Ytringsfrihet

Diskusjon om psykologi, epistemologi og metafysikk (fri vilje, begrepsdannelse, o.l.).

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg QIQrrr 16 Des 2010, 18:15

fredsdefinisjon skrev:...nå er det altså slik at ikke alle enige i at folks preferanser nødvendigvis vil gjenspeiles "automatisk" i markedet. I hvertfall ikke der hvor ressursene er begrensede slik som i dette tilfelle.

I dette tilfellet, hvor båndbredden har en viss begrensning, vil det som flertallet foretrekker å lytte til bli prioritert.

...flertallet skal bestemme hva mindretallet skal ha av mediatilbud?

Markedsmekanismene omfatter ikke noe som medfører lytteplikt, men det som i liten grad etterspørres er ikke lønnsomt. Dette vil heller ikke bli prioritert av tilbyderne, i tråd med det etisk riktige profittmotivet. La meg for ordens skyld legge til at de som etterspør rariteter ikke nødvendigvis er umoralske selv om det finnes flere eksempler på at tilbydere som presenterer meninger for de i utgangspunktet få ved hjelp av statlig tvang og/eller subsidier ofte har et uetisk budskap som gjenspeiler metodene de har tatt i bruk for å kunne forpeste eteren for vanlige folk.

De med mest penger bør få tilgang til frekvensene.

I et fritt marked vil de som er villige til å betale den aktuelle markedsprisen få tilgang til båndbredde. De som ikke kan betale markedspris for båndbredde kan ikke drive radio på den tradisjonelle måten. Dette er helt uproblematisk for alle andre enn de som ikke har gjort seg fortjent til å drive radio på tradisjonell måte, men i dag kan de aller fleste tilby både radio og TV via internett for en svært rimelig penge. Teknologien som gjør at flere nå har mulighet til å spre sine meninger (og annet stoff) er et direkte resultat av at de kapitalistiske markedsmekanismene fundert i det etisk riktige profittmotivet i kombinasjon med konkurranseaspektet har fremprovoseret produktivitets- og effektivitetsøkning. Vi kan derfor slå fast at kapitalisme, i tillegg til å være ytringsfrihetens høyborg, også fremmer ytringsmuligheten.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg fredsdefinisjon 16 Des 2010, 21:06

Mye jeg skal si meg enig i her, og ikke mye å si på det. Du tror nok bedre om markedet enn det jeg gjør, men man kan jo ikke være enige i alt heller. Det skulle da bare mangle.

Og når det gjelder det du sier om Internett, så er jo dette veldig sant. Der er mulighetene for "lavkoststasjoner" nærmest uendelige.

QIQrrr skrev:
De med mest penger bør få tilgang til frekvensene.

I et fritt marked vil de som er villige til å betale den aktuelle markedsprisen få tilgang til båndbredde.

Din forklaring på dette var nok noe bedre. Høyst trolig var forfatteren av denne setningen "Jeg sier at de med størst ølkonomisk ryggrad(dvs flest tilhengere i befolkningen) bør få tilgang til de frekvensene som er tilgjengelig." litt "upresis".
Spørsmål er artige vesner. De kan brukes til å få forskjellige svar fra folk. Selv de som siterer samme bok.
fredsdefinisjon
 
Innlegg: 190
Registrert: 30 Okt 2010, 23:23

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Panther 11 Jan 2011, 20:55

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/law/censorship/6227-the-scarecrow-of-violent-language-and-the-left-s-climate-of-hate.html

The Scarecrow of "Violent Language" and The Left's "Climate of Hate"
11 January 2011 Edward Cline

There is a drive on now to blame the Tea Party, 'right-wingers,' and any frank discussion of Obama and/or liberal politics for the shooting as grounds for establishing censorship against those who oppose the Left.

On the heels of excising the “hurtful” language from Mark Twain’s novels, come the calls for mellowing the “caustic language” of anyone criticizing big government or its recent depredations against the country and its citizenry. The occasion is the attempted murder (the charge of “attempted assassination” is arguable; the victim was not a head of state) of Gabrielle Giffords, Democratic U.S. representative from Arizona, on January 8th during a political event outside a Safeway store in Tucson.


Philosophy 101: All of the blather has its roots in determinism. If one is constantly exposed to violence (or to “violent” words), one will be somehow programmed to commit violence, if not now, then at some time in the future. This idea views all men as ticking time-bombs who must be disarmed, even if it means removing their tongues. Ideally, they say, society should be an environment of fields of daisies and solar panels and unconditional tolerance for all, even for the insane. If one is constantly exposed to pacific rhetoric, one will always be disposed to peaceful demonstrations of agreement or opposition.

