Ytringsfrihet

[Panther]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5479

The cyclone of legislation and engineered destruction of freedom and capitalism being whipped up by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress (the Republicans, a.k.a. the GOP, or Grand Old Pathetics, as I am want to call them, no longer can be said to count for opposition to anything) cannot help but be accompanied by an aggressive assault on the freedom of speech to suppress all spoken and written dissent and opposition, to silence those whose ideas the administration and Congress do not want to hear and do not want others to hear. This assault represents the logical amalgamation of Left and Right.

Historically, and by necessity, one of the first casualties of a collectivist “revolution,” such as we are witnessing today, has been the free press by either its complete abolition or its takeover by the usurpers. The goal of such physical force serves a number of purposes: to silence those whose ideas are a threat to the totalitarians’ ideological and economic hegemony; to impose conformity on the public, and thus create a population of passive, yeah-saying or silent slaves; to regulate the minds of the public by suffocating them with propaganda and with a fear of the consequences of open, public dissent.

[Marianne Skånland]

  
Nytt fra Storbritannia:

Simon Singh er en vitenskapsjournalist som har laget fine programmer for BBC og skrevet populærvitenskapelige bøker. Selv har jeg iallfall lest Fermat's Last Theorem og The Code Book og funnet dem mer spennende enn kriminalromaner.

Nå har han kritisert kiropraktor-behandling for astma og øre-infeksjoner hos barn. Hans kritikk går ut på at det ikke finnes vitenskapelig evidens for at behandlingen har virkning.

The British Chiropractic Association har gått til sak for injurier, og har vunnet frem foreløpig! Storbritannias injurielovgivning gjør det øyensynlig umulig å kritisere noe som helst.

"English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics."

The law has no place in scientific disputes
sense about science

Jeg minnes min - og kanskje andres - gamle tro på at rettssystemet i Storbritannia var uovertruffent, et ideal å se opp til.
  


  

[Vegard Martinsen]

Jeg har også lest disse to bøkene av Sing, og likt dem svært godt. Meget beklagelig at England er så ille ute, men denne utviklingen ser vi på alle områder: økonomien er katastrofal, islam er på fremmarsj, korrupsjon og snusk forekommer på de høyeste nivåer, ytringsfriheten begrenses, osv.

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/5797-our_poster_children_for_censorship.html

1 May 2010 Edward Cline

I do not make many incursions into the realm of art here, but the Comedy Central/”South Park” imbroglio beckons to me. It is interesting and very important, as many other commentators have noted. It is not just about displaying images of Mohammed or offending Muslim religious sensibilities. It is about freedom of speech.

As evil as government-enforced censorship is, self-censorship is arguably a worse evil. It means that a government bureau needn’t threaten you with punishment if you refuse to wear its gag; you volunteer to fix the tape over your mouth (or your mind) yourself. The speech police are not meant for you, but rather for those incautious fools who insist on indulging in what former president Bill Clinton called “careless language” that hurts or offends. Self-muted, you are merely a neutral, blameless spectator, watching those efficient SWAT teams descend on the perpetrators and roust them from their beds, jobs, rights, and futures.

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/6000-Bloggers-Under-Attack-The-State-Free-SpeechUse-Lose.html

Bloggers Under Attack By The State; Free Speech:Use It or Lose It
10 June 2010 Paul Hsieh

Congress is considering a new DISCLOSE Act that could force bloggers to file reports with the government stating whether their political speech was coordinated with efforts by corporations or labor unions -- whereas traditional news media such as newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio would be exempt.

These ideas are now part of the academic and political mainstream. Elena Kagan, President Obama’s latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and former dean of Harvard Law School, has argued that free speech should be permitted only if its social value outweighs its “societal costs.”

Similarly, Yale Law School professor Owen Fiss has stated that the government “may even have to silence the voices of some in order to hear the voices of others. Sometimes there is simply no other way.” [Emphasis mine.]

