The Myth of "Free Speech"

[redstar2000]

Blogger grounded by her airline

A US airline attendant is fighting for her job after she was suspended over postings on her blog, or online diary.

Queen of the Sky, otherwise known as Ellen Simonetti, evolved into an anonymous semi-fictional account of life in the sky.

Jeffrey Matsuura, director of the law and technology programme at the University of Dayton, said personal websites can be hazardous for both employers and their employees.

"There are many examples of employees who have presented some kind of material online that have gotten them in trouble with employers," he said.

"You have to remember that as an employee, you don't have total free speech anymore," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3955913.stm

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gaf]

free speech is just withering away, like manager dreams will, only they don't realise it yet.I won't follow your "vision"boss ,i'll keep fighting,boss.See you,boss,i won't be the slave you want me to be ,boss.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Come on, Redstar, you know this isn't really a free speech issue.

Corporations are not the government, and they are not necesarilly subject to Constitutional observation when disciplining employees for legitimate reasons.

This company made a call that they felt was in their best interest. The reasoning is that this lady posed for photos in her uniform, which made her a de facto public representative of the airline. She also spoke about the airline in her blog as an employee, which is really a public document. The airline deemed these representations of them inappropriate by their standards, standards which I'm confident are clearly outlined in their company employee manual.

Remember, breaking company bylaws are not protected by the constitution, i.e., I can't give away the recipe for Coca-Cola under the umbrella of "free speech". Similarly, this girl can't just pose in her flight attendant outfit and invoke her company in her blog, thus affecting their image, and claim that disciplinary action in response to such activities is a violation of free speech.

Now, Redstar, before responding, be advised that I won'tr disagree with you as to whether or not this company's actions were too harsh, my only objection is that you've seemed to suggest that this was a violation of a constitutional amendment, when it absolutely was not.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:26 PM
free speech is just withering away, like manager dreams will, only they don't realise it yet.I won't follow your "vision"boss ,i'll keep fighting,boss.See you,boss,i won't be the slave you want me to be ,boss.
Ah, yes, you are truly an oppessed class over there at Wacky Will's Furniture on the corner of 5th and Main.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 07:43 PM
Ah, yes, you are truly an oppessed class over there at Wacky Will's Furniture on the corner of 5th and Main.
it happens that i'm right now fighting against (know everithing about monney) manager,
and i'm working in the health sector.well this arsheole have a "vision" and you know what they just loose (no mistake here) 17 .000.000 euro in this fucking vision.the score, we have to work as hell and those "clients"(the sick people)have to do with stress there,and the gouvernement who support the war in irak is cutting all funds for the health sector.better kill people in irak than cure people here, he.but i guess will's furniture don't sell guns....hum pitty,because sometimes i just will like to wage a wako like carnage against those bastards,so capi did you had to fight once in (for)your life?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:59 PM
it happens that i'm right now fighting against (know everithing about monney) manager,
and i'm working in the health sector.well this arsheole have a "vision" and you know what they just loose (no mistake here) 17 .000.000 euro in this fucking vision.the score, we have to work as hell and those "clients"(the sick people)have to do with stress there,and the gouvernement who support the war in irak is cutting all funds for the health sector.better kill people in irak than cure people here, he.but i guess will's furniture don't sell guns....hum pitty,because sometimes i just will like to wage a wako like carnage against those bastards,so capi did you had to fight once in (for)your life?
Heck, kid, I'm an Ameircan, violence and fighting is kindred to geing acitizen here.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 09:23 PM
Heck, kid, I'm an Ameircan, violence and fighting is kindred to geing acitizen here.
i'm please to not be a kid and american

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 09:29 PM
i'm please to not be a kid and american
Your loss.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm not very surprised by this either. This is nothing new. I'm sure that if anybody had posed in sexually suggestive poses in their work uniform in the past, folks would have an issue with it.

It is a bit disgusting, though. Why value the reputation of some clothes so much?

But I mean, the companies are just looking out for their money. No surprise there.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
Come on, Redstar, you know this isn't really a free speech issue.

Corporations are not the government, and they are not necessarily subject to Constitutional observation when disciplining employees for legitimate reasons.

Of course it is not a "free speech" issue -- it's precisely my point that "free speech" is a myth.

But it's a very popular myth...and one that I feel strongly motivated to criticize by demonstrating that it doesn't actually exist.

For example, how many patriots have you heard say something like "I love America because you have the freedom to criticize the government"...and within minutes or even seconds turn right around and say "Those people who criticize America are supporting terrorism and ought to be locked up!"?

The young woman who worked for Delta Airlines was not even "critical" of her employer...they just didn't like her "image".

Imagine what would happen to a Delta employee who posted accounts of Delta's gross mismanagement, books-cooking, mistreatment of employees, inadequate safety procedures, etc.?

Corporate despotism is not just a phrase; it's a description of reality.

You don't need a "secret police" or a "gulag" if everyone understands that speaking out and "saying the wrong words" or even "projecting the wrong image" will result in unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc.

And there are some other things you might want to ask yourself.

How did Delta find out her identity? Did their lawyers "lean" on her internet service provider?

And who's asking questions about you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Palmares]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Oct 28 2004, 05:40 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Oct 28 2004, 05:40 AM)Corporations are not the government, and they are not necesarilly subject to Constitutional observation when disciplining employees for legitimate reasons. [/b]
I think this is the point. Corporations have immense powers to dictate how "free" speech should be, yet have no accountibility to the constitution, and therefore the people.


Capitalist Imperial
This company made a call that they felt was in their best interest.

Private interests indeed. <_<

[gaf]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 09:52 PM
Your loss.
yes indeed,i just couldn&#39;t find WMD by Wacky Will&#39;s Furniture on the corner of 5th and Main.

[Sabocat]

I&#39;m an Ameircan, violence and fighting is kindred to geing acitizen here.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Nyder]

Redstar,

She lost her job, not her life. There is a difference.]

But I agree, down with (state) capitalism&#33; :D

[Professor Moneybags]

How exactly is this preventing freedom of speech ?

This is as silly as the "you can sell yourself into slavery" argument.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:10 PM
Of course it is not a "free speech" issue -- it&#39;s precisely my point that "free speech" is a myth.

But it&#39;s a very popular myth...and one that I feel strongly motivated to criticize by demonstrating that it doesn&#39;t actually exist.
Are you another one of these who thinks stopping people graffiting over trains and walls is a violation of their freedom of speech/expression ?

[Osman Ghazi]

She lost her job, not her life. There is a difference.]

For a middle class person like yourself, for whom getting a job has never been a problem, it is easy to shrug it off as &#39;just a job&#39;. But to someone without the benefit of university or college education, (i.e. the majority of the American population, let alone the rest of the world), a job is not something to be taken lightly.


How exactly is this preventing freedom of speech ?

Hmm, let&#39;s see. You can say anything you want, but if you say this, you will be severely punished. A lot like saying &#39;anything is possible, except that&#39;.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nyder+--> (Nyder)She lost her job, not her life. There is a difference.[/b]

Of course there is...but it&#39;s not as "cut and dried" as you suggest, is it?

In a capitalist society, what exactly is it that stands between you and being homeless, going hungry, and ultimately dying of malnutrition, exposure, and related illnesses?

It&#39;s a job, isn&#39;t it? Regular, secure employment that allows you to pay your rent on time, pay for your lights, heat or air conditioning, make your car payments and your car insurance payments, make the minimum payments on your credit cards, keep your phone(s) hooked up, etc., etc., etc.

All of that boasted "middle class standard of living" is based on having and keeping a good job. If you lose it, for any reason, you are fucked&#33;

Sure, you can always get a marginal shit-job (McDonald&#39;s is always hiring...and so is Wal-Mart). But you&#39;ll lose that nice apartment and probably your car as well...in fact, it&#39;s hard to predict just what you&#39;ll end up with. You can file for personal bankruptcy or, like many people, just "walk away" from all the bills.

Most damaging of all, you lose your self-respect...in capitalist society we are incessantly bombarded with the message that "you are responsible for what happens to you".

So if you experience "downward mobility" -- that means land in the shit -- for any reason at all, you have the powerful impulse to blame yourself&#33;

In this particular case, Delta Airlines trashed her life -- a well-paying, unionized job that allowed her a degree of comfortable living unusual for women workers in America. She still has opportunities, of course...since she is still young and attractive, the sex industry is probably her "best shot".

Or she can hurry up and marry some upper-class guy who will support her...contractual prostitution, in other words.

Capitalism is a casino...and most people lose.


Professor Moneybags
Are you another one of these who thinks stopping people graffiting over trains and walls is a violation of their freedom of speech/expression?

Well, isn&#39;t it?

In fact, what the kids who do that sort of thing are really saying is "I exist&#33;"

In your system, people don&#39;t really exist except as workers or as capitalists -- producers of wealth or expropriators of wealth.

Some adolescents seem particularly resentful of being locked into that box and attempt to assert their individual human existence through "tags". They haven&#39;t learned to "accept" their degraded status.

It&#39;s a sadly ineffectual form of protest, but protest it is.

I support it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Trump_$$$]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:24 PM

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
She was free to say what she wanted (She is not in jail) and the company was free to take whatever actions they felt were in their best interest.

[Trump_$$$]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:25 AM
In a capitalist society, what exactly is it that stands between you and being homeless, going hungry, and ultimately dying of malnutrition, exposure, and related illnesses?
Nothing except yourself. It&#39;s called life. You are responsible for your actions/inactions. I am NOT responsible for someones parents teaching them ebonics instead of pushing them to study and neither are you.

I don&#39;t remember signing some contract at birth that guaranteed a home, food, blah blah blah.

[Hate Is Art]

I always find myself lost for words when replying to topics like this. How people can defend the actions of delta here are beyond me.

You can&#39;t sack an employee for writing something you don&#39;t like on the internet

Ok, say I took a picture of me in my work shirt and posted it on my website could they sack me? Appears so.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Trump &#036;&#036;&#036;, the right to life is fundamental. By yr logic, perhaps, yes, my boss should be able to fire me arbitrarily, but, in turn, I should be able to stab him in the face. I mean, did he sign a contract at birth, ensuring that he would never be brutally murdered for being a piece of capitalist shit? I don&#39;t believe he did&#33;

Seriously, some rights are inherent and inalienable.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don&#39;t remember signing some contract at birth that guaranteed a home, food, blah blah blah.

