This is a famous “Freedom of Speech” piece by Norman Rockwell which appeared on the Saturday Evening Post article Freedom of Speech on February 20, 1943
Does Freedom Speech really exist? I was born and raised in a communist country. My voice was suppressed by various chess politicians with the intention of stopping my chess progress. Therefore, I am all for the right to speak out.
However, does Freedom of Speech include the Freedom to Lie or Harm others? No! Absolutely no!
Let me bring up a few examples:
– Can you go to a crowded theatre and yell “fire” for fun?
– Can you go to the airport and yell “I have a bomb” for your own amusement?
– Can you go to the White House and yell “I’m going to shoot the President” just to see what the Secret Service would do?
I guess you can. You have the right to do so. However, you also have to be prepared to deal with the extreme consequences.
Freedom of Speech must come with the Freedom to be Responsible.
What do you think? Does absolute Freedom of Speech without consequense exist anywhere on this planet? Please keep it clean.
No freedom to lie and harm others. They should be severely punished.
You’re right. One has to be responsible for one’s words and actions. Mr. Sam Sloan is irresponsible with both. Therefore, he’s unfit to serve on the USCF board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
gives a write up on freedom of speech in wikipedia.
freedom of speech is used to protect the right to pornography. Speaking the Truth is certainly one defense to freedom of speech.
The laws of libel should protect one from lies about the person.
John Kerry as candidate for President had many viscious lies spread about him in a very clever way. His opponent Bush did not do the dirty work. But republican organizations were formed to spread the lies. Politics in USA can be full of lies and dirty lies.
When an individual lies however, he is open to being punished by the laws much more easily than were these newly formed organizations used only for a short time to spread lies during the campaign.
Wonderful, and tricky, question.
Freedom of speach is a pretty powerful and sophisticated weapon against Those In Power. Any limitation to this freedom has to be justified on strong grounds. Otherwise, someone somewhere will abuse the fact that you can’t say what you want.
Take the case of Topalov. I think Topalov is lying. I think Kramnik did not cheat. I think Topalov doesn’t believe Kramnik cheated. I think Topalov is wrong to accuse Illy of belonging to the Russian secret services (or whatever Topalov said/meant).
Should Topalov be sanctionned ? Probably not. At least, not so easily. Maybe Topalov really *is* wrong, but maybe the next guy to behave like Topalov is behaving now, will be right.
The evidence is overwhelming that Kramnik did not cheat and did not use computer assistance. The only advantage of computers over humans is that computers make no mistakes. Kramnik made plenty of mistakes.
On the other hand, perhaps someday soon someone else *will* cheat in a way which is virtually impossible to detect. And maybe Illy’s successor *will* belong to some mafia. The usefulness of protecting Topalov’s right to speach – even if we *feel* he is abusing it – overcome the usefulness of limiting this right. The day we are wrong in our opinion, we want someone to have the right to tell us.
Saying the truth often results in someone being harmed. Whenever someone is threatened by what is said, they will call it a lie. Deciding when to punish is a serious question which should be taken seriously.
Freedom of speech means that I have the freedom to post anything I want on your blog and you have the freedom to delete it. I am so fortunate that you are such a tolerant person! (Grin!)
But seriously, apart from libel and slander (you know, the stuff in the USCF forums) other free speech issues are pornography, flag burning and extremist speech.
The annual war on Christmas has become a part of the culture. Should people be allowed to sing Christmas carols? What about in public schools? What about Christmas carols with a religeous theme like “Silent Night”?
Is the belief that homosexuality is biblically wrong, homophobia?
In elections, when freedom of speech is most needed, campaign finance reform has limited it to drastic extents.
The aspect that concerns Susan of course is the lying and the libel. I think that in society as a whole the freedom of speech is under attack as never before and
political correctness is the larger danger. Sadly, the attackers seem to mainly come from the left.
I don’t quite understand the link between property rights and freedom of speach. Property rights would seem to me to be based on contracts. In cultures where all property is shared, surely the freedom to speak can still exist.
Regarding the “fire in a theater” example …
What if there really is a fire ? Can I speak even if the theatre doesn’t belong to me ?
What if I think there is a fire, but I’m wrong ?
What if there was a fire when I screamed, but it disappeared before anyone else noticed ? (with a stretch of the imagination)
What if I screamed *fire* last week and thereby saved 500 people ?
