Free Speech v. Illegal Speech: Analogous?

[Duemellon]

Page last updated at 11:59 GMT, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 12:59 UK
Turkish singer tried over dissent (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7460649.stm)

One of Turkey's best known singers, Bulent Ersoy, has gone on trial charged with attempting to turn the public against military service.

The charges were brought after she suggested it was not worth sacrificing soldiers' lives in Turkey's conflict with the Kurdish separatist PKK group.

The transsexual singer made her comments on television last February.

The army was conducting a major operation against the PKK in northern Iraq at the time.

...

Criticism risky
Hakkan Ozgur, one of those who submitted an official complaint against her, was in court for the start of the trial.

"The Turkish military is fighting a war on terror," he said.

says the BBC's Sarah Rainsford in Istanbul.

"I believe making propaganda against this is illegal. It creates doubts in people over whether to go to the military. It sows doubt in the minds of those whose children are already serving."

"The lives of our soldiers are at stake."

[Duemellon]

Similarities to our own? Dissimilarities?

I mean, they're obvious. Still, I think it's an interesting thing to show when someone has the guts to say what the feel in the face of legal ramifications & compare it to the social pressure we have for conformity which prevents people saying what they want even though it's legally protected.

[Shlep]

Similarities to our own? Dissimilarities?

To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single American drag queen that has managed to crack the charts since RuPaul released Supermodel (You Better Work) in 1993, and even *that* peaked at #45. And I'm not about to start holding my breath in anticipation of Boy Georges' triumphant return to Top 40 radio.

Beyond that, there's not much of a comparison.

I mean, they're obvious.

Of course they are. But just for fun, let's pretend I can't really think of any-- at least any good ones-- and you point them out.

Still, I think it's an interesting thing to show when someone has the guts to say what the feel in the face of legal ramifications & compare it to the social pressure we have for conformity which prevents people saying what they want even though it's legally protected.

You may have perhaps noticed that according to the article, Mr./Mrs. Esroy was granted a continuance and had the opening of his/her trial shoved back a few months on the grounds that the original date conflicted with the date of a concert he/she could not bear to miss. If this is how the Turkish legal system lowers the boom on people these days, I am astounded. Maybe it's because I watched Midnight Express on scrambled cable channels one too many times as a kid, but I would have expected her/him to fare worse.

Beyond that: claiming that people in this country tend to be precluded from speaking out against our government, our military, and the efforts of both to combat terrorism by some undercurrent of "social conformity" is preposterous. In reality, a significant percentage of people in this country (paticularly among our own entertainment community) can't seem to shut up when it comes to pissing and moaning about how awful everything is while any number number of high schools, colleges, and even the occasional town have undertaken to shut military recruiters out of their environs in the hope that it will make it harder than it already is for them to meet their quota of warm bodies in uniforms.

[Tweak Tweak]

In reality, a significant percentage of people in this country (paticularly among our own entertainment community) can't seem to shut up when it comes to pissing and moaning about how awful everything is while any number number of high schools, colleges, and even the occasional town have undertaken to shut military recruiters out of their environs in the hope that it will make it harder than it already is for them to meet their quota of warm bodies in uniforms.

I understood him to mean the kind of conformist pressure HE brings to bear on people with the audacity to voice their (admittedly unpopular) views on issues like race, genetics and the environment.

[clonE]

Beyond that: claiming that people in this country tend to be precluded from speaking out against our government, our military, and the efforts of both to combat terrorism by some undercurrent of "social conformity" is preposterous. In reality, a significant percentage of people in this country (paticularly among our own entertainment community) can't seem to shut up when it comes to pissing and moaning about how awful everything is while any number number of high schools, colleges, and even the occasional town have undertaken to shut military recruiters out of their environs in the hope that it will make it harder than it already is for them to meet their quota of warm bodies in uniforms.

Generally true, but why did the Dixie Chicks get slapped so hard?

[Predot listener]

Generally true, but why did the Dixie Chicks get slapped so hard?

By whom?

The Chicks voiced their opinions. A whole bunch of Americans who didn't like the Chicks' opinions (the downside to having a base of country music fans) subsequently voiced theirs.

The system worked.

[Breeze]

Generally true, but why did the Dixie Chicks get slapped so hard?
There are always going to be specific instances you can point to, but they don't justify the blanket statement that was made. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with another, more recent example (say, post-2004) of someone getting "slapped," as you put it.

[BOBROX123]

Generally true, but why did the Dixie Chicks get slapped so hard?


http://www.frontpagepublicity.com/dixiechicks/news/073006.html

I know a lot of bands who would love to be slapped so hard.

[clonE]

There are always going to be specific instances you can point to, but they don't justify the blanket statement that was made. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with another, more recent example (say, post-2004) of someone getting "slapped," as you put it.

