U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them. By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted. Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior? I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.
The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading "conspiracy theories" because these theories are not true and are somehow "harmful to society".
If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts, why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them? Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed, confronted, and refuted in front of the whole world? I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their "experts", and they have an open discussion with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.
Episode #1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones (noted conspiracy theorist), Dr. Steven Jones(no relation, Physicist at S&J Scientific Co.) and Maybe Webster Tarpley (author and lecturer).
"Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions."
EACH WILL HAVE A PLACE UNDER IMAGINABLE CONDITIONS.
Meaning that the authors, and the government see a possible scenario under which the government might BAN speech that it doesn't like? Am I now a "conspiracy theorist" if I write on a blog that the government sees a situation in which they might BAN people from espousing conspiracy theories?
"The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper."
When the official narratives promulgated by central governments, mainstream media, historians, etc. are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless, but nevertheless "fill the voids" that "mainstream" sources fail to address. Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative. Additionally, the attempts by governments and other "official" sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints, up to and including the use of violence, sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "threat" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion.
The problem comes from the definition of HARM. Someone like Locke equates "HARM" to broken legs, trampled bodies and stab wounds. The enemies of free speech in contemporary society (most of the power elite in government and academia) consider it "harm" when you hurt someone's feelings or question official government propaganda.
The great misconception is that "abnormal" people have some sort of defect that makes them especially vulnerable to brainwashing and propaganda. The truth is that the "normal" people are the ones who are brainwashed, while the jittery paranoiac is the person who doesn't buy in to conformist thinking and the official story line. "Normal" people are "normal" PRECISELY because they are the people most easily influenced by their environment, and most receptive to propaganda. If those fringe elements that the good government sheep describe as "conspiracy nuts" or "loonies" were so easy to brainwash, they'd simply fall in line with mainstream media propaganda.
I'd highly recommend William Sargent's excellent book called "Battle for the Mind" for a discussion of this, and many other interesting topics related to the psychology of brainwashing.
"Selective breeding is nothing but a very slow primitive form of genetic engineering."
The "very slow" part is what completely differentiates selective breeding and natural evolutionary processes from genetic engineering. All of the genetic differences you see in something like dogs occurred very gradually, and with some degree of harmony with the ecosystem. Introducing these GMOs is basically bypassing thousands of years of evolution, and going off on a tangent that would have a minuscule probability of ever occurring, even through selective breeding. I think that's a very important distinction when we're talking about the potential health and environmental impacts of these things.
You've got it backwards. I totally blame the government for setting up a system that gives people the incentive to live on "free money" from the taxpayer, but I still think those people are the scum of the earth.
My pride and honor are priceless, and I'd rather freeze and starve than live on food stamps and welfare.
"... if it's legal and relatively easy for any average joe to do, then why should the cops have to jump through hoops to do the same thing?"
That's a good way of phrasing it.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard because they are granted certain powers that the average joe doesn't have. They also have a long history of abusing their powers to squelch political dissent by singling out various individuals and organizations for "special" treatment. If the police have a reason to suspect that a person is running a drug operation out of their home, then they should have no problem getting a court to sign off on a thermal imaging of the property. Otherwise, it just gives the police another tool to target political dissidents.
"In some parts of the US still, it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband."
Could you please elaborate a bit? Incidents involving suppression of free speech through threat, intimidation or violence (by government or non-government entities), especially in the U.S. is sort of a pet research project of mine.
"The domestic BBC is not paid for by taxes, it is paid for by licenses to watch TV."
That's a fantastic idea. We should all need a "license to watch TV"! Then, when some kid tries to duplicate a stunt he saw on Jacka$$ or claims that he did something because of violent television programs, the courts can simply revoke his and his parents' license to watch TV! I can think of any number of instances where a TV license could/should be suspended or revoked! Implementation and enforcement is going to be a challenge, but I like the idea in principle.
"The whole concept of freedom of speech was to prevent the government stifling dissent. It isn't intended to make everyone agree about everything."
The government operates the court system and would be responsible for making laws that allow someone to be sued for exercising their right to free speech. The fact that a private citizen filed the complaint in this situation means nothing. Without the government imposing the penalty, the complaint would be merely a complaint.
Party invitations aside, I'd really like to see a law which protects people who exercise their right to free speech from any harmful retribution by people or organizations that are NOT part of the government. Something akin to legislation which protects whistle-blowers. As long as it's absolutely clear that a person is exercising their rights as an individual and not as a representative of any other person or organization, they shouldn't be fired from their jobs, passed over for tenure at their university or be subject to threat, intimidation or violence just for having an unpopular opinion.
