Freedom of Expression

[OverMind]

Prelude:

Looking through most of the recently active topics, only one seems to justify debate (The one discussing Israel's existence; opinions will definitely be polarized here) while the others seem to unify opinion (i.e. Female rape is wrong (even though it feels so right), animals were meant to be eaten and the age of consent should be obliged).

So, it's time for another thread which, hopefully, will polarize opinion, cause debate and, with any luck, cause some disgruntled poster to throw his computer out the window. When that happens, I know my mission has succeeded (Lord knows how many times I've failed with all of my other threads).

And now to the good stuff:

Well, I'm sure most of you will agree that Freedom of Expression should be a fundamental right for every human being on the planet. The UN thinks so, with the Declaration of Human Rights, but then again who cares what the UN thinks? They're all about ideals, not about action. But, like a broken clock, even the UN can be right some of the time. It makes sense that a person should not be stopped from speaking their mind if they want to.

But, should Freedom of Expression have limits? It seems kind of contradictory to state that a people are free to express themselves in whatever way they like ... and then put conditions on it. That doesn't really seem like freedom to me.

I'm talking about things like "hate speech" and even protesting in the nude. In some places where Freedom of Expression is thought of as an available right, it is a criminal offense to express yourself in certain ways. But, when you get down to the guts of it, it's just words, pictures, or simply a public display. It seems silly for a person to be thrown in jail for combining a few words into a sentence that offends someone.

Where do we draw the line!??

Also, logically, I'm anti-censorship and I cringe anytime "swear words" are bleeped out or images are blurred. What? Does partially obscuring something while trying to keep the same intended meaning make it less "offensive" somehow?

Anyways, my point, I support absolute Freedom of Expression. I may not agree with whatever or however someone expresses themselves, but I would never take their right to so away. Never. It could be the most racist rhetoric or the grossest insinuation ever, but it's ultimately an expression of one's self. If you're really offended, you can close your eyes, cup your ears with your hands, or just walk away. No one's holding you down, so why force your moral outlook on those that don't have a problem with it?

[OverMind]

Children.

Mmm, what about them?

[OverMind]

Non-censorship allows publicly lewd behaviour, and can negatively impact the psyche of children, leading to 8 year old nymphomaniacs.

I don't see how someone protesting in the nude can fundamentally alter a child's development or turn them into nymphomaniacs.

[OverMind]

Well, censoring obscene acts is part of censorship for the greater good. What you're against isn't censorship in any form. It's censoring in a way that doesn't help normal people in any real way, and is just part of an agenda to turn everyone into bees.

In that case, you would believe that making it so 8 people can't have sex with one woman in public where everyone can see is good censorship, and censoring nudists that aren't being sexual is a bad thing.

I'm discussing Freedom of Expression; i.e. trying to get a message across. What message is exactly being spread when people are having sex in public?

Let's try to keep everything in context, shall we? I can just see the potential for someone to start arguing that my ideas of absolute Freedom of Expression can be used to justify murder - since it was so-and-so's expression of oneself and it was done in public!

So, to be clear, I'm for all sorts of Freedom of Expression where a message is being spread and no one's hurt. When I made reference to nudism, I was referring to things like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solstice_Cyclists).

[OverMind]

...So you're saying if someone painted, "Elect Obama/Al Gore/Clinton" on their 5 year olds' naked bodies and had them march in a parade, it would be okay because they got a point across and weren't raped as a result?

Isn't that child abuse?

Like I said, I don't agree with hurting someone and justifying it by saying that it's freedom of expression.

[Bluetune]

:squintyface:

Freedom of expression? Whats that?

can you define it for me?

It sounds ridiculous at first glance.

[OverMind]

How is that hurting them? I see no physical injuries on them.

I don't agree with manipulating a child to parade around naked to spread one's own political opinions. Heck, I don't agree with manipulating a child to do anything for one's own ends.

I wouldn't know the specific circumstances something like this would happen in, but I'm quite sure children don't have political opinions (or, at the least, are not competent to make them). The only way I can see someone convincing a child, whose likely embarrassed about revealing him/herself in the first place, is coercing them through guilt or something. I'd view this as child abuse.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I was talking about the whole "hate speech" thing with a friend of mine over a week ago and he said that we're kind of at a point in our culture where we don't always know what's hate speech and what's simply expressing your beliefs.

The issue of homosexuality is a big one. I guess it's banned in some places to preach against homosexual sex because that's discriminating (correct me if I'm wrong). But isn't it also discriminating to say that Christians aren't allowed to express their beliefs on a particular issue? Are we really allowed to shut our ears and accuse those who have different opinions from us as haters? Granted a number of Christians aren't exactly charitable about the issue to begin with, but if you have a civil opinion about the matter, even if it goes against what gay rights activists believe, is it really "hate speech?"

What exactly defines hate speech anyways? I see it as verbally assaulting someone and calling them names and such. But even that's a bit vague.

By the way, I don't mean to turn this into another homosexuality thread, so I'd encourage people to not take it that way, but rather use my example as a way to talk about the topic at hand.

I'm also generally anti-censorship, although not entirely. Parents should just do their job and do their own censoring.

