Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on July 13, 2004, 07:03:36 pm
-
I don't know if any of you have heard about the lyrics of the new Jadakiss song, but it's causing quite a stir down here on the radio and even on TV to some point. In his song "Why" he makes points such as Halle Berry getting an Oscar because she got "popped" by a "white man", and how Bush is responsible for the two towers incident, all stated in the form of a question. many other statements too.
Many say it's his rights as a citizen of the United States to voice his opinion, others say it shouldnt' be allowed because it's slander. What do you think?
Here's a link to the lyrics:
http://www.lyricstop.com/w/why-jadakissfanthonyhamilton.html
If you'd like a link to the song, PM me.
-
To be honest, I can barely understand a word of that.
But, music is as valid a form of expression as books, Tv, art, movies, etc - including politics. If it is slander, then sue the bloke - if he loses, then maybe ban it depending on the terms of the judgement. But otherwise is just censorship of a political view, which is wrong.
-
but see, what people are saying, is even if it IS wrong, and he gets sued and loses, it's still permanently damaged that person's reputation.
it's like if someone is accused of rape, and the whole community finds out about it, and he goes through a bunch of court cases and is eventually determined to be innocent... it's still permanently damaged his life, because people will never look at him the same again after he's been accused (not even convicted) of rape.
-
Well, the system works on a basis of preusmption of innocence (in legal terms). So should people. Granted, they don't - but you can;t regulate peoples thoughts either.
Likewise, how much damage could/would song lyrics actually do? Generally speaking, I don't think they're regarded as a valid source of information by most people....i.e. they won't form opinions based on them, although they may reinforce their own.
I think, though, the crux is that you need to have total freedom of expression in art - even if that means stuff which is libellous, or in some way 'dangerous' (or just plain crap), gets through. Society sets clear boundaries in what is acceptable - and there is a legal system which enforces these. The risk of censorship is that you filter out the statements that pose valid questions - that's more dangerous than allowing the odd bit of slander to slip out, IMO.
NB: I recently read somewhere a not that there isn;t much art being done which tackles modern issues of conflict - i.e. there's not a Guernica for Iraq, etc. Maybe music is becoming the new medium? Or maybe it always has been? (since Vietnam, at the least)
EDIT: oh, RE the rape analogy - I think a comparison is, is it better to persue every rape accusation, or to only persue those which seem valid? This is itself an issue - false accusal is not exactly unheard of - but the single risk is the danger posed when you ignore that one true case that didn't sound real. I think.
-
I've got no idea who Jadakiss is, a rapper presumably, and I gave up on trying to read those lyrics halfway through, but I think its absolutely great that mainstream music (rap, hip-hop, pop etc) actually has something to say once in a while instead of just being a money-making machine. I'm glad that at least for every 1000 Britneys and DMXs, there is one intelligent musician who has a message, who is in essence producing real art, instead of cookie-cutter crap thats is popular but is meaningless.
Those who want to censor art deserve to be laughed at. I once saw a video of a Bush conference, where a reporter asked if Howard Dean's recent accusations that Bush was in some way responsible for 9/11 border on hatespeech. Censorsip of any kind, especially of art, it wrong. Once it becomes a crime to express yourself and circulate an alternate view of thing, such as condemning Bush or anyone for that matter, we cross the line into the world of telescreens and the thoughtcrime.
-
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
-
Please tell me that was flamebait and/or satire, so I can rest easy.
-
His right to speak, even of it goes against the country!!!
Not saying I agree, but it is his right as a citizen, to hate bush...
Hell we all (MOST) do.
-
The fine line of free speech and slander. Criticism of what they do politically...shouldn't be a problem. Thats how democracy and free speech works. Criticism and attack on the person...thats a little different.
Honestly...countries aren't like discussions. You don't like whats being said...move along. You don't like how the country is going...you don't just leave you try and make it better. The way that democracies are supposed to work is that some individual rights are protected so that it doesn't become a society where the leader is always right no matter what they do and anyone who speaks out is removed or silenced. Thats a dictatorship and I think some people have forgotten...
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
What!?
ROTFL!!! :lol: :lol:
Wake up!!