The point is not about making everyone agree with everyone else. It's about having a society where every single person has a right to express their point of view freely and openly, and having that right respected, regardless of how strongly the majority or those in positions of power disagrees with it.
"In Ontario I do know that truth is absolutely a defense . .."
Apologies for repeating myself, but truth isn't "absolutely a defense" on all questions related to free speech. Apparently it only applies to claims of "libel". Insult a minority and you could find yourself before A "human rights tribunal". Scary.
"Your wife wasn't shot, fired from her work, sent to prison, put into house arrest, forced to exile. She just had to supprort the consequences of her actions. You ought to be familiar with that concept."
Duh. The whole concept of Freedom of Speech is that there aren't supposed to BE "consequences" for speaking one's opinion, regardless of how unpopular it happens to be. The fact that she was punished for this, regardless of whether it was a fine or a prison sentence is irrelevant. Do you think free speech just means that the government can't sew your mouth shut and cut off your fingers? i.e. You're "free" to speak, but be prepared because there will be consequences if you hurt someone's feelings?
"I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough . .."
In the good old days (for me 70s and 80s) you had to dig, but you could still find most print material you were looking for. I think that society is much better off generally when we have instant access to dated information. One thing that's really cool and useful is that more and more VIDEO evidence is being kept around. One of my hobbies is political activism, and thanks to YouTube, we can go back and actually see and hear politicians making campaign promises that they've now broken, or TV news reporters(entertainers) providing commentary that we now know to be BS. It seems that most people get their information from television, and it's more powerful to have the actual video of past events and statements than to simply write about it. Government and media personalities defame themselves without any help. I like the fact that the people now have additional tools to prove how full of $#!t the government and MSM really are.
"Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech? FFS."
Freedom of Speech is a larger issue than libel defense. Truth vs. lie might be an adequate protection against the specific charge of "libel", but under asinine laws like "The Canadian Human Rights Act"
The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant. If you hurt someone's feelings (provided that they're not a heterosexual white person) you can still be dragged into civil court. It would be a complete joke if it weren't for the fact that there are real penalties. Canada doesn't have anything like the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Canada, "Thoughtcrime" really is a crime if you happen to share your unpopular thoughts. That's why I love visiting Canada, but sure as hell would never move there.
"the current way you pay for [health care] sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be"
Never underestimate the Federal government's unparalleled talent for making things "suck".
Just in the last decade, the government in Washington D.C. has brought you two illegal and un-Constitutional wars, The Patriot Act, military commissions act, extraordinary renditions, torture, an absurd loose monetary policy which caused the housing bubble, trillions of dollars of handouts to the biggest banks and financial institutions in the nation, warrantless wiretapping and ex-post facto immunity for the telecoms, irresponsible fiscal policy adding trillions to the national debt and a general disregard for The Constitution and the rule of law. Are you saying that you want to give this VERY SAME government power over the healthcare system? Are you also saying that you trust them to manage it in a way that's for the general good of the U.S. population?
Only morons, government employees, and a few wealthy elites that benefit from Washington DC's generally disastrous policies would be in favor of giving even more power to the government. The only fucking obvious thing that I can see is that the big government experiment of the 20th century is an utter and complete failure.
The REASON that someone is "typical" is precisely because they are strongly influenced by their surroundings and more easily brainwashed by what they're exposed to. "Normal" people are, by definition those who conform to societal "norms" and there's no reason to think that their ethical beliefs are somehow immune from the influence of "popular opinion". How can someone who is following a code of ethics that was imposed on them by society be more "ethical" in terms of what they think is right and wrong than a person who has made their own individual conclusion and is willing to give up $1M to stand on their principles?
That was interesting. Thank you. I especially liked the following part:
" . ..along the highway between Beijing and the airport there were "billboards with pictures of Stephen Hawking plastered everywhere."
Now that's cool. I've never had the pleasure of seeing a lecture by Hawking in person. Is it common for someone like him to get this type of publicity ANYWHERE in the U.S. ? Apart from a few tiny posters stapled on campus bulletin boards and taped to light poles, I don't recall seeing any type of real publicity for a public appearance by a scientist, mathematician or engineer. Sad reality.