[OverMind]

The funny thing is, this whole idea of a topic originated in the Israel thread. Specifically, I don't understand how simply denying the holocaust, and spreading materials on the matter, is grounds to throw someone in jail. Mind you, I don't agree with them, but I'm not going to advocate making them spend a chunk of their life behind bars for thinking or saying differently. That's just absurd. No one has the right to police what you believe in, or what you think.

[OverMind]

Unless what you're doing is harming others?

Sounds quite Utilitarian.

Harming ... like hurting their feelings?

[EdBat]

Nothing wrong with nudity. We all have one set or the other.

As far as homosexuality on TV, your birds and bees talk should include being attracted to the same sex.

And yes, I believe people have the right to express themselves even if it's hate, just give me the right to call them stupid if the point they are trying to get across is in fact, stupid.

[Bluetune]

:squintyface:

Freedom of expression? Whats that?

can you define it for me?

It sounds ridiculous at first glance.

I'm not being sarcastic either I'm serious

[EdBat]

No, you can think that raping is okay, so you can rape several women. Then your ideas and the acts themselves should be policed.

No, that's injuring someone else to get your point across. :8V:

[EdBat]

Not if there's no vaginal tearing. Then it's possible that there will be no injuries that are physical present.

Disagree. The emotional trauma and the force used to restrain someone while they are resisting are evidence of physical abuse.

Also let's get this back on topic.

[OverMind]

No, you can think that raping is okay, so you can rape several women. Then your ideas and the acts themselves should be policed.

You're confusing what I'm saying.

I have no qualms with a person expressing their interest in rape, or even believing rape is okay. I fully support their right to spread materials advocating rape. In fact, I'm sure you can find some pornography that's rape-themed and, thus, misogynistic.

But, as soon as such a person tries to hurt someone, they should be sent to jail.

Like I said, there's a difference between expressing one's self (via ideas) and actually doing something illegal.

[EdBat]

Emotional trauma does not equal physical abuse. It's emotional abuse. Huge world of difference.

Forcing someone to do something sexual is sexual assault/rape. Not physical assault. Possibly kidnapping, but it's possible that there will be no physical harm at all if done correctly.

The emotional trauma was not referring to the physical abuse.
Also, rape is considered a violent crime.

Regardless this is not what to topic is and stop derailing the thread please.

[OverMind]

@OverMind: Reread what I said. As long as it's not harming someone, it's fine to express yourself.

I got the impression that you think certain forms of expression should be curbed because the ideas themselves ultimately lead to action.

Basically, and I'll simplify what I mean, you said this:

No, you can think that raping is okay, so you can rape several women. Then your ideas and the acts themselves should be policed.

I agree that acts should be policed, but I don't agree that ideas should be policed. But, of course, this whole thread is just about ideas ... I'm not talking about actions.

[Bluetune]

If someone thinks the holocaust is fake I think they should be allowed to say so.

But only if I'm allowed to call him/her an idiot.

[Bluetune]

Part of expressing yourself is telling jokes

Friend say: "Well He sounds like a flaming communist"

I say: "I would love to flame some communists, but I'm afraid that they'd share the wealth."

[EdBat]

Well, I mean after the fact. In corrections.

As for EdBat, don't act like a mod here. It's not derailing the thread. Certain things get off-track, yes, but that's the nature of this sort of thing. It's indirectly related to the topic at hand. When trying to make points, I do this sort of thing. Telling me I can't connect rape to this is completely wrong.

Allow me to explain.

A certain belief is that censoring is bad in all its forms. However, preventing certain actions can be seen as a form of censorship. In that case, which should be prevented? Rape is one that I'm questioning about.

Now, using a simplified version of OverMind's opinion,you should only censor actions that will harm others, basically. But what extent does harm encompass? Do thoughts harm others? Do actions harm others? Are they only necessarily physical or can they be emotional? These are questions that I'm asking through my very, very easy question of rape. I shouldn't start with something hard to ask. This should be easy.

The way it looks like, imo, is that when you're losing, you simply tell me to stop posting because you're losing and don't want to lose, using the derailing as an excuse. If this is not intended, I retract this, but that's how it feels.

No, you're going into a debate on the logistics of rape and it's not necessary for this topic, and I will mod what I feel needs to be modded. Any more discussion of this can be moved into PMs. Once again I'll ask you not to derail the thread, and this is an official warning.

On topic:
I agree with the way overmind sees things. Thoughts cannot hurt people. Actions can.

[EdBat]

...Okay, back on topic. Censorship.

Should I be censored like this because I have a different opinion than EdBat and have pretty much proven her to be a... tyrannical woman?

You're not being censored. You are free to make another thread discussing the other topic, I'm just trying to get this thread back on track.

[darkarcher]

Quit your squabbling, you two.

On-topic. I agree with the freedom of expression under the confines of time, place, and manner restrictions. A person should not be censored because of their beliefs alone unless their expression is done so in a manner that harms somebody else physically or emotionally (I am considering emotional harm to be different from merely being offended in this case).

Time and place restrictions are obvious. There are certain situations in which it is publicly inappropriate to express oneself. For example, I doubt many people would find it wrong for the police to censor somebody going down a residential street shouting through a bullhorn in the middle of the night. Once again, they should not be censored for their thoughts alone.