No one ever signed an agreement with the government, but if you don&#39;t comply, they&#39;ll throw you in jail or worse anyways.


the company was free to take whatever actions they felt were in their best interest.

Am I free to take &#39;whatever actions I feel are in my best interest&#39; too? Or do you first have to attain corporate personhood to gain those rights?

Like VMC said, if I feel that stabbing them in the face is in my best interest, am I free to do it? No. So why can the company do whatever they feel like?

[Professor Moneybags]

Trump &#036;&#036;&#036;, the right to life is fundamental. By yr logic, perhaps, yes, my boss should be able to fire me arbitrarily, but, in turn, I should be able to stab him in the face.

He has nothing to you, owes you nothing and has not initiated force against you. Yet you think this grants you the right to initiate force against him.


Seriously, some rights are inherent and inalienable.

A right to a job isn&#39;t one of them.

[STI]

A right to a job isn&#39;t one of them.

What about the things that having a job allows one to do (eat decently, live in a decent place, etc)?

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:10 AM

She lost her job, not her life. There is a difference.]


Yes she lost her job and don&#39;t you think that for a working class, job also means life? Have you ever heard of the phrase "earning a living"?

[Professor Moneybags]

Well, isn&#39;t it?

In fact, what the kids who do that sort of thing are really saying is "I exist&#33;"

...at the expense of others. Anyone who attempts to assert their identity by comitting vandalism is a product of your ideals.


In your system, people don&#39;t really exist except as workers or as capitalists -- producers of wealth or expropriators of wealth.

I&#39;m not interested in your socio-economic fairytales.


Some adolescents seem particularly resentful of being locked into that box and attempt to assert their individual human existence through "tags". They haven&#39;t learned to "accept" their degraded status.

It&#39;s a sadly ineffectual form of protest, but protest it is.

I support it.

I can imagine your response to the columbine massacre : "They&#39;re not murderers, they&#39;re just protesters &#33;" It&#39;s an expression of frustrated power-lust; the tell tale signs of a sociopath.

[Professor Moneybags]

For a middle class person like yourself,

I beg your pardon ? I don&#39;t remember claiming this.


for whom getting a job has never been a problem, it is easy to shrug it off as &#39;just a job&#39;. But to someone without the benefit of university or college education, (i.e. the majority of the American population, let alone the rest of the world), a job is not something to be taken lightly.

Better not bite the hand that feeds you then.


Hmm, let&#39;s see. You can say anything you want, but if you say this, you will be severely punished. A lot like saying &#39;anything is possible, except that&#39;.

Out of context, as usual.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Trump_&#036;&#036;&#036;+--> (Trump_&#036;&#036;&#036;)It&#39;s called life. You are responsible for your actions/inactions. I am NOT responsible for someone&#39;s parents teaching them Ebonics instead of pushing them to study and neither are you.[/b]

What does "Ebonics" have to do with the fired Delta flight attendant?

Am I "responsible" for not being born rich?

"It&#39;s called life"...under capitalism.


I don&#39;t remember signing some contract at birth that guaranteed a home, food, blah blah blah.

Well there&#39;s the fact that babies, even very precocious babies, still can&#39;t sign contracts because they can&#39;t write...not to mention the fact that unless you are unique in human history, you can&#39;t remember anything you did or didn&#39;t do when you were a baby.

But setting aside your rhetorical ineptitude, why do you think it unreasonable that babies (or anyone) should not be "guaranteed a home, food, blah, blah, blah"?

Do you prefer a world where the fortunate step over (or drive past) the bodies of the unfortunate? Perhaps you think that "pauperism" should be a capital crime? With faster executions?

Did you choose the username "Trump" because you identify with that rich scumbag?


Professor Moneybags
Anyone who attempts to assert their identity by committing vandalism is a product of your ideals.

That&#39;s a bit of a stretch, isn&#39;t it? I don&#39;t think there are many "taggers" who read the redstar2000papers site.

I could be wrong about that, of course. :lol:


I&#39;m not interested in your socio-economic fairytales.

If you don&#39;t think you&#39;ll like the answer, it&#39;s better to refrain from asking the question.


I can imagine your response to the Columbine massacre : "They&#39;re not murderers, they&#39;re just protesters&#33;" It&#39;s an expression of frustrated power-lust; the tell-tale signs of a sociopath.

Who, them or me? :lol:

Why don&#39;t you just "imagine" my responses to all the matters you want to raise...and then you won&#39;t even have to bother raising them at all. You can just cuddle up with your sense of righteousness and not have your equilibrium disturbed by "commie sociopaths"...until the "mob" arrives at your castle gates.

Alas for you then, of course. How do you think your head will look on a spike?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Who, them or me? :lol:

I&#39;m still working that out.


Why don&#39;t you just "imagine" my responses to all the matters you want to raise...and then you won&#39;t even have to bother raising them at all. You can just cuddle up with your sense of righteousness and not have your equilibrium disturbed by "commie sociopaths"...until the "mob" arrives at your castle gates.

Alas for you then, of course. How do you think your head will look on a spike?

I think it&#39;s time you put your tin foil hat back on.

[Capitalist Imperial]

The copmpany&#39;s disciplinary actions were a prefect example of freedonm of speech and choice.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:25 AM

Well, isn&#39;t it?

In fact, what the kids who do that sort of thing are really saying is "I exist&#33;"

In your system, people don&#39;t really exist except as workers or as capitalists -- producers of wealth or expropriators of wealth.

Some adolescents seem particularly resentful of being locked into that box and attempt to assert their individual human existence through "tags". They haven&#39;t learned to "accept" their degraded status.

It&#39;s a sadly ineffectual form of protest, but protest it is.

I support it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Come on, Redstar, his is a stretch even for you.

Aren&#39;t you simply being a criminal apologist right now?

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 06:00 PM
Come on, Redstar, this is a stretch even for you.

Aren&#39;t you simply being a criminal apologist right now?
"We&#39;re criminal minded because our thoughts are illegal." - KRS1

No we don&#39;t apologize for bringing life to grey concrete walls. Maybe, just maybe, I feel a little bad for small businesses that take it, but as for subway trains, and the sides of wal-marts, I completely condone it&#33;

[Individual]

The Myth of Free Speech

The ability to degrade one&#39;s sex, race, age, and ability.

You aren&#39;t really arguing in defense of free speech, are you?

Honestly redstar, quit with the hypocrisy. If there were complete free speech, I believe your political beliefs to be otherwise. You are suddenly touched by the "myth of free speech" because it now involves a corporation..

Take a look at something as small as a message board. Let alone a true society..

You, as an administrator, have absolutely no problem shuffling free speech using the immediate claim "this is not society, this is only a message board, get used to it" .. Why then does it seem any different to you when it comes down to real life, living in a very real society?

A few hundred kids on an internet message board vs. A few billion people living within a very real society

Which do you think would require more guidelines to live by?

You don&#39;t care to much for when a young kid likes to claim he is a capitalist, taking upon him that he is somehow the scum of the earth. You don&#39;t really think a sixteen year old has his political views all figured out do you?

So what is the difference in you silencing teenagers vs. the real world, living very real lives, being silenced under the law?

The myth of free speech. Do you stand up for free speech so that you have the ability to spew racism? Hell no, free speech is not always pretty.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:34 PM
"We&#39;re criminal minded because our thoughts are illegal." - KRS1

No we don&#39;t apologize for bringing life to grey concrete walls. Maybe, just maybe, I feel a little bad for small businesses that take it, but as for subway trains, and the sides of wal-marts, I completely condone it&#33;
That&#39;s why you are a worthless invalid.

That and the fact that you quote the meaningless and tired KRS-1. That guy is way stupid.


"We&#39;re criminal minded because our thoughts are illegal." -

This sounds somewhat thoughtful on the surface, but it really doesn&#39;t mean anything.

[Ian]

This is better directed protest-

http://img102.exs.cx/img102/6757/100_0003.jpg

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 10:54 PM
That&#39;s why you are a worthless invalid.

That and the fact that you quote the meaningless and tired KRS-1. That guy is way stupid.



This sounds somewhat thoughtful on the surface, but it really doesn&#39;t mean anything.
Nothing to say?

Well, you fit right in then don&#39;t ya&#33;

Freedom of speech - criminal thought? No connections?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:25 PM
Nothing to say?

Well, you fit right in then don&#39;t ya&#33;

Freedom of speech - criminal thought? No connections?
I don&#39;t see any connections. What connections do you suggest exist?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:20 PM
This is better directed protest-

http://img102.exs.cx/img102/6757/100_0003.jpg


The funny thing is, this scene was played out in communist regimes in reality much, much more than in capitalist nations.

[synthesis]

The myth of free speech. Do you stand up for free speech so that you have the ability to spew racism? Hell no, free speech is not always pretty.

You seem to suffer from a serious case of missing-the-point-itis.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 11:34 PM
I don&#39;t see any connections. What connections do you suggest exist?
Okay let&#39;s try again: The "myth of free speech" - criminal thoughts.

The brain tissue&#39;s connected to the tail bone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AlwaysQuestion+--> (AlwaysQuestion)You aren&#39;t really arguing in defense of free speech, are you?

Honestly redstar, quit with the hypocrisy.[/b]

Honestly, what the hell are you talking about?

I said this on the first page of this thread...


redstar2000
Of course it is not a "free speech" issue -- it&#39;s precisely my point that "free speech" is a myth.

But it&#39;s a very popular myth...and one that I feel strongly motivated to criticize by demonstrating that it doesn&#39;t actually exist.

How clear do I have to be?


You don&#39;t care too much for when a young kid likes to claim he is a capitalist, taking upon him that he is somehow the scum of the earth. You don&#39;t really think a sixteen year old has his political views all figured out, do you?

Who are you whining about? And what were the circumstances?

The general practice here is that people who are pro-capitalist in their views are restricted to Opposing Ideologies.

As to what is actually said to them...that largely depends on what they say to us.

If someone posts in an obviously childish fashion, then I try to take that into account...but normally I don&#39;t consider age when I respond to someone&#39;s post.


So what is the difference in you silencing teenagers vs. the real world, living very real lives, being silenced under the law?

Well, I can&#39;t "fire" them or put them in jail. :lol:

It seems to me that you are suffering under a number of misconceptions about this board and how it works.

1. It&#39;s true that I can "summarily ban" someone if I wish...but I have no power to "make it stick". Other administrators can over-rule me if they think I&#39;m being arbitrary or capricious. Members of the Commie Club can start a thread to lift the ban and if a clear majority emerges, then the ban will be lifted.

2. People who do get summarily banned are Nazis and racists. Lately, we&#39;ve been trying to "crack down" on homophobia and, to a somewhat lesser extent, sexism. Obvious trolls/spammers will get the boot as soon as they are spotted.

I&#39;m not aware of any "16-year-olds" being "silenced" simply because they were pro-capitalist.


The myth of free speech. Do you stand up for free speech so that you have the ability to spew racism? Hell no, free speech is not always pretty.

Where have I ever said otherwise? I have three collections of posts on my site that discuss "free speech for reactionaries".

I&#39;m against it&#33;

I repeat: the point I was trying to make by starting this thread (in this forum&#33;) is that pro-capitalists are also against free speech...even though their official mythology claims otherwise.

In practice, they deprive ordinary working people of free speech.

I intend that post-revolutionary society will deprive them&#33;

Is that clear?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:20 PM
This is better directed protest-

http://img102.exs.cx/img102/6757/100_0003.jpg
Hypocritical, but effecitve (seeing as few will bother to analyze it).

[Professor Moneybags]

I repeat: the point I was trying to make by starting this thread (in this forum&#33;) is that pro-capitalists are also against free speech...even though their official mythology claims otherwise.

So, Red, you champion free speech by depriving people of it whose opinions you don&#39;t approve of. I can tell you now that I do not oppose freedom of speech for anyone, contrary to your claims.

[Osman Ghazi]

I can tell you now that I do not oppose freedom of speech for anyone

Except that you think it is okay to punish people for speaking up.

You can&#39;t say &#39;I support free speech&#39; and then turn around and say that it is okay to fire someone for wearing their uniform on the internet. (Well, you can, actually, it just doesn&#39;t make any sense.)

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 13 2004, 04:35 PM

Except that you think it is okay to punish people for speaking up.


Where did I say this ?


You can&#39;t say &#39;I support free speech&#39; and then turn around and say that it is okay to fire someone for wearing their uniform on the internet.

Yes, I can; freedom of speech can only be banned by the government, not your boss.

[Osman Ghazi]

Where did I say this ?


You didn&#39;t, but that is basically what you mean.

Being fired is a punishment. It happens only when you have done something wrong (theoretically). So, if you think it was okay for her to be fired (and I take it you do?) for wearing her uniform, then you are in support of punishing people for excerising their right to free speech. I mean, she didn&#39;t even say anything about the company.

The thing is, this isn&#39;t worthy of a punishment. What was wrong with what she did?


Yes, I can; freedom of speech can only be banned by the government, not your boss.

I just don&#39;t think that&#39;s true in a society in which 7-8% of the population is looking for work. I think that your boss holds just as much power as does your politician.

[Professor Moneybags]

You didn&#39;t, but that is basically what you mean.

That wasn&#39;t what I meant at all. Why should I bother replying to any of your posts when you are going to do it for me ?


Being fired is a punishment. It happens only when you have done something wrong (theoretically). So, if you think it was okay for her to be fired (and I take it you do?) for wearing her uniform, then you are in support of punishing people for excerising their right to free speech. I mean, she didn&#39;t even say anything about the company.

The thing is, this isn&#39;t worthy of a punishment. What was wrong with what she did?

Maybe it wasn&#39;t, but it&#39;s a question of property rights. If I don&#39;t like you and decide to kick you out of my house, does that mean you have the right to force your way back in because you don&#39;t agree with it ? No, because it&#39;s my house. You have the power to do likewise with your own property.


I just don&#39;t think that&#39;s true in a society in which 7-8% of the population is looking for work. I think that your boss holds just as much power as does your politician.

What, a can your boss shoot you dead for disagreeing with him ? I guess he doesn&#39;t, then.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That wasn&#39;t what I meant at all.

What else could you have meant? Let&#39;s look at this mathematically:

Action: puts picture on the internet depicting self in work uniform + fired from job for this Action. = Punishment for exercising freedom of speech.

Simple enough, &#39;Professor&#39;?


Maybe it wasn&#39;t, but it&#39;s a question of property rights. If I don&#39;t like you and decide to kick you out of my house, does that mean you have the right to force your way back in because you don&#39;t agree with it ? No, because it&#39;s my house. You have the power to do likewise with your own property.

More often it&#39;s the case the landowner evicts somebody from land they don&#39;t even use themselves, except to generate capital out of people&#39;s need for shelter.

And it still doesn&#39;t justify the sacking.


What, a can your boss shoot you dead for disagreeing with him ?

No, but he can kill you by depriving you of your livelyhood.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1

Yes, I can; freedom of speech can only be banned by the government, not your boss.

No body has the power to "ban," or grant free speech - no power beyond me can realisticly control what I say. However, they might take coercive/violent action to prevent me from speaking freely. As power long as a boss holds power over me, s/he (But typically "he") may attempt to silence me, by threatening to deprive me of the means by which I provide myself with certain necessities. Sure, it&#39;s slower than shooting me, but . . .

2

[Regarding the graffitti-image:] Hypocritical, but effecitve (seeing as few will bother to analyze it).

Hypocritical? Hardly&#33; It&#39;s the basis of capitalism? Do you mean it&#39;s hypocritical in that you think "commies" might do the same? I&#39;m inclined to disagree. Revolutionary self-defense against capitalist forces - a struggle to avoid being excecuted by the man with the gun is hardly a reasonable comparison. A year of revolution is less bloody than a week of the status-quo.

3
Regarding graffitti, I don&#39;t see it as particularly useful in most situations, but how are we to respond to the gut-rage of the alienated? What is to be done with the seething fury behind the fascades of every unfufilled student, worker, etc.? I certainly don&#39;t condone Columbines, but I recognise that we have to understand the forces that drive every pissed-off motherfucker who wants to shoot the kids at school. Dismissing them as crazy won&#39;t fix anything.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:24 PM

Blogger grounded by her airline

A US airline attendant is fighting for her job after she was suspended over postings on her blog, or online diary.

Queen of the Sky, otherwise known as Ellen Simonetti, evolved into an anonymous semi-fictional account of life in the sky.

Jeffrey Matsuura, director of the law and technology programme at the University of Dayton, said personal websites can be hazardous for both employers and their employees.

"There are many examples of employees who have presented some kind of material online that have gotten them in trouble with employers," he said.

"You have to remember that as an employee, you don&#39;t have total free speech anymore," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3955913.stm

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
Whoa&#33;

Free speech in the USA is not about a corporation letting or not letting any employee publish literature or political ideas. Free speech and censorship is between individuals and the GOVERNMENT. Big difference. The US Constitution is about what the government can NOT do to indiviudals regarding free speech. A corporation can basically do anything they want regarding employment requirements and they are fully within the law. It is a fact of life within our Jeffersonian democracy. As an employee you give up a lot of rights in regards what you can do and can not do in relation with your employeer. As an employee if you don&#39;t like it, find some where else to work.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort
A corporation can basically do anything they want regarding employment requirements and they are fully within the law. It is a fact of life within our Jeffersonian democracy. As an employee you give up a lot of rights in regards what you can do and can not do in relation with your employer. As an employee if you don&#39;t like it, find some where else to work.

All that you say here simply reinforces my point...that "freedom of speech" is a myth.

Of course, if you have enough wealth to live without working, then you can say whatever you please. "Free speech" exists for the capitalist class.

But if you must work for someone else in order to survive...then you can&#39;t say anything that your employer might dislike or your survival itself is at risk.

Understandably, few are willing to take that risk.

Money is more than just "comfort"...it&#39;s the difference between freedom and slavery.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Imperial]

Restar, freedom of speech is not a myth. The consititutional amendments set minimums, they are not absolute, and they, for the most part, are applicable only in public forums.

I don&#39;t think that allowing private entities to self govern and set rules to ensure their own security and viability, such as the airline punishing this girl for compromising their image, in any way lends creedence to your position that freedom of speech is a myth.

[STI]

CI, was that young lady or was she not, allowed to express herself through her blog? No. The airline fired her for it. She was not, as it turned out, free to speak.

Freedom of speech therefore does not exist "absolutely", regardless of what the "constitution" says.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Oct 27 2004, 10:10 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Oct 27 2004, 10:10 PM)
Capitalist Imperial
Come on, Redstar, you know this isn&#39;t really a free speech issue.

Corporations are not the government, and they are not necessarily subject to Constitutional observation when disciplining employees for legitimate reasons.

Of course it is not a "free speech" issue -- it&#39;s precisely my point that "free speech" is a myth.

But it&#39;s a very popular myth...and one that I feel strongly motivated to criticize by demonstrating that it doesn&#39;t actually exist.

For example, how many patriots have you heard say something like "I love America because you have the freedom to criticize the government"...and within minutes or even seconds turn right around and say "Those people who criticize America are supporting terrorism and ought to be locked up&#33;"?

The young woman who worked for Delta Airlines was not even "critical" of her employer...they just didn&#39;t like her "image".

Imagine what would happen to a Delta employee who posted accounts of Delta&#39;s gross mismanagement, books-cooking, mistreatment of employees, inadequate safety procedures, etc.?

Corporate despotism is not just a phrase; it&#39;s a description of reality.

You don&#39;t need a "secret police" or a "gulag" if everyone understands that speaking out and "saying the wrong words" or even "projecting the wrong image" will result in unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc.

And there are some other things you might want to ask yourself.

How did Delta find out her identity? Did their lawyers "lean" on her internet service provider?

And who&#39;s asking questions about you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]

Of course it is not a "free speech" issue -- it&#39;s precisely my point that "free speech" is a myth.

Come on, Red, no it&#39;s not.



