Ecstatic, finally a topic we seem to basically agree on. ;)

I think it's interesting the differences between what is going on in the US versus the Swedish gov. In the case of the cartoon...
Do you think that any corp. paper in the US would write an editorial supporting freedom of expression and publish a cartoon with it they knew would be controversial?
Then would the US gov. completely stand by the people who did so?
I think these attacks in the US on freedom of speech are being done to terrorize the citizenry. We are being reminded what will happen to us, if we dare to step out of line by the Bush crime family, et al. The Bush family and all their cohorts were fans of Nazi Germany in the '30's and wanted to transform America then to a fascist society. They've been working on it again for the last 30+ years, since they put in place conditions to eliminate the middle class and to force feed us complacency.
Would we ever react the way citizens of Europe do?
Do you think TV is a tool to make us compliant?
Is there any hope for the US to shake fascism?

Oh, and aren't those protest areas they've developed since the criminal has been in office nothing more than jails?

Look at that, I am in absolute agreement with you. :) I didn't know if these were all rhetorical questions - but I answered a few anyway.

I sometimes wonder if we would react the way Europe did. It's just that, this country is so large. I know that in Europe, during Nazi and Soviet occupations, people were taught languages, literature, history, mathematics, etc., all underground. It was a whole underground, educational movement ... which I thought was amazing. Could we do that here? I don't know. I hope we can.

I don't watch TV. In moderation, it's OK. Growing up, I could watch one program of my choice per week (so one hour of TV per week, lol). But, then, you get these kids who have basically grown up listening to TV for most of their lives. And they do this as adults as well. Scary!

I do think those protest areas are like jails.

As far as hope ... I'm such an idealist. I always think there is hope. I mean, look at all of us here - whatever our reasons, we've all turned to veganism in the hopes of changing our lives and, by default, the world. So, I have hope.

I think most people are honest, and most people are intelligent enough to know when they're being lied to. They don't need mommy and daddy to look after them for their whole lives. I'd hope that by the time people become adults, they can think for themselves. The small amount who would lie to people would, probably, cheat a few (as they do now, anyway) before people caught on and spread the word.

It's not laws that stop me from lying or cheating others - it's my own moral compass. This is true for every other person who does not lie and cheat. Those who DO lie and cheat others do so because of a lack of moral compass, therefore laws don't stop them (as evidenced by all the frauds in business out there).

So, I'm all for freedom of speech. Especially, when it comes to cases like the ones mentioned on this thread.

But, I can agree to disagree of course. :)

  Most people are fundamentally honest. I disagree with the idea that only a few would use unrestricted free speech to lie, cheat and steal, however. There are a lot of very dishonest people in the world. Laws give society some recourse for dealing with them. The idea that we can and will all just be guided by our personal moral compasses to the degree that we can have a well-ordered society is, frankly, naive.

  The fact is that certain types of speech can really do tremendous harm to others. I've heard the argument that no one ever dropped dead from reading or hearing an idea. That may be true but it's also deceptive. No one ever dropped dead from reading Der Sturmer, the Third Reich's venomous anti-semetic newspaper either. However, six million people died at the hands of the culture that it served.

  Words can and do incite actions. The restriction of people's ability to incite illegal and harmful actions against others whether by words or by actions is a legitimate function of government and it has long been understood by all three branches of government in the United States that there are limits to the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

I was thinking... with the occasional mention of an un/protected speech if it's racist... It seems like racist jokes and slurs are generally considered socially unacceptable, but this isn't quite the case with sexism or homophobia. What if it was so repugnant for someone to say something speciesist too?

Do we reject this speech because we think it just shouldn't be protected because of its offensiveness (which suggests that we think sexism or homophobia is a little less wrong than racism...), or because its potential to incite violence?

(I guess if it's the latter, I can never hope for the day that people gasp with disapproval at calling someone a b**ch. oh well.)

There are a lot of very dishonest people in the world.

You're absolutely right. And they all work in the government.  ;D ;)

You think it's naive to trust in people. I think it's naive to trust in the government.

Essentially, there really is no such thing as an entity called "the government." ALL it is is a bunch of ... people. They are no more special in their morality than anyone out there. So, they're all susceptible to lying, cheating, stealing, and killing. In fact, they do do that. Except they pass laws that exempt them from jail.

Originally, we were supposed to have a government for the people, by the people. I do not think this is the case any longer. I don't considering tasering people, or blocking off protestors into "appropriate" areas as a form of protection to me or to anyone else. I do not think these type of acts support "freedom of speech."

I trust people (not a mob of them called the government) because I can meet with them on an individual basis, and judge for myself whether or not they're trustworthy. I don't know anyone in "the government" ... and I can't talk to any of them to judge their character. I have no reason to trust them. Therefore, I find it easier to deal with people individually and take my chances there.

