Why Was The Interview Christmas Release Cancelled?

  • News
  • Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Interview
In summary, Sony cancelled the Christmas Day release of their comedy film The Interview after threats of physical violence from North Korea. The theaters that were showing the film decided not to screen it after the majority of their exhibitors pulled out, and the hack of Sony Pictures is being blamed.
  • #71
Ahem. Sorry for the double, but I could not resist to share this awesome pic some awesome cyber-lurker artist made:

So tell me, Kim, why are you applying for our company?

Why should we hire you and not the previous candidate?

xmRNn9W.png

source
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #74
leroyjenkens said:
That's why we don't make exceptions for freedom of expression, because it's a slippery slope.
Actually we do make exceptions and prosecute some forms of speech.

As the law stands at present, therefore it appears that Schenck is still good law. Criminal attempts may be prosecuted even if carried out solely through expressive behavior, and a majority of the justices continue to view such prosecutions in the light of the majority opinion in Abrams: the Court will defer to legislative judgments, at least in national security matters, that some forms of political advocacy may be prosecuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#Subsequent_jurisprudence
 
  • #75
Well my kids rented it last night...

It is terrible. Gross, coarse, repulsive and juvenile, "If you can't be good be raunchy"

Remarkably the plot had its redeeming qualities but they drowned it in vagina and rectum jokes.

The quality of production far outweighed the screenwriting. I felt sorry for the actresses involved.

that's my old fashioned opinion.
 
  • Like
Likes lisab, Evo, ellipsis and 2 others
  • #77
russ_watters said:
Oops, that was poorly worded. Lemme try again: Popular speech doesn't need protection because it is popular, so no one would try to oppress it! It is the unpopular freedom of speech that needs protection.

Had an extra "freedom" in there that made it not make sense...
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion. If we look at what's the purpose of any of such regulation:
1) To have public more or less aware of what the group in power is doing to be able to demand corrective action.
2) To prevent politicians using such laws to try to silence each other.
3) Happiness gain for majority from silencing a minority should generally be lower than happiness loss for the silenced minority, so any such regulation should be used with cautions.

That's all. If you can achieve those 3 goals based on some other stating regulation, you are going to achieve similar advantages. (Maybe even without neo-nazi from other countries using US servers. ;) )
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander
  • #78
Czcibor said:
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion.
If it gives the appearance of "religion" to an outside observer, it may be that the principle itself has become secondary to the pursuit of that principle, or to the compulsion of maintaining the appearance of such pursuit. You've given us more to think about here than some of us are going to want to think about. I'll thank you and keep my mouth shut.
 
  • #79
Bystander said:
If it gives the appearance of "religion" to an outside observer, it may be that the principle itself has become secondary to the pursuit of that principle, or to the compulsion of maintaining the appearance of such pursuit. You've given us more to think about here than some of us are going to want to think about. I'll thank you and keep my mouth shut.

I mean that some subjects are being treated as:
a) sacred value that can not be violated / officially violated;
b) open issue where you can freely weight pros and cons.

It sometimes make me wonder how those issues are being divided. It seems to be somewhat culture thing - like guns for US right wing are "a", while the rest of first world treat them as "b". Or my gov which (in theory, according to constitution from 1997) is not allowed to be interested in my religion / world view, while in nearby Germany I was required to declare that in order for their gov to collect from me church tax if applicable.
 
  • #80
Czcibor said:
I'm curious whether you are not just repeating slogans, which in the USA were effectively turned into religion. If we look at what's the purpose of any of such regulation:
1) To have public more or less aware of what the group in power is doing to be able to demand corrective action.
2) To prevent politicians using such laws to try to silence each other.
3) Happiness gain for majority from silencing a minority should generally be lower than happiness loss for the silenced minority, so any such regulation should be used with cautions.

That's all. If you can achieve those 3 goals based on some other stating regulation, you are going to achieve similar advantages. (Maybe even without neo-nazi from other countries using US servers. ;) )
In the US, we don't allow #3 - we call it the "tyranny of the majority". The US is a country where individual rights are paramount (I believe other Western countries also claim it... though perhaps to a lesser degree) and besides, implementation of #3 requries a government judge of the merit of a message -- which may contradict #1 and #2. So while I recognize that other Western countries limit Nazi speech (for example), it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.