True. The right to free speech does mean you get to hear all of the responses, and you may not like some of them. There's also no guaruntee that there won't be consequences of what you say. Dissent seems to be a little more bearable these days than it did back then, when we were all excited about having won the the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. [:confused:]

And BobRox also makes a good point that the only bad publicity is no publicity [or is it that there is no such thing as bad publicity?]

Either way, the chicks came back and were on the simpsons this past season with a patriotic tune.

[Duemellon]

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from ramifications. Okay, who's going to argue against that? However, being free to speak is a bit broader than just that, isn't it?

Simply because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to speak up, but silence is considered complicity, right? If there were ten people & eight decided to beat the crap out of 1, the remaining one, if they don't protest nor contribute, are still an observer, not a participant in stopping nor joining. The beating continues regardless of how they feel.

I guess that's one of the things that makes "free speech" not so free. The idea that we aren't able to speek without ramifications, but does that hinder your willingness to speak? Is there internal moral pressure that must find release when you (gen.) see such statements or actions? What if, by speaking up, you gaurantee you will become the next victim? What if, by speaking up, you will loss what stability you have? Is there a tipping point?

What if the other 8 people who were beating that one person all had the same concerns about the morality of the situation but due to an unspoken fear of being the next one,... what if they too are supressing that moral outrage just to not be a target? Wouldn't that mean if someone could allow their concerns to come out, while being protected, that such a beating wouldn't happen?

How much dissention; how many questions; how many new thoughts, are supressed out of fear of that ramifcation even when silence means the world is worse off?

[Shlep]

You have freedom of speech, but not freedom from ramifications. Okay, who's going to argue against that? However, being free to speak is a bit broader than just that, isn't it?

Simply because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to speak up, but silence is considered complicity, right? If there were ten people & eight decided to beat the crap out of 1, the remaining one, if they don't protest nor contribute, are still an observer, not a participant in stopping nor joining. The beating continues regardless of how they feel.

I guess that's one of the things that makes "free speech" not so free. The idea that we aren't able to speek without ramifications, but does that hinder your willingness to speak? Is there internal moral pressure that must find release when you (gen.) see such statements or actions? What if, by speaking up, you gaurantee you will become the next victim? What if, by speaking up, you will loss what stability you have? Is there a tipping point?

What if the other 8 people who were beating that one person all had the same concerns about the morality of the situation but due to an unspoken fear of being the next one,... what if they too are supressing that moral outrage just to not be a target? Wouldn't that mean if someone could allow their concerns to come out, while being protected, that such a beating wouldn't happen?

How much dissention; how many questions; how many new thoughts, are supressed out of fear of that ramifcation even when silence means the world is worse off?

Saying you are not free to dissent unless I am denied the equal and proportional right to say you are wrong for doing so (dissenting against your dissent, if you will) is to turn your argument specifically, and logic in general, on its head.

The genuine freedom to say what you wish or do what you please and the responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions are a package deal, Due; you don't have one without the other. It is logically impossible (not to mention palpably absurd) to say that someone can take one side of an issue, and anyone who disagrees can just shut their big fat yap and lump it if they don't agree, and declare this state of affairs to be unfettered free speech.

[Shlep]

Generally true, but why did the Dixie Chicks get slapped so hard?

I trust you're referring to the backlash that erupted when lead singer Natalie Maines told an audience in Britain during a concert:

http://www.fabdazzle.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/nm.jpg

"Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

To which I would venture to guess that when you're a high-profile, multi-platinum country music act playing a concert in Europe, it's probably not a good idea to try tapping into anti-American sentiment and brown-nose a room full of Brits by declaring that you are on "the good side with y'all" (as opposed to, I guess, the bad side comprised of a healthy chunk of their record-buying fanbase) and professing shame over the fact that the President is a Texan.

Or, not to put too fine a point on it: because Natalie Maines did something astonishingly stupid.

As for getting "slapped so hard:" yes, they pissed a lot of people off, and it cost them some rotation on country music stations and album sales due to the threat of massive boycotts by former fans. As a result of this tragedy, they were merely embraced by a new spectrum of fans, got treated by much of the press as noble martyrs for free speech, and about a year later were cozied up to a profusion of other musicians who were going around the country telling people that if they didn't vote for Kerry, Bush was going to reinstate the draft and ship everyones' able-bodied kids over to Iraq to get killed for oil...which to hear them talk was already happening anyway. They were later the subject of a fawning documentary movie detailing their travails, and last I heard were still millionaires with prosperous careers in the music biz.

[the happy prole]

The genuine freedom to say what you wish or do what you please and the responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions are a package deal, Due; you don't have one without the other.