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state. They had NO freedom of speech, except that which came from Hitler. The more laws our government passes, the more centralized it becomes, the more it infilitrates our everyday lives ... the more it will resemble a police state. Then, they can print out all the propaganda they need to brainwash people.

Freedom of speech - real freedom - is what stops these type of things from happening.

  I've been away for a few days so I'm just getting around to answering this.

  The idea of simply dealing with other people at the individual level and maintaining any sort of well-ordered society is pretty much a pipe dream. I think that works okay in small tribal settings up to about 40 or 50 people and after that it starts to break down.

  I'm not saying that there aren't problems with government and the often corrupt people in it. That doesn't change the fact that we still need it to some degree and without it chaos would ensue. You say you have faith in people. There are certain people that merit your trust and there are some that don't.

  Without some form of government there would be no recourse at your disposal to deal with anyone who defrauds you or commits any manner of crime at your expense. You'll probably come back with some remark about how you'll only deal with the honest decent people and therefore avoid the criminal element. That's the kind of simplistic response I'm learning to expect when you're faced with the unworkability of anarchism in a populous and complex society.

  Since you propound the idea of 100% freedom of speech please tell me how you would deal with the issues of libel, slander, incitement to riot/commit criminal acts and perjury. In your world these forms of speech would all be constitutionally protected. How would you go about dealing with the repurcussions of these forms of speech?

But, why should I deal with them at all? I'm not in the publishing business. There are, literally, millions of magazines and newspapers out there. Hundreds of them are major, national newspapers, magazines, television shows. I highly doubt ALL of them would print the same exact article (unless government is in control of them all). No drama that way, which means less money for the news. Someone writes up some slander in one, someone else opposes it in another. Eventually, after a few articles, it will be pretty clear who is printing facts and who isn't. If someone slandered me in an article, I'd relish the chance to be able to defend myself in another. Newspapers live for that kind of stuff - they'd be happy to accomodate me.

  Libel and slander can be committed without publishing articles. These acts are often perpetrated by word of mouth at a small but destructive scale. For example, a competitor of your S/O spreads the word among some of his clients that he's commiting atrocities against his Indonesian slave laborers (who he's able to hire thanks to trade agreements that the US government has forged with that country's government) and that the scuttlebut is that the story will soon be getting around and there will be a public outcry. His clients run for cover, they don't want to be associated with the possible scandal that soon might be breaking. They cancel orders and end their business association with him.

  This would constitute libel under most current definitions. Your S/O could go to court and present his case that he hardly ever beats his Indonesian slaves. If he can show loss of income due to the false information spread by his competitor he can obtain a court-ordered restitution settlement. In the idealistic government-free world the only course of action open to him would be to suffer the loss or take direct vigilante action against the person who did him harm. This is why libel is not a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

  Incitement to riot or to commit other criminal acts can come in many forms. It is not likely to come in the form of an article. "Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence and to place the targets of the words in danger of harm. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction." Let's say some anti-slavery zealots decide to stir up a riot or lynchmob against your S/O because they don't have jobs and they're mad at him for opening his factory in Indonesia instead of Baton Rouge. The law makes it illegal for them to conspire against him in this manner, whether it be one person urging one other on to action or one person stirring up a group of 500 to riot.

  Just because most people would need a greater incentive to riot is no reason to remove the restrictions on this type of criminal speech. Most people would not commit murder if it were legal either. Laws are designed to define the limits of personal freedom, usually drawn somewhere around the point where one individual's "freedom" begins to cost another individual theirs.

Once you limit freedom of speech, you limit people's ability to find the truth. As evidenced in every single totalitarianist, dictator, communist, fascist regime that ever existed. Those regimes, incidentally, did not start off as controlling.

  This is a bit of a straw man argument. I've never uttered a word in favor of restricting political speech or the free expression of ideas that don't clearly cross the line into criminal behavior. Every example I have given of restricted speech that I consider legitimate clearly falls into that category.

  Actually, by definition libel and slander are false statements made against someone without justification. You don't need to have something to hide to be harmed by this type of speech. All you need is an enemy willing to lie about you. If someone speaks ill of you but can prove that their accusations are true then their speech will likely fall under the umbrella of First Amendment protection.

  Personally, I am no big fan of government. Ours needs a whole lot of improving, it's largely been bought up by monied interests lock, stock and barrel. Human government has been evolving throughout time and has had both shining and shameful examples. IMO the constitutional republican model holds great promise, it's sad to see the degree of corruption that now permeates it. Your full faith in the integrity of the individual is noble on its face but naive in reality. Human nature itself is the reason we need certain limitations on individual freedom. In a well-designed society laws restrict only the actions that fall outside of well-reasoned and clearly defined harmful behavior.

