Free speech is a fundamental human right

I was told not to post this sort of thing in a thread where it was off-topic, so I'm making a thread where it is on-topic, which uninterested parties may easily ignore.  Hopefully that's good enough.  I may not exactly be an Inspiring Presence on these boards, but I still feel that it is important for me to wave my little flag and remind people of what this country stands for.

Free speech is not just a random phrase in the Bill of Rights; it is one of the cornerstones of this entire country.  In pretty much all of global history, I can't think of another nation besides America which has ever claimed that freedom is the most important virtue - above peace, above security, above prosperity or tradition or service to God.  I'm not always entirely inclined to agree; a lot of people use their freedoms in ways I don't approve of, and I fully understand the temptation to use any power one has to try and silence those disagreeable acts.  But I believe there are some things that are worth the risk of suffering for a bit, and so I continue to live in a country which I know is not ever going to entirely align with my beliefs, in the hopes that at least this one country, out of all of them in the world, will always protect my right to disagree with it.  (Well, the "always" might be a bit naive at this point, but I'm still hopeful.)

I wouldn't be beating this particular drum if I didn't think it was important.  Seems to me, a few hundred years ago, there were people who thought it was worth killing their neighbors over.  Nobody seems to have that level of conviction anymore, or if they do, they're considered a psychopath.  I don't believe that violence is ever the answer, but I DO believe that a level of commitment which doesn't SHY AWAY from possible violence is.  I'm trying to find a way of displaying that commitment which doesn't amount to violence, but passive resistance doesn't always work, and it's very easy for tempers to get short and frayed when patient, reasonable action has such a poor track record of getting results.

Every other country in the world seems to eagerly accept the rights of authority to impose order on the populace, suppressing anyone who disturbs the social fabric.  I say, let every other country in the world continue to live that way, and let everyone who wants such a society go live in those countries.  America was founded in the name of liberty; we are a radical state, and we always have been, from the moment we first started dumping tea in a harbor to protest the taxes upon it.  I think that we owe it not only to ourselves, but also to the world to continue upholding that one principle, at any cost, just so that it has a representation in the world community.  Otherwise, where will the rebels and malcontents live, if no country is willing to have them?  I believe we are a haven for free-thinkers, visionaries, and bold adventurers, and that the world needs a few of those. 

We need the ability to say anything it occurs to us to say, and do damn near anything it occurs to us to do.  Without that enterprising, damn-the-torpedoes spirit, our world would be a smaller place; certain frontiers and horizons would be locked away behind people's timidity, their fear of rocking the social boat, and we'd never experience some of the miraculous possibilities that our world holds.  For centuries, America has been the world leader in invention and discovery, and I firmly believe it was our cherishing of freedom, to speak and think and usually to act, above all other virtues which made that possible.  That is why I take the strongest possible objection to any and all restrictions on free expression.  I am perfectly happy to let someone insult me to my face, if there is any chance that their words might somehow be useful to themselves or to me.  And I believe everyone should share my attitude in that regard.  A bruised ego is a small price to pay for a wider worldview, in which all things are possible.

Well, I obeyed (very much NOT "respected") the Mod's directions not to continue posting such things in that thread.  While I take strong issue with his tone on the subject, I do agree with the need to keep topics pure, particularly for something that's close to deserving sticky status.  Were I in the Mod's position, I would simply have split and merged topics as necessary in order to get every thread straightened out, but apparently not everyone shares my values in that regard, and well they are the ones getting paid for it, so I can sort of grudgingly accept that they have the right (even if I think they abuse it).  But regardless, if I had posted in the thread, and the thread had been locked, that would NOT have been my fault; it would have been the mods' decision that their rules are more important than either my feelings OR yours, and I don't agree with that at all.  (Naturally I consider my own feelings more important than yours, but I consider my principles more important than both, and might even rank your principles above my feelings, depending on how compatible they are with mine.)