Determinism, of course, denies men their capacity for thought and volition. Whatever his mental state, whatever mental parallel universe his mind lived in, Loughner chose to do what he did. In reality.


Translation: Anyone who cites the Constitution, quotes any one of the Founders about the proper role of government, or speaks passionately about the growing loss of freedom – even the freedom to speak one’s mind – must be told to hush, or say it nicely, so as not to frighten anyone.

In short, this is an endorsement of censorship. No, wait. That is too violent an accusation. It might get freedom-of-speechers and First Amendment cultists “fired up” and we cannot predict what they will do, especially if they are also Second Amendment pistol-packers. Let us settle for the softer, more civil appellation of public speech management.


Yes, the massacre was the “mere act of a deranged individual” – the facts of reality are on the side of objective observers – and there is no reason to not “go on as before,” possibly with the repeal of ObamaCare and other legislation favored by Krugman and his statist ilk across the country. While Krugman and his cohorts do not deny that Loughner was “deranged,” they not so subtly imply that anyone who values his freedom and speaks without fear about his value of it is also “deranged” and a menace to society.

The government, the liberal/left in politics, and the intellectual establishment, are collectively guilty of their own “toxic rhetoric” – with the approving rhetoric of censorship.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Burning the Koran is Self-Defeating

Innlegg Panther 03 Feb 2011, 21:16

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/islamic-jihad/6255-burning-the-koran-is-self-defeating.html

2 February 2011 Edward Cline

Any law that protects the “feelings” or “dignity” of Muslims by incorporating “hate speech” laws into its legal system has taken the first crucial step to censorship and the subversion of secular law, including the negation of the First Amendment.

Missing most from arguments against burning Korans is the fact that a Koran may be one’s personal property. This fact is overlooked in all arguments I have read against the action. It is also absent from the argument that when authorities arrest someone who is charged with a “hate crime,” or with “hate speech,” or even with “promoting racial hatred,” the property status of the book is not considered relevant. It is one’s property, but it is subject to the equivalent of a local building or property code on speech.

Burning a book – the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, Ulysses, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, any of the Harry Potter novels, even of Atlas Shrugged, or any work that someone or some group may object to – is basically an emotional expression of the contempt, anger, or fear one harbors for the book. It is fundamentally cathartic in nature; it begins with the flames and ends with the ashes. The emotion is indulged and expended, privately or in public. It is certainly a species of freedom of speech, or of expression, but what does it accomplish beyond the satisfaction of having committed the action?

I do not see that it accomplishes anything tangible, except for the declaration of a particular attitude, view, or position, which may or may not be rational, for all to witness and evaluate. Burning a Koran lets friends, enemies, and the disinterested know where one stands on a specific issue. If one fears or despises the implementation of the Mohammedan diktats in the Koran, one certainly has the right to burn the work in a public or private venue. But one would better contribute to the defeat of the Islamists – who base their stealthy and violent actions on the contents of the Koran, and who, to judge by their actions in this country and around the world, should be feared – by writing a critique of Islam.


If one composted copies of all the books mentioned in this commentary, and used the compost as fertilizer in one’s garden, one’s vegetables or flowers would not grow into inflammatory, poisonous, hate-inculcating monsters.

A Koran, when all is said and done, is merely a physical object, owned by someone, who is free to do with it what he wishes. He can burn it in protest of the ideas contained in it, or tear out its pages, or mulch it. Or he can read it, to better understand what he senses or has heard is objectionable and evil in it.

But treating what could be a personal misdemeanor or futile gesture, such as burning a book, as a capital crime is as much an act and instance of intolerance as an Islamic charge of blasphemy. Any law that protects the “feelings” or “dignity” of Muslims by incorporating “hate speech” laws into its legal system has taken the first crucial step to censorship and the subversion of secular law, including the negation of the First Amendment.

Burning a book is a concession to its author. It hands him a victory he would not have otherwise had.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Ashes for Allah: New Calls for Censorship

Innlegg Panther 06 Apr 2011, 13:41

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/islamic-jihad/6360-%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BFashes-for-allah%3A-new-calls-for-censorship.html

5 April 2011 Edward Cline

Freedom of speech now stands to be sacrificed on the altar of pragmatic accommodation to Muslims and Islam. And as a Graham or Reid or Boehner touch a match to a compromise-soaked Constitution, Muslims, gathering after their prayers, will watch the ashes and smoke rise in the sky, and chant: “Burn, baby! Burn!”

