Very well. In the event that I quote you further, I will make no replacements.
Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
Great, so what about it?
Have you heard of the substantial disruption test?
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/substantial-disruption-test/
It's one the standards that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional, when determining what students may wear in class.
That standard covers vulgar speech as well: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/bethel-school-district-no-403-v-fraser/
The point is, free-speech is not absolute, even in the United States where speech is about as unfettered as it can be anywhere on the planet. Each right a person has is balanced against the rights of others.
Those goalposts moved so much, they should collect frequent flyer miles.
It spices up the game.
On the matter of erasing history... I've had to seriously think about my own views of this. I've never been a right-wing voter in my life, I think the residential school system was abhorrent and there are people still suffering because of it, yet I'm opposed to the vandalism of statues of people who either supported it or did not stop it.
It's obvious that Sir John A. was no saint. He had reprehensible attitudes toward the indigenous peoples and has the disgrace of being Prime Minister at the time when Louis Riel - a former Member of Parliament - was executed (it's a very long story, but depending on "general" your viewpoint, Riel was either a Father of Confederation or a traitor; I consider him the former).
Does that mean I support destroying John A.'s statues? No. No more than I support destroying/vandalizing Queen Victoria's statues or even Elizabeth II's statues. It's interesting that the reaction of the Governor-General to the latter incident was to literally shrug. Mary Simon, in my view, does not belong in that job, as she doesn't seem to understand that she represents the British monarch no matter what her personal history includes.
Hm. So a high school teacher in Central Alberta (the province where I live) shouldn't get in trouble for force-feeding his social studies students a nonstop diet of Holocaust denial and other anti-Jewish crap? Not only telling them these things, but failing them in assignments and tests if they didn't spew it back to him? This went on for years before enough people spoke up. Jim Keegstra's trial happened in my city. His crime was hate speech, and he got off lightly - fined and lost his teaching license. The fine was later reduced. He spent his last years trying and failing to become the leader of the Social Credit party (right-wing + religion).
Here's a link to read up about him: Jim Keegstra. One of my own college instructors supported Keegstra's "right" to spew this crap.
In Canada, freedom of expression comes with the responsibility to use it without violating the hate laws. Keegstra is by far not the only Holocaust denier. And there's a POS involved in creating the new K-12 curriculum here in my province who never misses an opportunity to deny the atrocities that occurred in the residential school system. That's what produced a draft social studies curriculum so reprehensible that 95+ % of the province's school boards refused to pilot it. The Minister of Education's own former Catholic colleagues were among those who refused. She's the Minister of Health now, and has no problem whatsoever in discriminating against the indigenous and any other marginalized population.
So yes, there are times when people damn well should "get in trouble" for what they say.
Could not agree more.
The kid got, in forum terms, a temp ban because TPTB asked him to essentially edit (change) his expression and he refused. So yes, that was punishment. And I find it hard to believe that he wore the shirt because he was proud of the ability to count to 2. The only time anyone wears a shirt like that is to openly insult the LGBT population.
I'm not from the U.S. either, but if you want to read the Wikipedia article I linked above, you'll see why allowing people to say just anything in school can lead to a whole host of problems.
Keegstra's victims - his students, whom he groomed to hate Jewish people - stated in court that being taught to hate had affected their mental health. Some of them became terribly confused - they'd trusted their teacher as an adult in the town and someone they'd looked up to. But he lied to them and forced them to regurgitate his hate speech so they wouldn't fail in school. When you know instinctively and from other courses that what you're being taught is wrong but you've trusted the teacher for years, both as a teacher and member of the community, how do you resolve something like that?
Actually. In the US.. when it comes to government and laws.. yes it does mean you can say whatever you want.
Now, there are consequences when it comes to your job firing you, social shunning or canceling.
For suing? You can try but unless it's defemation or slander you won't win. Even saying the worst thing to them. Hate speech when it comes tocriminal and civil law doesn't exist.
Now if they say something and someone hits them for it.. the person hitting the other is guilty of assault and going to jail.. words are not violence. You can say whatever you want and you cant be touched legally.
My intent was roughly inline with what you have written i.e. you can say what you want but it has consequences but I am genuinely amazed (and somewhat appalled) that punching someone in the face for hate speech favours the speaker - you obviously can’t just go around punching people as you fancy but at the same time the law shouldn’t protect someone spewing hate
The biggest problem with censorship today or being cancelled is people in general feel like these are good things or more people do than they use to. Use to be free speech was valued not just as a law but a principle. Even if you could silence someone and not break the law it would be seen as wrong due to violating the spirit of what free speech is which is the importance of free expression.
When people did try and censor people they were rightly seen as the bad guys such as removing books or trying to get tv shows cancelled like ole whats her name who went after Married With Children. You for sure as heck didn't see many or any liberals taking these positions. Seems these days everyone just wants to silence everyone they disagree with instead of taking on the challenge of winning debates on the merits of their ideas. You know. Use free speech to talk about good ideas to cancel out someone else's free speech pushing forward bad ideas.
If America is every going to recover from this civil war we are going to have rediscover the value in principles that are applied to everyone, and see they are just as important as laws and and finding willing go -alongs, whether they be politcians,judges,corporations who use their power to try and take away as much money and rights as they feel they can get away with from the people. Using the tribal fighting, often over nonsense, as their cover.