I do hope you see the irony though in comparing freedom to religious zealotry ;)
 
Last edited:
  • #81
Cybersecurity Firm Identifies Six In Sony Hack — One A Former Company Insider (who was apparently let go in May).
http://news.yahoo.com/cybersecurity-firm-identifies-six-sony-hack-one-former-194123498.html

Norse, the cybersecurity firm that first identified a potential insider in the massive November hack of Sony Pictures, believes it’s uncovered evidence on six individuals primarily involved in the attack, including one former Sony employee with ”extensive knowledge of the company’s network and operations.”

Senior vice president at Norse Kurt Stammberger told the Security Ledger late Sunday the company has identified six people “with direct involvement in the hack,” two of whom are based in the U.S. along with one in Canada, Singapore and Thailand.

The list also includes a former decade-long Sony veteran who “worked in a technical role” and was laid off in May. Norse previously identified the ex-employee as “Lena,” and said she claimed to have connection to the “Guardians of Peace” hacker group . . . .
 
  • #82
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/fbi-briefed-on-alternate-sony-hack-theory-113866.html
The FBI said Monday it is standing behind its assessment, adding that evidence doesn’t support any other explanations.

“The FBI has concluded the Government of North Korea is responsible for the theft and destruction of data on the network of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Attribution to North Korea is based on intelligence from the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community, DHS, foreign partners and the private sector,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “There is no credible information to indicate that any other individual is responsible for this cyber incident.”

The spokeswoman had no comment on further inquiries about the briefing and whether the FBI found Norse’s case convincing.
 
  • #83
russ_watters said:
In the US, we don't allow #3 - we call it the "tyranny of the majority". The US is a country where individual rights are paramount (I believe other Western countries also claim it... though perhaps to a lesser degree) and besides, implementation of #3 requries a government judge of the merit of a message -- which may contradict #1 and #2. So while I recognize that other Western countries limit Nazi speech (for example),it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.

I do hope you see the irony though in comparing freedom to religious zealotry ;)

Yes, I know this belief. I also know that for example in press freedom index the USA did not get specially good grade (46th place; my country was on 19th), so I treat it more as expression of creed, not actually working policy.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

So for me - US variant of freedom of speech is... well, nothing special. And I both mean here nazi servers, while especially in spite of such "cost", failing at the intended purpose.

it appears to me to be a contradiction they choose to live with, not a result of a logical framework for free speech.
Contradict? Maybe you first assumed that infallible (or treated as such) good governance principles can be written as a short list of one sentence long general principles. (yes, by occasion you did that in the US constitution, other countries were learning from you, but learning also mean trying to be more precise and specific in their own constitution)

If I had to make such short list for sure I'd put "freedom of speech" or "Lex retro non agit" (lack of possibility of passing a law that would make a crime a prior action). However why should it mean that if I could make a longer list then not including lesser rules (like limiting possibility to change vote counting algorithm prior to election) not make some exceptions or boundaries for those already mentioned general rules? Or put additional rights to be protected that in effect would have to be weighted against prior rules thus de facto limit them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #84
@Russ
EDIT: When I thought about it, I think that instead of "freedom of speech", I'd rather suggest nowadays something like "right to information". It would turn a problem of producing for gov moneys articles that end up behind paywall or too long copyright protection... as an constitutional issue, while there would be no problem with laws concerning denial of Nazi (or communists) crimes.
 
  • #85
Czcibor said:
Yes, I know this belief. I also know that for example in press freedom index the USA did not get specially good grade (46th place; my country was on 19th), so I treat it more as expression of creed, not actually working policy.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php

So for me - US variant of freedom of speech is... well, nothing special. And I both mean here nazi servers, while especially in spite of such "cost", failing at the intended purpose.

Contradict? Maybe you first assumed that infallible (or treated as such) good governance principles can be written as a short list of one sentence long general principles. (yes, by occasion you did that in the US constitution, other countries were learning from you, but learning also mean trying to be more precise and specific in their own constitution)

If I had to make such short list for sure I'd put "freedom of speech" or "Lex retro non agit" (lack of possibility of passing a law that would make a crime a prior action). However why should it mean that if I could make a longer list then not including lesser rules (like limiting possibility to change vote counting algorithm prior to election) not make some exceptions or boundaries for those already mentioned general rules? Or put additional rights to be protected that in effect would have to be weighted against prior rules thus de facto limit them?
I would not accept the assertion of some Frenchman, Deloire, about how the US ranks in press freedom. Germany with its speech codes "ranks" higher? Please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
mheslep said:
I would not accept the assertion of some Frenchman, Deloire, about how the US ranks in press freedom. Germany with its speech codes "ranks" higher? Please.