Who decides, on what basis, and what is the possible punishment ?
We can harm people verbally as well as physically. Slander is a perfect example. Misrepresentation is another. There are many. B F Skinner’s idea is that with freedom comes responsibility. It took responsibility to make freedom. It takes responsibility to keep it. The price of victory is never cheap.
If we have to keep it clean, that seems to answer the question. 🙂
But the implication that Freedom of Speech may not exist at all because it’s not unlimited is unwarranted. That’s like suggesting you don’t have the right to drive a car because you can’t drive 100 mph.
Even in a totalitarian country, some freedom of speech exists. Even though the right may not be guaranteed in advance, people do say at least some of the things they want to there.
It’s amazing how many people see such an abstract question purely in terms of their own pet hates. The question really is about rights in general, not about how much you hate Bush or Topalov (or even Sloan, who to a large extent deserves it). People who see abstract questions primarily in terms of their agenda worry me.
Jack LeMoine wrote:
>>I think that in society as a whole the freedom of speech is under attack as never before and
political correctness is the larger danger. Sadly, the attackers seem to mainly come from the left. >>
The left is no more intolerant than the right, in general. They only seem to be because they spend more time patting themselves on the back for their tolerance. The more you brag about a virtue, the worse you look when you violate it, even though you may in fact be no worse than another violater who never bragged.
hint: Sam Sloan –
yet again.
i may not agree with what you are saying, but i will defend to the death your right to say it, supposedly said by voltaire..
Susan, I think most people miss the boat when it come to free speech. The framers of the US Constitution had in mind that the people ought to be free to bring their legitimate complaints about their elected officials to the press and have the press print them for all to see. That way the governing officials would be held accountable to the people. The founding fathers didn’t want pornography, flag burning, etc. protected speech and expression; that was a result of activist judges who legislate from the bench! Freedom of speech is a responsibility. It isn’t the freedom to say what ever you want (and as nasty and as crass as you can), but to say what is right and just about anyone who governs over the people.
Amen!
I believe that freedom of speech, while not an absolute, should come pretty close. The best response to “free speech” that you disagree with is MORE free speech stating the reasons you disagree.
That being said, it doesn’t mean that somebody ELSE should be forced to pay for MY free speech. If Susan doesn’t like what I say, then she has every right to remove it from her Blog. If I want to have TRUE free speech, then I could start my own Blog.
Likewise, the USCF Issues Forum is owned by the USCF. The USCF members shouldn’t have to pay to support “free speech” that is harmful to the USCF. For that matter, I don’t think it’s in the USCF’s interest to have “free speech” that consists of lies about other people, that misrepresents the truth, that gratuitously insults people, or that violates somebody else’s intellectual property rights. People have plenty of venues for truly FREE speech, places like rgcp. We shouldn’t let the USCF’s own forums decend into such.
Quis custodiet custodiam?
imho, Vohaul …!!!
PS: no, dear GM Susan Polgar – i’m not with you on this subject…! (but on a lot of others)
Freedom of political speech is absolute. A democratic society cannot survive without it. That includes satire and, yes, insults. Witness the reactions to the Danish cartoons about Muhammad in the Islamic world to have a good idea of what a society without freedom of speech/thought/belief is like.
Sadly, that includes base political speech like Sloan’s. (Let’s face it, his smears do have political intent, and are being issued in a political context.) While we can’t silence him, neither does USCF have to tolerate his antics on their board. he can find forums elsewhere, like RGCP. (Does anyone take that newsgroup seriously anymore?) Why they haven’t done much to stop him, I don’t know.
The only option you, Susan, have are a) suing for slander or libel (I can never keep them straight), which would be a waste of time, money, and your political capital; b) responding to each an every calumny on the USCF boards, which I think would also be a mistake; or c) ignoring the paranoid narcissist and simply make your case for reform the best you can in the other forums available to you, such as here.
I favor C.
irishspy said:
“Witness the reactions to the Danish cartoons about Muhammad in the Islamic world”
Actually, those demonstrations are an example of freedom of speech in action.
The reaction in the West, avoiding further publications or firing editors who published the cartoons, are examples of limitations to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a legal and consitutional construct limiting Government — it is not a protection from civil litigation, workplace action, shunning of the marketplace or the condemnation from Society.