Yes, you can and you should. There would be something wrong with a society where 8 people are beating up a guy and no one dares speak up and denounce that action for fear of physical reprisal themselves.

We may not think of that as a typical free-speech issue, but it is in an indirect way. There are certain actions which are simply not acceptable consequences for simple speech.

I should never get my ass kicked for saying the Redskins suck. As a practical matter, it's an entirely foreseeable consequence around here. I would be a complete dumbass to go to a bar and insult the Redskins and think it won't cause problems. But it still doesn't excuse the behavior of those who carry out the violence. I should never be forced to accept that response as appropriate.

Due's example was an extreme one that doesn't involve a boycott, rudeness, ignoring someone or presenting a dissenting opinion. Perhaps it's not very realistic, but I think he purposely chose that to illustrate a point.

There are limits to what is acceptable civil discourse/disagreement, both legally and morally.

[Shlep]

Yes, you can and you should. There would be something wrong with a society where 8 people are beating up a guy and no one dares speak up and denounce that action for fear of physical reprisal themselves.

We may not think of that as a typical free-speech issue, but it is in an indirect way. There are certain actions which are simply not acceptable consequences for simple speech.

I should never get my ass kicked for saying the Redskins suck. As a practical matter, it's an entirely foreseeable consequence around here. I would be a complete dumbass to go to a bar and insult the Redskins and think it won't cause problems. But it still doesn't excuse the behavior of those who carry out the violence. I should never be forced to accept that response as appropriate.

Due's example was an extreme one that doesn't involve a boycott, rudeness, ignoring someone or presenting a dissenting opinion. Perhaps it's not very realistic, but I think he purposely chose that to illustrate a point.

There are limits to what is acceptable civil discourse/disagreement, both legally and morally.

I think we can agree that eight people throwing a vicious boot party for a hapless ninth person is never something found in the realm of civil, intelligent discourse.

[Predot listener]

Yes, you can and you should. There would be something wrong with a society where 8 people are beating up a guy and no one dares speak up and denounce that action for fear of physical reprisal themselves.

We may not think of that as a typical free-speech issue, but it is in an indirect way. There are certain actions which are simply not acceptable consequences for simple speech.

I should never get my ass kicked for saying the Redskins suck. As a practical matter, it's an entirely foreseeable consequence around here. I would be a complete dumbass to go to a bar and insult the Redskins and think it won't cause problems. But it still doesn't excuse the behavior of those who carry out the violence. I should never be forced to accept that response as appropriate.

Due's example was an extreme one that doesn't involve a boycott, rudeness, ignoring someone or presenting a dissenting opinion. Perhaps it's not very realistic, but I think he purposely chose that to illustrate a point.


There are limits to what is acceptable civil discourse/disagreement, both legally and morally.


I don't know THP. Both yours and Due's examples don't seem like free speech issues to me, but conduct ones. In Due's example, the 10th person may be equally frozen from remaining mum but intervening physically for just the same reason. It's not the words that are being suppressed, but the action.

As for yours, how is that different from a woman deciding not to walk home alone after 2 a.m. in a tough neighborhood. She should be free to do that without consequences, but we all have an understanding that there are some people who act outside the law and adjust our own behavior accordingly.

[Duemellon]

I don't know THP. Both yours and Due's examples don't seem like free speech issues to me, but conduct ones.I was using an example of violent behavior that we could all agree was "unjust" & should've been stopped.

However, what if it's just a socially accepted, but horrible, idea? An idea that has actual consequences but you're pressured to supress your concerns to ensure your own security, prosperity, or sovereignty? Wait, I think I should've said socially "enforced", instead of merely accepted.

I'm not just talking about things that make people appear ackward because they have a different opinion, but things that we "know" are unjust but are pressured by society to be quiet about.As for yours, how is that different from a woman deciding not to walk home alone after 2 a.m. in a tough neighborhood. She should be free to do that without consequences, but we all have an understanding that there are some people who act outside the law and adjust our own behavior accordingly.Your example focuses more on a behavior that should be protected by law, or something she's doing & someone else makes a decision to do wrong as a reaction to her.It is because she is there that the person decided to take advantage of the situation.What about situations where the normal behavior is "bad" & you want to say something but know you'll get in trouble if you do?

Your ability to protest may be legally protected. Their option to reciprocate may be legally protected. But the behavior they're doing doesn't change to being righteous, benevolent, or good.

It's about finding that ratio you can live with between your internal moral pressure to say something & weighing the social pressure you have for silence, complicity, or participation. It's about how much silence you can stand in the face of outrageous injustices.

[the happy prole]

I think we can agree that eight people throwing a vicious boot party for a hapless ninth person is never something found in the realm of civil, intelligent discourse.

True. Which was why it was used as an example.