But free speech is important not merely because it facilitates some progressive notion of the “public interest.” Free speech is essential to human life. Man’s primary means of survival is his mind. In order to live, we must be free to reason and think. Hence we must be left free to acquire and transmit knowledge, which means we must be free to express our ideas, right or wrong.

In contrast, the Progressives presumed that without government “protection” we would be like children uncritically accepting poisonous ideas fed to us by special interest groups. Hence, the government must instead spoon feed us ideas they deem appropriate. They wish to usurp our responsibility — and our right — to disseminate and discuss ideas as we see fit.

Ironically, the speech regulations supported by progressives stifle precisely the smaller voices they claim to be protecting. Only large corporations can afford the lawyers to help them comply with the thousands of pages of political speech laws, whereas it is the smaller grassroots citizen groups that are stifled by such laws.

According to the Institute of Justice, 36 states have laws requiring citizen groups to register with the government before they can talk to their neighbors about politics. Duke University professor Mike Munger has described how such laws have a chilling effect on the political process.

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/6001-The-Stalking-Horses-Delegitimization-Against-Israel-and-Free-Speech.html

The Stalking Horses of "Delegitimization" Against Israel and Free Speech
10 June 2010 Edward Cline

The organizers of the “Freedom Flotilla” thought they could shame Israel into lifting its blockade of Gaza by making it concede that the “humanitarian” supplies it carried in its various holds were indeed merely “humanitarian.” They are oblivious or indifferent, but mostly hostile, to the necessity of Israel needing to inspect those cargos for arms and military materiel being smuggled to the terrorist organization Hamas. Hamas does not so much govern Gaza’s 1.5 million people (aka “Palestinians”) as rules them with fear and an iron fist. It is repeated the world over that Israel “occupies” Gaza and is cruel and even “genocidal,” when in fact Hamas occupies Gaza and is cruel and has genocide in mind in its campaign to destroy Israel.

The last thing Hamas would want to see is a happy, well-fed, healthy, and carefree Palestinian. It, Iran, and Hezbollah have a vested interest in the continued suffering and misery of the Palestinians, and in maintaining their collective identity as oppressed Palestinians. But, if the election results are to be accepted at face value, the Palestinians elected their abusers. So, no anguish should be wasted on these “stateless” hordes.

Further, one must question the “humanitarian” compassion of the flotilla activists who were not terrorists. I have yet to hear of them organizing an underground railroad for Iranian dissenters. I don‘t recall them demonstrating in protest of the murder of Neda Soltani, the Iranian girl killed by a government sniper during the June demonstrations last year against the rigged reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Have they launched a raid on Cuban prisons to free political prisoners, or sent aid to Venezuelans suffering under Hugo Chavez’s impoverishing tyranny? No.

Brigitte Gabriel also explains that the organization that oversaw the flotilla, the Turkish-based International Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), does not have humanitarian relief in mind so much as enfeebling and disarming Israel:

IHH is an associate of Hamas and a member of the Union of the Good. This Union is headed by Yousef Al Qaradawi, one of the world’s most notorious Islamic terrorists (banned in England and America) and leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. IHH was already involved in the purchasing of automatic weapons from other militant Islamic groups as far back as 1990 when their President Bulent Yildrim was focused on recruiting “Veteran soldiers in anticipation of the coming Holy war [jihad].”

Simply put, IHH is a jihadist group cloaked in a humanitarian outfit. It has played important roles in terrorist operations such as the Millennium bomb plot and has been involved in weapons trafficking.

Simply put, the IHH, like many such Islamic-controlled “charities,” is a stalking horse, concealing its true purpose, which is the destruction of Israel. In this instance, the stalking horse was a flotilla whose passengers were mostly vessels of indiscriminate, selfless compassion and exemplars of useful idiocy. Nevertheless, they are knowing abettors to the crime.