People are, and should be, accountable for their words. The absolute ceiling for the degree of accountability is what the Bill of Rights tries to define.
It is fascinating to hear the naive complaints of people like the Dixie Chicks who bemoan the condemnation of much of their potential business marketplace because they chose to publically express their political views. The Constitution gives them the right to express their position. The Constitution doesn’t protect the Dixie Chicks’, or other commercial entity, from a marketplace backlash. In fact the right of an individual to exercise their position via either buying, or not buying, a product from a politically active entertainer is also a form of Freedom of Speech.
“….The framers of the US Constitution had in mind that the people ought to be free to bring their legitimate complaints about their elected officials to the press and have the press print them for all to see.”
That’s a very narrow interpretation. What if the gov. says the piece was “wrong” or “illegitimate”, can they throw the writer in jail?
I disagree completely. The framers had much more in mind than “legitimate complaints” against the government being printed in the press as free speech.
True enough, freedom of speech has protected numerous unsavory types, from the KKK to Flag Burners to Sam Sloan, but this is no reason to redefine free speech as merely “legitimate complaints against the government printed in the press”.
The ideals that this country was founded on and that our flag symbolizes cannot be tarnished by the speech of others. So go ahead and burn the flag if it makes you happy.
BTW, this has little if anything to do with political correctness. Sure there are those who have pushed to idea to extremes such as “don’t call them ‘babies’, they are to be referred to as ‘little persons'” and all that hogwash. Being politically correct should mean that you have some empathy for others and realize that your words can be hurtful such as “Gee, I am sorry to hear that your son was born with Down’s syndrome, I heard that it’s tough raising crippled retards!”
“Freedom of speech is a responsibility. It isn’t the freedom to say what ever you want (and as nasty and as crass as you can), but to say what is right and just about anyone who governs over the people.”
I think people have the right to speak as nasty and crass as they want to, as long as it is not libelous and forced on others. Freedom of expression is essential to both individual and societal health.
Sloan and his buddy artichoke should be sentenced to 1 month in Iraq.
mr. cat said…
There is not a single ‘human right’ that, while intrinsically good, has not been unscrupulously abused by clever individuals operating with an ‘agenda’. This has occurred throughout history, and is not likely to stop in our lifetimes.
For example, anti-abortion activists try to shape popular ‘thought’ by repeating over and over certain ‘buzz – phrases’ – you know, like ‘killing babies’, ‘murdering infants’, ‘death of human life’, etc. This is not really intended as an exercise of freedom of speech; they know this. It is deliberately intended to flood the media with concepts that will ‘brainwash’ the mass public into accepting their point of view.
I put the rampant Kramnik supporters in the same category, like the one posted above. Individuals, who are either ‘delusional’, ‘brainwashed’, ‘crazy’, or most likely, ‘operating with a hidden agenda’ are flooding every Chess blog with ‘Topolov cheated, Topolov cheated, Topolov cheated’, etc. In fact, I hate to say it, but I’ve just helped them (gulp!)
My personal opinion is that Topolov did nothing wrong in the match; Kramnik did EVERYTHING wrong in the match; and if one wants to lambaste individuals, one can talk about the two ‘appeals committees’. But this is all old hat, and simply frustrating to even discuss at this stage. So I won’t, but –
I have just PERMANENTLY GIVEN UP on visiting Mig’s blog. I give him lots of credit – he was a pioneer; his blog and Chess activity paved the way for MOST of the others’ his contributions to world Chess have been significant (and enjoyable).
But he’s a brainwasher, and again, is either brainwashed himself or, more than likely, operating on a hidden agenda. In what would be considered ‘unclear’ and ‘debatable’ circumstances by most, I have seem him consistently attack Topolov in his posts – and go to lengths to repeat for his readers ‘Topolov cheated, Topolov cheated, Topolov cheated’. He just did this recently in his year end review.
It’s amazing. I have yet to PERSONALLY speak to an intelligent Chess player who thinks this. I considered Mig to be intelligent, and therefore my conclusion is that is is operating with an agenda – meaning, that lying and manipulation of the gullible public are considered ‘fair play’ if a desired result is achieved. As for the desired result, I really have no idea – but this kind of thing has gone on throughout human history, and goes on now.
