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.
"All politics is local". Rostenkowski I believe said that.
Politics is what it is!
Quit tryin to put lipstick on a pig!
Since when is 'perhaps' an opinion?
Yep, I disagree with your debate skills, not that the skills themselves are poor - you're quite skilled at debate. It's your tactics that are wanting. When you so obviously misconstrue what someone says, then I chastise that. And with every right to do so as a matter of self defense - as though it were neeeded. Everyone present can read for themselves and see what you're doing, so why you think you're getting by with something is beyond me. And for that, I would say you are acting like a jackass. But I don't go to the extent of labeling everyone that way who disagrees with me. Just the ones that act as you do in lying willfully about what I've said in the first place. The ones who just honestly disagree don't seem to feel the need to lie about me in the doing. I've no problem with that.
I personally believe Homosexuality is a sin and a morally bankrupt lifestyle if not sleazy and sickening. People disagree with me. That doesn't make them vile, they just don't have the same spiritual or moral grounding I have. And that is where debate comes in. One side or the other may never win; but, at least one can hope the two sides can come to understand the other and still be as respectful as possible. I may not respect other people's beliefs; but, I respect their right to hold them and I respect them as human beings. And if my ideas are correct to begin with, they stand on their own. When one has to employ deciet, lies, and the like, one knows at the outset that their ideas are wanting or they wouldn't need to lie in there presentation - that's debate 101 and common sense 101.
Advertising something as a real fake doesn't sell; but, if you say it's real "faux", they are more likely to buy into it not understanding the word. That's a more obvious form of deciet that is easily conquered by knowledge. Just as with some of your relentless twistings. I have to guess about your motivations.. but, the motivation for lying and deciet in attacking someone is usually a matter of weakness. So, I'm not sure what your ultimate point is. If your argument or stance is so week you have to resort to that behavior, I'm not significantly moved by your handwringing about my pointing it out to others. I would be moved if you straightened up and stopped acting deceitfully so that we could talk like grown ups. You're the only one not allowing that to happen.
The record speaks for itself. And the stock of your credibility continues to slide.
First rule when you're in a hole: stop digging.
So, our bar is what Hillary thought was good operating policy?
How dare you make unsubstantiated claims like that? Can you prove that?
Just because he used a couple of pottymouth words doesn't...
Never mind.
That would be the understatement of the year.
We don't all have to agree; but, I think we can disagree without lies, deciet, character assasination, etc.
Evidently not. I have never seen such venom as I see on the religious threads. I have always defended my faith here in the bible belt, but I have had my faith slammed more here than anywhere else.
That being said it still is the best site on the web.
Pomposity is not attractive.
Why not? If JimRob wants this to be a source of pro-Bush information and pro-Bush discussion, why should we allow dissent?
The worse thing you can be on the FR site is a homosexual moslem.
LOL
Good points in #64.
In truth, though, I see little difference between someone posting something anti-Bush (even if it is well thought out) and some of the replies I see here, far to often, single liners like calling somebody "a liberal democrat scum sucking pond scum".
My personal belief is that it is very possible to be let me say gently "a bit less enamored about George Bush" and still be a loyal, patriotic American. Whether one thinks Mr. Bush is great or not, I mean, on one hand you have the man, and on the other, you have his policies.
An example might be something like the patriot act. I think the Courts have already overturned parts. And whether it is right or wrong, when can you remember in history that 400 municipalities have expressed disapproval of any other piece of Federal legislation.
So I guess I appreciate reasoned discussion from all sides. While one may be disgusted with Clinton, I have seen many interviews, he was and still is a brilliant politician (he was, after all, a Rhodes scholar, not an easy task for conservatives or liberals).
I really am not sure that is worse than being a Catholic in many members eyes!
I don't know that your premise is correct. As long as America is a member nation with the rest of the world with respect to trade, imports and exports, the individual worth of each employee connected to that trade is only fractionally related to the economies of the participating nations. Closing our borders to trade would result in massive inflation and unemployment. The cost of labor is a balancing act between COGS (costs of goods and services) and profitability. Corporations have profit responsibilities to their shareholders. They do not have the option of raising pay scales if it means lowering profits beyond a healthy operating margin.
NAFTA did not destroy your job, but indeed it has provided jobs for millions of Americans. It really depends on where you are in the manufacturing chain, whether NAFTA would or would not effect you. The biggest pressure on jobs today is not competition but technology, which has greatly reduced the number of necessary persons for almost any task related to the production of goods and services.
In areas where large numbers of persons are still required to produce a product or perform a service, it makes no sense to pay anything but the lowest possible wage. NAFTA allowed corporations to stay in business by reducing COGS and keep a certain number of people employed, instead of going bankrupt and throwing entire staffs into the street. Competition does force corporations to become as price and cost competitive as they possibly can, but that has been the case long before Bush, and long before NAFTA.
I'm losing my job because labor in Mexico can be had for a fraction of what is paid here. The difference in per-seat cost is staggering.
Would you want to live in Mexico? Low costs and low standards of living go hand in hand. In this country you expect a paved road, a working traffic light, a policeman who will actually assist you rather than rob you at gunpoint, and due process. All that is guaranteed you here and none of it is free. Every Corporation that ever employed you had to factor those things you expect into their cost model in taxes. People scream about 'corporate welfare' whenever someone attempts to lower or control those costs, which is something Bush is actually doing to great effect.
Every single country that has attempted to moderate their free trade participation has ruined their own economy. Look at what Japan has been struggling with for a decade. Your argument suggesting that Bush and NAFTA are responsible for your job is an emotional one, not supported by economics or reason. I am sorry about your situation, but you are living the same fate that has happened to millions of others during historic times like these where we are experiencing a second industrial revolution, where technology, not labor is the primary cost factor.
Yada, yada, yada. . . blah. . . blah. . . blah.
A fool can pass as a wise man if he would keep his mouth shut.
I think that it is too late for you, but you still might want to try it sometime.
Now you're just pushing Havoc's buttons. LOL
"That is 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."
This was the same Ross Perot who let himself get boosted on the Larry King Liberal Talk Show as a stalking horse to take out President Bush? The same one who claimed that Bush agents harmed his daughters wedding. Got in, then got out of the race at the best possible moment for Clinton (Democrat convention week), then got back in during October just in time to prevent President Bush from going mano a mano against Clinton's character flaws?
Boy oh boy did so many maroons get roped by that act!!!
I'm telling you, any so-called "republican attack machine" doesnt hold a candle to Ross Perot's machiavellian manner.
And he in turn was just a bit player compared to the Clinton Media Spin Machine.
"Another example: John Stuart Mill's writings on liberty are loved by libertarians and liberals. But they are flawed. If anyone is interested, I will elaborate."
That would be good, but not in this thread.
And Bork on the law is always welcome.
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.