But it&#39;s a very popular myth...and one that I feel strongly motivated to criticize by demonstrating that it doesn&#39;t actually exist.

ok, contuinue...


For example, how many patriots have you heard say something like "I love America because you have the freedom to criticize the government"...and within minutes or even seconds turn right around and say "Those people who criticize America are supporting terrorism and ought to be locked up&#33;"?

Well, yes, this does happen. However, I think you sort of help my point here. Idiots that would contradict themselves like that do exist, and they do sometimes say stupid things like that, but that is the point. They are free to say it, however ludicrous and contradictory they are.

However, no one is actually going to "lock someone up for criticizing America", because you are free to criticize America, i.e., free speech is acknowledged. Someone saying that it is their opinion that critics are locked up does not compromise free speech, it is in fact a good example of it.

By the way, I don&#39;t think those people are really even true patriots. True patriots will and should criticize the government when they feel it is apt to do so.



The young woman who worked for Delta Airlines was not even "critical" of her employer...they just didn&#39;t like her "image".

True, but even when you compromise a company&#39;s image, you are subjecting them to possible financial loss, which of course is a company&#39;s objective to avoid. Again, one cannot give away the recipie for coca-cola under the guise of free speech.


Imagine what would happen to a Delta employee who posted accounts of Delta&#39;s gross mismanagement, books-cooking, mistreatment of employees, inadequate safety procedures, etc.?

This is a good point. however, I would say that such "accounts" would be mere accusations, and unless such an employee was going through legitimate legal channels to address such accusations, they would be mere conjecture, and unproven slanderous accusations are not protected by the first amendment.

Now, if an employee was filing an official grievance, or legitimately whistleblowing through official channels, with actual evidence, then that would be fine. Then they are practicing their right to free speech in bringing illegal practices into light.


Corporate despotism is not just a phrase; it&#39;s a description of reality.

I vehemently disagree with this outlook. Employees who sign employment contracts agree to abide by company bylaws. This ensures company security initiatives and promotes legitimate free trade.



You don&#39;t need a "secret police" or a "gulag" if everyone understands that speaking out and "saying the wrong words" or even "projecting the wrong image" will result in unemployment, hunger, homelessness, etc.

Red, i just think that you are drawing a correlation that does not exist. You have to make a pretty blatant error to become unemployed. It is pretty cut and dry with respect to what is and not acceptible in most businesses.


How did Delta find out her identity? Did their lawyers "lean" on her internet service provider?

Neither of us know this, but I would surmise that she bragged about her blog to a co-worker, who talked to another co-worker, etc. The grapevine is very quick in most companies. I don&#39;t think that it was as high-level as you suggest.



And who&#39;s asking questions about you?

Honestly, Redstar, I really am not worried about it. It is my opinion thatn many leftists here invoke Orwell&#39;s 1984 way more than is applicable.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:51 AM
CI, was that young lady or was she not, allowed to express herself through her blog? No. The airline fired her for it. She was not, as it turned out, free to speak.

Freedom of speech therefore does not exist "absolutely", regardless of what the "constitution" says.
ST, you are leaving out a very important fact: that girl was in her company uniform, and invoked the companies likelyhood, thus she was, for all intents and purposes, representing the company. She represented them in a way contrary to company bylaws.

Breaking an employer&#39;s explicit rules and regulations is not protected by the 1st amendment, and it never has been.

And I never said that freedom of speech exists as an absolute, and never have said such. I don&#39;t think anyone thinks this, and it is nnot what the drafters intended.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
I don&#39;t think that allowing private entities to self govern and set rules to ensure their own security and viability, such as the airline punishing this girl for compromising their image, in any way lends creedence to your position that freedom of speech is a myth.

Well, I can only put up the evidence...the jury must decide the case.

But it&#39;s a very "strange" kind of "free speech" that, for most of us, exists only in some Platonic realm and can never actually be used down here on earth unless one wishes to risk one&#39;s survival.

"Myth" seems to me to be an appropriate choice of words.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[STI]

ST, you are leaving out a very important fact: that girl was in her company uniform, and invoked the companies likelyhood, thus she was, for all intents and purposes, representing the company. She represented them in a way contrary to company bylaws.


So company bylaws (those imposed by, you guessed it, the capitalist class), have the power to restrict what she&#39;s saying. If &#39;free speech&#39; were truly that, it wouldn&#39;t matter what she was wearing, or what she was saying.


Breaking an employer&#39;s explicit rules and regulations is not protected by the 1st amendment, and it never has been.

So: free speech doesn&#39;t really exist. An employer can simply "regulate" whatever he wants, and therefore, free speech is simply a mirage, subject to the wishes of employers.


And I never said that freedom of speech exists as an absolute, and never have said such. I don&#39;t think anyone thinks this, and it is nnot what the drafters intended.

You&#39;re right, it doesn&#39;t exist as an absolute. It exists only insomuch as the rich allow it to.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:49 PM
The Myth of Free Speech

The ability to degrade one&#39;s sex, race, age, and ability.

You aren&#39;t really arguing in defense of free speech, are you?

Honestly redstar, quit with the hypocrisy. If there were complete free speech, I believe your political beliefs to be otherwise. You are suddenly touched by the "myth of free speech" because it now involves a corporation..

Take a look at something as small as a message board. Let alone a true society..

You, as an administrator, have absolutely no problem shuffling free speech using the immediate claim "this is not society, this is only a message board, get used to it" .. Why then does it seem any different to you when it comes down to real life, living in a very real society?

A few hundred kids on an internet message board vs. A few billion people living within a very real society

Which do you think would require more guidelines to live by?

You don&#39;t care to much for when a young kid likes to claim he is a capitalist, taking upon him that he is somehow the scum of the earth. You don&#39;t really think a sixteen year old has his political views all figured out do you?

So what is the difference in you silencing teenagers vs. the real world, living very real lives, being silenced under the law?

The myth of free speech. Do you stand up for free speech so that you have the ability to spew racism? Hell no, free speech is not always pretty.
Because people are nameless and faceless on messageboards. Not so in society.
Because you can do whatever the fuck you please on a forum without serious repercussions - what&#39;s the worst that can happen?
Getting banned?
In ANY society, there will be consequences - and most would like to avoid them.
That&#39;s the difference - redstars excuse is very valid.

[Professor Moneybags]

No body has the power to "ban," or grant free speech - no power beyond me can realisticly control what I say. However, they might take coercive/violent action to prevent me from speaking freely.

A corporation does not have the power to do this. The government does.
(You ought to get reading. There are plenty of people on this forum who only want "approved" opinions to be legal.)


As power long as a boss holds power over me, s/he (But typically "he") may attempt to silence me, by threatening to deprive me of the means by which I provide myself with certain necessities. Sure, it&#39;s slower than shooting me, but . . .

It seems to be a trait amongst socialists they are incapable of telling the metaphysical from the man made.


Hypocritical? Hardly&#33; It&#39;s the basis of capitalism? Do you mean it&#39;s hypocritical in that you think "commies" might do the same? I&#39;m inclined to disagree.

As I&#39;ve said, read other posts. Particularly in the protest warrior thread.


Revolutionary self-defense against capitalist forces - a struggle to avoid being excecuted by the man with the gun is hardly a reasonable comparison.

An act of self-defence against people who haven&#39;t done anything to you, or are simply minding their own business is not self-defence. No one is likely to threaten you with a gun unless you do the threatening first.


I certainly don&#39;t condone Columbines, but I recognise that we have to understand the forces that drive every pissed-off motherfucker who wants to shoot the kids at school.

Frustrated power lust ?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 01:51 AM
Freedom of speech therefore does not exist "absolutely", regardless of what the "constitution" says.
You don&#39;t have the right to threaten people with violence, either. Who&#39;s advocating the right to do that ?

[Osman Ghazi]

And I never said that freedom of speech exists as an absolute, and never have said such. I don&#39;t think anyone thinks this, and it is nnot what the drafters intended.

And yet we are horrible people for locking up cappies in OI?

Why the change of heart? Didn&#39;t you criticize Che-Lives for that?


You ought to get reading. There are plenty of people on this forum who only want "approved" opinions to be legal

Stop with the melodramatics. So you get thrown in OI? Big ing deal.


A corporation does not have the power to do this. The government does.


And yet, a company has its own by-laws, which all of its employees must follow. But they have no power to curtail freedom of speech you say?


metaphysical

Could you stop using this word, since you obviously don&#39;t know what it means?

Metaphysical:

1 Of or relating to metaphysics.
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3 Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4a Immaterial; incorporeal.
b Supernatural.
5 often Metaphysical Of or relating to the poetry of a group of 17th-century English poets whose verse is characterized by an intellectually challenging style and extended metaphors comparing very dissimilar things.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial
However, no one is actually going to "lock someone up for criticizing America", because you are free to criticize America, i.e., free speech is acknowledged.

Well, it&#39;s true that we have no laws that explicitly prohibit criticism of the government.

But there are a wide variety of laws that historically have been used for that purpose, even if enacted for other purposes.

Under the Patriot Act, for example, what stops the government from designating one of its really annoying critics "a terrorist suspect" and "disappearing" them forever?

As far as I know, nothing does.

You can say "they wouldn&#39;t do such a thing" or "they haven&#39;t done such a thing and therefore they won&#39;t".

But on what grounds would such assertions rest? If governmental critics are "disappeared", how would we know? The mainstream media may kill the story "in the national interests". Perhaps an obscure website may mention it...who knows?

If the critic is already somewhat prominent, then legal petitions might be filed...but you know as well as I that executive compliance with court orders is effectively voluntary. That&#39;s precisely why the judicial system is so reluctant to ever confront the executive branch on matters of substance. The legal doctrine of "compelling state interest" serves as a "blank check" for the executive to do what it pleases.


True, but even when you compromise a company&#39;s image, you are subjecting them to possible financial loss, which of course is a company&#39;s objective to avoid.

People are going to stop using Delta because one of their flight attendants writes a "racy blog"?

That&#39;s not going to (pardon the expression) fly, CI.

No, I think Delta&#39;s move was intended as an "object lesson" to all of its employees...something along the lines of "see, we control what you can say even when you&#39;re not at work&#33;"


Again, one cannot give away the recipe for Coca-Cola under the guise of free speech.