In the 21st century, on the lunatic fringe of American religion, a man decided to revive the medieval practice of putting an animal or inanimate object on trial for some grave offense, which was usually for witchcraft or being an instrument of the devil. The medievalist man is Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, who announced plans to hold a “trial” of the Islamic Koran, charging it with “inciting murder, rape and terrorism.” Mr. Jones’s capacity for intellectual discourse on the evil of the ideas contained in the book being severely limited (he is a Baptist), burning an inanimate object was all that is left to him in the way of rebuttal and protest.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Off With Their Heads: Islamic "Lawfare"

Innlegg Panther 25 Apr 2011, 12:32

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/law/censorship/6394-off-with-their-heads-islamic-lawfare.html

24 April 2011 Edward Cline

It is fear of those expensive and entangling suits, and the risk of inviting demonstrations and even violence, that have silenced most critics of Islam.

“And who are these?” said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rose-tree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children.

“How should I know!” said Alice, surprised at her own courage. “It’s no business of mine.”

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, began screaming, “Off with her head! Off with—”

“Nonsense!” said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.


Lewis Carroll, for all his imagination, could not have imagined that he would make some relevant points in Alice in Wonderland about speaking up against those who would silence criticisms.

Your freedom of speech, in America and abroad, is undergoing the same kind of treatment that airline passengers now undergo at the literal hands of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). If nothing dangerous or controversial or offensive is found on your person, you may go about your business and board your flight. But if you complain, or give the TSA employee a dirty look, you will be subjected to special groping, feel-ups, and molestation just to show you who is boss. You may be ordered to wait in a glass cage as punishment until someone is ready to subject you to more invasive molestation. If you assault a legally sanctioned groper in retaliation, you will be assailed by airport police, regardless of your gender, arrested, handcuffed, gagged, and jailed. You should have known that speaking, or freedom of speech, like flying, is a “privilege.” That is what you have been told.


The parallels are appropriate. Your freedom of speech is held hostage until you submit to censorship. Obviously a contradiction, but one not grasped or recognized by the government, our courts, or civil rights advocates. Power does not need to recognize reason. The Bill of Rights to the contrary notwithstanding, the government and judicial stance on freedom of expression is that it is a permission granted by government, by society, by “God,” by anything but the right to protect yourself from initiated force. Frown at a TSA cipher, and that will be seen as offensive and hostile. Frown at Islam, and that will be interpreted as offensive, hurtful, bigoted, or hostile.

Criticize communism in a communist country, and you will be jailed and sentenced to slave labor. Criticize Nazism in Nazi Germany, and you will be imprisoned and sent to a concentration camp. Criticize fascism in Putin’s Russia, and you will die by a bullet in an elevator, in your car, in a public park. Criticize Islam in Britain in any form, and you will be subjected to due process, tried, fined, and jailed. In Britain, only Muslims may indulge in “hate speech” without penalty or worrisome legal consequences.

Criticize CAIR in the U.S., and you will learn what a ton of bricks feels like when it falls on your head. Like Molly Norris, the makers of “South Park,” like Salman Rushdie, you will either have a fatwa issued for your death, or you will be harassed and/or sued by an organization with terrorist ties.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Panther 06 Aug 2011, 13:03

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/islamic-jihad/6527-norway-s-mass-murderer-anders-behring-breivik-pawn-for-the-left-s-censorship-game.html

Norway's Mass Murderer Anders Behring Breivik: Pawn for The Left's Censorship Game
5 August 2011 Robert Spencer

The scholars, politicians and activists who have spoken out about the threat to human rights and constitutional principles that jihad and Islamization pose have never advocated any kind of violence or illegal activity. By tarring them with the murders of Anders Breivik, the enemies of freedom hope to quash all resistance to the advance of Islamic supremacism in the West.

Don’t resist jihad terror and Islamic supremacism—just surrender, for the sake of the children.

That is the message from the Left and its Islamic supremacist allies this week, in the wake of the horrific murders of more than 70 people at a Norwegian youth camp. Just as Leftists for years have positioned every statist and socialist measure they’ve come up with as “for the children,” now they’re using a massacre of youths in Norway to try to end all resistance to the global jihad. Their pawn in this case is the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik who went on a spree of carnage at a Norwegian youth camp Friday, and couldn’t be better positioned to advance the Leftist agenda if he had come from central casting.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 07 Aug 2011, 06:38

By tarring them with the murders of Anders Breivik, the enemies of freedom hope to quash all resistance to the advance of Islamic supremacism in the West.


Spencer, som er en seriøs person, sier her at den politisk elite i Vesten ønsker å fremme det han kaller Islamic supremacism. Jeg er helt unig i dette. Dette er ikke noe de ønsker.