As far as "hate speech" goes, I think that once again it should not be an issue as long as the manner in which it is done is peaceful and it is not accompanied by hateful actions as well.

[Rugal]

Due to SR's bullshit;
http://up.mibbit.com/up/rfgMpzQi.jpg

[JesusRocks]

I would just like to thank OverMind for using the term "Freedom of Expression" and not the bizarrely narrow term "freedom of speech".

Also, I am of the opinion that there should be a limit to a person's freedom of expression, just as I am of the opinion that there should be qualifications to many of the rights and freedoms that we have.
Very few of our human rights are absolute rights. Most of them are qualified, i.e. there are exceptions to them, and circumstances in which those rights can be legitimately curtailed.

Since it's similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let's take a look at the ECHR (the European Convention on Human Rights):
Article 2: Right to Life = Absolute
Article 3: Prohibition of Torture = Absolute
Article 4: Prohibition of Slavery = Absolute
Article 5: Right to Liberty = Qualified
Article 6: Right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judiciary = Absolute
Article 7: No Punishment without Law = Absolute
Article 8: Right to a Private and Family Life = Qualified
Article 9: Freedom of Conscience, Thought and Religion = Qualified
Article 10: Freedom of Expression = Qualified
Article 11: Freedom of Assembly = Qualified
Article 12: Right to Marry = Qualified
Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy = Qualified
Article 14: Rights are to be Enjoyed without Discrimination

Protocol 1: Right to the peaceful enjoyment of property = Qualified
Protocol 2: Right to an Education = Qualified (in that, this does not guarantee any quality standard)
Protocol 3: Right to regular, free and fair elections = Qualified
Protocol 13: Prohibition of the Death Penalty = Absolute

(used both my own lecture notes, subsidised by wikipedia and this website: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/secretariats/economic_and_domestic/legislative_programme/guide_html/echr.aspx
- and before you criticise my use of wikipedia, Wikipedia is an excellent resource if you already know the answers, other than that it's useless for any serious debate)

I happen to agree that there should be qualifications on certain rights. Yes, a utilitarian would argue that we should not qualify any of those rights because we should be able to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
But how do we define harm? Physical only? do we include the psychological? What about things that are criminal offences now, such as having sex in a public place? - technically that's a form of expression, should we allow people to have sex in full view of children, saying to ourselves "they'll learn about it anyway"?
Yeah, sure sex may be a beautiful thing, but there is a place for it, which is not in a public park (or on the lawn in front of Windsor Castle (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/article2404128.ece))...

There has to be some common sense, and to prevent our rights and freedoms from clashing with the rights and freedoms of other people, we need some qualification to certain rights, under certain circumstances.
Because that is inevitable. It is inevitable that our rights will clash with another person's rights. A person's (Article 14) right to not be discriminated against will inevitably clash with, say, the BNP leader's right to freedom of expression.
If we make all rights absolute, then we will run into problems, that is why so many fundamental human rights are not absolute.
I think this is also why it is important that our rights are not absolute.

[OverMind]

The problem with "qualifications" is that you're drawing an arbitrary line everywhere. Sure, you're outlawing sexual acts in public makes "sense", but why exactly? You briefly mentioned "children" and "there being place for it", but that seems more like the common sense approach ingrained with a conservative upbringing than anything rational.

Now, is a child scarred after witnessing a sexual act done in public? Possibly, it's a gray area. I'd think that a flasher would likely cause actual harm than say an anonymous couple caught in a park. In this way, I'm more of the viewpoint that we shouldn't ban sexual acts in public altogether but the ones that actually do cause harm.

Basically, if you can show me how a child witnessing a couple going at it could psychologically harm him, then I'd agree that an outright ban should be put in place under Freedom of Expression laws. Of course, I'd also like you to justify why just sex and not, say, violence should be prohibited under Freedom of Expression laws even though it is justified for sports like Boxing or even Bullfighting while having the same case against it for potentially harming a child, psychologically.

[JesusRocks]

The problem with "qualifications" is that you're drawing an arbitrary line everywhere. Sure, you're outlawing sexual acts in public makes "sense", but why exactly? You briefly mentioned "children" and "there being place for it", but that seems more like the common sense approach ingrained with a conservative upbringing than anything rational.

Now, is a child scarred after witnessing a sexual act done in public? Possibly, it's a gray area. I'd think that a flasher would likely cause actual harm than say an anonymous couple caught in a park. In this way, I'm more of the viewpoint that we shouldn't ban sexual acts in public altogether but the ones that actually do cause harm.

Basically, if you can show me how a child witnessing a couple going at it could psychologically harm him, then I'd agree that an outright ban should be put in place under Freedom of Expression laws. Of course, I'd also like you to justify why just sex and not, say, violence should be prohibited under Freedom of Expression laws even though it is justified for sports like Boxing or even Bullfighting while having the same case against it for potentially harming a child, psychologically.

Ah, you see... in response to the bit in bold type... the bit about sex was just an example that I pulled out of the ether, as was the part about children... the reason I only mentioned them briefly, was because they were only meant to be mentioned in passing, as hypothetical examples... the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment, if you like...