1stly: our homes are hear
2ndly: You CAN'T go anywhere to get away Bush types. Nowhere!!!
3rdly: Why did you start this argument!? No offense but that was just... :wtf:
-
i personally think he has the freedom to speak about whatever he wants, but that doesn't make it right. it's wrong. and a lot of people have lost respect for him and more importantly his music. i know a lot of people that used to like him say they don't anymore because of this incident
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
Uhhh, right. Do you know why the country you're so in love with is a democratic republic? Do you know what that means when it comes to how people run the country? I hope you're not mixing up a democratic republic and a theocracy.
-
To express ones emotions and views should always be allowed and never should it be allowed to censor those views.
Freedom of speech is more then just a catch phrase isnt it? Even if its factless and baseless, it should still be allowed. If it has no base or facts to stand on people can laugh at the pathetic attempt, but if there are facts and points to be made it should be heard even if a few people think its harmful.
Truth Hurts.
-
yeah i don't really care much for this issue, but there's some things he says in the song that doesn't really qualify as "emotions and views", such as Halle Berry only getting an Oscar because she slept with a white guy. Freedom of speech would be saying what you think or believe in, not stating something that's blatantly not true.
i for one think he had the right to say it, sure, but it's slander at the same time, and it's pointless, and he's made the biggest mistake of his career with that song.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
You can have your hitleristic views, heck your republican country is heading towards naziism anyhow its not a wonder you say what you say. Its interesting to finally see the truth come out of republicans.
{sarcasm}
Lets ban peanut butter. It kills more then Marijuana does yearly, it should be considered a terrorist act to even possess the stuff! ROFL
{/sarcasm}
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
The Corps is mother. The Corps is father. :p
-
hey. be nice. respect his opinion ;)
EDIT:
Freedom of speech is more then just a catch phrase isnt it?
i'm sure when the "bill of rights" was written, and "Freedom of Speech" was talked about, they didn't intend it to mean that people could go slander, and tell blatant lies about others. i think it was more intended that they could speak up about the government and what they thought was wrong and should change ;) :D
-
Yes, all republicans are EEEEVIILLLL!!
And normally, I'd say it would be slander/libelous, but he's an artist (even if all he does is talk about his nine wit niggaz and hoes and ****ing) so it should technically be some sort of art... at least, as much as anyother piece of music.
It's not like Jadakiss is a news service or anything.
-
yeah i don't think it's too damaging really, the only person he's hurt with those lyrics is himself. but a lot of people still think it's wrong to go and say something that's not true in a song that's going to be played on the radio to thousands of people, whether or not he's an 'artist'.
-
He's an artist though, not an official source. So it should be a bit different. If the New York times came out and said Halle Berry is a slut, that'd obviously be different. But he's supposedly an artist, and although I don't have the legal books in front of me, that makes it a bit different.
Theoretically though, it should be treated a bit differently. If you had everyone or group who was portrayed as bad in a movie ***** and complain about everything (movies would fall under the same cvategory of art as music) then things would suck.
-
Can someone point out what he said thats so scandalous? I can't decipher the lyrcs, but I got the "Why did Bush make the towers fall" bit, which is no worse than whats been going around for years now.
I assume he's reffering to Halle Barry's Oscar for Monster's Ball, in which case, it may or may not be true (its Hollywood guys, don't act so shocked), but I do agree that her performance was not good enough to warrant an Oscar, even though I believe that the Oscars do not generally reward the best performance, only the most popular/artsy/expected-to-win one. The Matrix (the original) didn't win squat. Fight Club, American History X, Requiem for a Dream, [insert great movie here]. Most mainstream awards crap..
I also believe that libel laws are mostly bull****. If I come out and write something negative about, lets say, George Soros, even if its factually correct, I could be sued for libel. I'm willing to live with a certain amount of unsubstantiated slander in order to safeguard freedom of speech. Read up on the McLibel trial for an example of this.
Whats worse? Saying that Halle Barry is a slut, or starting a war based on lies, that eventually gets over 15,000 civilians killed (tens of thousands of combatants also) and occupies a sovereign nationn? I'm only using this as an example. Poeple made a bigger fuss of Janet's breast than they did about any of the illigal and immoral actions by the Bush administration. We've got some ****ed up priorities, eh?