Not relevant in this situation...and any reasonably bright high school chemistry student could determine that formula anyway.

The action that would actually threaten Coca-Cola is if someone marketed a soft drink made according to their formula at a cheaper price...something you can bet they would fall on like the proverbial ton of bricks.


I would say that such "accounts" would be mere accusations, and unless such an employee was going through legitimate legal channels to address such accusations, they would be mere conjecture, and unproven slanderous accusations are not protected by the first amendment.

I don&#39;t think it matters if the accusations are "proved" or simply "slanderous" -- the "first amendment" stops at the corporation&#39;s door...you can be immediately fired no matter what you say if your bosses don&#39;t like it.

It wouldn&#39;t surprise me if you couldn&#39;t also be sued as well...or that any court would hesitate to issue an injunction prohibiting you from even discussing the matter on the internet at all -- under penalty of "contempt of court"...jail&#33;

Your notion (and that of others) of the "power" of the "first amendment" is...extremely charitable, to put it mildly.


I vehemently disagree with this outlook. Employees who sign employment contracts agree to abide by company bylaws.

Catch-22, is it not? You "agree" to waive your "constitutional rights" to get a job because you can&#39;t survive without one (under capitalism). If you are "old-fashioned" and want to hold on to your "constitutional rights", then you better learn to suck rocks, because no one is going to hire you.


Red, I just think that you are drawing a correlation that does not exist. You have to make a pretty blatant error to become unemployed. It is pretty cut and dry with respect to what is and not acceptable in most businesses.

Well, who would think a "personality blog" would be "unacceptable"? It&#39;s not as if she were posting on Che-Lives advocating proletarian revolution? Or even posting on some consumer site and saying don&#39;t take Delta unless you want to arrive hours late.

Who knows what some mid-level bureaucrat will find "acceptable" or not?


Honestly, Redstar, I really am not worried about it. It is my opinion that many leftists here invoke Orwell&#39;s 1984 way more than is applicable.

As you wish. But there are plenty of "patriots" out there who would question your patriotism for even posting on this board at all.

Don&#39;t be shocked if someday it all comes back and "bites you in the butt". :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 20 2004, 02:32 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 20 2004, 02:32 AM)
ahhh_money_is_comfort
A corporation can basically do anything they want regarding employment requirements and they are fully within the law. It is a fact of life within our Jeffersonian democracy. As an employee you give up a lot of rights in regards what you can do and can not do in relation with your employer. As an employee if you don&#39;t like it, find some where else to work.

All that you say here simply reinforces my point...that "freedom of speech" is a myth.

Of course, if you have enough wealth to live without working, then you can say whatever you please. "Free speech" exists for the capitalist class.

But if you must work for someone else in order to survive...then you can&#39;t say anything that your employer might dislike or your survival itself is at risk.

Understandably, few are willing to take that risk.

Money is more than just "comfort"...it&#39;s the difference between freedom and slavery.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
You have a different concept of free speech.

1st Amendment activity is very clear in the USA. We have it and it is unlimited. The First Amendment is not between me and my fellow citizens. It is between me and my government.

Yes you are right that speech cost money. Here in the USA you can publish anything you want to that is artistic, politcal, and economic. The government or anyone else does not owe it to you to pay for your publishing bills. Free speech here means you have the right to do it, you don&#39;t have the right to make other people pay for your bills.

When you say &#39;free&#39;, you mean other people will pay for my bills. Is that correct? Do you mean that the poor are not &#39;subsided&#39; and thus not equal under the 1st Amendment? When you mean &#39;live without working&#39; do you mean only the rich? Well under the law poor and rich are viewed as equal in regards to the First Amendment. They both have the legal right to First Amendment activity and same guarentee. The poor can publish anything they want to, it is not my job or the governments to push thier opinion into the free market of ideas.

Let me understand this corrrectly? A really good and entertaining writter rich or poor vs a bad and boring writter rich or poor; if the poor one is not published, is that injustice? Well in my system of &#39;free speech&#39; that good writter will have lots of publishers willing to pay for the publishing costs. The poor one is going to go hungry. I don&#39;t have a problem with that, in the free market of ideas, the best ones are going to be published. That hungry writter should find another profession.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 03:48 PM
I don&#39;t think it matters if the accusations are "proved" or simply "slanderous" -- the "first amendment" stops at the corporation&#39;s door...you can be immediately fired no matter what you say if your bosses don&#39;t like it.
The first ammendment stops at your door too, otherwise your house would be covered in grafitti and there would be laws in place banning you from removing it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort)You have a different concept of free speech.[/b]

Perhaps I do...it would seem as if a meaningful definition of "free speech" ought to include "freedom from punishment" for what you have said.

If you write a "bad book" and no one will publish it, that&#39;s one thing. If you publish it yourself, but no one will buy it, that&#39;s also one thing.

But if you go to jail or lose your "day-job", those are very different things, are they not?

Those other things might deflate your ego and you might find that unpleasant -- but jail and unemployment are real material threats to your existence.

Some are brave enough to risk it...most will not unless they are extremely angry.


Yes, you are right that speech costs money. Here in the USA you can publish anything you want to that is artistic, political, and economic.

You&#39;re raising this from a slightly different perspective. But since you are, I will quote the famous mid-20th century journalist A. J. Liebling..."Freedom of the press applies only to those who own one."


When you mean &#39;live without working&#39; do you mean only the rich?

Yes. If you have sufficient wealth that you don&#39;t have to work for someone else in order to survive, then you can say whatever you please. You can&#39;t be threatened with unemployment, poverty, homelessness, etc.

There&#39;s even a pop-cult name for it: "fuck you money". You have enough money so that if an employer threatens to fire you for what you said (or for any other reason), you can say "fuck you" to him without significant material consequences.


Let me understand this correctly? A really good and entertaining writer rich or poor vs. a bad and boring writer rich or poor; if the poor one is not published, is that injustice?

Well, writers are not published according to their "literary merit" -- the only thing the publisher is interested in is "will this book sell?".

Sometimes a publisher will "take a chance" on an unknown (presumably impoverished) writer...but as publishing has become integrated into the corporate outlook, that is less and less common.

It&#39;s the "sure winner" that corporate publishers are looking for.

Have you ever looked at any of those "Rapture" novels? They are awful books...but the godsuckers will buy them up by the trainload. So they get published.

A poor person might be a very good writer...but his/her chances of getting published are slim. S/he doesn&#39;t know "the right people".


Professor Moneybags
The first amendment stops at your door too, otherwise your house would be covered in graffiti and there would be laws in place banning you from removing it.

You&#39;ve been talking about graffiti a lot lately...did someone tag your mansion? :lol:

Anyways, I don&#39;t think I would get my bowels in an uproar if someone tagged the building that I live in -- it&#39;s a 1950s era motel that&#39;s been converted into apartments.

But let&#39;s say I was so unbelievably prosperous as to own a house...then, I might be a bit peeved about the graffiti.

But I would be an individual person with an individual home -- that&#39;s hardly the same as a corporation with hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of employees asserting the "right" to control what those employees say 24/7/365.

No one is asserting that "free speech" means tagging the door of the CEO&#39;s executive suite (though it&#39;s fun to imagine it).

But if "free speech" were other than the myth that it is, you&#39;d think off-duty workers could say anything they pleased on the internet, wouldn&#39;t you?

Well, wouldn&#39;t you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[komon]

there is no myth.there is no free speech.
only you,are what you want to be and see.so no myth no capitalisme.no to bush .

[Osman Ghazi]

The first ammendment stops at your door too

Yes, but I&#39;m a human being rather than an organization devoted to plundering as much wealth as it can.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 22 2004, 04:08 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 22 2004, 04:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
You have a different concept of free speech.

Perhaps I do...it would seem as if a meaningful definition of "free speech" ought to include "freedom from punishment" for what you have said.

If you write a "bad book" and no one will publish it, that&#39;s one thing. If you publish it yourself, but no one will buy it, that&#39;s also one thing.

But if you go to jail or lose your "day-job", those are very different things, are they not?

Those other things might deflate your ego and you might find that unpleasant -- but jail and unemployment are real material threats to your existence.

Some are brave enough to risk it...most will not unless they are extremely angry.


Yes, you are right that speech costs money. Here in the USA you can publish anything you want to that is artistic, political, and economic.

You&#39;re raising this from a slightly different perspective. But since you are, I will quote the famous mid-20th century journalist A. J. Liebling..."Freedom of the press applies only to those who own one."


When you mean &#39;live without working&#39; do you mean only the rich?

Yes. If you have sufficient wealth that you don&#39;t have to work for someone else in order to survive, then you can say whatever you please. You can&#39;t be threatened with unemployment, poverty, homelessness, etc.

There&#39;s even a pop-cult name for it: "fuck you money". You have enough money so that if an employer threatens to fire you for what you said (or for any other reason), you can say "fuck you" to him without significant material consequences.


Let me understand this correctly? A really good and entertaining writer rich or poor vs. a bad and boring writer rich or poor; if the poor one is not published, is that injustice?

Well, writers are not published according to their "literary merit" -- the only thing the publisher is interested in is "will this book sell?".

Sometimes a publisher will "take a chance" on an unknown (presumably impoverished) writer...but as publishing has become integrated into the corporate outlook, that is less and less common.

It&#39;s the "sure winner" that corporate publishers are looking for.

Have you ever looked at any of those "Rapture" novels? They are awful books...but the godsuckers will buy them up by the trainload. So they get published.

A poor person might be a very good writer...but his/her chances of getting published are slim. S/he doesn&#39;t know "the right people".


Professor Moneybags
The first amendment stops at your door too, otherwise your house would be covered in graffiti and there would be laws in place banning you from removing it.

You&#39;ve been talking about graffiti a lot lately...did someone tag your mansion? :lol:

Anyways, I don&#39;t think I would get my bowels in an uproar if someone tagged the building that I live in -- it&#39;s a 1950s era motel that&#39;s been converted into apartments.

But let&#39;s say I was so unbelievably prosperous as to own a house...then, I might be a bit peeved about the graffiti.

But I would be an individual person with an individual home -- that&#39;s hardly the same as a corporation with hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of employees asserting the "right" to control what those employees say 24/7/365.

