HOME | DD
Ali-Radicali — Freedom of Speech?
Published: 2012-04-02 03:14:36 +0000 UTC; Views: 1733; Favourites: 37; Downloads: 76
Redirect to original
Description
There's a lot I could say on the subject of freedom of speech, but I'll try to be concise:The right to express oneself is one of the most important rights a human should have; infringing on that liberty for any reason, be it blasphemy laws, profanity laws or SOPA/PIPA/whatever-bill-the-corporate-lobby-invents-next, it's a threat to your liberty.
Since Uncle Sam has such strong feelings on the subject of liberty, I thought I'd let him throw in his two cents, but unfortunately his message wasn't age-appropriate.
Two layer stencil, spraypaint
Red-Blue version: [link]
Related content
Comments: 13
While I appreciate what you are saying the freedom of speech rights have always regulated certain kinds of speech. The right is not a right that dictates that you can say anything you want, however you want to say it. It says that you have the right to expression provided it is civil in content.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
nonono, you're looking at it backwards IMO. As humans, we have the right to free expression, which essentially means we can say anything. So why do we have things like blasphemy- and racism laws? Well, because unfortunately we humans are too irresponsible in our use of free speech and/or too sensitive to others' use of it.
In an ideal society, you would not have to curb free speech at all, since that society would simply ignore/ridicule the more ridiculous things said.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, you are saying that we should move our laws to being what they would be in an ideal society?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ideally, yes, of course.
I realise that in practice, we need laws against anti-social behavior to keep society working. However, I feel that you need a DAMN good reason to take away anyone's freedom(s), and protecting the interests of big corporations (even more) doesn't seem vital to society's well being. Despite the popularity of online "piracy", the entertainment industry seems to be doing just fine, so excuse me if I don't take their complaints seriously.
With blasphemy laws, while I disagree with the concept, i can at least see the justification: without such laws, it becomes easy to incite hate and intolerance amongst religions, and religious people tend to be way sensitive to criticism of their religion.
What threat are the copypirates of the internet? Are they gonna bankrupt hollywood? Microsoft? I doubt it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see. I do find that being forced to say things a certain way enforces a level of civility. I do not like x because x is rude is considerably better than saying I don't like x because x is a ni****, as an example.
I had to look up blasphemy laws to be honest, only some of the US states have them and mine isn't one of them. It is a surprise that a lot of European nations have that law actually.
In regards to piracy...As someone who does a lot of writing and is hoping to one day be a published author, I don't really care if you see my publisher as a big corporation or not, if you pirate my book you're taking food off my table which I would not appreciate at all. The industry of course, will be just fine, but I may not be. It doesn't really matter if you steal from a rich man or a poor man, theft is theft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I guess thats the difference between us then: I don't believe in legistlating civility. It's nice to have someone wish you a nice day, but that doesn't mean we need laws forcing people to do so. The way you act is not the only important thing, the reasons for your actions matter too. Someone who acts friendly out of coercion isn't really being nice, he's just following the rules.
As for piracy, Im not saying the writers/artists/programmers/musicians/actors/etc. should all starve to death, of course not. I have the utmost respect for the creative folk whose work is what actually creates the product that the corporation sells. The problem isn't with pirates, it's with greedy corporations who think it's reasonable to pocket the vast majority of the (huge) profit margin. I think it's unfair to the artits and unfair to the consumers.
In your case, you'd do (nearly) all the work writing the book, so why should your publisher be getting the majority of the money?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Perhaps so. I'll agree to disagree if you do, though I will certainly give it some more thought.
I'd do the work writing it, but I don't have the capital to turn the story into a novel. I just don't have the resources to get it formatted, advertised, or printed in any kind of volume, which is the real work that the publishing company is in charge of pulling together. I also hear from another friend of mine who is also an author that the publisher will also send payments prior to the book is completed, which helps get more paychecks rather than the royalties that come in after long intervals. While I would certainly like to get a higher percentage than what is average, 10%-15% from what I'm reading, I would say that the publisher does earn at least some of it as they take the largest financial risk if we do not include the opportunity cost associated with writing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What's a fair price greatly depends on the size and scale of the operation, the medium in which you're publishing, etc.
Printing and distributing an illustrated hardcover book on a very obscure subject is going to be very expensive, since you won't sell a lot of copies and production costs are high. Publishing your stuff online doesn't have to cost you any money at all.
My hope is that the entertainment industry will realise that it's time to come up with new business models that better suit the information age. Digital information can be copied and distributed virtually free of cost, so the value of information replication and distribution has gone down. As such, it's about time for the price to go down as well.
Some corporations are experimenting with download-based business models and these tend to offer their services at a much lower cost than their hardcopy equivalents. That's the way to go IMO. If someone wants to read a book in a paper format (and I prefer it that way for novels), they should be willing to pay more for the extra services. But the fact that the price of the book is, say 10$, doesn't mean that the digital copy should also be worth ten bucks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This is true. Online publishing is interesting, but I won't get any legitimacy from those around me if I self-publish online. What you say is true and I see what you mean now. A quick one time upload certainly doesn't have much cost associated with it in comparison with hard copies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Trudat. It's limiting everyone for the sake of protecting the (over)sensitive minority.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i barely see the word 'fuck behind the censor sign. if you like, burn the law building outta their eyes and under their nose!(what i mean is the law that not approve by the populations, not the other one)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Woohoo! Go Uncle Sam, tell the greedy corporate lobby like it is!
Well done with this anti censorship art *high fives*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0