• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "

Yeah, but I do understand firing people when things get more extreme, like an incident that makes the national news, like when the woman called the cops on Christian Cooper when he was out bird watching.
For these companies it's a matter of their public image, and I can understand not wanting to be associated with someone like her. And people like her need to learn that behavior is not OK, and losing their job is the perfect way to do that.
Honestly, at this point I have no sympathy for people like her, that kind of thing has been happening so often now that you have to know something like that could happen to you after you act like that. So if you still choose to act like that, then you deserve whatever happens to you.
 
Which is also one of the reasons the internet in general can cause trouble in terms of free speech rights. One is both being private but also in public anytime you log on because anyone can see what you say. Use to be the idea is this might be okay because not enough people were on the internet. It was mostly just nerds but as it became more mainstream and bigger part of everyday life it has only made the issue become bigger.
 
valkyrie013 said:
A qoute from a Supreme Court US Justice

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society

It goes back to.. who says its hate speechone group says X is one group says its not. There are some universal rules but it comes down to who makes the rules? Humans are fail able
Click to expand...

This might need translating out of legalese there

If I am reading it right though then it is only speech that brings about direct illegal action (such as inciting a riot) that would be under criminal law

My understanding though was that if you say something defamatory, libelous, slanderous then you could be sued via a civil case?

Maybe it is more common in UK but there have been plenty of cases of people taking the likes of Daily Mail to court over things they have published that were unsupported - would that be protected by Free Speech in US?
 
Last edited:
valkyrie013 said:
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society
Click to expand...

This guy gets it. We live in an era where AI, speech recognition, and ever-present recording devices make Big Brother a very realistic threat. Our only defense is to keep the First Amendment, or whatever equivalent laws your countries possess, strong and well-established. And, the nebulous nature of what constitutes hate speech doesn't help. What is the law of the land, the tenets of several religions, or the biology of most mammals from a neutral perspective can (and is) interpreted as hate speech by some.
 
Ianburns252 said:
This might need translating out of legalese there

If I am reading it right though then it is only speech that brings about direct illegal action (such as inciting a riot) that would be under criminal law

My understanding though was that if you say something defamatory, libelous, slanderous then you could pursue a civil case?

Maybe it is more common in UK but there have been plenty of cases of people taking the likes of Daily Mail to court over things they have published that were unsupported - would that be protected by Free Speech in US?
Click to expand...

Yes you have read it right, For criminal, unless your actively threatening somebody, AND you have the ability to do it, (Again hi hurdle)

Civil, you can sue anybody for anything, but its basically if you say something Un True, for example Call person X a Pony. Now if that person is actually a pony, then you can say it and not get in trouble, but if that person Isn't a pony, then you might be in trouble, but you also have to show that it has affected you in some way, lost you money, job etc. Its honestly quite a high hurdle to get over here in the US. ( I'm not a lawyer etc. etc. but do work in the field)
 
Oddish said:
This guy gets it. We live in an era where AI, speech recognition, and ever-present recording devices make Big Brother a very realistic threat. Our only defense is to keep the First Amendment, or whatever equivalent laws your countries possess, strong and well-established. And, the nebulous nature of what constitutes hate speech doesn't help. What is the law of the land, the tenets of several religions, or the biology of most mammals from a neutral perspective can (and is) interpreted as hate speech by some.
Click to expand...
This is itself a nebulous and unsupported claim. It's arrant nonsense.

If one says things that people object to and refuse to let pass, one has not been oppressed or silenced - no matter how hurt the speaker's feelings may be that their opinions were not treated with the exaggerated "respect" that they feel is (for some reason) their due.
 
Last edited:
Ianburns252 said:
My understanding though was that if you say something defamatory, libelous, slanderous then you could pursue a civil case?
Click to expand...
No, you have it backwards. Actually the way it works is if you are the one who has had something defamatory, libelous, or slanderous said against you causing harm monetarily or mentally then you can pursue a civil case against them.
 
