12-31-2007, 04:56 AM
[quote MacMagus]> if someone were to spraypaint the words, "PeterB is a @!&*%!" (substitute something
> colorful in there) across a bridge...
Assuming that it's otherwise his right to decorate the bridge as he wishes? What exactly is wrong with someone writing that if it's his honest opinion of you?
Would it make a difference to you if he wrote, "David Duke is a @!&*%!" ...? Why so or why not?
I didn't assume that it was the person's right to decorate the bridge as he/she wishes. The right to make a public statement per se isn't what I'm taking issue with -- it's the right to make a publicly defamatory statement. So long as I am able to defend myself against such a statement, and there's nothing untruthful about it, I don't have a problem with it. (So to answer your second question, no, it wouldn't make any difference.)
[quote MacMagus]I did answer. If you feel that my answer was insufficient, I suggest that you think about it some more.
No, I'd say it was a non-answer.
[quote MacMagus]> I am defining free speech as the ability to say anything one wants, whenever one
> wants. Clearly we do not have free speech in that sense
Then please do not use it that way when you refer to "free speech."
Why not, if that's what it is?
[quote MacMagus]> my point is simply that people should not be allowed to say absolutely whatever they
> want under the veil of anonymity, and assume that they're protected.
I don't think that many people think about it to such an extent. Certainly, when anonymity is assumed, many people will say things about you that they wouldn't say to your face. That can be a GOOD thing. To the extent that it can also be bad, I think that we should accept it as a necessary evil, excepting only the most extreme and perverse circumstances.
Yes, that seems reasonable to me. I'd say back to this only that it is possible to give one's honest opinion without also being a total jerk, though.
[quote MacMagus]There's no way that I can see where one can stop the bad stuff without also crippling the good stuff... and frankly, I don't think there's anyone in this world competent to discern "good" from "bad" speech anyway. What might appear vile and slanderous today might be seen as vital dissent tomorrow.
True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
[quote MacMagus]> just to prevent or negate the ability of people to say whatever they like, without having any
> responsibility or repercussions to what they say.
That's a silly fantasy.
You can't just prevent people from voicing potentially hurtful opinions. That would destroy any meaningful right to dissent. 'Might as well tear up the Constitution right now.
That isn't what I said. I do think it's reasonable to hold people responsible, especially to what they say in print. Especially because of the nature of the internet, that things are archived indefinitely, and that they are available around the world.
[quote MacMagus]And there are always repercussions.
Always.
God is not going to step in and stop people from hurting each other.
At least not until October 3rd, 2008 at 6:35pm EST.
Not sure what relevance that has... do tell...
> colorful in there) across a bridge...
Assuming that it's otherwise his right to decorate the bridge as he wishes? What exactly is wrong with someone writing that if it's his honest opinion of you?
Would it make a difference to you if he wrote, "David Duke is a @!&*%!" ...? Why so or why not?
I didn't assume that it was the person's right to decorate the bridge as he/she wishes. The right to make a public statement per se isn't what I'm taking issue with -- it's the right to make a publicly defamatory statement. So long as I am able to defend myself against such a statement, and there's nothing untruthful about it, I don't have a problem with it. (So to answer your second question, no, it wouldn't make any difference.)
[quote MacMagus]I did answer. If you feel that my answer was insufficient, I suggest that you think about it some more.
No, I'd say it was a non-answer.
[quote MacMagus]> I am defining free speech as the ability to say anything one wants, whenever one
> wants. Clearly we do not have free speech in that sense
Then please do not use it that way when you refer to "free speech."
Why not, if that's what it is?
[quote MacMagus]> my point is simply that people should not be allowed to say absolutely whatever they
> want under the veil of anonymity, and assume that they're protected.
I don't think that many people think about it to such an extent. Certainly, when anonymity is assumed, many people will say things about you that they wouldn't say to your face. That can be a GOOD thing. To the extent that it can also be bad, I think that we should accept it as a necessary evil, excepting only the most extreme and perverse circumstances.
Yes, that seems reasonable to me. I'd say back to this only that it is possible to give one's honest opinion without also being a total jerk, though.
[quote MacMagus]There's no way that I can see where one can stop the bad stuff without also crippling the good stuff... and frankly, I don't think there's anyone in this world competent to discern "good" from "bad" speech anyway. What might appear vile and slanderous today might be seen as vital dissent tomorrow.
True, but i think we can (mostly) agree that there are certain forms of speech which should either be limited or at the very least, moderated.
[quote MacMagus]> just to prevent or negate the ability of people to say whatever they like, without having any
> responsibility or repercussions to what they say.
That's a silly fantasy.
You can't just prevent people from voicing potentially hurtful opinions. That would destroy any meaningful right to dissent. 'Might as well tear up the Constitution right now.
That isn't what I said. I do think it's reasonable to hold people responsible, especially to what they say in print. Especially because of the nature of the internet, that things are archived indefinitely, and that they are available around the world.
[quote MacMagus]And there are always repercussions.
Always.
God is not going to step in and stop people from hurting each other.
At least not until October 3rd, 2008 at 6:35pm EST.
Not sure what relevance that has... do tell...