-
Breasts! AHHH!!!2 :shaking:
-
They should do a "Morality Alert" like the terror alert thing.
Blue - Everything is under control. Proper Christian values are being observed.
Green - A few bad apples here and there, but the FCC is dealing with those radicals.
Yellow - The liberal media is indoctrinating our kids, teaching them promiscuity and violence.
Orange - Howard Stern is on the loose. Kids are getting upity. South Park is on every Tuesday.
Red - All hell has broken loose. Marylin Manson is probably holding a concert somewhere.
Hot Pink - Reserved for Pride Day and Armageddon. Battlestations! Get out your Bibles and chastity belts, this means war!
also, notice my cultured use of the word "breast". Not titties, hooters, boobs or gazongas. Very proper like. Now all I need is a monacle and a top-hat, and I'll be a proper gentleman :p :p
edit2: good idea man.
-
Would never fly.
Look at your colours. One more, and you fly Liberal Satan's banner. ;)
-
You know what makes me laugh in a situation like this, if people just ignored it, the song would disappear off the airwaves pretty quick, by kicking up a stink, they make more people notice it.
Sounds like a **** song to be honest anyway.
-
Yeah, sounds like a song that they want to get sales from its controversial lyrics.
Ooh, it said "Bush"!! Scary!! :p
-
was this the guy who sudgested kicking pregnant women in the gut was a good idea in his song?
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
So why didn't you leave when Clinton was in charge? :rolleyes:
-
Owned.
Anyway: The Halle Berry thing is slander (unless she did), but the Bush thing is satire, so it's okay.
-
no. I'd say either both are or neither, I'm inclined to lean tward neither. if the guy can't back up what he's saying then he's just an imbicile.
-
yes, but is it right to censor anyone, imbecile or not? I say no.
-
As for politics in song lyrics: Bob Dylan.
As for this song in particular, I can't get behound the rap speak, it's like AOL 1337, but worse. I really don't understund anything of it.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
As for politics in song lyrics: Bob Dylan.
Good point :nod: One that stands out is/was Hurricane (http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/hurricane.html)
-
That was one particular song I have in mind/my playlist.
-
I didn't say censor him, I said ignor or ridicule him.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes, but is it right to censor anyone, imbecile or not? I say no.
Rictor I'm going to put up posters around the town where you live with your picture on and a sign saying that you're a pedophile.
Lets see how long you keep defending my right to say anything I want after that happens.
-
"Reads lyrics". Don't know that dude, but that's rap, right?
Well that's the usual "everybody hates me" crap.
Should I feel proud or ashamed that I had no problem reading that, btw? :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Nico
"Reads lyrics". Don't know that dude, but that's rap, right?
Well that's the usual "everybody hates me" crap.
Should I feel proud or ashamed that I had no problem reading that, btw? :nervous:
considering it's not even your first language?........
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
considering it's not even your first language?........
Judging from what I read, the guy that wrote those lyrics doesn't have English as a first language either.
-
There were people who tried to say questioning the "elected" leader of state and the system was a crime as well... they came in two flavours, red, or red with black bits and a yummy jackboot middle.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Rictor I'm going to put up posters around the town where you live with your picture on and a sign saying that you're a pedophile.
Lets see how long you keep defending my right to say anything I want after that happens.
If that means that no one will ever be censored again, I'm game.
Look at the comparative pros/cons. Lets take the two extremes, total freedom of speech, or total censorship. This is simply to establish which side is "better", and therefore, to which side one should lean if a conflict comes up.
Total freedom of speech:
Anyone can say anything. Many people, across the spectrum, will use this to slander anyone they want. Unsubstantiated rumours and outright lies will no doubt be circulated, whether it is in the office or on the floors of Congress. However, it is reasonable to assume that most of the high profile cases, those which recieve significant media attention, will be those involving powerful people. Politicians, businessmen, celebrities and so forth. Given that powerful people tend to have more resources at their disposale that the average Joe, they will almost certainly be able to get their version of the story out, to some degree at least. What the the In-tar-net and all, no one side is likely to dominate the media, though it is always a possibility. For anyone who is not able to disprove the allegation, and suffers immensely because of it, tough luck. If people are really as petty and vengeful as some of you think, then this would be misused to a great extent, and pretty soon, things like "He had sex with my daughter" or "He stole my chicken" would lose any sembelance of authethenticit, on account of being used to often. Crying wolf, so to speak.