I think that in short, you cannot spread falsehoods about a person and present them as facts, that's slander. But you're entitled to your own opinion, and cannot be legally punished for it.
 
Cpt. MAGA Man said:
No, you have it backwards. Actually the way it works is if you are the one who has had something defamatory, libelous, or slanderous said against you causing harm monetarily or mentally then you can pursue a civil case against them.
Click to expand...
Libel laws in the UK are quite different from those in the US. It’s why the notorious Holocaust denier David Irving brought his libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, a historian at Emory University, there in 2000. Under American libel laws, his case would never have made it to trial. UK laws made it possible (even probable in his view) for him to win. He didn’t, thankfully.
 
Last edited:
Cpt. MAGA Man said:
No, you have it backwards. Actually the way it works is if you are the one who has had something defamatory, libelous, or slanderous said against you causing harm monetarily or mentally then you can pursue a civil case against them.
Click to expand...
That would be what we call a mistake - will edit but I'm sure you could tell what I meant to write
 
Serveaux said:
If one says things that people object to and refuse to let pass, one has not been oppressed or silenced - no matter how hurt the speaker's feelings may be that their opinions were not treated with the exaggerated "respect" that they feel is (for some reason) their due.
Click to expand...

"Object to" is fine. "Refuse to let pass" is also fine, as long as your refusal does not actively interfere with my legal right to have and express my opinion. You can say I'm full of it, call me names, shower me with cuss words, and refuse to associate with me further... and if my feelings are hurt by your actions, too bad, because my feelings matter less than your rights.

However, that is all you can do. You cannot report me to the authorities because I have freedom of speech. That includes the right to have and express opinions you don't like.
 
This isn't about censorship of everyday European citizens.

It's just a document by some jobsworth aimed at the politicians and beurocrats in Brussels .
Politicians and beurocrats love sending documents and proposals to each other.

Do I think the EU has more important things on its plate? Hell yes.

But this isn't some clamp down on free speech like some on this thread make it out to be.
 
Ianburns252 said:
Free speech does not equal the right to say whatever you want
Click to expand...
Erm yes it does.

Free speech is speech without fear of government penalties.

Yes you can fire someone, call them out, shun them socially ect.

But soon as the government get involved then it's no longer free speech.
 
Ianburns252 said:
If I might ask - and without simply stating that it is a constitutional right - why do you believe people should be able to say things that are hateful, racist, sexist etc without censure?
Click to expand...

Do you include fictional works with serious non-exploitative purposes in that? As in THE BLACKBOARD JUNGLE, GOD LOVES MAN KILLS, A PATCH OF BLUE, HUCKLEBERRY FINN, GLORY, MALCOLM X, JUNGLE FEVER, et cetera? One of Glenn Ford's dialogue lines from BLACKBOARD has been bleeped on TV, though only in the recent past. The same goes for Shelley Winters in PATCH OF BLUE.

valkyrie013 said:
A quote from a Supreme Court US Justice

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society

It goes back to.. who says its hate speech one group says X is one group says its not. There are some universal rules but it comes down to who makes the rules? Humans are fallible
Click to expand...

I'm fallible myself. Out of my ignorance I once made the mistake of quoting a Tommy Chong song from CHEECH AND CHONG'S next movie which is arguably just as hilarious now as it was then, being 1980. The song title is also the name of a discontinued British brand of coffee. Unlike Arthur Carlson, I knew very well that turkeys could NOT fly. Yet due to my Achilles-heel ignorance of this particular word, which can indeed be used as a slur, I have been permanently banned from from TNZ since early 2023.....which has its benefits as well as its drawbacks.

I'm referencing this in part in reply to lanburns252 to explain that people can err on the side of ignorance without malice as well as caution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ColdFusion180
Star Trek: Lower Decks - CF079 - "Ensigns Gone Vogue"
Replies
3
Views
295
MikeJaffa
M
BountyTrek
Star Trek: Bounty - 202 - "The Bat, the Birds and the Beasts"
2 3
Replies
49
Views
4K
BountyTrek
BountyTrek
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top