  Libel and slander can be committed without publishing articles. These acts are often perpetrated by word of mouth at a small but destructive scale. For example, a competitor of your S/O spreads the word among some of his clients that he's commiting atrocities against his Indonesian slave laborers (who he's able to hire thanks to trade agreements that the US government has forged with that country's government) and that the scuttlebut is that the story will soon be getting around and there will be a public outcry. His clients run for cover, they don't want to be associated with the possible scandal that soon might be breaking. They cancel orders and end their business association with him.

My S/O would just enjoy the challenge of proving said man wrong. Which would be VERY easy to do. Providing proof of honest, ethical actions is the easiest thing in the world. My S/O has a website. His customers use it. He has a phone - anyone who buys his bags can talk to him personally. He has an office - anyone can come by.

He wouldn't need court to prove this. He can prove it himself. The loss that he may take for the first few months will be regained when his business opponent is proven to be a liar and fraud. At which point, the guy who spread the lies will lose out on business. Because there is one thing he doesn't have - proof that what he says is true.

As I said, riots happen when 2 conditions come into play: 1. people have nothing left to lose, 2. people are perpetually unhappy. A charismatic leader helps as well.

Motivation is KEY. The scenario you described is simply not enough motivation for people, let alone 500. You may get one or two crazy people who might decide to come after him. But, they'll do this regardless of the laws in place.

Most people in America - even the poorest person - have something left to lose, i.e. they have family, they have a shelter, they have A/C, they have food, they have TV. Most of them even have cars. None of them want to lose any of that. Going up in a mad riot with the intention of harming another person can end all that very quickly. Especially since self defense is something of which everyone is capable.

But, even with that aside, there are practical reasons. What business will hire these people after it's known that they riot against a businessman, with the intent to harm?

Every company I know will stay FAR away from such workers. So, they, essentially, ruin any hope of a job. 

Everyone knows where that line is. They don't need government to tell them. Those who choose to cross that line, do so regardless of the consequences.

I know this. Except lies can't be proven. The truth can. My S/O can provide more than enough photos, tours, documents, personal interviews from his workers, etc. that prove he treats them fairly. What can the man who lies present? Nothing.

So, if a person is afraid of libel/slander ... IMO, it means that they can't prove the truth. If you can't prove the truth - you're hiding something.

And, as I said, I think the same of the idea that government is what keeps people in check. Not only that, I also think it's insulting to humans. That they need "mommy and daddy" to shadow them for their whole lives in order to let them know right from wrong.

There is not a single person (unless you're a vegetable or mentally unstable) who doesn't see which actions are harmful to others, and which actions are not. Those people who are unstable mentally commit sick crimes anyway - regardless of the law. Because they're not normal.

Those people who know the lines have the freedom to choose whether or not to cross those lines. Most people do not harm others. NOT because it is against the law to do so, but because they understand that harming others is wrong. Those who do cross over that line, do so regardles of the law. If the law is what stopped people - we would have no prisons.

Freedom of speech, completely freedom of speech, is not scary or wrong. What is scary to me is that some big government should deem which things are appropriate to say and which are not. As I said, people can tell lies all they want. People can attempt to incite riot. But, unless they are speaking the truth - they will fail. Naturally, I say they will fail in a free country where others can prove them wrong. Not in a statist country where no one is free to speak.

  Alright. This is just getting ridiculous. So you think you would be better off if someone else had the power to make you constantly, again and again, prove that the lies they could freely tell about you were false? You can't see that anyone who wanted to could simply make you occupy all of your time defending youself against false allegations? Laws against libel can offer some degree of protection against this but you reckon them worthless.

  You can't see the benefit of criminalizing perjury rather than making it protected speech? Likewise conspiracy to commit criminal acts?

  It seems to me that you are an idealogue committed to your position regardless of how faulty the reasoning is behind it. There is no argument, no matter how valid, that can sway you from the position you hold with religious zeal.

  Your childlike insistence that ultimately the good in human nature will prevail if people are simply given the freedom to choose with no restrictions (even reasonable ones) is laughable. Let's see how you feel about that twenty years down the road once you've had a little more life experience.

Well, I don't understand why you're getting upset. The same can be said of your position. Considering, I have not provided you with a single illogical or faulty argument. I have, however, refrained from calling your viewpoints child-like or illogical. 

The premise on which we disagree rests not on logic, but in our experience and perception of humanity.

I told you this difference between our philosophies and why they will be incompatible. It's a fundamental premise. You think without government, everyone will all of a sudden be out to get everyone else, i.e. tons of masses of people will decide to spread lies and rumors about a business. Or uncontrollably steal and kill.