"She had the following on herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem -Arabic stickers on laptop -"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone -passport stamps from Arab countries -various Arab publications -photos condemning Israeli military action in Gaza"
Well that explains it. They were obviously justified in destroying her property.
"...the bailouts were "socialisim" for the middle class."
WRONG! The savings of the middle class are insured by the FDIC. The big banks should have gone bankrupt, and the government should have then been forced to keep its word by making depositors whole. Not to mention the fact that the Federal Reserve is doing far more bailing out than the TARP bill. The Fed is the biggest scheme in the history of the U.S. for redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the government and the wealthy elite. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "conspiracy" when the behavior is so overt and obvious.
"In WWII, we were in a fight for our survival. ANY methods taken were appropriate . .."
"In WWII [bombing civilian centers indiscriminately] was an acceptable and proper thing to do."
I hope that you made those statements in haste without giving them a lot of thought. Or perhaps the "we" you are talking about means Eastern Europeans and Russians, in which case I might see your point. Otherwise, you have rather sick and twisted morals. "ANY" tactics are appropriate??? Bombing civilians was "acceptable" and "proper"??? There are things called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and in a just world, they would apply to both the victor and the vanquished.
Slashdot Mirror
U.S. citizens are expected to comply with tens of thousands of BS laws and regulations that come out of Washington DC, and are regularly prosecuted for violating them. By contrast, government employees (from the President on down) violate the 15-20 pages of the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis, and nobody is arrested or prosecuted. Why should WE have to read, understand and obey the massive volume of rules that they spew out every year when THEY refuse to obey a very simple set of rules governing their behavior? I guess it depends on who is breaking the law.
The government CLAIMS that it wants to undermine people and groups spreading "conspiracy theories" because these theories are not true and are somehow "harmful to society".
If the ideas that such groups express are really so demonstrably wrong and devoid of facts, why would the government advocate using covert means to undermine them? Why not set up an open forum where these theories are exposed, confronted, and refuted in front of the whole world? I propose that we have nationally televised debates where the government puts forth a group of their "experts", and they have an open discussion with the so-called "conspiracy theorists" they are proposing to infiltrate and undermine.
Episode #1 will feature representatives of the people who came up with the 9-11 commission report and anybody else the government wants to dig up vs. Alex Jones (noted conspiracy theorist), Dr. Steven Jones(no relation, Physicist at S&J Scientific Co.) and Maybe Webster Tarpley (author and lecturer).
What's the government so afraid of?
From the section you quote:
"Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions."
EACH WILL HAVE A PLACE UNDER IMAGINABLE CONDITIONS.
Meaning that the authors, and the government see a possible scenario under which the government might BAN speech that it doesn't like? Am I now a "conspiracy theorist" if I write on a blog that the government sees a situation in which they might BAN people from espousing conspiracy theories?
"The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper."
When the official narratives promulgated by central governments, mainstream media, historians, etc. are so obviously deficient in their facts and offer less than satisfying explanations, it lends an inherent credibility to alternative theories which might be largely baseless, but nevertheless "fill the voids" that "mainstream" sources fail to address. Furthermore, a history filled with numerous examples of government story lines which have later been proven false by the revelation of a complete set of relevant facts create natural doubts as to the authenticity or comprehensiveness of ANY official narrative. Additionally, the attempts by governments and other "official" sources to marginalize or stifle such alternative viewpoints, up to and including the use of violence, sanction and/or threat of legal penalty strongly suggest that such dissenting opinions represent a "threat" to the established power structure above and beyond that posed by a simple falsehood or unstubstantiated suggestion.
The problem comes from the definition of HARM. Someone like Locke equates "HARM" to broken legs, trampled bodies and stab wounds. The enemies of free speech in contemporary society (most of the power elite in government and academia) consider it "harm" when you hurt someone's feelings or question official government propaganda.
The great misconception is that "abnormal" people have some sort of defect that makes them especially vulnerable to brainwashing and propaganda. The truth is that the "normal" people are the ones who are brainwashed, while the jittery paranoiac is the person who doesn't buy in to conformist thinking and the official story line. "Normal" people are "normal" PRECISELY because they are the people most easily influenced by their environment, and most receptive to propaganda. If those fringe elements that the good government sheep describe as "conspiracy nuts" or "loonies" were so easy to brainwash, they'd simply fall in line with mainstream media propaganda.
I'd highly recommend William Sargent's excellent book called "Battle for the Mind" for a discussion of this, and many other interesting topics related to the psychology of brainwashing.