En omfattende begrunnelse for mitt syn er å finne i to artikler LIBERAL: "Om å få gjennomslag" og "Konspirasjonsteorier og politikk".
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Panther 07 Aug 2011, 14:03

Vegard Martinsen skrev:
By tarring them with the murders of Anders Breivik, the enemies of freedom hope to quash all resistance to the advance of Islamic supremacism in the West.


Spencer, som er en seriøs person, sier her at den politisk elite i Vesten ønsker å fremme det han kaller Islamic supremacism. Jeg er helt unig i dette. Dette er ikke noe de ønsker.

En omfattende begrunnelse for mitt syn er å finne i to artikler LIBERAL: "Om å få gjennomslag" og "Konspirasjonsteorier og politikk".


Jeg er enig med Vegard her, men er ikke overrasket over å se denne uttalelsen selv fra en seriøs person, da dette er noe som lett kan mistolkes slik. Den politiske elite vil prøve å bruke dette til sin fordel, men deres overordnete mål er ikke og har aldri vært å fremme "Islamic Supremacy", men å fremme egne ideer. For å få til dette så spiller det ingen rolle hvem eller hva det er, hadde det ikke vært en norsk bombe mann så hadde det vært noen/noe annen/annet.
Men venstresiden har alltid vært ydmyke, vennligsinnet og støttende ovenfor tyranner, kommende tyranner og barbariske og totalitære regimer. Mange av disse er idag Islamistiske, men selv om de ikke var det så ville disse høyst sannsynligvis fått samme støtten. Så lenge de kan bruke dem til å få gjennomslag for ideene og prosjektene sine, så spiller det ingen rolle for disse hvem det er.
Ken-G. Johansen.
Brukerens avatar
Panther
 
Innlegg: 885
Registrert: 06 Aug 2005, 17:12
Bosted: Lørenskog

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg QIQrrr 29 Sep 2011, 03:39

WWL-TV, September 28, 2011: NEW ORLEANS -- There are several political signs attracting all kinds of attention in one Uptown neighborhood. On Wednesday, crowds gathered at the corner of Calhoun and Coralie streets, looking at several signs depicting President Barack Obama as either a dunce, a puppet or a crying baby in a diaper - Anti-Obama sign in Uptown neighborhood draws controversy

Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg razorth 01 Okt 2011, 10:54

"Du tror nok bedre om markedet enn det jeg gjør, men man kan jo ikke være enige i alt heller"

hva er du skeptisk til i markedet?
razorth
 

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 02 Okt 2011, 06:51

Det er ikke sklik at "markedet har rett".

At fenomener som astrologi lever og blomstrer viser jo dette.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Larebil 04 Okt 2011, 22:52

Ytringfrihet finnes ikke i VG ihvertfall...
Jeg ble utestengt uten å true, slenge med leppa eller være usakelig.
Glimrende!
Frihet er bedre en tvang, gang på gang!
-Meg selv
Brukerens avatar
Larebil
 
Innlegg: 41
Registrert: 26 Sep 2011, 22:21
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 05 Okt 2011, 05:50

Larebil skrev:Ytringfrihet finnes ikke i VG ihvertfall...
Jeg ble utestengt uten å true, slenge med leppa eller være usakelig.
Glimrende!


De har all rett til å stenge ute hvem de vil (akkurat som vi har på dette forum).

Men at de stenger oss ute er bare et tegn på at de ideer vi står for er farlige for establishment.

Vi får bare håper at Internett forblir uregulert ...
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7865
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Ytringsfrihet

Innlegg Rårke 05 Okt 2011, 15:38

Vegard Martinsen skrev:
Larebil skrev:Ytringfrihet finnes ikke i VG ihvertfall...
Jeg ble utestengt uten å true, slenge med leppa eller være usakelig.
Glimrende!


De har all rett til å stenge ute hvem de vil (akkurat som vi har på dette forum).

Men at de stenger oss ute er bare et tegn på at de ideer vi står for er farlige for establishment.

Vi får bare håper at Internett forblir uregulert ...



Ja, internett bør for det meste forbli som det er. Det betyr ikke at man skal kunne slippe unna med tyveri (piratkopiering) bare fordi man er på internett.
Det virker som om noen tror at internett nærmest er en "fristad". Jeg har ikke noen løsning på problemet med piratkopiering, men det bør gå an å finne
en som gjør at man ikke krenker privatlivets fred. Er det for eksempel så ille at man kan få utlevert navnet bak en IP-adresse slik at man kan gå
til sak mot noen som har lastet opp/ned ulovlig?
Rårke
 
Innlegg: 25
Registrert: 05 Okt 2011, 15:27

ForrigeNeste

Gå til Grunnleggende ideer

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron