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.
"With respect to activism about reducing big government, I find myself slipping into a bit of 'learned helplessness'. That's why I'm going to attend an activism seminar. People from the media do read FR. Take writer33's essay about Rush for instance."
The activism part of FR is one of the things that makes it uniquely great. btw, a good activism course is the one that Morton Blackwell's Leadershipip Institute gives out. I got to go to one here in Texas earlier this year. There were several freepers among the crowd.
http://www.leadershipinstitute.org
I'm glad you've managed to come through ok. I've been through a lot in life myself and have always come through. I have no doubt I'll eventually find a way to come out ok. But, this didn't "just happen". Most of you, like me, scream for smaller government - for government to stop taking so much and to get out of our way and out of our lives so we can live and do what we must. Governement in our estimation is a necessary evil and we strain at calling it necessary. Government policy is what's getting my job - not market forces. Were it not for government policy, I would be competing with Americans and American wages. I'm now competing with people making 600 dollars a year and who are in debt to the company store because they aren't getting paid on time or at all in some cases. In other words, business is being told they can't get by with that here; but, they can get by with it and still do business here. They're being told it's no longer a problem subverting our economy for profit - subvert away, the people will take it on the nose and go on if we tell them "that's just the way it is" .. aweful presumptuous sounding to me.
In the meantime, we're being told we have to compete against labor prices we ourselves can't live on until billions of other people in other countries have destroyed our wage base, taken all the business we can export till we collapse from it and in the meantime, squandered all the advantage we have and the position we've created for ourselves on the work of our forefathers.
Some things in life don't "just happen" and when we have control to define how it happens, what ultimately does happen is our responsibility. And to that end, I have to act as I see proper in this issue unless or until someone can show me that it isn't wrong. And as yet, nobody has been able to do that. Free trade is an unproven theory and the evironment predicted as necessary for the theory to work doesn't exist today. So aside from the moral/ethical issues and American's losing their jobs to foriegners for no really good reason other than "it's policy", there isn't much of anything to point to other than Our politicians using the American people for experimentation and risking our economy and our livelihoods on an unproven theory.
It seems that government interferance is evil until it becomes abusive to the average american but very profitable to big corporations. I don't happen to see it that way.
thanks for the link
Same internet info, diff screen name?
Is this "By Invitation Only"?
Or does it only show up on the "Latest Comments" page of the very special?
Office Depot has a special on L's this weekend if you need some.......
Moi?
A largefont strawman, but still a strawman.
He and I were pulling each other's 'egs.
I don't think I was off base; but, I do thank you for correcting the record. This is honest discussion. This is what I don't think Tammi got. Sorry, we'll have to disagree.
But I can do it without calling you names, lying about you, etc.
"I still wish FR would use its Conservative Bully Pulpit to push Bush towards sizing down BIG gubermint, but at this point most FReepers seem to concerned in getting him re-elected."
Everybody here over-generalizes!! :-)
Yes, most freepers want Bush re-elected, but most of us here ALSO dont want big Government and are trying to tell Congress and the President to do better in that area. The two arent mutually exclusive ...
1. Supported Toomey over Specter. had this been a freeper vote, it would have been a 95% Toomey 5% specter vote.
2. Sent sharp notes to RNC and the President on excessive spending.
3. Stopped supporting RNC and NSRC and decided instead to send to conservative candidates only.
4. Lobbied via letters to Congress, calls and letters to editor.
All while I have a Bush sticker on my car. BTW, if you support the President, go ahead, get a sticker and PUT IT ON. A sticker on a car is worth about $1000 of advertizing over 3 months. If 1000 freepers did it, it would be like a million dollar donation.
If we want to win on the issues, we need to do BOTH - campaigning for the Republicans who will listen to us, and telling those Republicans what we want.
That is my feeling exactly. I have heard enough anti-Bush garbage from the media. FR is a place I come for mostly like minded people who support our President.
We should be free to debate issues, but JimRob has the final say. I am sure the Mods make some mistakes, but on the whole they have done an excellent job.
I have been here a long time and have found that those who are banned usually deserve to be banned.
I do, however, wish there were not so much name calling and absolute incivility. Just because we are not face to face is no excuse for bad behavior or foul language.
I consider FR a sanctuary to get away from the 99.9 percent of liberal news via tv, newspaper, and magazine publications that I've been subjected to for the last 30 years.
Although I'm not a longtime FReeper, in the time I've been here, I've never seen anyone banned when it hasn't been warranted.
That's my 2 cents.