If the mods decide that they have to lock or delete this thread, I won't be happy, but I'll understand.  I've said what I needed to say, and I accept the consequences of that impulse within myself.  I just hope that there is some possibility that my words will touch at least one person who reads this before it disappears, that someone who might have been on the fence about whether freedom is really that important might, just possibly, be swayed by my passionate defense of the subject.

EDIT - Replacing "american" in my original thread title with "human"; I really wasn't trying to be jingoistic.  The national-idealism issues are still there, so I'm not changing the body of the text at all, but hopefully the thread retitling will make it a bit less impolite to overseas readers when the thread appears in their feeds, even if they don't choose to read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wS5xOZ7Rq8

Hi.

Welcome to the Greater than Games forum. In this particular area of the forum we talk about Greater than Games, if your topic isn't about Greater than Games or one of its products then it goes in the Off Topic forum.

 

Thanks for reading the site rules

3) Do not post things that are likely to start fights about politics, religion, etc.

This is the sandbox of >G. They are not the government.

Ah, I didn't realize there was an off-topic forum, or I would have put this there.  Admins, please feel free to move it there.

  1. Do not post things that are likely to start fights about politics, religion, etc.

I do not think this is a political thread.  Those start arguments because they inherently take sides, and people become militant about which side they are on.  I would characterize my post as being philosophical rather than political; it's about something which is inherently meaningful to the human condition.

EDIT: In particular, I would draw a distinction between starting "fights" and starting "debates".  The latter is my intention; I don't want to hurt any feelings, quite the opposite.  I want to rouse positive feelings; I want people to see that some things are worth taking a stand on, even if they ruffle a few feathers.

EDIT:  I see myself as being a hard-hitting, uncompromising (armchair) journalist.  That was once a respected profession in this country (and probably others), before "political correctness" was a thing.  If I am sometimes overly brusque, it is because I feel embattled by a world that does not share my values, and motivated to try and get the "ship" back on course, whether or not such is actually in my power.

You keep referring to me and Silverleaf as mods. You do know we're just forum users, right? I'm not a mod, so quit using my posts as evidence of the actual guys on top being "oppressive." I'm not in a position of authority, and I'm not FORCING you to do anything; I just don't like reading rants on politics on a forum about my favorite card game.

What exactly are you fighting for?

Nothing McBehrer said in the quote you gave had anything to do with economic opportunity, representative government, conscription into the military, or illegal search and seizure of private property.

So no, 200 years ago no one was killing their neighbors over stuff we have argued about here in this forum.

Also if you are trying to make an argument about freedom of speech on this forum, you are really out of place.

Not a single one of our founding fathers would have said that arrogance, ignorance or rudeness should be protected, so don't invoke them.

This isn't a forum about the rights of mankind, the political state of the world or abuses of authority, in fact this forum covers absolutely Zero topics of protected speech.

If you don't like the rules of this forum, go start your own.

If you don't like the way Greater than Games runs their game, go make your own.

That is freedom of speech, the right to create your own forum of speech, not the right to go turn anyplace you want into your personal soapbox.

 

Also, thanks for using my comment without establishing the context in which it was posted.

I was not referring to you in the stuff I said after Silverleaf's quote.  That was about the mod who told me to stop posting in that thread (both in PM to me specifically, and in a general "cease and desist all off-topic posts in this thread" post (accompanied by the first of the cute pictures, which are somehow not off-topic?).

I'm not in a position of authority, and I'm not FORCING you to do anything; I just don't like reading rants on politics on a forum about my favorite card game.

Fair enough.  Hence why I created a topic you did not have to read, with a title that I hoped would make the content of it clear enough that uninterested parties would not enter it.  I apologize that I was unsuccessful in preventing you from inconveniencing yourself.

The rights of every man!

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. Do you take the strongest possible objection to that restriction, even with the obvious safety and concerns? 