However, like I said, since it was spur of the moment, I did neglect to mention something very, amazingly important.
A private individual cannot breach the human rights of another private individual
Only a public body, or a private body with a public capacity is capable of breaching human rights

So a lot of what I said about contrasting human rights was probably nonsense. But I do believe a distinction needs to be drawn. Public bodies are under a positive duty to protect the human rights of individuals. Protecting every individuals human rights becomes impossible when none of these are qualifiable under any circumstances.
Considering the levels of censorship in the rest of the world though, I do think that Europe and the North American continent have very lax qualifications on freedom of expression, in comparison...
On the topic of holocaust denial, it's only in central to eastern europe that it's actually a criminal offense I think...

A lot of people complain at religious groups for shoving beliefs down their throats. I'm sure you wouldn't like that, I know I wouldn't. The guy down Romford shouting about hellfire and brimstone never made me want to become a Christian, in fact quite the opposite. So why tolerate other types of groups like extremist political groups and the like, trying to shove their beliefs down your throat in an agressive manner?
These groups do voice their views... but hate messages aren't particularly conductive to society. Personally I would much rather walk along a high street listening to the general sounds of the high street, instead of hearing someone shouting down a megaphone that they hate this or that people group.
Someone's bound to take offense to it, and some form of criminal offense will be committed. It's almost inevitable that the person making these threats will be attacked, because although you or I can walk on by and politely and reasonably disagree with that person's views (whilst maybe wishing they'd stop being so damn loud)... not all that many people can, far less now in fact, in an age where you get killed for looking at someone funny...

I shall continue this comment later, as my laptop batteries are running low....

[Fat1Fared]

JR, yay for english law teaching us how to think ^_^ I'm joking, I agree 100% (well other utilitarian bit, think got wrong group there,) with first part, but not read second yet, however going to put my own less edicated view down now anyway

Now, I'm very liberalistic in many of my views about the world, but even I agree there is limits and lines that cannot or should not be crossed. First I think we need to look at the Freedom of Expression Act, itself:-

Now, because I'm being Lazy (just had several hours doing moot, ironically on peoples freedom to expression in sedo massiaism) I'm going to just put my own short abbreviated version, so dont' take this as proper law or anything:-

Freedom of Expression=:-

Private=The Right to express yourself, through ether speech or action, in any way you wish, unless expressing an action outside your law or you endanger others.

Public=The Right to express yourself, through ether speech or action, in any way you wish, as long as your expression will not cause danger to public or yourself or insight social tensions or breach the rights of others.


Now put public and private, as is difference between them.
=In private, you have right to express anything, unless basically your expressing plans to break law or do harm to others (which most of time, will break law anyway, but not always)
=In public however your rights are limited a lot more and this is because things you maybe able to safely express in your own abode, in public may cause offense or even insight voilience and break the social peace we have. This is why you can express many of your opinions, but if your opinions are ones which will cause dangerous situations to arise, then it will not be allowed, even if say isn't your intent to cause such situation.

Now this is very utilitarian view, that safety of group, overrides the right of the few, but at same time, it does make sense. I mean is "right" to allow a racist to cause racial tensions between groups in his area, causing harm to not only those involved, but probably those who are not involved as well.

You must also look at part about not breaching the rights of others, which partly overrides freedom of expression, as not only does everyone have a right to a peaceful and private life (which could be breached by this, if causes troubles noted above) you also have a right not to be insulted or injured through the actions of others (cannot remember proper wording, but more serious than what I put) and this too, can be breached by misplaced expression. IE Again I will use the racist example, is it fair, to allow a peaceful member of the racial group being expressed against negatively, to hear such things said against them and their ethic group?

-However on the flip side, there does need to be a balance, as poeple should be allowed to express their opinions, even if their opinions are unsavory ones to wider society, as part of being sentient is right to make own view of the world and so when get cases where poeple are banned from speaking anti-muslin views despite their being clearly no public safety issue and even no breach of others rights (as views being expressed, are within secure area, where only those who wish to hear it can and under sericety) probably means, I would say then that this is breach of right, as though I may not agree with such expressions against Muslins, the right and wrong of opinion is too subjective a thing to try and quantize and so who am I to override that.

And so that is why have it, the way it is. Of course, there are officials who try to use the line to break poeple rights, by graying the area over and making non-existence safety issues, but this doesn't mean having a line is wrong in itself, just need to make sure it is balanced one.

However there is another issue here, with freedom of expression and that is, how does it work on a global level, as there are countries who have very different views on human rights, to what is probably the wider consensual view, held by poeple here and is it right, that because some countries don't adear to our way of thinking, that we then try to force them to adear to it, isn't that a breach of very rights, we are trying to enforce?
=This is actually far more complicated area, as it is lot more gray and as well having to look at cultural implications, have to look at whether is state or poeple who against it, however there are many examples throughout the last 100 years, where well meaning western countries have tried to change what they see as unenlightened actions to meet with their own standards and because the society, doesn't agree with us, it has ended up making the situation go worse

[OverMind]

It looks like the Danes got something right.