The questionnaire:
http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html

Some questions (my selection):
D.5 - Does the government monitor or threaten journalists?

D.9 - To what extent do radio and television stations with the largest audiences present independent and critical news?

On private networks - (Fox News? :D Curious how they measured that)

On public networks

D.11 - How concentrated is media power? (Italy must have lost plenty of points on that)

F.9 - Does the government monitor interent users who view independently produced online news content?
(And how to answer such question, without saying

(Anyway I'm not sure whether they included in the USA the problem of huge money being spent on political adds and to what extend that distorts media)

However I may agree that they may grade that according to local expectations. Any idea how to build a culture neutral grading mechanism?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Czcibor said:
The questionnaire:
http://rsf.org/index/qEN.html

Some questions (my selection):
D.5 - Does the government monitor or threaten journalists?

D.9 - To what extent do radio and television stations with the largest audiences present independent and critical news?

On private networks - (Fox News? :D Curious how they measured that)

On public networks

D.11 - How concentrated is media power? (Italy must have lost plenty of points on that)

F.9 - Does the government monitor interent users who view independently produced online news content?
(And how to answer such question, without saying

(Anyway I'm not sure whether they included in the USA the problem of huge money being spent on political adds and to what extend that distorts media)
Question D.5 may be about freedom, but the other questions make the point that the RSF is distracted by *content*, not freedom of the press. Other survey questions include the frequency of "insults" of all things. Even D.5 is suspicious, as I think from the discussion in the survey that RCF considers the case of an Army soldier (Manning) distributing military/state secrets the actions of a "journalist".

However I may agree that they may grade that according to local expectations. Any idea how to build a culture neutral grading mechanism?
Yes. Don't do it. For a metric on press freedom and freedom of speech, don't "grade" at all on content, but simply on whether or not the government steps into to stop or harass the press, or even directs what the press should say. Do that and that alone and I think the US would rank near the top of a free press survey, with other countries held back by their speech laws. That's a condition I think Monsieur Deloire could not abide.

On the other hand, if a metric on bias or accuracy is desired, judge content. There are many attempts in the literature, though the authors don't typically have the title of "Director General".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
Had to go back and refresh my memory. The second OP that got merged into this thread was focused more on application of the first amendment to individuals,
I_am_learning said:
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't freedom of expression has the caveat that you shouldn't be mocking some particular person or a group or race of people? Or, it only applies to people/person within the country?
,
and the group/nation to which those individuals belong. Certainly journalists and media have to be included under that umbrella, but it appears to me that we're getting sidetracked into defending/discussing a group who can only with great difficulty be distinguished morally/ethically from lawyers, politicians, and other lower life forms.
At any rate, what has struck me most over the past half century is the institutionalized erosion of individual freedom of expression through judicial, legislative, and executive mandates establishing a seemingly endless set of "tyrannies of minorities" denying Xmas decorations, religious symbols, flags, memorials, and other individual expressions, and further charging mandatory honoraria (taxpayer funding) for everything from public radio/broadcasting (which cannot compete on its own merits), through Mapplethorpe's trash, to fabricated festivals of imaginary cultural heritages. Half century ago, it was "live and let live." Today, it's "offend and be offended." Whatever the root cause, the first amendment and freedom of expression as written into the U.S. Constitution and extended to all citizens over a century and a half is no longer respected.
 
  • #89
mheslep said:
Yes. Don't do it. For a metric on press freedom and freedom of speech, don't "grade" at all on content, but simply on whether or not the government steps into to stop or harass the press, or even directs what the press should say. Do that and that alone and I think the US would rank near the top of a free press survey, with other countries held back by their speech laws. That's a condition I think Monsieur Deloire could not abide.

On the other hand, if a metric on bias or accuracy is desired, judge content. There are many attempts in the literature, though the authors don't typically have the title of "Director General".

For example I would not be specially impressed by US standards, that in many cases I would be technically allowed by gov to say quite a lot, even though it would still in practice have career destroyed by moral panic already a while ago (cool to have a right that I would not dare to exercise anyway and most of sane people would behave accordingly). I would for example be more interested in more practical issue like some Polish celebrities / low rank politicians suing Polish newspapers in Amercian courts for libel because of officially their place of living in the USA, and unofficially a chance of getting unproportionally big compensation. Or mentioned problems with media concentration or with dangerously huge amount of money going through the system through political adds.
 
  • #92
Czcibor said:
I'm not sure how its in their case, but when such stuff was dropped to my country during communist regime:
-drop as such was not specially successful;
-it was making the regime really nervous and making it to use unproportionally big forces to shot down baloons.