Total censorship:
Anyone who speaks ill of another person, especially someone in a position of power, is a potential candidate for a libel suit. And since we all know that lawyers make all the difference, those with the hightest-priced lawyers will usually win. Even if the allegation is factually true, the case could be made that the allegation portrayed those facts in a needlessly negative light. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so more or less by definition, the people commiting the greatest crimes and the ones most worthy of media attention will be the best defended from any negative remarks against them. I think we can all think of at least a few cases where powerful people have been protected from rightful exposure because of libel laws and fancy lawyers.
Thats in the realm of private life. Publicly, the government could censor any media it wants, by accusing them of things like inciting a riot, inciting violence, hatespeech, rascism, revealing classified information, lending "material support" to terrorists and so forth. All of these have been used by the US government in the past few years, I'm not making it up as I go along. Against private citizens, against media outlets (al Jazeera comes to mind) and against whistle-blowers. These accusations are broad enough and vague enough to be misused quite freely, and I for one do not trust the government not to do so, given their past record.
I would rather err on the side of freedom of expression, I don't know about the rest of you.
-
If it's free speech then he is allowed to say what he likes, personally though I think it's free 'I'm going to jump on the Anti-War bandwagon for cash', which is pretty dispicable to feed off of other peoples 'fame'.
-
If this song Spoke of Saddam Husseins problems as a leader we wouldnt be talking about this. Just because he speaks of your Leader, and some stars people get their panties in a bunch.
Enough said.....
-
And thats the sad thing. When you say "anti-war" names like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and apprently, Jadakiss come to mind, for your average Jow Blow anyway. Now, I may be setting myself of for a bit of libel lawsuit here (;) ;)), but I would venture to guess that these people know **** all about anything even resembeling antiwar politics. Why don't people know who Chomsky is, who Robert Fisk is, who Patrick Cockburn is, who Justin Raimondo is?
How many people will respond to "Why do you hate Bush" with "He invaded Iraq for their oil, and got American soldiers killed". But ask them anything beyond the scope of a Jay Leno joke, or a Susan Sarandon interview, and they'll give you a blank stare. At times, I'm ashamed to count myself among the antiwar crowd, due to the sheer stupidity of some of its members. But then I remember that for all their faults, they 100x better informed that the average Bush/Limbaugh/O'Reilly supporter, and that calmks me down a bit.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And thats the sad thing. When you say "anti-war" names like Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and apprently, Jadakiss come to mind, for your average Jow Blow anyway. Now, I may be setting myself of for a bit of libel lawsuit here (;) ;)), but I would venture to guess that these people know **** all about anything even resembeling antiwar politics. Why don't people know who Chomsky is, who Robert Fisk is, who Patrick Cockburn is, who Justin Raimondo is?
How many people will respond to "Why do you hate Bush" with "He invaded Iraq for their oil, and got American soldiers killed". But ask them anything beyond the scope of a Jay Leno joke, or a Susan Sarandon interview, and they'll give you a blank stare. At times, I'm ashamed to count myself among the antiwar crowd, due to the sheer stupidity of some of its members. But then I remember that for all their faults, they 100x better informed that the average Bush/Limbaugh/O'Reilly supporter, and that calmks me down a bit.
you've got to ask - why don't we here of these people (Chomsky, Fisk, etc) in the UK? Because have no idea who the hell they are.........
Maybe it's because they're not doing a good enough job making themselves heard?
-
I know Chomsky.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
you've got to ask - why don't we here of these people (Chomsky, Fisk, etc) in the UK? Because have no idea who the hell they are.........
Maybe it's because they're not doing a good enough job making themselves heard?
*ahem*
Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are both British, the former is The Independen't star journalist, while the latter also worked for the Independent but now runs Counterpunch, a political newletter/website along with Jeffrey St.Clair, another Brit.
