Repeal it!

There should be a week on this forum where everyone practices writing clearly about something of modest proportions. (Countdown to dick jokes, 3, 2, 1, 0. Done? Still, the suggestion would be an interesting exercise.)

I think we should repeal Amendment XX, Section II:

"The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3 day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

I think we should be honest with ourselves; they're not getting anything done, and they could really use that time to campaign. If they don't want to assemble, I think we should stop making them.

Free speech question: is it OK to yell "FIRE!" at a crowded book burning?

@2wl,
Sub-question, is it OK to yell "FIRE!" at a crowded execution by firing squad?

I think you should stay on topic.

Sub-sub-question: is it OK to mute a user in a free speech thread?

In all seriousness, for all the idioicy of people that want to take away other freedoms to save lives or whatever - give me a break, it is freedom of speech that creates conflict - so do-gooders should be all for this.

I think the first amendment specifically enumerates the right to go off-topic.

@2WL,
I think so. If the freedom of religion also encompasses the freedom FROM religion, then the freedom of speech should likewise imply the freedom FROM speech.

nteresting post, Krellin. It does pretty good as read in earnest, and even better as satire.

But as "the government" (in the broadest sense - the institutions) can pretty efficiently "direct any and all activities of our daily lives" there is no need for it to control the "speech". This can be left as free as fck. I know that you know, Krellin, that it matters not a whit what we talk, so why shouldn't it be **freee**?
And the freer and lighter the talk the less incentive for free thought...

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

@SYlence - It is my (no doubt sad) attempt at satire in the spirit of Jonathon Swift.

But being completely serious, in a world of imposed silence, there would be far fewer conflict, and far fewer deaths from violence. The gun violence we all abhor - would be reduced to nothing in a silent society in which men didn't come to bear arms to resolve their verbal disputes, for example.

So whereas good-intentioned people think it necessary to singularly attack existing rights and freedoms - 2nd Amendment, for example - then surely any man of good moral prinicple, seeing the destructive nature of the freedom of speech, would recognize that while the intent was good, the outcome has been a failure.

Whereas the intent of free speech was to enable a free press to openly critique a government, most can acknowledge that for the most part our free press has failed in this task, and in many instances and become complicit with the government, and become little more than the government's mouthpiece and propaganda wing, in order to maintain their free access to the White House so they might "get the next scoop..."

From a single act of violence on the streets, too often we see marches of thousands in response, who then call for further violence in response to the violence they claim to abhor.

Free speech has simply been a failure...which has caused immeasurable destruction to the fabric of society.

Yes, but you miss a key point - much like Guns, Speech is also regulated. There are some things you cannot say in practice ('I have a gun' at an airport) or in theory (obscenity, defamation, incitement, incitement to riot or imminent lawless action, fighting words, fraud, speech covered by government granted monopoly (copyright), and speech integral to criminal conduct according to Wikipedia at least).

No, you miss a key point - the speech that is still allowed causes all sorts of social harm. How is a politician that is allowed to blatantly lie to secure power and authority over the people he lied to a good thing? How is Al Sharp ton leading thousands in the street and creating racial strife while calling for vengeance against a man outside the legal system a good thing? How is it a good thing when people of a certain sexual preference and their supporters call out religious people as hate mongers when they decry a behavior, not a person (and yet they are personally called out, not their behavior, in a perverse twist...)

No...the allowed free speech is terribly offense and destructive.

I agree that there is destructive free speech, but guns may not be the best comparison for your point - guns that are still legal are destructive as well. I would probably try to limit both a little differently. It is hard to legislate speech, since speech depends on context. Something innocuous can be harmful in a different situation. Much like a gun held by some guy who just has a collection, or has a gun safely locked away as a memento or something, is probably less harmful than some angry man incapable of self-control with guns everywhere. Otherwise, speech is hard to categorize, mostly because of the importance of context. 'Hate speech' should be banned, but it is also difficult to define. Common law uses the concept of a 'reasonable' person, and whether they would find it offensive, but there are no 'reasonable' people. Everyone is different, and we cannot afford to legislate speech by whether someone is offended by it, as this forum can easily prove. I think each of us has managed to offend someone else at some point. We must be careful. Still, I agree with the general point, that free speech is dangerous. So is censorship, though.

phil - it's far too difficult to decide what is good speech and what is bad speech. It is far to difficult to try to weed out those that have good intentions, that will not break the law with their voice, and those that will use it to incite violence.