Sending a DVD won't be very effective, we should carpet bomb North Korea with prime rib, each branded with a US flag.

Happy New Yearo0)
 
  • #94
Czcibor said:
For example I would not be specially impressed by US standards, that in many cases I would be technically allowed by gov to say quite a lot, even though it would still in practice have career destroyed by moral panic

Astronuc said:
Apparently Steve Scalise, House majority whip, made a speech at a white supremacist group. He claims not to remember much about it. I would hope that someone in a such a high position would be better informed of groups to whom him or her is speaking.
o_O:confused:
 
  • #95
Bystander said:
o_O:confused:
In my country in a provocation a few politicians eagerly accepted support from a veteran organization "Defenders of Monte Casino". (which for Americans would be an equivalent of getting support from "Defenders of Iwo Jima") The trap was not even that this alleged organization had a website with neo-nazi slogans, but the politicians did not know basics of our own history.

No I mean different case, of an American professor loosing his job after at a party he said that he was not worried that one Black would be leading other department, because luckily that's an Oreo Cookie. That's the reason why I treat that promised freedom of speech in American version as working more in theory than in practice.
 
  • #96
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/u...evies-sanctions-on-10-north-koreans.html?_r=0
“We remain very confident in the attribution,” a senior administration official who has been at the center of the Sony case told reporters in a briefing that, under guidelines set by the White House, barred the use of the briefer’s name.

Still, the administration is clearly stung by the comparisons to the George W. Bush administration’s reliance on faulty intelligence assessments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 American-led invasion of the country. They note how rare it is for Mr. Obama, usually cautious on intelligence issues, to blame a specific country so directly. But they continue to insist that they cannot explain the basis of the president’s declaration without revealing some of the most sensitive sources and technologies at their disposal.
 
  • #97
Czcibor said:
In my country in a provocation a few politicians eagerly accepted support from a veteran organization "Defenders of Monte Casino". (which for Americans would be an equivalent of getting support from "Defenders of Iwo Jima") The trap was not even that this alleged organization had a website with neo-nazi slogans, but the politicians did not know basics of our own history.

No I mean different case, of an American professor loosing his job after at a party he said that he was not worried that one Black would be leading other department, because luckily that's an Oreo Cookie. That's the reason why I treat that promised freedom of speech in American version as working more in theory than in practice.
The way I interpret your example, freedom of speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot without consequences. You can speak freely, but you still have to take responsibility for what you say.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, mheslep, nitsuj and 1 other person
  • #98
lisab said:
The way I interpret your example, freedom of speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot without consequences. You can speak freely, but you still have to take responsibility for what you say.
I'm not saying person expressing such blasphemy against official ideology can go unpunished. I'm just saying that in such case promise of gov that the gov would not punish person expressing even higher level of blasphemy, as theoretically true and for most practical purposes empty promise.
 
  • #99
I wonder if it is harder to get an interview with the big dictator right now. Or just exactly as impossible as ever before.
 
  • #100
Sorry for the week delay, but I was put off enough by this that I didn't feel like responding:
Czcibor said:
Yes, I know this belief. I also know that for example in press freedom index the USA did not get specially good grade (46th place; my country was on 19th), so I treat it more as expression of creed, not actually working policy.
http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are separate freedoms. And even if we try to call this movie a documentary and Sony Pictures therefore a news organization (they aren't), you're still not referencing the free press index properly. From your link:
...the heritage of the 1787 constitution was shaken to its foundations during George W. Bush’s two terms as president by the way journalists were harassed and even imprisoned for refusing to reveal their sources or surrender their files to federal judicial officials.

There has been little improvement in practice under Barack Obama. Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them. No fewer that eight individuals have been charged under the http://en.rsf.org/united-states-freedom-of-information-threatened-22-05-2013,44651.html since Obama became president, compared with three during Bush’s two terms. While 2012 was in part the year of WikiLeaks founder http://en.rsf.org/why-european-nations-must-protect-03-07-2013,44886.html, 2013 will be remember for the National Security Agency computer specialist http://en.rsf.org/united-states-us-congress-urged-to-create-10-06-2013,44748.html, who exposed the mass surveillance methods developed by the US intelligence agencies.

The whistleblower is the enemy.
So the US does poorly there because of aggressive protection of government secrecy -- which wouldn't apply to either hate speech or just satire against a 3rd party. Yes, it's a problem, but it is the wrong problem with respect to this thread. And that's even setting aside the odd choices in the questionaire noted by mheslep.