What we have been witnessing for some years is a stealthy, incremental attempt to “delegitimize” the First Amendment and the freedom of speech by sending out the stalking horse of “hate speech.” It can be defined as any utterance that may “hurt” or “offend” certain groups, or potentially incite others to violence against those groups. But who will decide what is and is not “hate speech,” in what venue it may or may not be permitted, and how should the government be empowered to censor it?

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/6005-The-Censors-Cabal.html

16 June 2010 Edward Cline

Obama and Company believe their “business” is to “run” the country, and that includes filtering and censoring what Americans read, think, and say.

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom,” wrote Ayn Rand. “Political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”* The current administration has made clear its attacks on intellectual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.

An attack on one has always implicitly meant an attack on the other two. This is what those who would defend the First Amendment must also understand. They must grasp that indivisible integration of freedoms. One cannot uphold freedom of speech to the exclusion of the other preconditions of it, as liberals have done for over a century, which is uphold freedom of speech while advocating the seizure or control of property. Logical consistency required that they now attack what they once defended. Their more ideologically consistent and activist brethren on the Left are only too happy to oblige.

[Panther]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/6041-Free-Press-Run-The-Government.html

21 July 2010 Harry Binswanger

Courtesy of Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, home of the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism

Our only hope for saving America from accelerating tyranny is freedom of speech. In the light of that, it was frightening to read an opinion piece in the July 14th edition of the Wall St. Journal. Its author is Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, home of the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism. The article called for virtual ownership of the media, under guise of subsidies for newspapers, television stations, etc. His premise? Society's need.

"Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are undertaking studies of ways to ensure the steep economic decline faced by newspapers and broadcast news does not deprive Americans of the essential information they need as citizens."

Deprive us of information? How? By not taxing us to give it to us. This is the same way that sick people are "deprived" of medical care they can't afford (or don't wish to insure themselves for), the way that Ford "deprives" poor people of Fords, and Rearden "deprived" people of the use of Rearden Metal. It's small potatoes, but someone should point out that the woes of the mainstream media are due to competition from non-mainstream media. People find non-mainstream media "deprives" them less of "the essential information they need as citizens." What Bollinger really means is: "We have to give tax money to CBS to help fight Rush Limbaugh and FoxNews."

Believe it or not, Bollinger's models of what government subsidies to (i.e., partial ownership of) the media can bring us are Al Jazeera and China's state-controlled media:

"other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China's CCTV and Xinhua news, as well as Qatar's Al Jazeera."

Don't talk to him about rights, about the constitution, about principles; the issue is getting the balance right. Balance of what with what? Blank out. "Right"--by what standard? Blank out.

It's grimly appropriate that the Appeal to Pragmatism should come from the president of the University that was home to John Dewey.

The Wall St. Journal, a private, for-profit enterprise, published this call for the government take-over of newspapers and broadcasters. Does anyone think that state-controlled media would publish a call for their privatization?

[hongK]

Nazneen Khan-Østrem sier i en kronikk på dagbladet.no, http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/08/27/kultur/debatt/kronikk/kokkvold/samtiden/13128936/,

I tillegg opererer Kokkvold med et premiss om at muslimer som ikke liker hans Norge, må komme seg ut av landet. Svært mange muslimer i Norge er faktisk norske statsborgere. Hvor tenker Kokkvold seg at de skal reise? Og hvor synes han de mange etnisk norske, som ikke er enige i de grensene ytringsfriheten har i dag, skal gjøre av seg?

Hvor sendes de som ikke er enige i grensene for ytringsfrihet, hvis objektiv lov implementeres?

Ytringsfrihet innebærer vel at man tar ytringer på alvor. Ytringer som truer andres rett til eget liv og eiendom straffes vel, eller?

[Rounin]

Hvor sendes de som ikke er enige i grensene for ytringsfrihet, hvis objektiv lov implementeres?

Sendes? Hvorfor skulle de sendes vekk?