:ick: :ick:
What I said was more of a statement regarding the general ignorance of a large part of the antiwar crowd, but here is a brief rundown of the specific names I mentioned (though they were chosen more or less at random).
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, and his articles are widely reprinted elsewhere. War correspondant for several decades, his specialty is the MIddle-East. He has a book about the Lebanese civil war, called Pity The Nation. Oh and, John Malkovich once threatened to shoot him.
Noam Chomsky is the Godfather of the left, and has been a prominent ciritic of US foreign policy for something like 40 years. Proffesor of linguistics at MIT, he has written more books than I can recall. His writings are still, in my humble opinion, among the most intelligent and thought-out available. He is perhaps the best known antiwar voice in the world, I would have thought that you would atleast be familiar with him.
Justin Raimondo runs antiwar.com, and is, amazingly enough, not a lefitst. He comes from a libertarian background, working with Murray Rothbard (the father of modern libertarianism) before his death. He was actually part of a libertarian faction within the GOP at one point. Antwar.com is rated at around #40 on the Alexa ratings list for news websites, no small feat. They've been spreading the good word, so to speak, well before Bush's reign. They (antiwar) actually became prominent during the bombing of Serbia in '99, and are the single best source for antiwar news and views that I can think of.
Patrick Cockburn runs counterpunch.com along with Jeffrey St.Clair. Viewed by about 20 million people each month. He has, as I recall, around 5 books, most of them co-authored with St.Clair.
so, there you go...
-
[q]Noam Chomsky is the Godfather of the left,[/q]
His work really brought me into the real world, I think Chomsky should be required reading at all highschools in any western country.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Blue - Everything is under control. Proper Christian values are being observed.
the day that the world and everyone in it upholds only proper Christian values is the day that I kill myself. :p
Seriously, what you call 'blue' i call 'pitch black'. :p
-
I think using the term 'nigga' in a Rap song more than 3 times per verse is an offence punishable by flogging, but there you go ;)
Sorry, never been a fan of Gangsta Rap or that ilk, it's kind of like the Punk Rock of Pop Music ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Sorry, never been a fan of Gangsta Rap or that ilk, it's kind of like the Punk Rock of Pop Music ;)
There is very little gangsta rap of merit, which is a damn shame because it puts a lot of people off all hiphop (I know a few people that think all black music is either crooning R Kelly style or the Nelly/50 Cent pile of bollocks). Hiphop rocks, Gangsta rap (for the most part) is a bag of wank pushed by record companies to sell to testosterone fuelled teenage boys because pop music doesn't cut it for them the way it does for women.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I would rather err on the side of freedom of expression, I don't know about the rest of you.
What a black and white world you live in Rictor.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
the day that the world and everyone in it upholds only proper Christian values is the day that I kill myself. :p
Seriously, what you call 'blue' i call 'pitch black'. :p
Yeah, or at least dull grey :p
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Noam Chomsky is the Godfather of the left,[/q]
His work really brought me into the real world, I think Chomsky should be required reading at all highschools in any western country.
His groundbreaking work on linguistics (which greatly make up the foundations of natural language processing in computing) should be, at least. His political meanderings all reak of if-if-if idealist socialism to me though.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
*ahem*
Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn are both British, the former is The Independen't star journalist, while the latter also worked for the Independent but now runs Counterpunch, a political newletter/website along with Jeffrey St.Clair, another Brit.
:ick: :ick:
What I said was more of a statement regarding the general ignorance of a large part of the antiwar crowd, but here is a brief rundown of the specific names I mentioned (though they were chosen more or less at random).
Robert Fisk writes for the Independent, and his articles are widely reprinted elsewhere. War correspondant for several decades, his specialty is the MIddle-East. He has a book about the Lebanese civil war, called Pity The Nation. Oh and, John Malkovich once threatened to shoot him.
Noam Chomsky is the Godfather of the left, and has been a prominent ciritic of US foreign policy for something like 40 years. Proffesor of linguistics at MIT, he has written more books than I can recall. His writings are still, in my humble opinion, among the most intelligent and thought-out available. He is perhaps the best known antiwar voice in the world, I would have thought that you would atleast be familiar with him.
