below, is unconstitutional and those impinging on those rights should be prosecuted. I don't want anyone telling me I don't have the right to protest my government over any matter of my concern. Once you do that other forms of restraint are sure to follow.

Links:
American Conservative Magazine

Baltimore Chronicle

St Petersburg Times

ACLU Discussion

ACLU Article

I'll *never* support these types of actions. This is what I was supposed to fight against in the USAFR. Servicemen and women swear an oath *to* the constitution.
Stay Safe

There are speech codes on college campuses. Most of the time conservative white students are singled out. I get the impression, if your speech is politically correct, you can express yourself. Otherwise, you can be censored. For example, if you disagree with affirmative action, you may not be allowed to discuss this topic on campus. It seems like back in the 70s the left supported free speech. This is not so true these days. It seems like a new right is be claimed - the right not to be offended.

If you are one who supports censorship, think about this: 75% of views expressed could offend someone.

Affirmative Action is becoming less and less popular

started in 2003, Virginia Tech no longer even considers race/ethnicity on it's applications.

Black peeps don't have an advantage/disadvantage
White peeps don't have an advantage/disadvantage
no person of any race has any advantage/disadvantage



it is based solely on academic peformace.

This is a step in the right direction.
imho

I personaly agree with everyone.