No one is asserting that "free speech" means tagging the door of the CEO&#39;s executive suite (though it&#39;s fun to imagine it).

But if "free speech" were other than the myth that it is, you&#39;d think off-duty workers could say anything they pleased on the internet, wouldn&#39;t you?

Well, wouldn&#39;t you?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Free speech in the USA is First Amendment activity. Which is economic, political, or artistic and does not violate the rights of others.

Which means:

I can post "For Sale" signs any where I want, but NOT on your front door.

I can play really violent punk music in public and my own private places. I can not have the music travel into my next door neighbor bedroom while he is sleeping. Nor can I set up my portable music system in the middle of a grocery store.

I can dance in public and on my own property. Not in my bosses office.

Free speech is all these in the USA. Is it injustice that I can not dance in my bosses office? Is that the corporation "banning" my speech if I can not dance in his office?

I critize the President on the street corner. I can not say "Kill the President" on a street corner. Just because my mouth makes words, it does not comprise First Amendment activity. One is politcal, the other is inciting a violent act. One violates the President right to life.

The example in the first post #1 on this thread is NOT First Amendment activity.

[Osman Ghazi]

Is it injustice that I can not dance in my bosses office? Is that the corporation "banning" my speech if I can not dance in his office?

That&#39;s the whole ing point. She didn&#39;t do anything at work. She put a picture of herself on the internet. I suppose free speech doesn&#39;t cover that though.

Is it &#39;banning&#39; free speech if you can&#39;t do what you want in the comfort of your own home without being fired?

YES&#33;

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 22 2004, 07:21 PM
Yes, but I&#39;m a human being rather than an organization devoted to plundering as much wealth as it can.
Aren&#39;t organizations composed of human beings ? Oh, I forgot. They&#39;re not human; they&#39;re demons from hell with horns growing out of their heads.

Stupid.

[cormacobear]

A government for the people by the people has a responsibility to see these rights are protected. The job of the justice system is to protect peoples rights freedom of speach is one of these rights, that are supposed to be protected, to not be punished for speaking your mind.

You keep saying if you don&#39;t like it go work somewhere else, the fact that there is unemployment means there aren&#39;t enough jobs for all the workers. You say if there is no work where you are move to where there is. To pick up and move a single person more than 600 km, costs roughly &#036;2000, to move a family, more, to move farther, yet more again. Therefore the right to travel is denied the majority, and this right is not being protected by the state.

By condoning the companies actions you state that the company we work for owns our thoughts, and has rights over our actions even while we are not at work, that sounds awfully similair to slavery.Refusing opposing ideologies equal access to the same media is yet another example of the state failing to protect our right to free speach.

Networks Reject Adbusters&#39; TV Spots
For more than a decade, Adbusters has been trying to buy airtime for its TV messages. These 15- and 30-second "social marketing" spots tackle issues from obesity to environmental destruction to consumer consumption. Never seen them before? That&#39;s because most broadcasters flatly refuse to show them.
On September 15, Adbusters launched a legal action against four of Canada&#39;s biggest television broadcasters – CTV, CanWest Global, CBC and CHUM. With prominent civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby as our lead counsel, we&#39;re fighting for the right to buy airtime for our advocacy spots. How important is this case? For a generation that sees the media as their battleground, a victory here will mean free speech can return to the airwaves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
Aren&#39;t organizations composed of human beings?

A corporation is not simply an "organization"...like a stamp-collectors&#39; club or a bowling league.

It has a purpose -- the accumulation of wealth -- and that makes it obviously different from all other forms of organizations.

Its character is both despotic and bureaucratic. It is ruled by a small elite who, historically, have never balked at any atrocity in pursuit of profit.

I recommend, Moneybags, that you read some critical business histories.

Are they "demons from Hell with horns growing out of their heads"?

Leaving out the supernatural elements of your description, you&#39;re close enough.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2004, 12:08 PM

Is it injustice that I can not dance in my bosses office? Is that the corporation "banning" my speech if I can not dance in his office?

That&#39;s the whole ing point. She didn&#39;t do anything at work. She put a picture of herself on the internet. I suppose free speech doesn&#39;t cover that though.

Is it &#39;banning&#39; free speech if you can&#39;t do what you want in the comfort of your own home without being fired?

YES&#33;
She did more than post a picture. Her activities hurt the business image of her company. What it comes down to, her employer can pick and choose who works and who does not work for them.


A corporation also has rights. Almost on par with people in some respects. Do you have dishes to wash, a toliet to clean, any chores around the house?

Well then why don&#39;t you hire someone? If I am correctly intrepting the right to work, then you got jobs around? Someone can do it? Then there is a some-one-else who has a right to be employed to do those jobs. If there is no sovergein right to decide who works for you, then your idea makes sense. In my house and in my place of business I hope I get to choose who is employed by me and who is not.

This woman man a waived her free speech in exchange to work. No one forced her to make this choice. She did it of her own free will. She understands that idea herself.

"This blogging thing is obviously a new problem for employers and they need to get a policy about it. If I had known it would cost me my job, I would not have done that."

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Nov 26 2004, 02:16 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Nov 26 2004, 02:16 AM)
Professor Moneybags
Aren&#39;t organizations composed of human beings?

A corporation is not simply an "organization"...like a stamp-collectors&#39; club or a bowling league.

It has a purpose -- the accumulation of wealth -- and that makes it obviously different from all other forms of organizations.

Its character is both despotic and bureaucratic. It is ruled by a small elite who, historically, have never balked at any atrocity in pursuit of profit.

I recommend, Moneybags, that you read some critical business histories.

Are they "demons from Hell with horns growing out of their heads"?

Leaving out the supernatural elements of your description, you&#39;re close enough.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Before we start pointing &#39;elite&#39; around. Some one else can always be pointed out as &#39;elite&#39;.

[DaCuBaN]

This woman man a waived her free speech in exchange to work. No one forced her to make this choice. She did it of her own free will. She understands that idea herself.

So indeed, free speech is a myth? For to survive in this society, one must submit their labour - to submit one&#39;s labour to a corporation means to surrender one&#39;s right to free speech, and as such the point is moot.

Glad to have that cleared up :)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:10 PM

This woman man a waived her free speech in exchange to work. No one forced her to make this choice. She did it of her own free will. She understands that idea herself.

So indeed, free speech is a myth? For to survive in this society, one must submit their labour - to submit one&#39;s labour to a corporation means to surrender one&#39;s right to free speech, and as such the point is moot.

Glad to have that cleared up :)
In the USA it is not called Free Speech. It is called First Amendment Activity. First Amendment Activity is unlimited and protected. What this woman did is NOT First Amendment Activity. Read above. You have a different legal intrepretation of &#39;free speech&#39;. The legal defination is very clear in the USA and not debatable. It exists and it is protected. It is obvious it is NOT clear to you. You don&#39;t get it.

Free will. Under US idealism she made her own choice out of free will. She choose to work and surrender her First Amendment activity in regards to her employeer.

How about free will for the employeer? Don&#39;t they get free will too? How about freedom to control your own destiny? Under US idealism this woman had free will, she made a bargin to work. Under your system the employeer does not have free will.

[DaCuBaN]

n the USA it is not called Free Speech.

That&#39;s nice, but this is an international forum; because to you the world does not extend outside the North American continent does not change the nature of the world to fit such beliefs.

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:41 AM

n the USA it is not called Free Speech.

That&#39;s nice, but this is an international forum; because to you the world does not extend outside the North American continent does not change the nature of the world to fit such beliefs.
Yeah..US isn&#39;t the world.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 02:41 AM

n the USA it is not called Free Speech.

That&#39;s nice, but this is an international forum; because to you the world does not extend outside the North American continent does not change the nature of the world to fit such beliefs.
OK.

But I&#39;m just giving you my opinion and pointing out how different YOUR view about free speech is much different from the legal defintion of First Amendment activity. BTW First Amendment Activity only applies to US citiznes. You can do anything you want within your own sovergin borders, but in the USA under our system it is called First Amendment activity, which includes free speech; and free speech has a very strict legal definition. I don&#39;t think you yourslef under stand the legal definition of free speech within your own sovergin borders. I bet you have free speech, but I suspect you are making one definition up to suit your needs. I also suspect that the definition that you are using is NOT the same legal defintion that is used within your own sovergin borders.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What the definition of free speech is according to the constitution means nothing at all.
True freedom of speech does not exist in the United States. The moment you do something or say something that truly threatens the power of the ruling class, they will jail you and accuse you of terrorism or some shit.
This applies to almost any society.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by .....+Dec 1 2004, 03:11 AM--> (..... @ Dec 1 2004, 03:11 AM)
[email protected] 1 2004, 02:41 AM

n the USA it is not called Free Speech.

That&#39;s nice, but this is an international forum; because to you the world does not extend outside the North American continent does not change the nature of the world to fit such beliefs.
Yeah..US isn&#39;t the world. [/b]
No, but it&#39;s pretty close... it probably constitutes about 95% of the relevant world. ;)

[cubist]

No, but it&#39;s pretty close... it probably constitutes about 95% of the relevant world.

that pretty much sums up how ignorant you are.

COCK

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Hey what happened to I want to be an Artist thread?

I guess communist don&#39;t have a problem with stopping free speech too. Of course I&#39;m using your definition of free speech and not mine. Under your communist definition of free speech should that thread stay open?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 09:24 PM
What the definition of free speech is according to the constitution means nothing at all.
True freedom of speech does not exist in the United States. The moment you do something or say something that truly threatens the power of the ruling class, they will jail you and accuse you of terrorism or some shit.
This applies to almost any society.
Ok what is your definition of free speech?

Can I post pro-capitalist leaflets on your front door? How about on the side of your home? I am trying to say something most definatley political. Can I get you to fund my leaflets? Help me pay for the cost of producing the media? Should it be free (I mean the cost)? Since cost can also prohibit my speech?

[rainyday]

School Bus Driver Fired Over Stem Cell Talk

Fri Dec 3, 9:11 AM ET



NEW YORK (Reuters) - A school bus driver who chatted about stem cell research with her pupils was fired for inappropriate behavior, a local newspaper said on Thursday.