I don't know, but maybe since they are both in the same Amendment you thought they were more closely related than they are. In court cases, individual clauses of the various amendments are addressed in total isolation from each other. Perhaps the writers wanted a round 10 articles, but the Bill of Rights actually contains a much larger number of separate rights.
So for me - US variant of freedom of speech is... well, nothing special.
Well that's fine. We shouldn't need to argue here. Our way certainly has drawbacks because giving hate groups a voice helps them grow and enables them to harass people. Your country and mine have different priorities and therefore made different choices. That's all.
Contradict? Maybe you first assumed that infallible (or treated as such) good governance principles can be written as a short list of one sentence long general principles. (yes, by occasion you did that in the US constitution, other countries were learning from you, but learning also mean trying to be more precise and specific in their own constitution)
Sorry, but that is non-responsive. I stand by my statement and that doesn't address it.

Look, again, freedom versus security is the fundamental compromise problem in Western governmental power. Probably because we were the first to codify freedom from government oppression, we took it to an extreme that I don't think any other country has. And we know we took it to an extreme -- it was heavily debated during the founding of the country. And we know it has drawbacks. And it still isn't absolute in the US: we have product safety laws, mandatory insurance, mandatory seatbelt laws, drug laws (and Drug laws), anti-suicide laws, etc. But that one is the most sacred to us, so it is the most absolute -- that's why it is listed first.
If I had to make such short list for sure I'd put "freedom of speech" or "Lex retro non agit" (lack of possibility of passing a law that would make a crime a prior action). However why should it mean that if I could make a longer list then not including lesser rules (like limiting possibility to change vote counting algorithm prior to election) not make some exceptions or boundaries for those already mentioned general rules?
[oddly] I'm not sure you understand what the Bill of Rights is -- it is a list of rights. A list of things government can't take from you, not a list of things you can't do.
Or put additional rights to be protected...
They did put in additional rights! ...later, as it became clear they were important omissions.
...that in effect would have to be weighted against prior rules thus de facto limit them?
As above, that's just not what it is for. The Constitution is concise because it enables flexibility and because it if twas supposed to be a complete set-up of the government so that we didn't need to write laws, it would literally have taken forever to write it. The evolution of hate speech protection is a fairly recent expansion:
U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s. The reason, in retrospect, is clear—repressive Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed (and many really believed) that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were "hate speech" and would produce "race war." By the end of the decade, the Court had held that governments couldn't outlaw speech advocating law violation or even violent revolution. Neither Black Panthers nor the KKK nor Nazi groups could be marked off as beyond the pale purely on the basis of their message.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/free-speech-isnt-free/283672/

Note: realistically, this is more of a fixing of a contradiction than a true expansion, since the KKK long predates the Civil Rights Movement, but was nevertheless allowed to exist. Anyway, you may want to read that article because in addition to the history lesson, it is discussing exactly the compromises that you advocate, and points out that the US way of allowing hate speech is not without harm. Again, you and I really don't disgree on the pros/cons, we just have different priorities in our values.
When I thought about it, I think that instead of "freedom of speech", I'd rather suggest nowadays something like "right to information". It would turn a problem of producing for gov moneys articles that end up behind paywall or too long copyright protection... as an constitutional issue, while there would be no problem with laws concerning denial of Nazi (or communists) crimes.
That's kind of the opposite of the focus of freedom of speech. It protects the providing of information, which basically flood feeds the information to everyone, so protecting the receipt of information really wouldn't do anything. On the flip-side, focusing only on the receiving of information means that all sharing of information has to be regulated, or worse, the government itself provides you with all information.
For example I would not be specially impressed by US standards, that in many cases I would be technically allowed by gov to say quite a lot, even though it would still in practice have career destroyed by moral panic already a while ago (cool to have a right that I would not dare to exercise anyway and most of sane people would behave accordingly).
There is no contradiction there. One person has a right to say something and another has a right to disagree -- and take personal action accordingly. That is perfectly in-line with full freedom of speech. Probably more to the point, as I said above, the Bill of Rights exists to protect the people from the government, not the people from each other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #101
Bystander said:
At any rate, what has struck me most over the past half century is the institutionalized erosion of individual freedom of expression through judicial, legislative, and executive mandates establishing a seemingly endless set of "tyrannies of minorities" denying Xmas decorations, religious symbols, flags, memorials, and other individual expressions, and further charging mandatory honoraria (taxpayer funding) for everything from public radio/broadcasting (which cannot compete on its own merits), through Mapplethorpe's trash, to fabricated festivals of imaginary cultural heritages. Half century ago, it was "live and let live." Today, it's "offend and be offended." Whatever the root cause, the first amendment and freedom of expression as written into the U.S. Constitution and extended to all citizens over a century and a half is no longer respected.
While that is at times a painful one for me too, I really don't see any logical wiggle room there. If a judge has to remove the 5,000 lb Ten Commandments sculputre from the courthouse rotunda because it makes non-Christians feel unwelcome in the courtroom, you have to remove the manger scene from the courthouse lawn as well.
 