And even the currently law-abiding may suffer a blow to the head and become unstable, and thus at a future time, though we can not tell it now, become a destabilizing, violent offender who provokes other to violence and social chaos.

No...it is far too difficult a thing to try to regulate speech more effectively, and it is best to just give up the notion of free speech altogether. After all, what purpose does it serve, since no speech can be trusted anyway. You do not need free speech to voice an opinion about your government, because your government is perfectly capable of controlling...caring...for you without you voicing your opinion. Likewise, you are perfectly capable of worshiping (or not) the god(s) of your choice without having to blather on about it. You are perfectly capable of having the sexual relationships of your choice without announcing it to the world and seeking other's approval....so there is truly no good reason for us to have free speech. It benefits this society not a whit.

Yes, but what speech are you going to allow? Speech is vital, and it probably should be limited for certain things. We can't take certain topics out of the discussion, either. Those fields would then stagnate. I agree with you, free speech doesn't work perfectly in some cases, and regulation is necessary when the speaker infringes upon the rights of someone else through the speech. I just do not see what you are suggesting instead. What speech will you allow?

Wait, is krellbells actually serious? Seemed like a troll at first...

phil - I'm not sure what you don't understand. The First Amendment needs to be repealed...the existence of any free speech can be perverted to destructive use...can be twisted for evil intent and cause violence. There should be no free speech. Free speech should be banned, so as to prevent violence and social chaos.

No speech is necessary, as pointed out above. We need not express our thoughts to one another. Any thoughts that need to be expressed can be expressed by our government, to us. We need not speak back, ever. What beliefs you should hold can be stated to you by your government in order to best manifest a uniformity of thought and belief that is most conducive to a peaceful and controlled society, in which everyone is equal. Any free speech can only serve to destabilize an equal, peaceful society, even to the extent that one is demonstrated to have a superior thought process or intellect than another - which is simply unfair, the luck of the "genetic lottery" - and expression of such unequal "gifts" (perversions, really) must be eliminated.

@ILN - what may have started out as a jest certainly holds the clean, pure logic of a just cause, does it not?

I'd like to discuss this further, but it's getting a bit too insane. I know you're parodying other activists, and channeling 1984, but there isn't anything to discuss there. Could you try to give me something to argue against?

Are you talking about strictly limiting specific types of speech, or an outright ban on speech altogether?

Would the proposed repeal eliminate the other freedoms included within the first amendment, namely press, assembly, religion, and petition? And by that I mean would a repeal result in the outright ban of all forms of worship, the abolition of all forms of media, an end to people gathering together in pairs of groups, and a prohibition on petitioning the government for redress of grievances? If so, then I'm on board.

Lol Krellin, didn't read all of it before I wrote that.

@phil - "Could you try to give me something to argue against? "

Your statement implies that you are in total agreement, since you have nothing to argue against. I'm not sure what you think is unsaid, that you are seeking something to argue against. I would suggest that the truth of my proposal is so obvious, and so repugnant, that you both agree and are horrified at the same time.

As it is with most "logical" arguments that activists make when they seek to strip of us our freedom for our own good.

None the less, the proposal stands as is, and when the government alone is providing you with all the thoughts and knowledge you need to meander your way through life, all will be well.

lol Krellin, you are deft at stirring slumbering minds into a boggle.
I don't know J.Swift too well, but I think he can be proud of you.
I think your piece here now served to provoke a perfect response from Phil. That's a merit of good satire.

I agree to all Phil said. Central is this:Speech belongs to a context.
People living in a modern fully institutionalised welfare state will get a very naive notion of "free speech" - of what's really at stake.