Ytringsfrihet innebærer vel at man tar ytringer på alvor. Ytringer som truer andres rett til eget liv og eiendom straffes vel, eller?

Dette finnes det sikkert flere tråder om på forumet allerede. Onarki sier for eksempel følgende: "Det er liberalt å nekte folk å komme med trusler, å svindle, oppfordre til kriminelle handlinger eller til angrep på samfunnet. Slike ytringer har nemlig ingenting med frihet å gjøre."

[Vegard Martinsen]

Nazneen Khan-Østrem sier i en kronikk på dagbladet.no, http://www.dagbladet.no/2010/08/27/kultur/debatt/kronikk/kokkvold/samtiden/13128936/,

I tillegg opererer Kokkvold med et premiss om at muslimer som ikke liker hans Norge, må komme seg ut av landet. Svært mange muslimer i Norge er faktisk norske statsborgere. Hvor tenker Kokkvold seg at de skal reise? Og hvor synes han de mange etnisk norske, som ikke er enige i de grensene ytringsfriheten har i dag, skal gjøre av seg?

Hvor sendes de som ikke er enige i grensene for ytringsfrihet, hvis objektiv lov implementeres?

??

Ytringsfrihet innebærer vel at man tar ytringer på alvor.

Nei. MItt syn er at mesteparten av det som sies er bare tull. og jeg tar det ikke på alvor. Men de har rett til å si det.

Ytringer som truer andres rett til eget liv og eiendom straffes vel, eller?

Ytringsfrihet er retten til å gi uttrykk for sine meninger, det er ikke retten til å fremsette reelle trusler, avsløre militære hemmeligheter. etc.

[hytteteppe]

Hvordan defineres "ytring"? Nærmere bestemt, hvordan er følgende ikke en ytring (enten det er sant eller ikke): "Det er min mening at Skavlan er i Sverige som hemmelig agent for norsk militær etterretning".

Iflg. Objektivismen er et utsagn enten sant eller usant, det konvensjonelle skillet mellom "meninger" og "fakta" gir ikke mening. Er det så å forstå at kun usanne utsagn er tillatt?

[Vegard Martinsen]

Hvordan defineres "ytring"? Nærmere bestemt, hvordan er følgende ikke en ytring (enten det er sant eller ikke): "Det er min mening at Skavlan er i Sverige som hemmelig agent for norsk militær etterretning".

Et utsagn blir ikke en mening bare fordi man innleder det med "det eerr nmin mening at".

Utsagnet over gir seg ut for å være en faktaopplysning, og om dette er sant eller ikke kan verifiseres.

"Det er min mening at Skavlan ikke bør være på TV" er en meningsytring.

Iflg. Objektivismen er et utsagn enten sant eller usant

Nei, det kan også være vilkårlig eller meningsløst.

Vilkårlig: satt frem uten noen form for begrunnelse ("Kåre Willoch er i dag i Harstad"), dvs utsagn fremsatt vilkårlig uten at den som sier det vet noe om innholdet er sant eller ikke.

Meningsløst: et utsagn uten kontakt med virkeligheten ("Kåre Willoch er utsendt fra planeten Mars)".

De vilkårlige kan i noen tilfeller undersøkes og så plasseres i kategoriene sant eller usant.

, det konvensjonelle skillet mellom "meninger" og "fakta" gir ikke mening.

Vel, "Norge bør ut av NATO" er en mening. "Totninger bør utryddes, eller i hvert fall ikke jobbe i NRK" er en mening.

Er det så å forstå at kun usanne utsagn er tillatt?

Dette kan ikke være alvorlig ment.

[hytteteppe]

Hvordan defineres "ytring"? Nærmere bestemt, hvordan er følgende ikke en ytring (enten det er sant eller ikke): "Det er min mening at Skavlan er i Sverige som hemmelig agent for norsk militær etterretning".