I defend Mig’s right to say whatever he wants; I also defend my own right to criticize, and to publicly announce that I am DISGUSTED every time I visit his blog; I have now deleted the link from my saved favorites – to make sure that I don’t visit there by accident (and ruin my day).
I’m not saying that someday I may not become disgusted with this place; certainly I don’t agree at the 100% level with Susan’s posts, and I have several problems with her stated attitudes –
but that’s not why I’m here, and not why I’m posting.
‘Freedom of speech’, eh?? Again, this is a ‘truth that I hold to be self-evident’, and it saddens me to think that any restrictions should be applied.
I’m not a U.S. History scholar, and haven’t read the extended writings of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. I can only surmise that they intended that individual thoughts should not be suppressed in open, public forums.
I can’t believe that it was there intention, or even considered an issue at the time, that scrupulous individuals would abuse this ‘right’ and twist it for their own, non-humanitarian motives. Yet – this is what happens at every single election in this county: politicians will flatly LIE through their teeth (‘freedom of speech’) and at worst, when trapped in the lie AFTER they are elected will proceed to make excuses and apologies – none of which will be sufficient to for them out of office or reverse election results.
What’s going on at the USCF? Well – I hate to say this by Susan’s CONSTANT references have induced me to go out-of-my-way to register at the USCF forum, JUST TO SEE WHAT SHE’S TALKING ABOUT!! I wouldn’t have done this, otherwise.
I’m not there, yet. But if I’m interpreting what I’m hearing correctly, then the wicked attacks that she refers to are, apparently, PAR FOR THE COURSE in US politics and typical US organizations. It stinks, but it is real.
Was Susan here for the Dukakis presidential campaign (who did he lose to – Bush Sr.?? Sorry – no mind). Here’s what I remember – Dukakis tried to take ‘the high road’, and ignored and refused to respond to waves of vicious, unfounded LYING attacks from the Republican party. Naturally, he lost the election (despite having a huge lead in the early polls). Well, that’s the sad shape of American politics, and that’s an example of why I never vote – I simply refuse to lend my voice to the ignorant majority that can be manipulated so easily by media and sound-bites.
‘Sound bites’, such as the ones that I read posted here, and such as the ones posted by Mig. You only live once, and ‘life’s too short to waste on you’ (-Seinfeld episode)
Mr Cat’s sentiments are so very odd, that I just have to comment.
I gather he is for freedom of speech for everybody he sides with and condemns it for everyone else.
Didn’t Mr. Topolov say anything wrong? – Anything at all? Didn’t Mr. Krammik say anything right? – Anything?
As for the abortion issue, “anti-abortion activists try to shape popular ‘thought’ by repeating over and over certain ‘buzz – phrases’ – you know, like ‘killing babies’, ‘murduring infants’, ‘death of human life’, etc. This is not really intended as an exercise of freedom of speech; they know this. It is deliberately intended to flood the media with concepts that will ‘brainwash’ the mass public into accepting their point of view.”
Brainwashed? Really? But concern about killing babies is their whole point! How is one supposed to communicate what one believes in if one is unable to say it? I’ve known many pro-life activists, I’m pro-life myself and I can tell you Mr. Cat that if killing babies was not our concern, we would all just walk away from the issue.
Of course, we can just flip the coin and condemn the statements made by the pro-choice (“pro-abortion for those not familiar with American labels”) side, too. – Just to be fair. Trouble is that I’ve known many pro-choice activists, too and they are just as sincere in their beliefs as the other side.
Finally, you mentioned the Dukakis-Bush campaign of 1988. Were we in the same universe, Mr. Cat? Who turned the Democratic convention into a character attack on Bush? What was all of that rhetoric of how rich he was and he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth? What was with all of those “buzz – phrases” (your term) like “right wing extremists”, “religious zealots”, and “ultra-conservatives”?
Here’s an idea. How about freedom of speech based upon tolerance? Tolerance for both the writer and the listener. Tolerance for statements you disagree with and for causes you dislike. For everybody wants tolerance for their own views; few want tolerance for opposing views.
In your case, Mr. Cat, how about a little tolerance for people like Mr. Krammik, “Anti-Abortion Activists”, and Republicans?
Crying Wolf! or “I have a BOMB!” when there is no bomb is good examples.