Warning: This link contains nudity. So that likely won't stop you from clicking it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrfo0_unusual-speed-control-in-denmark_auto

Why can't we emulate some of the laws they have in Europe right here in North America?

[AsteriskRocks]

It looks like the Danes got something right.

Warning: This link contains nudity. So that likely won't stop you from clicking it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrfo0_unusual-speed-control-in-denmark_auto

Why can't we emulate some of the laws they have in Europe right here in North America?

Why not just move to Denmark?

[OverMind]

Why not just move to Denmark?

...

*runs to airport*

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Sorry, I didn't realize that overmind had already started this topic.

so...

my response to censorship and freedom of expression.

America was built on the foundation of freedom of expression and yet we are the most censored country on the planet. I am tired of hearing and seeing complaints over the content of media. If someone performs something that is a little too risque(sp) in the media and uptight american censors are calling for immediate bans on the deemed "inappropriate" content. If Miley Syrus wants to dance around a stripper pole at her concerts, I say let her. I really don't care if Adam Lambert performance at the AMAs was dirty.

If you are censoring the content to protect your kids from seeing it, then don't make the TV your baby-sitter or if something questionable does come on use the remote and change the channel to something else.

Also, just because you cover it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sex, foul language, and violence all exist in our society, even though censors try to prove otherwise.

http://forum.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/showthread.php?t=5786

[Aninamar]

[CENSORED]

So, what does everyone else think about my philosophical view on it all? (My line of logical is on a different line, I guess.)

[Underling]

My line of logical is on a different line, I guess.

I'd say.

[RexNotCaesar]

The following remarks are written as my stream of consciousness dictated. There is no particular order, in either sense of the word that applies, to the comments below.

I reserve the right to express myself with arms.

You have already set a few conditions on the half page that I read, even though you said that you support total and complete freedom of expression. No emotional abuse to children, for one thing. How can you hurt a kid any more with words and threats than an adult?

You have no problem with a person supporting rape, but if they actually commit rape, they should be jailed. But, the right to support rape comes with the power to make it legal in a democratic government. Then what?

What I understand so far is that nothing visual or verbal should be censored, unless it can hurt children emotionally:

The only way I can see someone convincing a child, whose likely embarrassed about revealing him/herself in the first place, is coercing them through guilt or something. I'd view this as child abuse.

Of course, your views are perfectly acceptable if you are willing not to let them tip the balance of your ideal freedom. You can have those thoughts, but don't act on them.

I support freedom of speech (except in certain cases, such as intelligence officers), but your view of "free expression" sounds like anarchy.

One last note: America was not, as I understand, built on freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment, but freedom of nonverbal expression has only been acknowledged since the late 20th century... and it can easily be reversed by the supreme court if it wished to do so.

The United States was (or were, as you will) built on capitalism. Of course, that has been suffering since the early 20th century, so I don't really don't what we stand for these days.

[OverMind]

I support freedom of speech (except in certain cases, such as intelligence officers), but your view of "free expression" sounds like anarchy.

I'd say it sounds more Libertarian (i.e. limiting government intrusion; maximum individual liberty) rather than anarchic (i.e. complete absence of government).

Off-tangent, I just read over EdBat's posts and, given her ban and the position she puts forward, I sense some irony.

[Change of Heart]

Freedom of Expression ought to exist but in today's world the Liberal Fascists and Liberal Fascist Media will do everything to deny it, through the process of labelling others as 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' we're denying speech and or expression, and that doesn't make a true democracy! I'm not on the side of violence and abhore it but we all deserve a say...and as long as it isn't inciting violence it shouldn't be a problem...if people get offended well they should switch the channel on the TV or radio or just walk out of the conference...

[killshot]

Liberal Fascists

Are you trying to be ironic?

[Change of Heart]

Are you trying to be ironic?

I believe I must, as Liberal Fascism is irony in a way. Liberty and Authoritarianism in one but basically what I mean by it is those who strive to make a consensus by 'guilt tripping' and control the opinions of others by impractical name calling. But for an actual understanding of the concept of Liberal Fascism I suggest you read, Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I find the book quite true that Fascism is more of a left wing styled philosophy than right wing despite it's anti-socialist intentions. I do suggest that anyone who's left wing not get offended by my point but to actually read the book considering the left prides itself as the supposedly "intellectual" wing and see the picture from both sides.

[RexNotCaesar]

I'd say it sounds more Libertarian

Yeah, you're right, I chose the wrong word. I didn't mean anarchy in the political sense, but I am referring to the image that comes to my mind when I imagine this total freedom of expression: A few flag-burners on the corner of the street (which I realize isn't illegal), a nude parade to protest against indecent exposure (lol), and so on. I realize that this isn't a realistic picture of the idea, but it is simply what pops in my strange head.

[ChaosVincent1]

And to think, Congress got the "bright" idea to tax the first amendment.

Seriously, taxing the first amendment? WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING? Oh, wait, they don't care what collateral damage comes to other radio stations as long as the liberals in Congress get rid of Rush Limbaugh.

I personally think this has the logic of nuking New York City to take down 4Kids. 4Kids sucks and all, but I seriously don't think it's worth nuking an entire city over.