There are restrictions placed upon our version of Freedom of Speach for very good reason. When freedom of expression starts immpeeding on other people's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness (in whatever form that may take), then we have lost what makes Free Speach so valuable and important to society. I am all for the "I'll do whatever the hell I want and nuts to those who don't like it" philosophy (I do volunteer work sometimes in Philly for NORML to put that in some perspective), but it must be coupled with the idea of "as long as Its not hurting others".

With all of that said, playing the victim card here is not doing you many favors. After multiple forum members have complained numberous times about your conduct on these forums and this thread blatently breaking the forum rules, you are more than likely brushing up against the Ban-Hammer.

Edit: Byc, you are great. Lets be friends.

Playing devil's advocate to myself is another of my skills, so I can see the criticisms of my own position.  I know that I could, even being generous, describe myself as having a serious problem with proportion of response.    Phantaskippy's points are not lost on me either; I'll concede that I overreacted, but the issue affects me deeply.I am the sort of person who would indeed call it "oppression" if I was asked not to discuss certain subjects at the dinner table, because I object to the cook or whoever deciding that their "I want to have a nice dinner" feeling is more important than my right to vent whatever's troubling me.  Maybe that makes me a screwball, unstable, even dangerous, but I don't see anybody trying to appease me or meet me halfway.  Think of Major John Rambo in the first movie of the series…yes, he was completely out of his gourd, but the ultraviolence only happened because other people treated him unreasonably, instead of taking steps to handle the situation delicately and treat this extraordinarily dangerous man with proper care.  (I am of course not dangerous so much as annoying, but the principle is similar; I could stop being annoying, but only if I'm given a reason to think it's worth bothering to try, and not if you take the first misstep on my part as proof that I'm not interested in improving.)

I really have been making an effort, since originally making waves, to tread more carefully.  But it's really, really not easy for me, and it'd be easier for me to avoid having a persecution complex if other people would avoid doing things that I might construe as being persecuted.

Maybe not the strongest in that case, but I do think that such behavior is at worst annoying and irresponsible, and that if people panic and bolt, the fault for any injuries lies with them for not keeping a cool head, investigating the reported fire to determine whether it actually existed.  I understand, for obvious reasons, that people often react in twitchy emotional ways that make a situation worse.  However, this should not be accepted as fact, and used as the basis for policy decisions; it should be regarded as something in need of change, and that should be the basis of policy decisions, ie "how can we improve the situation"?  Rather than prohibiting such pranks, create a culture in which nobody jumps at them, and not only to you mitigate the potential harm, but conveniently enough, you also deprive the prankster of his motive for doing the thing in the first place.

There are restrictions placed upon our version of Freedom of Speach for very good reason. When freedom of expression starts immpeeding on other people's pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness (in whatever form that may take), then we have lost what makes Free Speach so valuable and important to society.

I'm not certain I agree with that, but I'll concede that it's something I should try to think over.  I think that it's very easy for someone to use "the pursuit of their own happiness" as a club to beat others into submission; I don't think that should be the be-all and end-all of it.  We should strive for a solution that works for EVERYONE, and that probably means making everyone somewhat unhappy, in order to ensure that no person or group is especially so.  Naturally, every individual would rather that they got to be all happiness all the time, at everyone else's expense, but that can only lead to fundamental inequalities and a "rat race" to be the "top dog".  That's been tried often enough in virtually every previous society; America is still a very young country, I think it should be regarded as an experiment, and allowed to run its course without compromising the underlying purpose.

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon." ~ Rorshach

Not quite the role model I had in mind, but far from the worst IMO.  Captain America would be a lot closer, though even he takes a few stands I don't quite agree with.  Superman is probably a damn near exact match for my principles, but he has the luxury of being nigh-omnipotent, so he can get away with it a lot more easily than the other two; thusly, I try not to fault them for being less than morally perfect.

Jebus, man.  You obviously feel strongly about this stuff, but you should go post it on a libertarian political forum where people may actually want to hear you bloviating, not a card game forum.  Yes, I'm actively oppressing your free speech because it's so wildly inapproprite for this context and you don't seem to have any ability to discern when to shut your hole.  This topic should be shut down as quickly as possible.