  • #102
nsaspook said:
Sending a DVD won't be very effective, we should carpet bomb North Korea with prime rib, each branded with a US flag.
Given that they'd also have to drop-in DVD players and probably even TVs for that to be successuful and the average North Korean's perspective on what matters is more basic, I definitely agree. It's the contrast of extraordinary luxury (to them) to the completely forgettably mundane (to us) that has the most crushing impact.
 
  • #103
russ_watters said:
While that is at times a painful one for me too, I really don't see any logical wiggle room there.
There's an asymmetric infringement of my rights built into the process that I've not put my finger on as yet, but it seems to be built around the phrase "I don't like it, so you can't."
 
  • #104
lisab said:
The way I interpret your example, freedom of speech does not mean you're free to be an idiot without consequences. You can speak freely, but you still have to take responsibility for what you say.
Bystander said:
There's an asymmetric infringement of my rights built into the process that I've not put my finger on as yet, but it seems to be built around the phrase "I don't like it, so you can't."
The problem is that it is only "you can't" on public property, so I find it difficult to argue against the exact symetry in the current implementation.
 
  • #105
I have some comments to make, or maybe its question. But before that, I should make clear that I'm not talking about US, I'm just talking about the concept of freedom of speech itself and only about the concept of freedom of speech as it applies to insulting others.
Imagine group A who has a thought a or does an action a and A thinks a is right or does a in such a way that it causes no problem for group B, who thinks a is wrong, and group C, who doesn't care whether a is wrong or right and doesn't think about it.
Now B simply insults A because of a or makes some comments about a which makes A sad. Now we have A asking why should B make me sad? What wrong did I do to B? Why is it that because I think a and B doesn't, I should be offended by B and we can't be friends?(Looking at it this way, we can ask the question why are we always talkin in terms of laws? I mean...come on...we're humans...there was a time we all were talking about humanity. Why here its only about laws? Why should we think because law let's me to make A sad, so its OK to make A sad? Why should we think about being kind to each other no matter what the laws say?)
Now B may say its because I want to inform some people from C that in my opinion a is wrong, so that they come to B too. But this is not an answer because we can ask why should group B expand? In fact the main question is what is the purpose of group B? Why should someone be a popularizer of the wrongness of an idea. This seems completely non-sense and crazy to me. This has no meaning. Why should B devote their life to something they consider to be wrong? Why shouldn't B be just like C and doesn't care about a and just finds something that they think is right and devote their life to that? My point is, this is foolishness to be a popularizer of wrongness of something. You should find out what is right in your idea and popularize that. Now this is how I interpret freedom of speech(And I don't mean it as a law, I mean as humanity and sanity imply):
Everyone is free to speak about what s\he thinks as right. The only times that s\he is free to talk about other's ideas, is either when an opposing idea is affecting ones life in a way that s\he doesn't like.
I mean, it will be a really crazy place where everyone is free to say anything s\he desires. Again I'm not talking about laws. Its really sad to me that no one here is talking about how a human should have control on his\her own actions and speeches. Looks like everyone here is thinking that people are free to do anything and say anything and sanity and humanity place no limitations on that. Then because of this, there should be some government to control this mess through laws.
But this reminds me of a flock of sheep that needs someone to control. Are you all assuming that human is just another kind of animal and a society is just another kind of flock which needs a shepherd? This really makes me...sad?...no, beyond that...that there is such a view on humans. But I can argue this is an inconsistent way of thinking about mankind. Because those shepherds are humans too and so how can you argue that those shepherds themselves don't need a shepherd? And if they need a shepherd, who is that? Another human? Why doesn't s\he need a shepherd? and so on and so fourth!
Anyway, I'm really sad now on this, because I really don't think man is just a little different from sheep!
 

Similar threads

News Downing Street - New memos released
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
9K
Was the Iraq War Justified by Its Outcomes?
Replies
5
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top