When people did try and censor people they were rightly seen as the bad guys such as removing books or trying to get tv shows cancelled like ole whats her name who went after Married With Children. You for sure as heck didn't see many or any liberals taking these positions. Seems these days everyone just wants to silence everyone they disagree with instead of taking on the challenge of winning debates on the merits of their ideas. You know. Use free speech to talk about good ideas to cancel out someone else's free speech pushing forward bad ideas.
If America is every going to recover from this civil war we are going to have rediscover the value in principles that are applied to everyone, and see they are just as important as laws and and finding willing go -alongs, whether they be politcians,judges,corporations who use their power to try and take away as much money and rights as they feel they can get away with from the people. Using the tribal fighting, often over nonsense, as their cover.
Terry Rakolta. And she sucked.
You can't just say anything you want and avoid criminal charges for it, even in the United States.
Incitement to commit suicide is something that a person can face criminal charges for in the US [https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/supreme-court-michelle-carter-boyfriend-suicide/index.html].
Threats of violence can be criminal, too. See Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
You know something else that does not enjoy First Amendment protection? Publishing secret materials related to national security.
This list of exceptions is not exhaustive, but it should put to rest the absurd idea that the First Amendment allows anyone to say anything without facing criminal charges.
Incitement to commit suicide is something that a person can face criminal charges for in the US [https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/supreme-court-michelle-carter-boyfriend-suicide/index.html].
Threats of violence can be criminal, too. See Counterman v. Colorado (2023).
You know something else that does not enjoy First Amendment protection? Publishing secret materials related to national security.
This list of exceptions is not exhaustive, but it should put to rest the absurd idea that the First Amendment allows anyone to say anything without facing criminal charges.
I think because there is the other value of unity, so disagreement is considered harmful.
Considering the OP was about the EU should be pointed out that free speech laws as they stand are very different from the constitutional approach of the US so in that context needs to be considered differently.
To Jayson’s point - I’d suggest that censure is sometimes conflated with censorship
Plenty of people on both sides of the divide have tried to limit their opponents views throughout the years whether by not providing a platform for someone to speak who goes against your beliefs to protesting to actively trying to shut down someone through imprisonment
If I hear someone say something I strongly disagree with I have every right to state that I disagree with them and to encourage people to make their feelings known on it too
Similarly, if I have a radio show or run a lecture series I can choose who I give a voice to based on my beliefs and that is not preventing free speech but exercising my right as a private enterprise to choose who or what I promote
I think it is mostly the rise of social media that makes the voice of dissent louder that creates the feeling that the attempts to “cancel” people is greater than before but instead it is probably just more concentrated due to somewhere like Twitter allowing voices to be brought together
To Jayson’s point - I’d suggest that censure is sometimes conflated with censorship
Plenty of people on both sides of the divide have tried to limit their opponents views throughout the years whether by not providing a platform for someone to speak who goes against your beliefs to protesting to actively trying to shut down someone through imprisonment
If I hear someone say something I strongly disagree with I have every right to state that I disagree with them and to encourage people to make their feelings known on it too
Similarly, if I have a radio show or run a lecture series I can choose who I give a voice to based on my beliefs and that is not preventing free speech but exercising my right as a private enterprise to choose who or what I promote
I think it is mostly the rise of social media that makes the voice of dissent louder that creates the feeling that the attempts to “cancel” people is greater than before but instead it is probably just more concentrated due to somewhere like Twitter allowing voices to be brought together
Considering "where no man has gone before" is not being banned in the EU, we've strayed from the OP topic in quite a number of ways.
Some people conveniently conflate "banned" with "challenged" and "criticized for personal choices" and it works to their advantage because far too many people conflate being told they're wrong with actual censorship.
Indeed, yes. And that unfortunately creates a rising escalation in perception of negativity. Which then results in further escalation in response. Add in the dehumanizing aspect of online interactions and it doesn't foster understanding.
Fair point
Actually... yes. It should. Unless they are actively threatening someone else, or slandering them, or inciting violence against them, people have the right to their opinions. However much we might hate those opinions.
Exactly what I have been regularly complaining about. Forcibly silencing someone who disagrees with you is cowardly, and also shows that you know your position cannot be rationally defended.
No indeed. Harmful actions like slander, inciting violence, or compromising national security are crimes and should be prosecuted as such. I have never said or believed otherwise.
Well said. Here's an example: in some museum of art, some idiot installed a functioning golden toilet and called it "America". The idea being to encourage people to urinate or take a crap on America.
If I go in there with a 6-pound sledgehammer and batter the thing to junk... that's censorship.
If I merely tell everyone present (whether they want to hear it or not) that it's disgusting and I'd rather piss in my pants than use the
thing... that's challenging.
In your opinion it should - great; in mine it shouldn’t - also great
We can disagree on the point but especially due to the differing cultural backgrounds you can appreciate at least why I may have a differing view
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?
I genuinely don’t understand how there can be a situation where I can say “women are only good for breeding and cooking and should get back in the house where they belong” and be the wronged party if someone took it upon themselves to lamp me
We can disagree on the point but especially due to the differing cultural backgrounds you can appreciate at least why I may have a differing view
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?
I genuinely don’t understand how there can be a situation where I can say “women are only good for breeding and cooking and should get back in the house where they belong” and be the wronged party if someone took it upon themselves to lamp me
I didn't say you did. I was speaking to what this poster said, posting some exceptions.