Let's say you go into a bar in a politically dynamic society and Free and Frisky You utter the words "Down with the King!". You may find that you are all of a sudden the center of and proclaimed leader of an insurgence of armed men. Your words in that situation, that context would have a very significant and consequential meaning, and in such a society the ruler(s) cannot afford that particular freedom in speech.
But in another context - as I suppose we all here have more experience of - you can tirade about "down with the King" as much as you like and no need for anybody to care about it.

So we should realize the very simple and self-evident rule is that where speech can call for action or make some kind of serious impact it is never "free" - you must be careful, you will be held responsible.
But where your speech doesn't challenge anyone or anything, and if you have nothing better to do, you can make it an art form of reveling in this freedom and have your hearts fill of it.

Sylence - so let's presume that you, sitting at your computer now, decide that it is time to post "Down with the Kind - down with Obama" in these very forums. You assume that the present make-up of WebDiplomacy players is a generally intelligent set of people, who like to espouse radical idea for the sake of interesting discussion to pass the night away, and that we are all relatively sane, comfortable people - after all, we display a level of intelligence which I would argue exceeds the average population, we have computers, etc...in other words, no reason assume any nefarious goals of the collected population.

But who is to say that someone here hasn't just suffered some dramatic life event; that their otherwise sable life hasn't just been turned upside-down. They lost their job, they just got the letter in the mail that their health coverage (which they were assured they could keep) had been cancelled, and now their spouse, the love of their life, is certain to die because she will be denied the treatment he needs...he has reached his tipping point.

He is also a hunter, mind you, with a high caliber hunting rifle that even the gun-grabbers would say is OK to own -- after all, it's a long-gun, and American tradition, and even the vocal gun-grabbers in Congress won't go after those. And by the way, his high caliber hunting rifle with the red-dot scope -- it's a sniper rifle; that's what hunting rifles are.

This gentleman also lives proximate to D.C...and as he sits here in despair, looking at the $34.75 left in his bank account, and he reads the words, "Down with the King", he realizes that his sentiment is true...that this is what he must do. After all, what else is left for him. He can't pay the next payment on his life insurance...but the money that will be paid out will save his wife's life...

...the day the President was assassinated, because a desperate hunter took a casual comment to heart, was the day the the race riots began, and Congress finally came together with enough votes to make that gun grab.

The social media was aflame within a week, and it wasn't long before the race protesters, the gun grabbers, the "liberals" that were finally seeing so many of their long-fought-for dreams being enacted by a Congress pandering to a fear-filled people were being opposed by the armed citizens who cried for their diminishing freedoms...

The blood bath that spread across the nation destabilized the economy to he point that the nations of the worlds finally turned an eye to China...the US dollar was replaced as the currency of global commerce...

...and thus the great reign of the United States came to an end, by the careless spoken free speech in a casual conversation on WebDiplomacy...

Thanks Krellin for that illustrative story. And yes... It is a reminder to me that while I count the US, like Sweden where I live, as "stable and highly institutionalized" I must acknowledge that there are some shades and degrees to political dynamism also within this category.
There is more risk (chance?) of an American president than a Swedish Prime Minister getting shot, although this can, and has happened both here and there.
(And although such an act, as Krellin here describes it too, has no revolutionary issues, but is rather the act of an instable or misinformed mind)

And so, we are deep into this discussion about the amendments - the first and the second.
I have noted that a central argument for the defenders of the second amendment is that the ample presence of firearms should make for a society where people are more respectful and careful with what they say or do.
This is the conclusion Krellin wants to arrive at, eh?

"I have noted that a central argument for the defenders of the second amendment is that the ample presence of firearms should make for a society where people are more respectful and careful with what they say or do.
This is the conclusion Krellin wants to arrive at, eh? "

Not at all. My assertions regarding the removal of free speech "rights" is not specifically tied to guns.

"...and thus the great reign of the United States
came to an end, by the careless spoken free
speech in a casual conversation on
WebDiplomacy..."

We can only hope&dream...

Thabks for the inspiring illustration of the benefits of free speech, Down with the King!