Freedom of speech...the ultimate copout. - Crossing Over (2009) Discussion

[–] beckmen 16 years ago

There is no freedom of speech in the United States. It's a lie, just propaganda. Hell, just the other day I almost got banned from Pizza Hut for saying the word 'masturbation'. Not even explicitly discussing it, just saying the word. I know somebody who was arrested for calling somebody a "hoochie mama." No assault, not even a threat...just calling somebody a name and your ass is behind bars. Also: *beep* *beep* *beep* Whoops. I guess this US website doesn't really believe in freedom of speech, either.

There is a measure of 'freedom' of speech, but it's not black and white. More free than other countries, but not all.

-------
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Beckmen

reply

[–] goatman_48 16 years ago

Freedom of speach exists but it can't interfere with other people's rights to not be assaulted. If you're yelling out masturbation like an idiot in a Pizza Hut, yeah you can be kicked out because no one wants to hear that, and the only reason you're doing it is for shock value. Speech is about as free as it can be without interfering with other people's rights. I mean, it's so easy for you to talk about how Freedom of Speech in the USA is propaganda. Which says it all right there, you can talk all the smack you want about the US, call it whatever you want, and there's nothing they can do. People who complain about Free Speech being a lie and propaganda really prove just how free speech in the US is.

reply

[–] beckmen 16 years ago

I wasn't shouting anything out, and it wasn't for shock value. I was having a private conversation with my friends, and some uptight soccer mom bitched to the management. I didn't say anything that Julie White didn't also say in the mega-hit Transformers, two years ago. A PG-13 film that millions of children and families saw.

As for dissent...tell that to all of the peaceful protesters that have been arrested. Freedom of speech, unless somebody decides they don't want to hear it.

As I said, things are not black and white. I made it out to be worse than it is, because I am prone to hyperbole.

-------
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Beckmen

reply

[–] Jokko453 16 years ago

Pizza Hut is a privately owned institution. They can kick you out if they want to.

reply

[–] jaker_breaker 16 years ago

Was that meant to disprove his point? Because you did the opposite.

"Yeah, there's freedom of speech!"
"I was thrown out of Pizza Hut for saying 'masturbation' in a quiet conversation."
"Well, that's their right."

That's freedom to say most words, but if we don't like a particular word you've said, you're out, not Freedom of Speech.

reply

[–] Princess_Darkness86 16 years ago

Well, it is their right, it's private property, right? it's not the US public property
It's like i'm in your house, and start calling you names, then you try to throw me out, and i say it's unfair, because i have a freedom of speech.
but if we were outside, on PUBLIC property, i can tell you pretty much all i want, right??

reply

[–] Kredom 15 years ago

There is a freedom of speech, not a freedom of harassment. Freedom of speech gives you the right to have your own opinions and discuss them, not the right to threaten people, badmouth a cop, etc. If you get thrown out of Pizza Hut doesn't matter. It's allowed to spill liquid in America, isn't it? It doesn't mean people will like you spilling liquid in their store on purpose. You guys obviously don't know what freedom of speech is, and think it's the right to be some annoying brat.

reply

[–] Can_a_bitch_get_a_donut 16 years ago

Also: *beep* *beep* *beep* Whoops. I guess this US website doesn't really believe in freedom of speech, either.

Fail.
Not a US website.

---
It's a threesome if you use both hands.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DoctorJayTrotter 13 years ago

Fail.
Not a US website.

Wrong. IMDb is owned and operated by Amazon.com, a US company. Do a little research next time before you arbitrarily drop the word "Fail" like some 12-year-old.

Granted, IMDb has it's roots in the old Usenet databases compiled by Col Needham (who is British) which led to the old uk.imdb.com and us.imdb.com websites, IMDb as a whole was long ago taken over by Amazon.com. Also, granted Col Needham remains as the CEO of the company, but he is a classic case of being a sell-out and a puppet as he allowed American pop-culture (particularly that of Hollywood) to take over and dominate the site, as anyone who was around during the previous eras of IMDb will tell you.

reply

[–] radiotheatre-1 16 years ago

The issue is very simple: The right to free speech is not a right to a platform for that speech.

Certain utterances made on private property may have private consequences. It depends on the values of whom you are around and who represents or owns that property.

For you to claim your "freedom of speech"" was violated because you "can't" yell "masturbation" in a Pizza Hut, is to say that the owner of that Pizza Hut has no property rights.

Anytime there appears to be a conflict of rights, check your premises.

Freedom of speech only pertains to limiting the government from coercing you [i.e: fines and imprisonment] for what you say --- with the exception of defamation, of course. It does not pertain to how other people will treat you if you choose to be an ignoramus about social politeness at a family restaurant, or in general.