Justin Raimondo runs antiwar.com, and is, amazingly enough, not a lefitst. He comes from a libertarian background, working with Murray Rothbard (the father of modern libertarianism) before his death. He was actually part of a libertarian faction within the GOP at one point. Antwar.com is rated at around #40 on the Alexa ratings list for news websites, no small feat. They've been spreading the good word, so to speak, well before Bush's reign. They (antiwar) actually became prominent during the bombing of Serbia in '99, and are the single best source for antiwar news and views that I can think of.
Patrick Cockburn runs counterpunch.com along with Jeffrey St.Clair. Viewed by about 20 million people each month. He has, as I recall, around 5 books, most of them co-authored with St.Clair.
so, there you go...
Indeed. Albeit I've never read the Independent, cos it's effectively a foreign newspaper. Sounds daft, but it's true.
-
One (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125598,00.html)
Two (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/196/nation/Idaho_National_Guard_tells_sol:.shtml)
Three (http://www.wvgazettemail.com/static/stories/2004071346.html)
Four (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/getzan.php?articleid=3034)
Originally posted by karajorma
What a black and white world you live in Rictor.
And how's that? Maybe I'm just a bit slow on the uptake, but I don't see a great many other sides to it. Perhaps you couild enlighten me, cause one sentence just doesn't explain anything. All I said was that I would rather lean to one side, because for me, the benfit:drawback ratio is far greater than for the opposite viewpoint. Thats like saying, "I agree more strongly with what is generally regarded as the left than I do with what is generally regarded to as the right." Almost no one here is truly centrist, but I don't see anyone being accused of living in a black/white world..
Originally posted by SadisticSid
His groundbreaking work on linguistics (which greatly make up the foundations of natural language processing in computing) should be, at least. His political meanderings all reak of if-if-if idealist socialism to me though.
And what exactly is if-if-if idealist socialism? I can make a general guess, but mind defining the term? There's nothing wrong with being idealist, if you are reffering to ends and not means. ANd being socialist is also nothing necessarily negative, I consider myself to be more or a less a socialist.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Indeed. Albeit I've never read the Independent, cos it's effectively a foreign newspaper. Sounds daft, but it's true.
:wtf: :wtf:
Yeah, I hardly ever hear them say things like "cheerio old chap" or "God save the Queen".
But seriously, why do you see them as a foreign paper? If its regarding their political/whatever views, they're not that much different than The Guardian. And don't tell me the Guardian ain't British..
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And how's that? Maybe I'm just a bit slow on the uptake, but I don't see a great many other sides to it. Perhaps you couild enlighten me, cause one sentence just doesn't explain anything. All I said was that I would rather lean to one side, because for me, the benfit:drawback ratio is far greater than for the opposite viewpoint. Thats like saying, "I agree more strongly with what is generally regarded as the left than I do with what is generally regarded to as the right." Almost no one here is truly centrist, but I don't see anyone being accused of living in a black/white world..
Except that's not what you're saying Rictor.
What you're saying is equivalent of saying that we should enforce the policies of the extreme left wing cause if deviate even slightly from them we might end up carrying out policies of the far right.
I'm all for freedom of speech but I don't believe in absolute freedom. You don't have the right to incite a riot. You don't have the right to call some one a pedophile in the hope that a mob will kill him.
There is an enormous difference between that and saying that a politician is wrong.
You believe that Freedom of speech is so important that you're willing to accept the complete disaster that complete freedom would cause.
The world isn't black & white. You can have freedom of political speech without giving up the right to arrest people who are basically calling for murder.
-
Alright, I see where you're coming from. To me, the "incitiement to violence" is not the biggest issue. These charges have been leveled against media outlets and individuals for entirely political reasons (such as Al Jazeera), but I don't know how often they are applicable outside a war zone. If an Iraqi paper published an op/ed, saying something like "We must drive out the occupation forces", that could quite easily be interpreted as a call to kill Americans, and therefor illegal. There is also the trouble of measuring exactly what is a call to riot, and what isn't. There's no metric available, and my concern is that pretty much anything that is likely to happen at a protest or demonstration can be percieved as the start of a riot. For example, the street party that followed the Greek victory over here in Toronto could easily, easily have been called a riot if it were politically oriented. Lacking a clear set of rules and measures, legitimate demonstrations could be attacked and disbanded, on the grounds that they constitute a riot. This is exactly what happened a few years ago, at a demonstration to protest the G8 summit in Ottawa. Now, I'm not saying that this happens all the time, but often enough to cause me concern.