I should hope that Congress doesn't actually think it's worth destroying all of radio broadcasting over. And supposedly the money is supposed to go to the record company. I thought the record companies already got royalties for that music being played.

Also, When I watch TV, I would rather watch more ESPN than CMT, and radio broadcasting is my only source for new music. That bill could bankrupt the American radio industry. So I refuse to support it!

[HolyShadow]

Damn progressives.

[Aninamar]

Hm. Something I wonder about, because it's a freedom of expression thread, so it fits.

If HolyShadow (ShiningRadiance or whatever NewMoonTwilight was called), was banned for "putting users under pressure" (or whatever the hell is that even supposed to mean. I understand that contributing with intelligent posts that have some sort of bearing of the thread at hand, written by someone who isn't a neurotic 12 year old yaoi fangirl, isn't what this forum wants. Unless, of course, he threatened the lives of their wives and children. But since 50% of the forum population is gay and the other 50% are a bunch of kids, then I doubt they have any wives, children, or life for that matter.) even though he did a lot of good to the site, then wtf am I still doing here? You're inconsequential.

Also, since when did mods start to actually do something about this place? Did they just wake up and got the lunatics that were on their accounts off the duty?

I foresee that this place will soon be devoid of any seriousness in their discussions. Who else do we have? Overmind. Fared. Uh... JesusStones when he isn't just being random. Me, when I'm not making fun of your line of logical being on a different line. Or maybe even then.)

[OverMind]

Hm. Something I wonder about, because it's a freedom of expression thread, so it fits.

If HolyShadow (ShiningRadiance or whatever NewMoonTwilight was called), was banned for "putting users under pressure" (or whatever the hell is that even supposed to mean. I understand that contributing with intelligent posts that have some sort of bearing of the thread at hand, written by someone who isn't a neurotic 12 year old yaoi fangirl, isn't what this forum wants. Unless, of course, he threatened the lives of their wives and children. But since 50% of the forum population is gay and the other 50% are a bunch of kids, then I doubt they have any wives, children, or life for that matter.) even though he did a lot of good to the site, then wtf am I still doing here? You're inconsequential.

Also, since when did mods start to actually do something about this place? Did they just wake up and got the lunatics that were on their accounts off the duty?

I foresee that this place will soon be devoid of any seriousness in their discussions. Who else do we have? Overmind. Fared. Uh... JesusStones when he isn't just being random. Me, when I'm not making fun of your line of logical being on a different line. Or maybe even then.)

Sometimes Aninamar just blows me away when he basically dictates everything I've been thinking about for the last 2 weeks or so.

For the record, I don't intend to stay here for much longer. Heck, I only logged in just to comment on this post.

Honestly, take a look at the last few posts of the "True Love" thread; it basically amounts to a few users giving themselves "high fives". That's not a serious discussion.

Face it, we're a dying breed on this forum. Either the moderators ban us, or we leave on our accord, but we're not wanted here.

And, I'll be damned if I'm going to mould myself into the stereotype they're aiming for on this forum:
- posting non-sensically in the BAR, and in large quantities to bolster my post count, about stuff that doesn't matter, at all
- acting like Friendly McFriendster to win some sort of popularity contest where I'll get loads of friend invites
- not make fun of someone for posting something borderline-retarded
- revel in yaoi/yuri because, apparently, that's OK ... yet, you still hide such an interest from the people in your non-internet life

[AllisonWalker]

- revel in yaoi/yuri because, apparently, that's OK ... yet, you still hide such an interest from the people in your non-internet life

Would you further explain this?

[OverMind]

Would you further explain this?

Nope.

[AllisonWalker]

Alright then, 'cause it doesn't make too much sense.

[darkarcher]

Would you further explain this?

I'll explain it.

He's saying that a large number of people on this site go about with their love of yaoi/yuri (and with some people homosexuality) but do not feel the need to actually show that side of themselves in real life.

In shorter terms, he's just calling people out for hypocrisy.

@Aninamar: HolyShadow was not banned due to his posts in Serious Discussions.

@Aninamar/OverMind collectively: I'm not sure about other people, but the main reasons I don't post in this forum much are that:
A. The popular topics are uninteresting and non-conducive to constructive debate. This can be either due to the subject matter not being the basis of a conversation or because the subject has been debated to death.
B. I have a hard time thinking of any topics I would want to start a thread for, even though I really would like some sort of fresh discussion.

[AllisonWalker]

I see. I really don't think most of the people here are homosexual/bi-sexual. Maybe bi-curious.

[Aninamar]

Sometimes Aninamar just blows me away when he basically dictates everything I've been thinking about for the last 2 weeks or so.

that is SO SWEET man how about a bro hug bump

ok how do we do this.. .,,,,,.., ..... , .,.,.,,,.,.. .................,.,,,,,,,,,.....

let's DO this thing

lets make this shit work

WHERE DOING IT MAN

WHERE MAKING THIS HAPEN


For the record, I don't intend to stay here for much longer. Heck, I only logged in just to comment on this post.

