Posted on 05/16/2004 12:59:53 PM PDT by jmstein7
There is now a debate raging on FR about trolls, honest dissent, and the value of free speech. I would like to weigh in on this and then solicit opinions from all of you on the subject.
The First Amendment was a response to the English experience of viewpoint suppression by requiring licensing of the press – i.e. requiring pre-approval of books – the doctrine of construction treason, which held that writing can constitute treason, a capital offense, and the law of seditious libel, criminalizing unfavorable reporting of the government. However, the debate in the United States did not truly reach maturity until the early half of the 20th Century.
Justice Holmes (in, I believe, Abrams v. United States) famously averred that “[t]he best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Even opinions which we “loathe and believe to be fraught with death” should not be suppressed, “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Alternatively, the self governance rationale posits that, because the general welfare depends on the citizens making enlightened decisions, in a democratic society, free expression and discussion are essential to deciding matters of public policy. The autonomy rationale holds that for an individual to regard himself as autonomous, he must see himself as free to decide which beliefs to hold. The First Amendment is also justified on the basis that it checks the abuse of power by public officials, it diffuses dissent by creating an atmosphere of open discussion, and it fosters a tolerant society.
I am inclined to agree with Justice Holmes – and that is why I support, as I think most FReepers do – honest dissent. Although such expression of opinion may make us angry, as the Court insinuated in Terminiello v. Chicago, the most valuable expression may well be that which because it is provocative and challenging, produces these emotions. This type of debate aids us in our perpetual search for the truth.
There is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. However, what we are concerned with is false statement of fact – this type of speech, particularly speech that is intended to be deceptive, adds nothing to public debate. False statements of fact, e.g. intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances, are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Deceptive or defamatory speech is “low value speech,” and it adds nothing constructive to the marketplace of ideas. This is why trolls are prohibited – because they add nothing to the debate and exist only to deceive and distort the truth we are seeking.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination. However, what we do ask for, at a minimum, is open and honest debate as we, together search for the truth. That is, per se, the value of free speech in a Free Republic.
Ideas are important in debate. When debate is discouraged by name calling, commenting on intelligence, etc. the conservative cause is damaged. PC is just as big a pain on Free Republic as it is in the rest of society.
Trol!
No, I just state matter of factly that if you act a certain way that can lend creedance to a common, known smeer, you yourself lend creedance to the smeer. It's kinda like the common smeer against Christians that they're all closet perverts because they're so much against pornography. If you go out like Jimmy Swaggert did and get yourself caught twice in the midst of it, the public sits back and goes "AHA!" And you danged know it. But then, you're doing precisely what I've said you do elsewhere. You aren't here to talk, you're here to look for some misstep you can use to try and shut me up because you can't handle the notion that I could be right about something given that I've committed the grave and unredeamable offense of disagreeing with you and the President on free trade. Theres that cultist mentality again.
Sheesh LOL...someone got a bit upset
Yeah... that's how I read the post; just a spoiled kid who got a pubic edukashion.<> Maybe there is something to the "vanity" as opposed to "commenting" portions of this site. We just saw a trashy post to a "thread." Maybe some of the ones who take the time to post a "vanity thread," can be salvaged. I mean... if a post or vanity is like the comment above (removed) it's taken off fairly quickly. Maybe a bit more time on the ones who simply seemed "misguided."
No you don't want to do that. Multiple accounts will get you banned first thing.
Much twisting needed. I'd never call myself a nazi, much less willingly act like one. I'm just commenting on how things can be twisted by others. But the same mindset exists here and is exemplified in your attempt to remove what I DID say from context and accuse me with it as saying something I did not. I don't know what it is about your manhood that makes you feel it's necessary to lie so blatently in a forum where my full commentary is on record for all to see; but, if you want people thinking you're from Rio Linda, just keep it up, they're already well on the way.
Troll! Dummie! Bush-bot! Newbie! DUer! Liberal! Spineless! They all contribute to limit free speech.
Meg, I don't think it was meant as a way to solve her problem finding a job. I think, from what she said, that it is intended to be a statement to the end that free trade isn't doing her any favors and that if everyone does it in attempt to make that point, it might be useful. It's no different than a letter writing campaign.. just has a minor fresh twist to it. I don't see the harm in it. And whether it is effective or not is debateable - which seems to have been, in part, her point for discussion.
Some people live to find an excuse to argue whether it has any basis in reality or not. I'm sorry for him; but, this is the level of his debate pretty much everywhere I've encountered him.
Man, I've gotten called names, had my intelligence questioned, by seasoned FReepers. I try and stick to the facts, but I got just as nasty as my opponents in that last donneybrook.
Solution: avoid certain posters.
Waaaaahhhhh!!!!!