If you want something more practical, I think most of us would agree that Tweak Tweak's shit doesn't fall in the realm of civil intelligent discourse either. And yet, despite a banning here he is still stinking up the joint.

At some point, people just stop posting and reading the boards because they're sick of all the bullshit. That means that good ideas might not get heard.

As a practical matter, you can ask people to toughen up and not be so sensitive or else not post. Or to not antagonize the wrong crowd. But all that means is that it's a shouting match or flame war. The winner in such a "marketplace of ideas" is not the best idea, but rather the ones that are shouted out the loudest or rudest. That's a loss of efficiency.

Essentially putting up with tweak tweak's crap is an artificial barrier to entry.

[Duemellon]

The "free speech" aspect of the 8-person beating isn't "the beating" but the pressure on the one person from inside by their own moral compass versus the pressure from the outside (other 8) to be silent or participate contrary to their own moral compass.

The actual "beating" part could be swapped out with anything that one person finds amoral & the threat of the 8 beating that person as reprecussions could be swapped out with any "legal" action(s) they could take.

Making it physical violence was meant to appeal to the clear immorality of the situation.

More Dry Example
In other words, take 10 people. 8 of them decide to do something immoral to 1 of them (victim), which still falls into the territory of expected/acceptible behavior in that 9-person crowd.

The last one decides that it's immoral but realizes that if they don't participate the immoral act will happen anyway. Pretty much making their non-participation feel like complicity (immoral) to themselves.

If they protest, the 9-person crowd (including the victim) may, in turn extend their immoral action to include them or simply excommunicate, harass, or begin to work through legal means to make life miserable for them if they did speak out.

Probable Reasons Some May Have Difficulty With the Analogy
I know people will want to go back in & make arguments or judgments on the fact that the 8-person action is immoral & should be illegal, or at least, socially unnacceptible, but that's part of the thing. There were laws, guides, & social behaviors we can see historically which were immoral or destructive, yet at the time they existed they were the norm & deviation from them was taboo & would bring suffering to those who actively protested.

Then when it comes to the "punitive" stage from the 9-person crowd as a reaction to the 1-person's protest, we start thinking that's illegal or immoral too. However, society & laws at those times of those historically immoral & destructive behaviors, allowed for such ostrazation, punishment, & other behaviors.

[markalot]

Essentially putting up with tweak tweak's crap is an artificial barrier to entry.

Many people use that lame argument to try and eliminate views they don't like.

There is an ignore filter here, you don't have to get beat up.

[the happy prole]

Many people use that lame argument to try and eliminate views they don't like.

There is an ignore filter here, you don't have to get beat up.

Sure. I can ignore Tweak Tweak, and then he can come up with another new user name. And I can ignore that, etc. Is it really productive? The winner of this battle is not the one with the best idea, but rather the one who is most obnoxious in pursuing it. That's not really the way it's supposed to work. And keep in mind, it's not always so easy to ignore people in real life.

And instead of everyone having to ignore the stink in the room, why can't someone just tell Orville to shut his mouth?

But-- I also see your point. I mean, why should I have to listen to Due, either? His argument to some extent hinges upon the notion if I tell Due to shut it, I'm really creating an environment of hostility not to him, but to a whole group of silenced minorities. I'm a minority myself, but not many of Due's views on race reflect mine. And no, no one should have to listen to me either. I'm no different than anyone else.

I'm just saying that at some level, Due has a point. Your freedom of speech will inevitably clash with my freedom of speech, because no one can hear anything in a room where everyone is shouting. Moreover, your freedom of speech impinges on my freedom FROM speech.

I don't really have a solution for this, but I'm just saying there's a flaw in the notion that you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. As technology changes, the rules for discourse seem to be changing as well. Which is okay, but sometimes people lose sight of the fact that there should be rules for civil discourse. The government gives you freedom of speech. Use it responsibly.

[Duemellon]

I think what you are getting at is herd behavior/mob mentality/groupthink or whatever you want to call it. I don't find much in common with it vs. the state apparatus arresting you for not going along with the flow, as in Turkey.Yes, you're right, I'm comparing social pressures/rights versus leglislated pressures/rights, but in the same I'm recognizing their similarities in effect & it's noteworthy to say that social laws & leglislation often have an effect on each other.

If you think something is rude or offensive, you could possibly file for an battery charge. If you reacted in a violent way to verbal battery, you could be acquitted or have a reduced sentence by the judicial system who is sympathetic to your reaction. Many times, being censored/overlooked by the media, corporations, or in-house business communications, has nothing to do with legislated laws, but in effect, prevent your view from being heard as often as those contrary to you.

Making the distinction between herd-pressure & legal pressures, is important, but also it's important to point out if the end-result is the same.