Stem cell research was a divisive issue in the November U.S. presidential election. Supporters say it may eventually help people with conditions such as Alzheimer&#39;s and cancer but opponents argue it would be unethical when it involves cloning human embryos or harvesting cells from embryos.

The Buffalo News said Julianne Thompson, 42, was fired from her job in Grand Island, New York after parents complained about her discussing the issue with pupils on Nov. 1 -- the day before the presidential election.

Thompson told the newspaper she had read an interview where movie director Mel Gibson said more than 20 years of embryonic stem cell research had not cured any diseases but more than 300,000 cures had been found with adult stem cells. She said she then shared the stated facts with the pupils, without offering her opinions.

"In the midst of all the misplaced outrage, is the story of the sad and disturbing success of a fraudulent social &#39;conscience&#39; that devalues life in favor of demonstrably failed science, wasting billions of dollars in the process," she was quoted as saying.

Education authorities in the town were not immediately available for comment but the paper quoted schools Superintendent Thomas Ramming as saying employees were not allowed to discuss political issues with students.

"You can say anything you want as a private citizen when you are off duty," Ramming said.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

OK.

How about pornography? Can that bus driver hang pornography in the bus? That is free speech too? How about make pornography? Can she make porn while at work? That is free speech too.

You know what this communist thing is sounding better all the time. I can be at work shag a girl on my desk while at work, as long as I&#39;m making pornography it is OK, because that is free speech.

[Morpheus]

No one forced her to make this choice

Actually, they did. The capitalists stole most of the land, so the rest of us have no choice but to work for them.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 10:42 PM

No one forced her to make this choice

Actually, they did. The capitalists stole most of the land, so the rest of us have no choice but to work for them.
Yea I get your point. Kind of like my "I want to be an artist" tread getting censored. I did not have any choice there too. All I was doing was free speech and it got censored.

[Exploited Class]

This is not a freedom of speech issue.

This is a freedom of press issue, and that is the way she should have gone with it. They could have sued her for liable, she would have been protected as a whistler blower and they would have to prove that her allegations and statements are untrue. However is handling her case is doing so incorrectly and should could have protected her better.

Is is a matter of the big animal squishes the small bug.

Corporations have all the rights and people are afforded none. Corporations in the United States are recognized as individuals with all the rights of individuals but not with the consequences. Recently NIKE won a freedom of speech in their recent PR campaign, which was full of manufacturing lies, which would be illegal because of false or misleading advertisement, but since it is free speech they won.

The airline can do a million dollar PR advertisement blitz much like Wal-Mart is doing now saying all their employees are happy and suffer no consequences for false or misleading advertisements.

The questions should be, can the Airlines go after her for anything she says in the comfort of her home (one of the only place you can practice free speech). If she did the samethings she did on a website to a friend? How about over a phone line? Personal webspace is just that, personal and what you do with it is your bidding and you are free to do so however you wish.

It is silly to think that people would side and argue for a billion dollar company vs. an individual doing something on their own time. This is a tactic by the large corporations to hush up dissidents who chose the last form of communication accessible to the common man. However they are allowed to paint any picture of their company that they wish to the public. They are afforded the rights of an individual, rights that she is not even afforded without harsh penalties.

If you want your news owned by giant corporations, the only information about corporations coming from their news and their ad campaigns and no truths to get in the way, then side against her. Make sure that 10 or 100 or 1000 employees do not follow suit and shed true light on problems.

Every corporation will inact those protective clauses into their hiring methods, it will be status quo. From McDonalds to Boeing. They will have Non-Disclosure Agreements, allowing for them to fire you for mentioning anything, even in private, should they find out, about them.

That is Corportisim Fascism. You will not even be able to speak out and tell the truth about what is actually happening. Oh and they are trying to strike down laws that protect whisleblowers in congress right now, so even if you know something is wrong like Enron stealing and cheating and you tell the authorities, they can retaliate against you.

It is a hush hush enviroment. They do not want to be bad mouthed, they do not want their corporate image to be smeared for their poorly executed actions. They want to dictate what and where you can speak of them. You can not purchase a billboard, run an ad on TV or Radio because of cost and now you can not even communicate with others over your phone line (yes the internet still follows FCC rules and guidlines for telephone operations even after the millinium act).

So go ahead and give the corporations, your masters, more power. Let them control your action even when not working for them, and allow them to say whatever they want about you. Yes, you are an employee and when they say, "Are employees enjoy working here" there is nothing to stop them speaking for your feelings.

[Latifa]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 2 2004, 02:02 PM
No, but it&#39;s pretty close... it probably constitutes about 95% of the relevant world. ;)

I also like to fondle my testicles with my super-size AmeriKKKan flag.
Ignorant ****.

[DaCuBaN]

Interesting...


Free will. Under US idealism she made her own choice out of free will. She choose to work and surrender her First Amendment activity in regards to her employeer.

So, you agree that she surrendered any "right" granted her by your government when she took the airline job? Surely then, as a member of society is considred abnormal for being unemployed, it follows that free speech is indeed a myth?

I do so love these black and white scenario&#39;s ;)

On the subject of free speech, I found the following article quite interesting:



http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/spectrum.html

Free Speech Online and Offline

Ross Anderson

(The following article was commissioned by IEEE Spectrum, submitted to them on the 6th March 2002, and was due to appear in the April 2002 issue. However, their editors insisted on changing the text in ways that introduced material inaccuracies. For example, they insisted on crediting IBM with opposing export controls on intangibles, when at all material times IBM was the staunchest supporter among large IT companies of the crypto policy line taken by the US and UK governments. I refused to accept these edits and the IEEE cancelled the article. It later appeared in IEEE Computing.)

Esther Dyson famously argued that as the world will never be perfect, whether online or offline, it is foolish to expect higher standards on the Internet than we accept in `real life&#39;.

Legislators are now turning this argument round, and arguing that they have to restrict traditional offline freedoms in order to enable the regulation of cyberspace.

A shocking example is an export control bill currently before Britain&#39;s parliament. This will enable Tony Blair&#39;s government to impose licensing restrictions on collaborations between scientists in the UK and elsewhere; to take powers to review and suppress scientific papers prior to publication; and even to license foreign students taught by British university teachers.

The justification offered for this is a European agreement to control the `intangible export&#39; of technology.

During the late 1990s, arms export regulations prevented US nationals making cryptographic software available on their web pages, or sending it abroad by email. Phil Zimmermann, the author of the popular PGP encryption program, was investigated by a Grand Jury for letting it `escape&#39; to the Internet. The law was ridiculed by students wearing T-shirts printed with encryption source code (`Warning - this T-shirt is a munition&#33;&#39;) and challenged in the courts as an affront to free speech. Meanwhile, European engineers made crypto software freely available.

The Clinton administration fought back, with Al Gore pushing European governments to fall in line. After Tony Blair was elected in 1997, the British government became eager to help, but Parliament was by their first attempt in 1998 to impose export controls on intangibles. They then tried an `end run&#39; around Parliament by quietly negotiating a Europe-wide agreement which they now say we have no choice about implementing.

Individual European countries have a lot of latitude about how they implement this agreement, but the British approach is draconian. The proposed law will give ministers wide powers to regulate the transfer of technologies that could have harmful effects. Ministers admitted in parliament that their overriding concern was to leave no loopholes: no T-shirts, no bar codes, no faxes, no covert channel through which controlled information could lawfully leave the country. The law even allows the government to control `non-documentary transfers&#39; (read: speaking to foreigners) in cases where the technology may be used for certain types of weapons, such as guided missiles. As I am currently sitting in an office at MIT, on sabbatical, and helping US students think about integrating inertial navigation with sensor networks, it&#39;s lucky the bill isn&#39;t law yet. This new research topic only came up last week in a seminar, and I was able to pitch in some ideas at once. If I needed an arms export licence to take part in the discussion, this would have taken weeks or even months, and the value of spontaneous interaction would have been lost.

Controlling physical exports is easy, at least in principle; but once you try to control the electronic export of software, designs, specifications and technical support, it is hard not to end up controlling speech as well - the dividing line is too blurred. So is the concept of `abroad&#39;. It is quite common for an email between two British scientists to travel via the USA, and an email sent to me at Cambridge, England, will be forwarded to Cambridge, Massachussetts, if that&#39;s where my body happens to be. Now if you give officials enough regulatory discretion to deal with all this, you give them the power to interfere with speech too - and much else. For example, the UK bill extends the scope of arms export controls from a few hundred `obvious&#39; armament vendors to thousands of innocuous software companies. And what about the millions of people who use online services in foreign countries? Will it become an offence for a Brit who works with high technology to have an email account at a US provider, like AOL, to which messages get forwarded when she&#39;s travelling?

While the struggle to amend this particular bill is primarily a matter for Britain&#39;s scientific and engineering establishment, it is an example of a wider and worrying trend - of toxic overspill from attempts to regulate the Internet.

There are many more examples. In the USA, Hollywood&#39;s anxiety about digital copying led to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This gives special status to mechanisms that enforce copyright claims: their circumvention is now an offense. So manufacturers are now bundling copyright protection in with other, more objectionable, mechanisms, such as accessory control. For example, one games console manufacturer builds into its memory cartridges a chip that performs some copyright control functions but whose main purpose appears to be preventing other manufacturers from producing compatible devices. There is no obvious way to reconcile the tension between public policies on copyright and on competition.

The anti-terrorism laws that many nations now have give us yet more examples of regulatory overspill and overkill. In Britain, for example, terrorism is defined as acting in concert with others, for political or religious purposes, using certain means (including violence, property damage or interfering with a computer system) that achieve certain ends (including death, property damage or risks to public health). This definition followed police scaremongering about cyberterrorism, and has the following curious effect. Should I, here on U.S. soil, voice support for the Icelandic Medical Association&#39;s boycott of that country&#39;s controversial genetic database - which according to the government in Reykjavik is degrading the information flows they need to manage public health - then I would become an international terrorist on the spot. (Perhaps I&#39;d better say no more.)