"Selective breeding is nothing but a very slow primitive form of genetic engineering."
The "very slow" part is what completely differentiates selective breeding and natural evolutionary processes from genetic engineering. All of the genetic differences you see in something like dogs occurred very gradually, and with some degree of harmony with the ecosystem. Introducing these GMOs is basically bypassing thousands of years of evolution, and going off on a tangent that would have a minuscule probability of ever occurring, even through selective breeding. I think that's a very important distinction when we're talking about the potential health and environmental impacts of these things.
You've got it backwards. I totally blame the government for setting up a system that gives people the incentive to live on "free money" from the taxpayer, but I still think those people are the scum of the earth.
My pride and honor are priceless, and I'd rather freeze and starve than live on food stamps and welfare.
"... if it's legal and relatively easy for any average joe to do, then why should the cops have to jump through hoops to do the same thing?"
That's a good way of phrasing it.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard because they are granted certain powers that the average joe doesn't have. They also have a long history of abusing their powers to squelch political dissent by singling out various individuals and organizations for "special" treatment. If the police have a reason to suspect that a person is running a drug operation out of their home, then they should have no problem getting a court to sign off on a thermal imaging of the property. Otherwise, it just gives the police another tool to target political dissidents.
"In some parts of the US still, it can also mean getting your head bashed in with a brick and your family being left without a dad and husband."
Could you please elaborate a bit? Incidents involving suppression of free speech through threat, intimidation or violence (by government or non-government entities), especially in the U.S. is sort of a pet research project of mine.
Thanks.
"Sigh . . . you use gov funded things everyday"
sigh . . . we use TAXPAYER funded things every day. Government has no ability to fund anything unless they first confiscate wealth from someone.
I'm curious what Wired said about .com you find so offensive?
http://wired.about.com/ ??
"The domestic BBC is not paid for by taxes, it is paid for by licenses to watch TV."
That's a fantastic idea. We should all need a "license to watch TV"! Then, when some kid tries to duplicate a stunt he saw on Jacka$$ or claims that he did something because of violent television programs, the courts can simply revoke his and his parents' license to watch TV! I can think of any number of instances where a TV license could/should be suspended or revoked! Implementation and enforcement is going to be a challenge, but I like the idea in principle.
"The whole concept of freedom of speech was to prevent the government stifling dissent. It isn't intended to make everyone agree about everything."
The government operates the court system and would be responsible for making laws that allow someone to be sued for exercising their right to free speech. The fact that a private citizen filed the complaint in this situation means nothing. Without the government imposing the penalty, the complaint would be merely a complaint.
Party invitations aside, I'd really like to see a law which protects people who exercise their right to free speech from any harmful retribution by people or organizations that are NOT part of the government. Something akin to legislation which protects whistle-blowers. As long as it's absolutely clear that a person is exercising their rights as an individual and not as a representative of any other person or organization, they shouldn't be fired from their jobs, passed over for tenure at their university or be subject to threat, intimidation or violence just for having an unpopular opinion.
The point is not about making everyone agree with everyone else. It's about having a society where every single person has a right to express their point of view freely and openly, and having that right respected, regardless of how strongly the majority or those in positions of power disagrees with it.
"In Ontario I do know that truth is absolutely a defense . . ."
Apologies for repeating myself, but truth isn't "absolutely a defense" on all questions related to free speech. Apparently it only applies to claims of "libel". Insult a minority and you could find yourself before A "human rights tribunal". Scary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Tribunal
"Your wife wasn't shot, fired from her work, sent to prison, put into house arrest, forced to exile. She just had to supprort the consequences of her actions. You ought to be familiar with that concept."
Duh. The whole concept of Freedom of Speech is that there aren't supposed to BE "consequences" for speaking one's opinion, regardless of how unpopular it happens to be. The fact that she was punished for this, regardless of whether it was a fine or a prison sentence is irrelevant. Do you think free speech just means that the government can't sew your mouth shut and cut off your fingers? i.e. You're "free" to speak, but be prepared because there will be consequences if you hurt someone's feelings?
"I'd rather have the good old days where something potentially defamatory published in a newspaper went away soon enough . . ."
