On Freedom of Speech, Rush and the Turkish viewpoint

[Doktor Howl]

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure we can discuss it freely.  I also have the freedom to step out of the conversation.

[Oysters Rockefeller]

I want to talk about freedom of speech, but unfortunately I am being oppressed by not having a highly paid and high profile writing/television/radio gig, and so cannot talk about it.

Fight the power.

Hey, money is speech. You should become a corporation.

I'm working on becoming a hot dog stand.

[Doktor Howl]

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

1.  I distinctly separated you from the hyper right.  I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it.  You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.

2.  I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures.  I do not consider those cultures insane.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

[LMNO]

Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.

Opinions are not based on fact, most times.

Rush said two things:

1.  She's a slut.  <--- opinion

2.  She's a prostitute.  <--- slander

The first is a matter of opinion.  The second is a false statement of fact.

There's also the matter of "she spoke to congress about her right to have birth control so she can screw around" rather than "she spoke to congress about women who need contraceptives due to dangerous medical conditions."

That's not an opinion, and it's not exactly slander... but it's a lie, nonetheless.

[Doktor Howl]

Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.

Opinions are not based on fact, most times.

Rush said two things:

1.  She's a slut.  <--- opinion

2.  She's a prostitute.  <--- slander

The first is a matter of opinion.  The second is a false statement of fact.

There's also the matter of "she spoke to congress about her right to have birth control so she can screw around" rather than "she spoke to congress about women who need contraceptives due to dangerous medical conditions."

That's not an opinion, and it's not exactly slander... but it's a lie, nonetheless.

Sure.

Again, freedom of speech - or anything else - isn't always pretty or nice or even civil.  But once you start deciding on limits, where does it end?  And who gets to put their finger in the pie?  Because, you know, I'm more than reasonably certain that Rick Warren and Pat Robertson would just love to have a say in the whole thing.

As Nigel states, there is already a mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing.

[Scribbly]

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide

Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.

As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

1.  I distinctly separated you from the hyper right.  I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it.  You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.

2.  I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures.  I do not consider those cultures insane.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide

Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.

Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.

I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.

The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).

I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.

As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.

All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?

I

[Scribbly]

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

1.  I distinctly separated you from the hyper right.  I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it.  You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.

2.  I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures.  I do not consider those cultures insane.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide

Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.

Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.

I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.

The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).

I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.

As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.

All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?

I

You're right; the Armenian genocide is totally irrelevant to modern Turkey. Which is why they obsess about it so much and why Armenian racism is a hallmark of Turkish right wing and nationalist movements.

Obviously shutting down all discussion and locking people up for things like 'defaming the Turkish national character' are totally reasonable responses and we should all look to Turkey as an example for setting the tone of our public debates.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The authors of the Constitution probably would have had the right to not associate with blacks. They were, after all, legally defined as 3/5ths of a person.

But, sure, if you don't want to associate with a particular person, you don't have to regardless of the reason. And I'm fairly sure if I was black I would like to exercise my right to not associate with the Klan too.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

1.  I distinctly separated you from the hyper right.  I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it.  You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.

2.  I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures.  I do not consider those cultures insane.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide

Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.

Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.

I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.

The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).

I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.

So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.

I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.

Will return later.

Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.

Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.

NO HE HAS TO STAY

OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH

SOMEHOW

Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".

That's all.

And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.

As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.

I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.

If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.

The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.

As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.

All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?

I

You're right; the Armenian genocide is totally irrelevant to modern Turkey. Which is why they obsess about it so much and why Armenian racism is a hallmark of Turkish right wing and nationalist movements.

Obviously shutting down all discussion and locking people up for things like 'defaming the Turkish national character' are totally reasonable responses and we should all look to Turkey as an example for setting the tone of our public debates.

They obsess about it because the EU set 'admitting to it' as a requirement for them to join. And Armenian racism long predates this incident and has a lot to do with how the Ottoman empire was built, how western influence affected it and how the Armenian revolts (and their backing of the Greek invasion) was perceived.

Shutting down all discussion is obviously stupid... as I said, the author they went after is a hot seller here now... many Turks aren't proud of what happened there.

While no government is perfect, or without its horrible flaws (kinda like all of us) I think we can still learn from the good parts.

Is Turkey perfect? Hell no.
Is the US perfect? Hell no.
Is unfettered Free Speech perfect? Hell no.
Is any restraint on free Speech acceptable? I don't know.

I have to say though that as a country, these people seem a lot happier and less ready to rip each others throats out than the US.

[East Coast Hustle]

Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?

No I've been reading as much history on the country I'm living in. The link posted above actually covers the issues I mentioned:

What happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to considerable dispute.

The mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter, and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks on Armenians who reached Syria — and Armenians living in Istanbul and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.

Turks don't dispute the war, or the deaths... they only dispute the term genocide.

[East Coast Hustle]

"Sure we murdered over a million Armenians, but we left a few thousand alive so what's the problem? Genocide? What? Nah, we can't be responsible for the actions of our army."

It's a pretty bullshit semantic distinction if you ask me.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.

They're fun.