NOT ME

i can't wait to be an useless piece of shit all day and reply to those posts

FUCK IM FALLING DOWN ALL THESE STAIRS


Honestly, take a look at the last few posts of the "True Love" thread; it basically amounts to a few users giving themselves "high fives". That's not a serious discussion.

I WARNED YOU ABOUT STAIRS BRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I TOLD YOU DOG!

Face it, we're a dying breed on this forum. Either the moderators ban us, or we leave on our accord, but we're not wanted here.

IT KEEPS HAPPENING

I TOLD YOU MAN

I TOLD YOU ABOUT STAIRS!

- posting non-sensically in the BAR, and in large quantities to bolster my post count, about stuff that doesn't matter, at all

ahahahahahahahahhaha just how HIGH do you even have to BE just to DO something like that............

(In seriousness, I remember I posted in BAR once. Later I felt so much shame I had to take a shower to scrub the feeling.)
- acting like Friendly McFriendster to win some sort of popularity contest where I'll get loads of friend invites

Yay! Somebody sane! DUDE you KNOW i did, you KNOW it!

- not make fun of someone for posting something borderline-retarded
dog............ i AM SO JEALOUS you KNOW i love the big game.

(in all seriousness, when you shown me my place and my ignorance on the topic in our debate in the Homosexuality thread, I was rather baffled to see that there's someone who can argue on these forums. Since then, nothing similar to it happened. So all I did was spam Superhubert and straightening the lines of logical. Sadface. I admire you for the nerve.)
- revel in yaoi/yuri because, apparently, that's OK ... yet, you still hide such an interest from the people in your non-internet life

Hm, I don't quite get that but I still love you bro but bro no homo. (Still, I don't think it's uncommon to fantasize about those things. After all, 1 girl = awesome, 2 girls = 2x awesome.)

He's saying that a large number of people on this site go about with their love of yaoi/yuri (and with some people homosexuality) but do not feel the need to actually show that side of themselves in real life.

Sweet idea. I'm totally going to make myself even more of an antisocial dork to my friends by telling them how much would I love to see Uma Thurman (from her Pulp Fiction days if possible) and Jennifer Morrison together, both in stockings, foot worshipping each other as a foreplay before they get to the main course. Definitely not creepy at all. (brb, got a boner from typing that.)

A. The popular topics are uninteresting and non-conducive to constructive debate. This can be either due to the subject matter not being the basis of a conversation or because the subject has been debated to death.

I know what you mean. True Love was a good hentai game, but a shitty topic. Especially given the age and the probable personal experiences of the people typing there.

I don't type there much because I figured that by this time, there aren't many people who don't have my posts on Ignore. But I don't mind. When I came there, I kinda expected more than... this.B. I have a hard time thinking of any topics I would want to start a thread for, even though I really would like some sort of fresh discussion.

How about we talk about my phimosis? When a girl from my neighborhood unzipped my pants and saw my penis, it wasn't...
*glasses*
...love at first glans.
(It was, instead, a rather disturbing shriek of horror. To be honest, when erect, it looks like a huge Russian man trapped in a zipped sack.)

No?

OK.

I see. I really don't think most of the people here are homosexual/bi-sexual. Maybe bi-curious.

Weird, it appeared to me that [Peter Griffin impersonation] eeeeverybody gay![/Peter Griffin impersonation]

[darkarcher]

I see. I really don't think most of the people here are homosexual/bi-sexual. Maybe bi-curious.

Yet at the same time there's a very vocal anti-anti-homosexuality crowd.

Saying you think homosexuality is wrong (for whatever reason) is like painting a target on your back around here, but at the same time nobody feels like making their political or moral views known to their own parents.

[Fat1Fared]

I'll explain it.

He's saying that a large number of people on this site go about with their love of yaoi/yuri (and with some people homosexuality) but do not feel the need to actually show that side of themselves in real life.

In shorter terms, he's just calling people out for hypocrisy.


=I do not think he care if there gay or not, just that strange idea of finding cartoons sexy 0_o (well strange to us, as subjective but still)

PS though will defend them somewhat here, I get poeple making fun of me all time and believing I like Yoari just because I like Anime, so what chance do those who like it stand, their going to hide it unless very very strong person, because poeple will shun them for it, because will to most a strange and deviant act


@Aninamar/OverMind collectively: I'm not sure about other people, but the main reasons I don't post in this forum much are that:
A. The popular topics are uninteresting and non-conducive to constructive debate. This can be either due to the subject matter not being the basis of a conversation or because the subject has been debated to death.
B. I have a hard time thinking of any topics I would want to start a thread for, even though I really would like some sort of fresh discussion.

Well I found the true love interesting actually, but more as personal thing than serious debate and though have been some good ones, most of time just ends up being about god all time and the areas which naturally will not include him like politic's simply do not attract enough poeples interest, I have started several historical, political, ecomonic, social..etc threads and poeple ain't interested, look at this one, it is actually massive area and managed to drum up 2 pages after how many months, yet a topic about japanese man moaning cannot marry cartoon gets 4 pages in a day (and lot of it support o_0) so not critising poeple par-say as allowed their interests, but why never going to get too many indepth debates unless simply agruing over god

PS DON'T GO OVERMIND, I LOVE YOU (wait wrong thread)

[AllisonWalker]

Yet at the same time there's a very vocal anti-anti-homosexuality crowd.