But my main beef is with libel laws. The principal is that any allegations which portray someone in a needlessly negative light, even if the allegations are completly true, are against the law. This leads to a fair bit of self censorship by the media, because no one wants to get sued. And it puts a damper on the "people have a right to know" concept. You keep mentioning the pedophile thing, but honestly, how often has a completely innocent person been lynched because someone accused him of being a pedo? The trouble is, how to distinguish betweenn important business/political figures, and ordinary citizens. The law must apply to everyone equally, which means the same aw that protects an innocent from nasty rumours could be used to protect a guilty party from explosure and media attention.
edit: this is interesting, even though it goes against what I'm saying, I gotta post it anyway:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000576591
-
Here's just a few examples
http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,350587,00.html
Someone earlier quoted the example where a pediatric nurse got attacked because some moron didn't know what the term meant. In the UK we know exactly what sort of anarchy can result from poorly used Freedom of Speech. The News of the World's "Name and Shame" campaign was perfectly legal but look at the damage it did. Now imagine what would happen if there were no checks and balances and the newspaper could print anything it liked.
Yes there are cases where the police over reacted to legal demonstrations. The answer to that is to make the police responsible for the injuries they caused in their over reactions. Not to remove laws and cause anarchy.
If you have a problem with where the current balance between Freedom of Speech and censorship llies then I'll agree with you. I think that the UK and US have often been far too heavy handed. But to simply say we need to throw out the laws that prevent the chaos that would ensue if we didn't prevent incitement to riot etc is foolish.
Let me put it this way. How long do you think a marriage would last if both partners said everything they thought about the other one all the time?
Sure having a relationship where no one ever tells a lie or keeps a secret sounds great romantic notion on paper but it's a complete disaster if you actually try it.
Your idea of freedom of speech is analogous to having a relationship without white lies. It wouldn't last past the first year.
-
Lol, nice to see how some people brought up the war and their heavily slanted version of events, with the exaagerations etc that come with such views.
Incidently, i used to read the Independant, right up until around April of last year, when it just became so pathetically biased, i decided i just couldnt hack reading it. I really do hate the media, its all biased, most people think what the stupid channel/paper or whatever tells them to. I think the BBC is about the only reliable source i can get these days, everything else is either too far right or too far left.
-
Freedom is an illusion created by the rules your parents and society impose on you.
It works on the principle that if someone can't do something, you tell them they don't want to do it until they stop wanting to do it. From then on, they believe they're not doing it because they've chosen not to.
-
Were the media in it simply to 'report' the truth, it'd be fine, but they don't give a damn about truth, or accuracy, or even the knock-on effects of their own stories, that's just a chance for a 'follow-up' report. All the Media cares about is money, and that means telling stories that sell papers.
-
i've seen that some of you get irate at bumping of old thread so apologies in advance to those who this will distress but i was searching for comparison pics and came across this which seemed an intersting subject.
was jada libelous?
possibly to bush he was.
i'm no expert on libel law but accusing someone of a crime with no conclusive proof is probably libelous based on my understanding of the word.
now jada ain't the first person to offer the opinion that bush was involved in letting 911 happen.
i personally don't think that he was complicit in letting it happen (though i don't doubt that he capitalised on it for his own ends) but should people be allowed to speculate on these things?
i think that they have to be.
i am not overly familiar with american history, how did the whole nixon watergate thing come out?
didn't someone at some point, against the tide of popular opinion, say "the president is involved in wrongdoing"?
for you republicans who just don't like the anti bush sentiment think back to clinton, i'm sure that a lot of you thought it was acceptable to question and investigate as to whether he commited anything improper.
being president shouldn't place you above suspicion.
now before the notion that bush would let 911 happen is dismissed as completely implausible bear in mind that throughout history politicians have always performed underhand deeds and sent people to their death if they thought it would achieve what they wanted.