Seriously, can we ban this guy or something?  It's just too much.

The level of self-involvement evident in your posts is nothing short of astonishing.

I doubt that anyone has all that much issue with freedom of speech.  The comments I've heard (on this post and others) revolve less around your right to say things, and more that you say the worst possible thing, at the worst time. Then proclaim yourself a hero for doing so, and a victim (at the same time) because you are the only one with such vision and clarity of thought in a sea of oppression and tyranny.  

 

If large numbers of others share Spiff's attitude, I will try really hard to restrain myself, so as not to make a ban necessary.  (I will be extremely sad that it came to that, but I'll try.)  I do like being able to ask rules questions here, and play in forum games, and possibly post fanfiction if I get that far.

(EDITed to remove a crack which even I realized was over the line, the not-worst part of which Spiff quoted.)

just because you don't like what they have to say

You have no idea what's going on, that's clear.

Think outside of the box of narcissism for a second. It's not always about the pursuit of our own happiness. It is just as much about those around us and enabling them to do what we would want for ourselves. 

The movie theater example is a classic one, but do not take it so literally. The point is not about whether "pranks" should be prohibited or not in society, but rather should health and safety concerns for others warrent certain restrictions on the practical application of our notion of Free Speech. There is a much more nuanced argument there that you are dismissing. 

Lets also create a culture where no one cares when a theif steals their stuff. If no one cares then there must be no problem right? This is you shifting the blame from the origin of the problem to the resulting symptoms of the problem. Thats like blaming the guy who died from a gunshot wound for the gunman going to jail. 

I am not going to dig too deep into this, but your brand of idealism lacks pragmatic application in society. 

That is certainly a fair cop.  But why shouldn't I be self-involved?  I'm the one who has to live with myself.  Other people may have some magical ability to practically read each other's minds, share each other's feelings, tap in to some collective culture, but not me.  I was born a loner, and have only gotten more isolated and embattled with each passing year.

The comments I've heard (on this post and others) revolve less around your right to say things, and more that you say the worst possible thing, at the worst time.

Is lack of tact or discretion some sort of crime now?  I don't mind if you guys dislike me and want to avoid interacting with me.  I would love to answer some of the questions flying around on Ask A Forumite, but I realize and accept that nobody is likely to want to include me in their reindeer games anytime soon; that's the price I've paid for taking an unpopular stand.  I'm fine with that; it's fully within acceptible social politics to just not like someone and not talk to them.  What isn't ever acceptible, IMO, is preventing them from speaking, whether by duct-taping their mouth shut or forcing them out of the venue.  As long as it's not your own private residence (over which your domain should be absolute), in any place where people go to congregate, that is a public space, that anyone has the right to be in, and do anything they please there which doesn't amount to criminal activity.

Then proclaim yourself a hero for doing so, and a victim (at the same time) because you are the only one with such vision and clarity of thought in a sea of oppression and tyranny.

That, I will admit, is mostly me being a fruit loop with serious problems.  I don't want to be taking it out on other people wherever I go, and I manage (though sometimes just barely) to avoid going off on every random person I pass on the street; the fact I don't quite manage to on the Internet is probably, well, just a function of the Internet.  I'm not an intentional troll, but the climate tends to breed trollish tendencies in those who are even a little susceptible.  I think that's a small price to pay, for a communications tool of such power (what Michiko Kaku called "the beginnings of a {planetary} telephone system").

Then please explain it to me, since I don't know what else to perceive this as.

A less materialistic culture would certainly be more spiritually rewarding.  But again, it would be less likely to contain thieves in the first place.  If you remove the pressure, the choke point of personal and social resources, you remove the motivation to exploit that pressure in damaging ways.

I am not going to dig too deep into this, but your brand of idealism lacks pragmatic application in society.

Another extremely fair cop.  I am a romanticist in the classical sense; I draw fanciful pictures, not architectural blueprints.