- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Interesting take on law protecting free speech
Posted on 11/28/21 at 9:54 am
Posted on 11/28/21 at 9:54 am
Reading more of Kirsten's book and she quotes some legal philosophers about the 1st amendment. They say our freedom of speech doesn't so much exist because of law but rather culture. America has a long tradition of wanting to say what we think. Regardless of who dislikes it.
The reason Europe doesn't have a 1st amendment is because their culture has never embraced freedom as much as ours. She also mentioned that Europeans are not only aware that we are unique on this but they are also envious of our 1st amendment because many don't like being muzzled by censorship.
Bottom line, when our culture embraces censorship the 1st amendment is gone. What are the odds of that happening? She cites a recent poll:
'Does the 1st amendment go too far in protecting freedom of speech?'
Americans over 30: 20% say yes.
Americans under 30: 45% say yes.
She blames the shift not on parents but on the influence of media and academia on the young.
The reason Europe doesn't have a 1st amendment is because their culture has never embraced freedom as much as ours. She also mentioned that Europeans are not only aware that we are unique on this but they are also envious of our 1st amendment because many don't like being muzzled by censorship.
Bottom line, when our culture embraces censorship the 1st amendment is gone. What are the odds of that happening? She cites a recent poll:
'Does the 1st amendment go too far in protecting freedom of speech?'
Americans over 30: 20% say yes.
Americans under 30: 45% say yes.
She blames the shift not on parents but on the influence of media and academia on the young.
6
Posted on 11/28/21 at 10:01 am to Zach
The difference between American and European views on personal liberty:
Europeans believe that something is forbidden unless specifically approved by a higher authority.
Americans believe that something is allowed unless specifically forbidden by a higher authority.
The European version is likely because of the generations of feudalism.
The American view is the practical revolt against feudalism.
Europeans believe that something is forbidden unless specifically approved by a higher authority.
Americans believe that something is allowed unless specifically forbidden by a higher authority.
The European version is likely because of the generations of feudalism.
The American view is the practical revolt against feudalism.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 10:56 am to Zach
As posted above, there’s a fundamental difference in viewpoint between Americans and Europeans. The funny thing, is that the American viewpoints on liberty and natural rights come from English thinkers like Locke, Mill, etc. Many of our fundamental philosophies are British in nature, where we took the ideas and ran with them, while over time, the English rebelled and began to embrace socialistic ideals. Many argue that this is because of WW2.
The original philosophy of the constitution was that, if it’s not specificity spelled out in the constitution, then government has no power over it. They assumed these things to be the right of protection, speech and conscience, etc. People like Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists demanded specific protections in the constitution of their natural liberties because they felt that the central government, as produced, would eventually become too powerful. Seems they were right. Europe, specifically England, is an example of what happens when philosophical ideas are presented and accepted, but are not specifically protected….because they used to have freedoms of speech. It just wasn’t written down.
The original philosophy of the constitution was that, if it’s not specificity spelled out in the constitution, then government has no power over it. They assumed these things to be the right of protection, speech and conscience, etc. People like Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists demanded specific protections in the constitution of their natural liberties because they felt that the central government, as produced, would eventually become too powerful. Seems they were right. Europe, specifically England, is an example of what happens when philosophical ideas are presented and accepted, but are not specifically protected….because they used to have freedoms of speech. It just wasn’t written down.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 10:57 am to Zach
quote:
Kirsten's
Who?
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:00 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Who?
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:02 am to Gr8t8s
Good time for my favorite meme
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:03 am to Zach
quote:
'Does the 1st amendment go too far in protecting freedom of speech?'
Americans over 30: 20% say yes.
Americans under 30: 45% say yes.
She blames the shift not on parents but on the influence of media and academia on the young.
I'd put a good bit of blame to the rise of the new generation of Marxists and our tech overlords. Neither the left nor the emperors of tech want their subjects to contradict them.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:10 am to Auburn1968
quote:
tech overlords.
Who do we blame them on? Was censorship championed by big business of yesterday.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:39 am to Auburn1968
George Orwell was a self-avowed economic socialist. He was just 100% against totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Not sure how he reconciled the two viewpoints, But, even he, in the 1940s, had a big problem with the direction of the media and academia, or intelligencia, believing that they would be prime reasons for the path to the state he feared.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:52 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
But, even he, in the 1940s, had a big problem with the direction of the media and academia, or intelligencia, believing that they would be prime reasons for the path to the state he feared.
In the 1940s it was pretty easy for govts to control media. The frightening thing is how easy it remains.
In the early 1980s there was a debate between college kids in the US (led by Wake Forest coach) and USSR college profs. The subject was capitalism vs. communism.
Everything was in Russian language (they found 4 college debaters in the US who spoke Russian) and the audience was Russian college students in a very large auditorium.
I watched the video around 1985 with English subtitles.
The shocking argument:
US Team: 'You're the ones who are imperialists. Look at your invasion in Afghanistan.'
The audience cracked up. They knew that there were no Russian troops in Afghanistan. The TV, radio and newspapers explained that it was 'fake news' invented by the West to discredit them. And they all bought it.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 11:54 am to Gr8t8s
quote:
George Orwell was a self-avowed economic socialist. He was just 100% against totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Not sure how he reconciled the two viewpoints
Ideologues have an ideal version of socialism where the people and the government are the same thing, so there’s no way the government can take power over the people. It’s never worked that way. Human nature says it never will.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 12:43 pm to Zach
quote:
but they are also envious of our 1st amendment
spoken like someone who doesn't talk to European citizens.
This post was edited on 11/28/21 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 11/28/21 at 12:44 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
spoken like someone who doesn't talk to people from European citizens.
They're institutionalized. They're accustomed to government micromanage their lives.
Like you.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 12:46 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
They're institutionalized. They're accustomed to government micromanage their lives.
Well which one is it? Are they envious or not?
Posted on 11/28/21 at 12:48 pm to Gr8t8s
quote:
He was just 100% against totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Not sure how he reconciled the two viewpoints
You should read on the subject. It's not a hard thing to do.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 1:10 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
spoken like someone who doesn't talk to European citizens.
1. I didn't speak it. Kirsten Powers did. She's talked to lots of Europeans. Try to learn how to read.
2. I've watched at least 100 political commentary videos from Europe in the last 2 years. How many have you watched?
Posted on 11/28/21 at 1:15 pm to LSUconvert
I have buddy. But there’s no version of socialism that exists without government intervention at scale. They all break down as the size of the state grows. That’s the brand of socialism that Orwell, Thoreau, Wilde, etc all advocated.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 1:34 pm to Zach
quote:
Bottom line, when our culture embraces censorship the 1st amendment is gone.
All you have to do to destroy the Constitution is have an overwhelming majority of the people ignore it.
Posted on 11/28/21 at 4:14 pm to TrueTiger
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News