whether or not you think bush DID let it happen (and again, i dont think he did) doesn't mean that it is out of the realm of possibility that a politician would do such a thing.
i mean after all him and blair did start the iraq war.
whether or not you think the war was justified, they undoubtedly knew people would die and decided it was a price they would pay to achieve their goals, we can't pretend that these are people who would never dream of letting people die to achieve a "greater" plan.
as far as the halle berry comment i'm pretty sure he never called her a slut ( i haven't heard the song in a while)
he put forward the idea that her sex scene with billy bob and the accompanying racial elements of the film helped her to win an oscar.
this isnt at all an unheard of notion to put forward.
in fact just on saturday an article in the guardian alluded to it.
the oscars are often said to reward actors for playing ugly or ill.
it isn't anything new or shocking at all to suggest that performance isn't the prime criteria for winning an oscar
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
Jadakiss is one of my favorites, but he crossed the line with that song, if he doesnt like how Bush runs things he can get the **** out, that goes for the rest of those damned liberals too.
I would expect such hate from a Texas republican.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
:wtf: :wtf:
Yeah, I hardly ever hear them say things like "cheerio old chap" or "God save the Queen".
But seriously, why do you see them as a foreign paper? If its regarding their political/whatever views, they're not that much different than The Guardian. And don't tell me the Guardian ain't British..
Ooh...never replied to this. I should explain.
It's simple - the national newspapers focus on English, and mainly London, issues. It's understandable - that's servicing the vast majority of the readership - but I prefer to actually have news which affects me. I.e. Scotland.
International news will always be in the papers, yes? But the local stuff, i.e. close to home, will vary based on the paper. The 'big' British newspapers have always felt to me to be very London (not just Anglo) centric, so I prefer to read Scottish newspapers. The Herald, mainly.
And also I read the sports pages.
Remember - I'm Scottish, not British. There's a world of difference there. :)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
They should do a "Morality Alert" like the terror alert thing.
Blue - Everything is under control. Proper Christian values are being observed.
Green - A few bad apples here and there, but the FCC is dealing with those radicals.
Yellow - The liberal media is indoctrinating our kids, teaching them promiscuity and violence.
Orange - Howard Stern is on the loose. Kids are getting upity. South Park is on every Tuesday.
Red - All hell has broken loose. Marylin Manson is probably holding a concert somewhere.
Hot Pink - Reserved for Pride Day and Armageddon. Battlestations! Get out your Bibles and chastity belts, this means war!
meh - the censorship comes from both sides, just on different issues. the right wants to censor language and sexual content. but it's the left that leads the fight against violence in the media. it was the left that came out protesting the Matrix and Fight Club as ultra-violent. hell, for a while, Lieberman was leading the fight against violence in video games.
it depends on the issues, but they're all idiots in some way, shape or form. and there's only one way it should be: freedom of speech. anything goes. period.
Originally posted by Lonestar
You can have your hitleristic views, heck your republican country is heading towards naziism anyhow its not a wonder you say what you say. Its interesting to finally see the truth come out of republicans.
{sarcasm}
Lets ban peanut butter. It kills more then Marijuana does yearly, it should be considered a terrorist act to even possess the stuff! ROFL
{/sarcasm}
... and you're just an asshat.
-
**** me this is an old thread.
Anyway, nice mature argument there PeachE
I'll say it again on the main topic: read the orange text in my sig.
-
Edit: meh
-
If the public doesnt ***** about the lyrics, then why do they ***** about the Vietnam Vets saying John Kerry is lying?
-
:wtf:
-
Because the media is liberal and hates to see their star candidate fall so easily at truth, not lies.
-
Bah, the whole world is full of lies... get over it...
The media is a big source of it, too. I don't care anymore, this bickering is getting nowhere, we are not in that free of a country (which can be good at times), so what...
-
Tell that to everyone else here and they may chew your head off since they have a real problem with ANYTHING being restricted... :doubt:
For me, I dont care really. I am living happily at the moment.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
was this the guy who sudgested kicking pregnant women in the gut was a good idea in his song?
i know what bob is talking about, but the name of the band is anal cnt and it won't let me post a link since it censors it
pm me for a link
-
"Not Found"