I think the vast majority won't do this because 1. they have better things to do, 2. most people are moral, 3. people don't really care that much unless it directly affects their life. Someone selling bags in some store doesn't affect the great majority of people one bit.

So, I see government as superfluous. You see it as needed.

This fundamental difference stems from our differing perceptions on humanity. It has nothing to do with faulty logic or bad arguments.

My S/O, by the way, is 42 and thinks exactly as I do. Guess, some people never learn that "life experience."  ;)

Again, I agree to disagree. I said before that because of our fundamental difference in this one premise, we will never agree and debate in circles.

OK. So the vast majority won't. The vast majority of people don't commit criminal acts now. But there is a substantial minority that do and many of their crimes have very real consequences for their victims.

  How do you propose to deal with the murderer, the perjurer, the thief? What mechanism will be in place in society to deal with the very real problems that these people create? What recourse will their victims have without some sort of judicial system to adjudicate their complaints, some legislative sytem to define by law what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior and some executive power to enforce the law and the findings of the judiciary?

  What, pray tell, will keep society from sinking into chaos and rule by force of the unscrupulous minority? Fluffy cotton candy flavored theories? The overall goodness of people? It all falls apart the first time someone commits a crime. You either have a government of some kind in place (hopefully one that derives its just powers by the consent of the governed) to take necessary action, or you have case by case vigilantism or you have crime as an accepted occupation and tough luck to its victims.

I've told you this in the past thread when we debated this the last time.

Private security agencies will protect you from the minor element of criminals in society. They'll be many of them, competing with one another for customers, which will keep them honest. As the first agency that doesn't deliver is put out of business. If someone steals from you, they will send out people to recover what was stolen. Even now, bounty hunters are used and are much better than police simply because they're not constrained by the same laws the police are. Private body guards are also used and are better than government ones. They're expensive now, but only because they're no widely available to the public ... the police is around to, uh, "protect" people.

Further, with everyone being able to own and carry a weapon (not just the "bad" guys - which is basically how society is run today. The good people have to go through hoops and red tape to get a weapon. The bad ones just buy one off the street.) ... people will think twice about tangling with someone. It's one thing to attack someone who has no weapon or training in using weapons, it's another to attack someone who does.

When there is a dispute between two people, arbitrators can deal with it, i.e. private agencies who are enlisted when there is a dispute between two people.

Now, what about the actual people? Well let's think about this: how many times will a theif attempt to steal if, each time, he's caught by the security agency, the goods confiscated? How many times will a person attempt to murder when the first time they do it, they're shot? Trespassing on private property with the intent to do harm gets people shot ... even now. Self defence is an instinctual thing.

Further, we live in a global, world wide market. One person commits a crime against another. The person against whom this crime is committed enters them in an online database (with proof, of course). Every employer, every businessman, everyone can check to see who is on that database. They can look at their crimes, look at the evidence, and then make up their own mind. So, for instance, businesses can choose to shun them, i.e. airlines will refuse to issue him/her tickets, stores will refuse to sell them goods, refuse them work, etc. Without any of that, what will this person do? Go live in the wild? Good riddance. And good luck without any food or shelter.

If you think people won't do this ... most people are moral. They want to get rid of the criminal element. I've seen people protest in front of the houses of sexual offenders to move them out of the neighborhood. And they do move.

As with any new "regime" there will be a period of adjustment. After, things will smooth out.

The thing I find funny is that government has already been tried, over and over and over again. And it's been proven, pretty clearly, that 1. it works in the beginning when it's VERY small and very de-centralized, 2. it degenerates into a very centralized institution, encroaching on every part of people's lives. From freedom of speech to how a woman can give birth and where (yes, there are laws for this). 3. Eventually government becomes statist. And this has happened, historically, over and over. We're not at a police state yet. But, if we keep going the way we are now ... we will be.

On the other hand, no one has ever tried anarcho-capitalism. Still, somehow, they KNOW it won't work. Based on what? Somalia? Somalia is violent precisely because there are several governments who want control of it. Their weapons are funded by the USA, and they're fighting it out for control. That's not anarchy. That's governments messing with countries all over again.

Incidentally, outside of those governments fighting, those "chaotic" civilians living in lawless anarchy are doing quite well, i.e. more people have jobs, civilian crimes are down, more people have access to medicine, etc. All because of the amount of private agencies cropping up. I just read an article about it, actually. I'll find it for you.

Anyway, I really don't want to debate this. Truly, this is something that will go in circles. Our fundamental premises are completely different. If you're interested, I'll find that article and post a link. But, beyond that, I think I'll just respectfully bow out and agree to disagree. We've taken this thread off topic anyway.

So, yea, back to freedom of speech.