In the good old days (for me 70s and 80s) you had to dig, but you could still find most print material you were looking for. I think that society is much better off generally when we have instant access to dated information. One thing that's really cool and useful is that more and more VIDEO evidence is being kept around. One of my hobbies is political activism, and thanks to YouTube, we can go back and actually see and hear politicians making campaign promises that they've now broken, or TV news reporters(entertainers) providing commentary that we now know to be BS. It seems that most people get their information from television, and it's more powerful to have the actual video of past events and statements than to simply write about it. Government and media personalities defame themselves without any help. I like the fact that the people now have additional tools to prove how full of $#!t the government and MSM really are.
"Can't we just change the law so that it no longer reverses the burden of proof (so you nolonger have to prove your statements are *not* untrue) and as such upholds freedom of speech? FFS."
Freedom of Speech is a larger issue than libel defense. Truth vs. lie might be an adequate protection against the specific charge of "libel", but under asinine laws like "The Canadian Human Rights Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Act
The concept of "truth" is completely irrelevant. If you hurt someone's feelings (provided that they're not a heterosexual white person) you can still be dragged into civil court. It would be a complete joke if it weren't for the fact that there are real penalties. Canada doesn't have anything like the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Canada, "Thoughtcrime" really is a crime if you happen to share your unpopular thoughts. That's why I love visiting Canada, but sure as hell would never move there.
"freedom has never meant behavior which imposes on other people."
Agreed.
"... you are imposing on society thinking you can walk around without health insurance"
Just by THINKING it? :-)
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual.
"the current way you pay for [health care] sucks FAR FAR WORSE than a government run system could ever be"
Never underestimate the Federal government's unparalleled talent for making things "suck".
Just in the last decade, the government in Washington D.C. has brought you two illegal and un-Constitutional wars, The Patriot Act, military commissions act, extraordinary renditions, torture, an absurd loose monetary policy which caused the housing bubble, trillions of dollars of handouts to the biggest banks and financial institutions in the nation, warrantless wiretapping and ex-post facto immunity for the telecoms, irresponsible fiscal policy adding trillions to the national debt and a general disregard for The Constitution and the rule of law. Are you saying that you want to give this VERY SAME government power over the healthcare system? Are you also saying that you trust them to manage it in a way that's for the general good of the U.S. population?
Only morons, government employees, and a few wealthy elites that benefit from Washington DC's generally disastrous policies would be in favor of giving even more power to the government. The only fucking obvious thing that I can see is that the big government experiment of the 20th century is an utter and complete failure.
The REASON that someone is "typical" is precisely because they are strongly influenced by their surroundings and more easily brainwashed by what they're exposed to. "Normal" people are, by definition those who conform to societal "norms" and there's no reason to think that their ethical beliefs are somehow immune from the influence of "popular opinion". How can someone who is following a code of ethics that was imposed on them by society be more "ethical" in terms of what they think is right and wrong than a person who has made their own individual conclusion and is willing to give up $1M to stand on their principles?
That was interesting. Thank you. I especially liked the following part:
" . . .along the highway between Beijing and the airport there were "billboards with pictures of Stephen Hawking plastered everywhere."
Now that's cool. I've never had the pleasure of seeing a lecture by Hawking in person. Is it common for someone like him to get this type of publicity ANYWHERE in the U.S. ? Apart from a few tiny posters stapled on campus bulletin boards and taped to light poles, I don't recall seeing any type of real publicity for a public appearance by a scientist, mathematician or engineer. Sad reality.
"She had the following on herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem -Arabic stickers on laptop -"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone
-passport stamps from Arab countries -various Arab publications -photos condemning Israeli military action in Gaza"
Well that explains it. They were obviously justified in destroying her property.
I'll take the bait on that one.
"...the bailouts were "socialisim" for the middle class."
WRONG! The savings of the middle class are insured by the FDIC. The big banks should have gone bankrupt, and the government should have then been forced to keep its word by making depositors whole. Not to mention the fact that the Federal Reserve is doing far more bailing out than the TARP bill. The Fed is the biggest scheme in the history of the U.S. for redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the government and the wealthy elite. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "conspiracy" when the behavior is so overt and obvious.
"In WWII, we were in a fight for our survival. ANY methods taken were appropriate . . ."
"In WWII [bombing civilian centers indiscriminately] was an acceptable and proper thing to do."
I hope that you made those statements in haste without giving them a lot of thought. Or perhaps the "we" you are talking about means Eastern Europeans and Russians, in which case I might see your point. Otherwise, you have rather sick and twisted morals. "ANY" tactics are appropriate??? Bombing civilians was "acceptable" and "proper"??? There are things called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and in a just world, they would apply to both the victor and the vanquished.