Saying you think homosexuality is wrong (for whatever reason) is like painting a target on your back around here, but at the same time nobody feels like making their political or moral views known to their own parents.

Hmm...I don't care what people do in their bedrooms(unless it's pedophilia), just don't shove it in my face and tell me to like it.

[killshot]

Aninamar really hit the nail on the head. I don't even remember when the serious discussion board started to die, but there hasn't been much activity here in a long time. I wish we could go back to the good old days when I could actually have a serious conversation with someone. I wish Tatterdemalion hadn't abandoned this site because his posts were the only ones that seemed to get people talking. So many times I've tried to think of a topic worth discussing in an attempt to revive this board, but nothing comes to mind. No one cares about anything too serious and the religion/politics/homosexuality threads have been argued to death.

I think I would leave this site completely if it weren't for Death Note the Forum Game. All the people that made serious discussion good have left or rarely post. In their place are people who feel they need to post in every topic regardless of whether or not they have anything to contribute. It sort of bothers me that I am one of the older members of the site and yet my post count is dwarfed by users that just joined last month. Back when I first joined, I got the impression that most users were in their early 20's. Now I think that age group is closer to 14. I can't help but think this is because the quality of Little Kuriboh's work has degraded and it now appeals to a younger and less intelligent audience.

[AllisonWalker]

It's true.

[Fat1Fared]

-I think it is ironic, this has come in the freedom of speech thread 0_o

however few things:-

Aninamar really hit the nail on the head. I don't even remember when the serious discussion board started to die, but there hasn't been much activity here in a long time. I wish we could go back to the good old days when I could actually have a serious conversation with someone. I wish Tatterdemalion hadn't abandoned this site because his posts were the only ones that seemed to get people talking.


-Well he was not the only one, but he was diff one of the most intelligent and interesting poeple on the site and I think his leaving was big blow for this part of the site, because not only could he think with his brain, he could put those thoughts in an elegant way, which rather start agruments, started debates (it was same time he left, that raising post count started too slow dramatically)


So many times I've tried to think of a topic worth discussing in an attempt to revive this board, but nothing comes to mind. No one cares about anything too serious and the religion/politics/homosexuality threads have been argued to death.


=Relgion and Homosexiuality have been done to death, politic's is always a no starter


I think I would leave this site completely if it weren't for Death Note the Forum Game. All the people that made serious discussion good have left or rarely post. In their place are people who feel they need to post in every topic regardless of whether or not they have anything to contribute.


=Ouch my pride lol, still I agree, it is only DN which keeps me here at moment, though has been few simply anime talks popping up,


It sort of bothers me that I am one of the older members of the site and yet my post count is dwarfed by users that just joined last month. Back when I first joined, I got the impression that most users were in their early 20's. Now I think that age group is closer to 14. I can't help but think this is because the quality of Little Kuriboh's work has degraded and it now appeals to a younger and less intelligent audience.

=However, here i think more like 15-18 and the less intelligent comment does not quite sit right with me, maybe less serious would be more of an Adequate term,

I think the problem for me and you Kill old buddy is we're getting old ourselves, I never would have moaned like this when first joined here at age of 17, a merer 3 years later and already see my fathers demeanor clawing its way into my reproached level of decorum, won't be long before armchair is extant of my world o_0

=in words of Mounty here we 3 flowers lie, the last islands of sanity, bemoaned by tony's, belittled by labour and lost under the footing of liberality

=No idea what its link to this are (well do, but doubt others will,) but sounds nice doesn't it :thatface:

PS how can it be Amie who brought such deep thought out of us????? o_0

[OverMind]

PS how can it be Amie who brought such deep thought out of us????? o_0

You misinterpret his genius.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I miss the old regulars too.

I'm not the best debator/topic starter. I'm only ever really driven to post anything on here if I really feel some kind of 'need' to post my opinion. Whatever that means.

I think killshot is right. I know my post count is huge, but I don't actually care about it that much. I just post because I enjoy spending time on here, whether it's with random BAR people or in these forums or whatever.

Can't say I agree on the TAS part though, but I can see where he's coming from and how the later episodes would attract a younger audience. I still like season 2 as much as I like season 1, just for different reasons.

[Aninamar]

Oh hey, Fared was banned.

...

Call me when the most productive topic in the Serious Discussions becomes "is it moral to use your sister's underwear for fapping".

[MrsSallyBakura]

Oh hey, Fared was banned.

...

Call me when the most productive topic in the Serious Discussions becomes "is it moral to use your sister's underwear for fapping".

He requested his ban. He'll be back later.

[Aninamar]

Really?

Weird.

[maisetofan]

He's BACK

Now I think that age group is closer to 14. I can't help but think this is because the quality of Little Kuriboh's work has degraded and it now appeals to a younger and less intelligent audience.

Wow is LK aware of this?
Anyway i definitely found season one the best and the humor was better but its still a good parody compared to most of the anime parodies out there...

[HarleyThomas1002]

Due to being somewhat related, I'll leave this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) here.

[darkarcher]

Necro'd.