On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 13:19 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> >> There are also people who believe in absolute free speech rights
> anywhere
> >> they go, and yet support laws that keep others from smoking in the
> >> workplace or other public places.
> >> Aren't they violating smokers' rights to smoke if they want to -
> >*anywhere*
> >> they want?
> >
> > The two situations are not analogous. The only way you can
> >reconcile free speech and the freedom to smoke is if the speech is at a
> >harmful level, say 120dB. If you speak in a normal tone of voice there
> >are no deleterious physical effects of your free speech on others.
> >Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic compounds that others
> >would be forced to breathe.
>
> I admit that was not the best of examples, but my point was simply that
> there are people who find listening to racist screed every bit as
> distressing and offensive - or even more so - as having to breathe
> second-hand smoke.
> The one - a physical abuse, the other - a mental and emotional one.
>
> > You have misinterpreted the posts on that subject. No one said
> >anything about denying Jamendo the right to censor others on their site.
> >Most people here just don't agree with censorship and so will not put
> >anything up on Jamendo. Given what this list is about I think that's a
> >perfectly understandable bias ;-)
>
> If this whole discussion was just about whether Jamendo is a good place to
> publish music given their censorship policies - then yes, I did
> misunderstand.
> (I thought some people were trying to make the case that it is wrong to
> limit the speech of others anywhere under any circumstances.)
>
Not that I saw. I certainly wasn't.
> >Free speech never intrudes on the rights of others unless it incites
> >people to commit acts that intrude on the rights of others. As Mark
> >pointed out, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not acceptable.
> >Asking people to kill other people in the name of whatever is also not
> >supported free speech.
>
> I would have to take exception to making this distinction for two
> different, and seemingly opposite reasons.
>
> Sometimes, people's exercise of free speech - say in certain communities
> whose purpose is to cultivate a friendly and cooperative atmosphere based
> on shared interests and objectives - creates a poisonous atmosphere which
> is inimical and totally antithetical to the purpose of that association of
> people.
> For example: a fundamentalist Christian goes on a metaphysics forum,
> disrupting every single thread - thumping their bible, ranting that
> everyone there is going to hell, and trying to shut down the forum with
> spam, dos attacks, complaints to the isp, etc.
Spam and DOS attacks are not free speech. Spam has been classed as
an invasion of privacy. DOS attacks are...attacks - not free speech.
The forum can censor the bible thumper just as Jamendo can censor people
they don't agree with.
> This kind of behavior - while not dangerous, and within the scope of free
> speech - is clearly disruptive and detrimental to the purpose of that
> community and it would be reasonable to deny such people access to the
> forum.
> (This being an example, btw, that I have actually encountered a number of
> times.)
>
> The argument that free speech is unacceptable only if it seeks to incite
> physical action of a violent or harmful nature is contradictory to the
> assertion - made by some here - that it is insulting to people's
> intelligence to suggest that they can't discern the truth for themselves
> and need to be protected from those spreading malicious falsehoods or
> antisocial viewpoints.
Legally this is the place where the line is drawn. I don't have a
problem with some idiot saying he thinks the world would be a better
place without (insert race, religion, creed, football team here). I
have a huge problem if he says that people should go out and kill
(insert race, religion, creed, football team here). The first is
protected free speech (in the US). The second is inciting violence.
> If people are to be credited with the intelligence to decide for themselves
> what they think of someone else's viewpoints, they should also be credited
> with the intelligence to decide for themselves if they want to go out and
> lynch people, bomb synagogues or mosques, or whatever.
> Words can't *make* people do things.
> People *choose* to do things and are solely responsible for their actions.
>
> (My point here is simply that in the 'public' arena - *all* speech should
> be protected, even if it advocates violent behavior, and in a *private*
> environment, a case can be made for restricting speech even when it does
> not cause or incite physical harm.)
>
I agree completely. As I said above, *legally*, incitement is where
we draw the line.
> In Jamendo's case it is debatable whether their choices of content to
> exclude are constructive or not.
> If they allow all content, they are sure to turn away some users, and if
> they deny certain content, they will likewise turn away many users.
> I would imagine they made their decision based upon either a pragmatic
> calculation as to which course would turn away the least number of users,
> or simply informed by their own personal ethics and what they wish to be
> associated with.
>
> For me - the more freedom and tolerance the better for all concerned.
>
Me too. I say, let the idiots speak. How's that quote go? "It is
better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all
doubt." The more they speak the dumber they look ;-)
> For those disagreeing with Jamendo's policies - perhaps it would turn out
> to be constructive to contact them regarding their views.
> They just might decide to change their policies if there are enough people
> in the community voicing concern about those policies.
>
I think Jamendo may be worried about some of the legal decisions
lately holding providers responsible for content. They may also be
worried that in Austria you can be arrested for saying that there was no
Holocaust. Next thing you know they'll be arresting flat earthers and
people who say there's never been a man on the moon ;-)
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