You think she was that smart? That intelligent? That mature and devious in her thinking? She was a recent college graduate for Pete's sake!
I'm glad the President is taking you off the endangered species list.
By the way, nice argument.
This is Rich, I think I'll just start at the beginning,
I don't know who you (Havoc) is and we have no shared baggage, I think I shall just start at the top and work my way down
What I do see is what you yourself are continuing to do here - slandering the person with not one lick of evidence presented to back up your slander.
Your definition of slander and mine must differ, how do you know she didn't agree and found no reason to argue a point that she agreed with, Slander is not something that you can charge for her, nor her for you.
As far as my motive. I think I made my motive plain obvious.. It's to get you people to treat others with respect and common freakin courtesy.
Ok you are a control Freak
When I came here 6 years ago, I found myself in the midst of a religious war
No, we are now in the middle of a Religous War, six years ago we were in the middle of a Leadership Vacuum
Certain people were allowed to get by with saying whatever they darned pleased whether it was true, false, right or wrong.
Again, Control Freak, you will tell everyone true false right wrong
My motive is nothing more than mutual respect and fair play.
By whose definition, yours I assume
The subject involved is irrelevant.
Then don't waste Bandwidth, Keystrokes or Time on it, others find it entertaining
Certain people here don't let facts or the lack of them get in the way of destroying someone who presents a viewpoint that threaten's their profit margin or their cultist mentality.
That is a Talking Point straight from DU, (but you left out little bushy is an idiot and Halliburton)
They find the most convenient use of verbiage to attack with whether true or not and they aim to slaughter.
They (those idiot Bushbots) were mean and insensitive, they didn't confirm the Truth with you first. Slaughter is an interesting choice of words here, it is what you strive to achieve in Battle and what you do to food.
what Ross Perot termed the Republican attack machine in all it's foulness.. something as I've said before, I couldn't believe possible from republicans.
Where you at his Daughters Wedding or what? He was in his Dean Meltdown mode right about then, if you cared for him, that was the time to break out your trusty screwdriver and try to tighten ol Ross's loose screw.
Having seen it first hand of late, I'm sickened to my core by it and sick to death of it. And for my part, I intend to do what I can to put a stop to it.
While you have that screwdriver out, You might look for a loose screw a little closer to home.
I don't find that the best way to defeat liberal democrats is to act like the worst of them.
So Stop
Just as I don't believe the best way to defeat vile terrorists and show how better people can have it is to broadcast the evil of a few who thought it appropriate to treat them the same way Saddam treated his people. It's disgusting and it's without excuse.
Here is where we can agree in part, (1) The Media is broadcasting this BS over and over again and I believe that is wrong. What is really wrong is to somehow compare panties on the head to the MURDER, TORTURE, RAPE, MASS KILLINGS, DISMEMBERMENTS, GASSING and on and on of what Saddam did and in your World and Ted Kennedy's World these two separate things are somehow equal.
You must really hate, and it must really suck to be you.
Yes, in fact the 'future swing to conservatism' is exactly the rationale of many Freepers. All I have to say is this- they had better be correct. If he ends up nominating a bunch of Souter clones, and if he continues to run this war with a PC hypersensitivity, I will remind everyone of what they said to me in his defense.
My hope for the future is that the Dems will continue their spiral into irrelevance, and that a new party will coalesce to the right of the GOP. Once the Dems are completely sidelined, I'm moving right.
No, it's not. Have some faith in your fellow Americans- they aren't as stupid as we all sometimes think.
Ex: 2 weeks ago-the Bush & Kerry poll numbers after a solid month of hammering by the Old Media- Bush's actually went up.
Fewer and fewer people listen to the dinosaurs in the papers and the networks. The internet is the ultimate source for info, and people aren't so gullible anymore.
Wirestripper, I really hope that is true. I do. Because I want very badly to think well of my party. But some of you make that increasingly difficult. Whether it is true or not, the attitudes on display here lately make it very plausible in my mind hat it could have been true. I have specific recent experience with how much facts matter to some here in trying to destroy someone. I've been treated pretty dispicably myself - and not just by my own estimation. I have freepmail, yahoo mail, regular mail, etc from people apologizing to me privately for the intollerable abuse I got a while back from others here. They said privately what I'm saying publicly. And they said it privately because they didn't want to get beat up publicly for it. No republican attack machine - perhaps, except for here... I'm not saying there was one. I'm admitting based on experience that it is plausible that there was - whatever the truth might be. Neither of us can say for sure either way.
First of all, the 1st Admendment allows us to be heard, but not require the other guy to fund the bill. We are here as guests, a benevolent dictatorship to some degree. You want free speech, go ahead and set up your own website and speak all you want. If you do not like the forum here, find one you do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.