Et utsagn blir ikek en mening bare fordi man innleder det med "det eerr nmin mening at".

Utsagnet over gir seg ut for å være en faktaopplysning, og om dette er sant eller ikke kan verifiseres.

Ja. Utsagnet har nøyaktig én av to mulige sannhetsverdier, vi vet bare ikke hvilken.

"Det er min mening at Skavlan ikke bør være på TV" er en meningsytring.

Vel, hvis vi følger Objektivismen er det vel ingen "er-bør-dikotomi", slik at hvorvidt Skavlan bør være på TV er vel sant eller usant ettersom hvorvidt nærmere undersøkelser viser at det fremmer menneskets liv som menneske å ha Skavlan på TV eller ikke?

Iflg. Objektivismen er et utsagn enten sant eller usant

Nei, det kan også være vilkårlig eller meningsløst.

Du har selvsagt rett. Dette er en av de rare tingene jeg ikke skjønner helt. I hvertfall vilkårlig-delen. Jeg forstår at det finnes meningsløse utsagn, for eksempel finnes det utsagn som ikke er grammatisk velformet osv.

Vilkårlig: satt frem uten noen form for begrunnelse ("Kåre Willoch er i dag i Harstad"), dvs utsagn fremsatt vilkårlig uten at den som sier det vet noe om innholdet er sant eller ikke.

Hvorvidt man vet sannhetsverdien til et utsagn forhindrer ikke at det har en veldefinert sannhetsverdi. Hvorvidt man supplerer en begrunnelse er også irrelevant. Det er mange situasjoner hvor det ikke er formålstjenlig å fremsette en begrunnelse for samtlige utsagn man kommer med. Men hvordan berører dette egentlig ytringsfrihet?

Meningsløst: et utsagn uten kontakt med virkeligheten ("Kåre Willoch er utsendt fra planeten Mars)".

Dette er vel ikke meningsløst? Kåre Willoch er en person, planeten Mars eksisterer, og "utsendt fra" gir så absolutt mening, ihvertfall når det som kommer etter er et geografisk sted. Det er antakelig ikke sant, men det er da en annen sak.

Eksempler på meningsløse (men likevel grammatisk velformede) utsagn er kanskje "Kåre Willoch er utsendt fra bekymringer", "Kåre Willoch hvisker takknemlige murstein" etc.

, det konvensjonelle skillet mellom "meninger" og "fakta" gir ikke mening.

Vel, "Norge bør ut av NATO" er en mening. "Totninger bør utryddes, eller i hvert fall ikke jobbe i NRK" er en mening.

Du fortsetter å oppgi eksempler på "meninger" som i hovedsak skiller seg fra "fakta" ved at de inneholder ordet "bør". Dette er, som jeg nevnte over, et konvensjonelt skille jeg trodde man ikke aksepterte innenfor Objektivismen.

Er det så å forstå at kun usanne utsagn er tillatt?

Dette kan ikke være alvorlig ment.

Vel, noen ganger skal man kanskje lære av Rands feil, og være forsiktig med å overvurdere sine meddebattanter. Det er utrolig hva folk kan finne på å si i fullt alvor. Spørsmålet over var verken ondsinnet eller humoristisk ment, men retorisk - jeg prøver å finne ut hvordan man egentlig definerer "ytring" på en måte som utelukker alle utsagn som inneholder fakta hvis offentliggjøring kan være skadelig for staten/politikerne etc.

Og det å ramse opp eksempler er ikke en definisjon.

[Skatteflyktning]

....jeg prøver å finne ut hvordan man egentlig definerer "ytring" på en måte som utelukker alle utsagn som inneholder fakta hvis offentliggjøring kan være skadelig for staten/politikerne etc.

Og det å ramse opp eksempler er ikke en definisjon.

Ettersom alle utsagn som inneholder fakta kan vaere skadelig for staten/politikerne ved offentliggjoering kan nok dette bli vanskelig.