But the treatment for this lack of empathy, the lack of being unable to sum up the + for the ego and all the – signs for other people should not be punished but treated. Send this person to school, or to the madhouse for further treatment if he missed upbringing and school.
A State that punishes people for what they say can not claim to have free speech. And the United States which again, again have used capital punishment against people who says wrong things can of course not claim to be the home of Free Speech. (By the way. Does anyone know if there is any newspaper left in the US belonging to the Free Press? Bless the Internet.)
Fishers mother who was a well hated peace activist often told little Bobby that if the black men knocked at their apartment door in NY while she was away he should only say:
“I have nothing to tell you.”
– use only this phrase, or they will get you even if you only talk about the weather.
– don’t tell them your name, say nor Yes nor No, just tell them what I told you to say.
And now old Bobby far away says what he always wanted to say. In a strange and often misunderstood way. A bit like Michel Jacksons tree climbing and playing with other kids ting. And me myself is now playing with a laptop much mightier than all those monsters I ever saw on picture in the 50-ties. Actually i got my first electronic calculator in 73, and build my first computter two years after that. And i’m still as keen.
My childhood was indeed quite happy. We did not have the FBI sneaking around and my father very seldom forced me to do something. I was nicely told what not to do and WHY. And not what punishment would follow if i did. My used bicycle runned as fast as any brand new one, and later my brand new tape recorder sounded much better than my friends motorbikes.
But enough about me. Let me tell you of someone i not only look up to, but admire.
Noam Chomsky is a man that practices free speech even in his home country.
Nobody objects because he as firm a ground to stand on as the Statue of Liberty.
The ruling click prefers not to listen. They know that he can beat them all simultaneously in a verbal fight.
If you like free speech, here is a good starting link many of his speeches.
http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/index.cfm
(there are many other portals on the internet to many other of his talks too)
I once again like to thank “Gorkij” who gave us a quite recent link to Noam Chomsky & Robert Fisk under the Saddam-picture in this very blog.
(just saw that he also lives in a country that once was neutral and sometimes a bit free)
PS. You will need “Real player” to watch mr Chomsky – but older versions of that program is also FREE! – ZIPPY HURRAY!
PS2 Susan Polgar & Albert Einstein are quite right – Everything is relative – especially words like freedom in the minds of mankind.
“Mr Cat’s sentiments are so very odd”
Yeah, well, you should hear what my FRIENDS say about me, Jack. Glad you read the post, and I was happy to read your response.
But I am not a talker, or a debater. In fact, I am not going to respond; this is Susan’s blog, and not mine.
I will sit on my hands if that’s what it takes. I’ll be back in February.
Cheers.
(meow)
I wrote much to much on this topic.
I short i’ll make the following statement:
Do not judge people by what slips out by their thong, but after their deeds.
If somebody dragged George Bush #2 to an international court, where he had to answer for all his war crimes. I surely volunteer to shoot him slowly, although i’ll never fired a gun. (and never thought i’ll would have to do) The you can punish me for what i’ll done! I’ll be laughing all the way to the gallows.
You know, it is funny that after all the sentiments expressed above about freedom of speech and being respectful and civil, we should come down to Pelle’s statement.
Funny, isn’t it that for all the hurtful, hateful things Sam Sloan has said against Susan Polgar he has never once said that he wanted to shoot her slowly.
As the author of the wikipedia freedom of speech article (and many others) I would like to point out the importance for people to see the distinct contrast between American citizens’ protected difference of opinion alongside simple character assassination, slanderous and/or libelous publication, rumor mongering, the use of straw men, trivial posturing, and hidden agenda. Keeping this in mind, many naive writers confuse their agenda with some universal “fair” agenda. I encourage all to study slander and libel law, tort law, as well as the American freedom of speech doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
There is no freedom from consequences. Never has been, never will be. Sometimes the consequences are pleasant, sometimes unpleasant, but there are *always* consequences.
It’s a law of nature.
On the specific subject of speech, again there’s no such thing as freedom of speech, in the pure, absolute sense of the word. The US Constitution only says the government can’t stop certain kinds of speech (“Congress shall make no law…”); it’s totally silent on whether corporations or private citizens can.
Not a value judgement, just a fact.
When one acquires right one also take on responsibilities. A lot of people want one but not the other. Freedon of speech is a right but it also has a responsibility to speak the truth.