[Emperor Stranger]

To keep from going off-topic in the other threads, I am moving this here.

Basically, I said "the day we start ignoring people's opinions is the day we lose our freedom of speech". I believe that absolutely everyone should be heard. The government should, but doesn't. People should hear each other and they have been hearing each other. If we didn't hear each other's opinions, we would probably still have a massive racism problem.

Gist: Everyone should be heard, no matter how much you don't like what they are saying.

Lamuella, on Oct 17 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

the government should and does listen. There are hundreds of ways to get in touch with your government. The government obviously cannot act on every opinion it receives, in part because many of them are entirely contradictory (for example, pro public option versus anti public option voices). One of the many jobs of an elected official's office is gauging the mood of the public through the communications the public send to them. This is why every political action committee campaigning on an issue tells you to "write to your senator about ______".

This is, it should be mentioned, nothing at all to do with freedom of expression.

But you two are suggesting that certain people can and should be ignored. We wouldn't be where we are today if we just ignored everyone but the government. It is possible to get around the anti-racist laws and such today still..

[America]

Emperor Stranger, on Oct 17 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

To keep from going off-topic in the other threads, I am moving this here.

Basically, I said "the day we start ignoring people's opinions is the day we lose our freedom of speech". I believe that absolutely everyone should be heard. The government should, but doesn't. People should hear each other and they have been hearing each other. If we didn't hear each other's opinions, we would probably still have a massive racism problem.

Gist: Everyone should be heard, no matter how much you don't like what they are saying.



But you two are suggesting that certain people can and should be ignored. We wouldn't be where we are today if we just ignored everyone but the government. It is possible to get around the anti-racist laws and such today still..

Okay, when I was working for the Massachusetts government, we got hundreds of phone calls a day, and Lamuella once again hit the nail on the head with the public option/private option thing. Massachusetts has universal health care by imposing a law that said everyone must have health insurance (a nice public-private balance that guarantees health care and allows for short lines and private choice). When this was enacted, I, the poor 18 year old, was working and would receive hundreds of calls daily from very angry or very happy people. And I was one of five office staff.

In a perfect world I would agree with you, yes, everyones opinion should be listened to and thought about, but that's simply impossible. You have to take a sample from the wide range of opinions and judge everyone based on the amount taken. If you don't then you simply waste too much time listening to everyone (and don't forget, opinions change) and you miss out on voting and have to explain to your constituents why you didn't vote.

[PrinceCaspian]

I've seen some things that go a bit too far when dealing with the First Amendment, especially Bush-era "Free Speech Zones" which, in effect, kept protesters out of the view of the media and secluded to the point where it was difficult to make an opinion publicly known. Although I am an ardent supporter of controlling protests to prevent crime and damage loss, some restrictions go too far.


A good article from The American Conservative http://www.amconmag....3/dec/15/00012/

Quote

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, “As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind.”

[Emperor Stranger]

America, on Oct 17 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Okay, when I was working for the Massachusetts government, we got hundreds of phone calls a day, and Lamuella once again hit the nail on the head with the public option/private option thing. Massachusetts has universal health care by imposing a law that said everyone must have health insurance (a nice public-private balance that guarantees health care and allows for short lines and private choice). When this was enacted, I, the poor 18 year old, was working and would receive hundreds of calls daily from very angry or very happy people. And I was one of five office staff.

In a perfect world I would agree with you, yes, everyones opinion should be listened to and thought about, but that's simply impossible. You have to take a sample from the wide range of opinions and judge everyone based on the amount taken. If you don't then you simply waste too much time listening to everyone (and don't forget, opinions change) and you miss out on voting and have to explain to your constituents why you didn't vote.

I never said everyone's opinions should be heard AND acted upon, I simply said that everyone's opinions should at least be heard. Obviously the government only knows how the people feel because of people voicing their opinions.

[America]

Emperor Stranger, on Oct 17 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

I never said everyone's opinions should be heard AND acted upon, I simply said that everyone's opinions should at least be heard. Obviously the government only knows how the people feel because of people voicing their opinions.

Well I assure you that we do hear everyones opinion who tries to make an effort.

[PrinceCaspian]

America, on Oct 17 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

Well I assure you that we do hear everyones opinion who tries to make an effort.

Some more than others. Like I pointed out, a corporation is going to have a much more important opinion that the average joe.


But that's life. And money.

[Sal Paradise]

What is your actual argument?

How is freedom of speech restricted by an individual private citizen not listening to another individual private citizen?

This post has been edited by Sal Paradise: 17 October 2009 - 12:58 PM

[Delta1212]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the day we lose our freedom of speech is the day we ban people from voicing their opinions. If they aren't worth paying attention to, that's the person in question's problem.

[PrinceCaspian]

Sal Paradise, on Oct 17 2009, 07:57 PM, said:

What is your actual argument?

How is freedom of speech restricted by an individual private citizen not listening to another individual private citizen?

Jumping off of that, important to note that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only protect you from the government, not a private citizen. As soon as you come into my house, your freedom of speech is gone.

[Vladimir]

Emperor Stranger, on Oct 17 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

I never said everyone's opinions should be heard AND acted upon, I simply said that everyone's opinions should at least be heard. Obviously the government only knows how the people feel because of people voicing their opinions.