I'd love to give this poster a piece of my mind but it was already banned.
"Does thinking that the President (whoever that may be at the time, Clinton, Bush, whatever...) is doing a poor job and leading the country in the wrong direction equate with "hating America"?"
Not all Liberal critiques of Bush, nor even paleo-con critiques of neo-con policies or conservative critiques of Bush's moderate policies in areas (eg Medicare drug bill) is 'anti-American'. What is 'anti-American' however is the 'blame America first' crowd as Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to call them, that blames America's for the ills of the world. The virus of anti-Americanism has grown stronger and has infected the Left wing in America.
I am reminded of a leftist at a rally where we were counterprotesting who said that she hoped the US would lose the war on terror.
Either in jest or serious, that was an example of anti-americanism.
" When this forum was used primarily in opposition to the Admin. as opposed to the current support of the Admin., was that "America hating" or was that honest, passionate disagreement with the policies of the gov't?"
The latter. If you love the Constitution, limited Government, gun rights, family values and traditional morality, the first amendment, property rights, prosperity and economic freedom; if you like all those things, there was plenty in the Clinton administration to oppose and dislike.
The Bush-haters today are not content with merely disagreeing with the policy. Too many are falling for conspiracy theories. I am not talking of ordinary people, I am talking about Senators, Presidential candidates etc., mouthing these wild allegations. It's irresponsible of the Democratic party.
I do think it would serve some purpose to allow some of that discussion some of those views to vent out here. It would sharpen our wits for what the other side is saying in many other forums.
Opposing "global balonyism" is my favorite! LOL!
First of all, let me set you straight on some things.
I am not one of those calling for smaller government. That is a pipe dream or will be a product of a economic collapse.
I am a realist and a republican. I advocate slower government growth. That is achievable.
When economies grow, the governments, being part of it grow with them. If one acts to restrain govt. growth, then they take less and a percentage of that growth and that is what we strive for.
Democrats want to grow government to do more for the people than growth can justify and that is what we fight.
Unfortunately, we must also fight the libertarian who advocates smaller government but fails to realize that in order to do so, must destroy the economy. That is a fact that many who belong to that bunch, do not even realize that it is one of their goals, but I digress.........................
Government policy is not what is getting your job.
The government cannot protect you from economic changes like the one you face, without imposing stifling controls on free enterprise.
That ain't gonna happen on my watch, so take care of yourself and stop whining for goverment assistance to tell your company to keep your overhead and profit eating butt when they do not have to.
The day government can tell business who they can retain and how to run their P&L sheet, will be the day be have become completely socialist without a shred of our original Free Republic left.
In short, you are advocating socialist garbage that will destroy the foundations of our economic freedoms we enjoy today and is responsible for everything we are and will be.
My point said that on a conservative site liberal ideas have already been rejected....otherwise why a site devoted to liberals? So far as nation building is concerned, it is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea. The dem's were much into it with Kosovo, and now conservatives are trying it in Iraq.
However....if the owner of the conservative web site during an election year wishes to ensure his site supports a particular candidate, then it is his site and he can use it how he wishes. One has to recognize that loyal dissent is sometimes the seedbed of new ideas and that the loyal opposition sometimes leads the way back from mistaken directions that have been taken.
"I've been in IT support for 4 years with EDS."
Maybe there is no connection here at all, but isn't EDS one of Ross Perot's companies? Maybe it's that 'giant sucking sound' after all. Or it could just be a couple of blowhards.
Ex: 2 weeks ago-the Bush & Kerry poll numbers after a solid month of hammering by the Old Media- Bush's actually went up."
You spoke too soon ... the media finally got their lower Bush poll numbers after 2 months of relentless bashing, and it would be worse if Kerry werent such a bad candidate - Kerry can still win, with the media against Bush so hard ... fact is, media bias does have an 'effect'. they are priming the pump for various anti-Bush arguments ... it will happen so fast you wont even notice it.
You see, first the media has the issues lined up, one by one... they run down them in the spring. In the fall, the issues will be recalled in different forums. This is how the media beat Bush's father.
What is pathetic is that the Bush White House must *know* this ... the ANSWER is for the Bush White House to get out there front and center and debunk the media bias, take it on and take it down. Alas, the Bush white house folks are not doing it. The media bias goes on and on unchallenged. The White House has completely lost any control on the media message.
"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."
True, but we are only about 30% of America. 70% of America is still in the clutches of the mainstream media.
Fox News channel has a mere 1 million audience. ABCBSNBC has 50 million+ each night.
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.