[This issue reared its head some years ago when defenders of the Dixie Chicks claimed that group was "censored". This was after some radio stations stopped playing their music due to views on the Iraq war that the Dixie Chicks had expressed. This all had nothing at all to do with government, and yet many people made it out to be an issue of "freedom of speech". In fact, it was merely an example of other people [radio station owners and operators] exercising their own freedom of speech by choosing to not give a platform to a group who's views they did not support.]

reply

[–] chrisplace-1 16 years ago

Ignoring the masturbation issue here on the pizza hut;

it's very simple, freedom of speech must be allowed, no cencorship, and nobody should be jailed, shot or beaten by it, but this happens alot because this so called ''freedom of speech'' kinda screws the other's from screwing others over and ruling a country.

It's as simple as that, freedom of speech is dying and this movie repressented it.

reply

[–] theghost92-1 15 years ago

FOS is only protected if you are in the minority.

reply

[–] cinesimonj 15 years ago

Free speech in America is simply the right to speak free from government interference. That's it.
It's about the government not being allowed to stop you speaking - unless of course you're inciting violence or other criminal behavior.
Whether the speaker is a part of a minority group or not is completely irrelevant.

reply

[–] HappyHappyJoyJoy-1 15 years ago

I always love how many people cling to their "Freedom of Speech" yet have no concept of what it is, or what it's limits are. I think there are a lot of people really, really, really need to read the Constitution, and maybe just ONE of the EULAa they we all frequently encounter on the Internet (including while signing up for this site) before they digitally sign the contract.

reply

[–] cinesimonj 15 years ago

Indeed...
And it's very sad that the very people constantly claiming their rights to free speech are being attacked, are the folk who claim to be the ultimate defenders of the constitution?
You know of whom I'm speaking...

reply

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 15 years ago

If you're talking about students getting upset, the problem there, in my view, is that the students are creating a disruption/chaos in the classroom. They should be quiet and listen while someone presents a paper, and then say something during a question and answer period after the paper is presented, or present their own views in their own papers.

If you're talking about legal repercussions, I do not agree there should be any. I also do not agree that the initiation of nonconsensual violence should be tolerate in response to expressions of free speech.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

reply

[–] flipshoes 13 years ago

> Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from
> taking responsibility for what you have said.

I cannot believe you truly mean this. What you are conveying is basically a kind of Stalinist "freedom of speech": Comrade, you can do whatever you want but you have to be aware that you may be punished afterwards and sent to a Gulag.

Now, c'm on, that is NO WAY an interpretation of freedom of speech. Real freedom of speech means you can stand up and express even the absurdest points of view (such as the Muslim girl in the movie, or such as people in Hyde Park's Speaker's Corner), and people may be offended or laugh at you - but that's about all that might happen to you.

Now a situation as depicted in the movie is a clear breach of any freedom of speech, and (believe me, I have been to more than one country in the world) the U.S. set a rather bad example (mind you, I am only addressing freedom of speech, nothing else here), as compared to many other western countries.

reply

[–] ShotgunRex 13 years ago

Liberals believe freedom of speech is reserved for them only. You'll notice they say something and don't want any backlash, but a conservative says something and libs do all they can to crucify that person. Ironic huh?

reply

[–] TheSummer2012 12 years ago

The issue of freedom of speech is quite complex. A lot of it depends on context. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre isn't covered by free speech (to use the old example) and rightly so. The same goes for certain insults, pornography and so on. Freedom of speech is limited by law, e.g. public order legislation, laws for the protection of minors, etc.

It is also undeniable that the landscape has changed since 9/11 and freedom of speech has suffered.

One of many examples is the case of Brit Paul Chambers who sent a humorous tweet about delays at an airport. He tweeted: "Cr*p! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your sh*t together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

He was subsequently prosecuted under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits sending "by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character". He was convicted at first instance but acquitted on appeal to the High Court, but he lost his job as a result.

Back to the film: I don't think it was so much free speech that was the issue here with the girl who showed understanding for the 9/11 bombers. But her writings in class and the evidence uncovered at her home (diary entries, accessing certain websites and chat rooms) meant that she was deemed a risk. Since she wasn't an American citizen, they decided to deport her.

As for ShotgunRex' comment (i.e., that many on the Left cry freedom of speech but won't accept freedom of speech for the Right): I think there is probably some truth in that.

reply

[–] SteveH2002 12 years ago

I don't think it was so much free speech that was the issue here with the girl who showed understanding for the 9/11 bombers.

I agree, unless and until you include Hate Speech laws. I agree the girl had a legal right to speak in sympathy with the terrorist bombers, however, the speech of the students immediately following her talk - stuff about a camel, wearing a towel around her head, something like that - could have been construed as hate speech, speech used against a certain group intended to incite violence. So, the girl's speech was allowed, some of the things the students said in reaction were in a gray zone.

reply