Does this mean that no matter what I write, however inane (or insane) you will spend your time reading through, carefully considering, and debating it? Because if so I have a large stockpile I can point you to.

There is an infinite amount of data in the world; the important skill is not to take it all in, but to filter through what is useful. I am unlikely to spend much time on WorldNetDaily because it will take time away from reading other things. This is not an attack on WorldNetDaily's freedom of speech; it is the marketplace of ideas.

[America]

PrinceCaspian, on Oct 17 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Some more than others. Like I pointed out, a corporation is going to have a much more important opinion that the average joe.


But that's life. And money.

Well a corporation does it in a different way. Socialists have it all wrong when it comes to that, money indirectly effects things. When you can afford to have someone standing around all day voicing your opinion (I.E. a lobbyist) of course your opinion gets broadcasted more then the average Joe who has to go to work and feed his family in addition to researching and arguing his viewpoint. This is why the elderly are so big in voicing their opinions, when you're retired you have more time and energy.

[Emperor Stranger]

America, on Oct 17 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

Well I assure you that we do hear everyones opinion who tries to make an effort.

If there were no freedom of speech, then wouldn't that be not hearing everyone's opinions, thus my point?

Delta1212, on Oct 17 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the day we lose our freedom of speech is the day we ban people from voicing their opinions. If they aren't worth paying attention to, that's the person in question's problem.

But that's the problem: What makes your opinion better than mine? You have money to bribe the government with?

[Lamuella]

everyone should be heard. I agree. You are able to make yourself heard to your elected officials in countless different ways. Your opinion will be taken under advisement.

However, you are one of millions of people. Even in a perfect world, the government can give only so much time to any one opinion or voice.

Imagine you work in an office where everyone goes out to lunch together every day. The manager decides where to go based on where people tell him they want to go. There are a hundred people in the office. Your strong preference for thai food will be listened to, but if everyone else wants to go to Chili's, or if several people absolutely loathe thai food, you probably won't get it. It's not that you're being ignored, just that your opinion is only being given the consideration that every other opinion gets.

(to make the situation more realistic, of course, the owner of Chili's gives the manager a hefty donation towards office supplies every month )

[Lamuella]

Vladimir, on Oct 17 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

Does this mean that no matter what I write, however inane (or insane) you will spend your time reading through, carefully considering, and debating it?

doubtful, as he's already admitted to not reading threads before posting in them

[PrinceCaspian]

America, on Oct 17 2009, 08:02 PM, said:

Well a corporation does it in a different way. Socialists have it all wrong when it comes to that, money indirectly effects things. When you can afford to have someone standing around all day voicing your opinion (I.E. a lobbyist) of course your opinion gets broadcasted more then the average Joe who has to go to work and feed his family in addition to researching and arguing his viewpoint. This is why the elderly are so big in voicing their opinions, when you're retired you have more time and energy.

And when you can afford to donate large sums of money, which is almost the same thing as voicing your opinion. I promise you, money directly effects how a politician votes. Not every politician, mind you we have some honest ones, but there are a good number that would just as well stand up for X, Inc. because of years of donations.

Take Hillary and her failure at health reform. Was it the public outcry, or the fact that HMOs donated large sums of money to her.

[Emperor Stranger]

Lamuella, on Oct 17 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

everyone should be heard. I agree. You are able to make yourself heard to your elected officials in countless different ways. Your opinion will be taken under advisement.

Precisely. Your opinion should at least be heard. Maybe not processed, debated, refuted, etc., but it should at least be heard and known.

[Sal Paradise]

PrinceCaspian, on Oct 17 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Jumping off of that, important to note that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only protect you from the government, not a private citizen. As soon as you come into my house, your freedom of speech is gone.

To put the OP into context: Emperor Stranger was reacting to an individual poster in another thread saying that he would ignore the opinion of another poster because he thought he was "a non-American Nazi".

http://forums.cybern...s...t&p=1906782


Emperor Stranger, unless he wants to change this to be about the government, was making the point that individuals restrict freedom of speech by ignoring other individuals.


Something I think he needs to better explain. Unfortunately, it seems that he has ironically put me on ignore and may never hear my request for an explanation. A tragic day for the free speech of Sal Paradise, to be sure.

[Delta1212]

Emperor Stranger, on Oct 17 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

If there were no freedom of speech, then wouldn't that be not hearing everyone's opinions, thus my point?

If there was no freedom of speech, we wouldn't hear everyone's opinions. Just because you don't hear everyone's opinions does not mean there is no freedom of speech.

[PrinceCaspian]

Well that is simply ridiculous. The protections on free speech are only in place to protect from the government. Not individuals.

[America]

PrinceCaspian, on Oct 17 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

And when you can afford to donate large sums of money, which is almost the same thing as voicing your opinion. I promise you, money directly effects how a politician votes. Not every politician, mind you we have some honest ones, but there are a good number that would just as well stand up for X, Inc. because of years of donations.

Take Hillary and her failure at health reform. Was it the public outcry, or the fact that HMOs donated large sums of money to her.

I promise you it doesn't for an honest politician. Many places need ethic code updates, but politicians are nowhere near as dirty as one says they are. For Hilary, who knows, it is something I am not well versed on, but many of the politicians I worked with (all but one) were straight dealing and often threw out the more notorious lobbyists.