Meanwhile, worries about cybercrime are leading to a Europe-wide arrest warrant which overturns the time-honored principle of dual criminality - that you can only be extradited from one country to another if there is prima facie evidence that you&#39;ve done something that&#39;s a crime according to the laws of both of them. Now Germany has strict hate speech laws - `Mein Kampf&#39; is a banned book - while Britain does not. Right now, I could put an excerpt from that book on my website in the UK (or the USA) but not in Germany. However, the new arrest warrant would allow the German police to extradite me from Britain, for an offense that doesn&#39;t exist in British or American law. Thus, free speech rights online may be reduced to the lowest common denominator among the signatory nations.

At a conference in Berlin in 2000, the German federal justice minister said that her proudest achievement in office had been to stop Amazon selling `Mein Kampf&#39; in Germany, and that her top ambition was to stop them selling it in Arizona, too. European arrest warrants do not quite go that far. But in the near future, if Amazon sold a copy of this book to a history professor in Finland, and Jeff Bezos were later passing through Madrid, the Germans could have him hauled off to Berlin for trial. (Meanwhile, the copyright in the book belongs to the State of Bavaria, so there is an easy way for the German government to prevent its distribution. But they seem determined to do it the hard way.)

Why do we get so many bad laws about information? Several factors are at work.

First, the Internet is no different from any other new frontier in that businessmen compete to make money out of it, while bureaucrats compete to build empires regulating it. The `dot-com&#39; bubble is being followed by a `dot-gov&#39; version. However, while poorly-thought-out business plans run out of cash and disappear, poorly-thought-out laws remain, together with irrelevant services and bureaucratic overheads.

Second, the Internet is different from (say) the Wild West in that the often harsh law enforcement of those times could be replaced and updated as new states were formed. There is no such natural opportunity to revise cyberlaw.

Third, the laws in newly created states were written by people elected by the folks who lived there. This isn&#39;t true at all for cyberspace, which is regulated by the same politicians and senior officials who run meatspace (and are beholden to its vested interests).

Fourth, there are issues of understanding as well as motivation. Cyberspace is more different from Arizona than Arizona is from New York. As politics is about managing the trade-offs between competing legitimate rights and interests, good public policy requires a good understanding of how causes and effects are related. The lack of this makes most governments incompetent at balancing public policy goals that affect cyberspace. It&#39;s hard enough to exchange email with a government department, let alone teach it how to draft laws that catch only the phenomena they are intended to.

Fifth, many of the bad laws have to do (in some broad sense) with computer security, or at least with the perceived vulnerability of the internet to hackers, bomb makers, credit card thieves, pornographers, and other undesirables. There is a huge amount of hype from the computer security industry - when people get fed up with hearing about hackers, the story becomes one of `cyberterrorism&#39;. There are few or no balancing voices, as the interests of almost everyone involved in the security industry - vendors, government agencies, regulators, researchers - lie in talking up the threats. Journalists like the scare stories more than the rebuttals. As with Y2K, the still small voice of reason goes unheard.

What is to be done?

In the shorter term, there is much that individual engineers can do. Engineers and lawyers have at last started to talk to each other about technology policy, while colleagues and I are currently promoting cross-disciplinary research at the boundary between information security and economics.

In the longer term, much of the cyberlaw that has been rushed through in the last few years will need substantial revision. In the USA, that might happen through the Supreme Court, thought it might be unwise to rely on that completely. In the European Union, engineers should be seeking to influence the constitutional negotiations getting underway for the community&#39;s enlargement in 2005. We could try to introduce a mechanism whereby technology policy directives were automatically sent for revision every five to ten years.

But whatever the mechanisms, we technologists need more influence over the development of technology law. Our profession has grown rapidly in numbers over the last quarter century, and our contribution to economic development is decisive. However, our political clout hasn&#39;t grown to match. We have been too busy making the world a better, richer place to spend time infiltrating the citadels of power. Fixing this political deficit is now not just in our own interest, but in everybody&#39;s.

Correction: Bodo Moeller tells me that the legal status of `Mein Kampf&#39; is more complicated. It&#39;s not completely &#39;banned&#39; in Germany; it can be found in some libraries, bought as a used book, or legally xeroxed for personal use. The Bavarian government does not have the copyright in the USA and the UK, where it was sold in 1933; in Britain it&#39;s owned by a German company and in the USA by the government. The official Bavarian government view can be found at here.

I repeat: "Free Speech" is a myth&#33;

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:04 PM



http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/spectrum.html

Free Speech Online and Offline

Ross Anderson

(The following article was commissioned by IEEE Spectrum, submitted to them on the 6th March 2002, and was due to appear in the April 2002 issue. However, their editors insisted on changing the text in ways that introduced material inaccuracies. For example, they insisted on crediting IBM with opposing export controls on intangibles, when at all material times IBM was the staunchest supporter among large IT companies of the crypto policy line taken by the US and UK governments. I refused to accept these edits and the IEEE cancelled the article. It later appeared in IEEE Computing.)


I repeat: "Free Speech" is a myth&#33;
IEEE owns thier own paper and print. It is not thier job to publish anything someone gives them to publish. Period. If the author wants to publish so bad, by all means publish, but not with someone elses private property.

How about porn? I am violated when I can not film a porno in my office at work? If the company stops me, is that a tragedy? Is my free speech being violated? Why can I not film my porno in your livingroom? If you stop me in your livingroom, your violating my free speech. Right?

[Osman Ghazi]

You didn&#39;t even read the article, did you? You completely missed the point.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 10 2004, 12:34 PM
You didn&#39;t even read the article, did you? You completely missed the point.
No. What you don&#39;t understand is the editors of IEEE can do anything they want. IEEE canceling the article? That is &#39;doing what ever they want&#39;. If the authors do not want to enter into contract with the editors of IEEE, IEEE is not obliged to publish thier text. Nor is that censorship. It is business.

How about me? If I want to make a pornographic movie in my office and if my employer stops me, is that a tragedy? Is that an example capatilist forces holding me down and denying me my free speech?

[Osman Ghazi]

No, what I mean is that his point was not about IEEE. Rather, (if you read the atricle) his point is about the draconian laws limiting freedom of speech in the UK; the whole &#39;regulating intangibles&#39; issue.

[DaCuBaN]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+Dec 10 2004, 03:39 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ Dec 10 2004, 03:39 AM)
[email protected] 8 2004, 08:04 PM



http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/spectrum.html

Free Speech Online and Offline

Ross Anderson

(The following article was commissioned by IEEE Spectrum, submitted to them on the 6th March 2002, and was due to appear in the April 2002 issue. However, their editors insisted on changing the text in ways that introduced material inaccuracies. For example, they insisted on crediting IBM with opposing export controls on intangibles, when at all material times IBM was the staunchest supporter among large IT companies of the crypto policy line taken by the US and UK governments. I refused to accept these edits and the IEEE cancelled the article. It later appeared in IEEE Computing.)


I repeat: "Free Speech" is a myth&#33;
IEEE owns thier own paper and print. It is not thier job to publish anything someone gives them to publish. Period. If the author wants to publish so bad, by all means publish, but not with someone elses private property.

How about porn? I am violated when I can not film a porno in my office at work? If the company stops me, is that a tragedy? Is my free speech being violated? Why can I not film my porno in your livingroom? If you stop me in your livingroom, your violating my free speech. Right? [/b]
As Osman has noted, you&#39;ve grabbed the top of this article and no more: Had I only wished you to note the top part - a "restriction" I hadn&#39;t even taken into account no less - I would have only quoted that part of the text.

As to your example of pornography, it&#39;s unfortunately not the greatest ever analogy. A more accurate example would be you being fired after your boss found out you were filming pornography in your spare time.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN+Dec 11 2004, 02:50 PM--> (DaCuBaN @ Dec 11 2004, 02:50 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:39 AM

[email protected] 8 2004, 08:04 PM



http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/spectrum.html

Free Speech Online and Offline

Ross Anderson

(The following article was commissioned by IEEE Spectrum, submitted to them on the 6th March 2002, and was due to appear in the April 2002 issue. However, their editors insisted on changing the text in ways that introduced material inaccuracies. For example, they insisted on crediting IBM with opposing export controls on intangibles, when at all material times IBM was the staunchest supporter among large IT companies of the crypto policy line taken by the US and UK governments. I refused to accept these edits and the IEEE cancelled the article. It later appeared in IEEE Computing.)


I repeat: "Free Speech" is a myth&#33;
IEEE owns thier own paper and print. It is not thier job to publish anything someone gives them to publish. Period. If the author wants to publish so bad, by all means publish, but not with someone elses private property.

How about porn? I am violated when I can not film a porno in my office at work? If the company stops me, is that a tragedy? Is my free speech being violated? Why can I not film my porno in your livingroom? If you stop me in your livingroom, your violating my free speech. Right?
As Osman has noted, you&#39;ve grabbed the top of this article and no more: Had I only wished you to note the top part - a "restriction" I hadn&#39;t even taken into account no less - I would have only quoted that part of the text.

As to your example of pornography, it&#39;s unfortunately not the greatest ever analogy. A more accurate example would be you being fired after your boss found out you were filming pornography in your spare time. [/b]
Porn in my spare time?

That is not the scope of what were talking about.

We are talking worker rights to free speech in regards to the employeer.

So I&#39;m talking about

&#39;free speech&#39; on my employeers property. Such as porn in my office.
&#39;free speech&#39; related to my employeer. Example trade secrets, manufacturing secrets, and fiction loosely based on my experiences at work.

That is basically to scope of what were discussing from the frist post.

[Osman Ghazi]

That is basically to scope of what were discussing from the frist post.

No, that&#39;s what you have been talking about. The first post was about a woman who was fired for wearing her uniform in a picture on her internet blog, which she made while she was off work.

I mean, we know that there is no free speech at work, but at home the rumour was that there was. But I guess it&#39;s just that: a rumour, a fairytale, a myth.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 05:27 PM

No, but it&#39;s pretty close... it probably constitutes about 95% of the relevant world.

that pretty much sums up how ignorant you are.

COCK
Excellent, my one-liners works on you pukes&#33; :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Latifa+Dec 8 2004, 07:36 PM--> (Latifa @ Dec 8 2004, 07:36 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 2 2004, 02:02 PM
No, but it&#39;s pretty close... it probably constitutes about 95% of the relevant world. ;)


Ignorant ****. [/b]
Excellent, my one-liners works on you pukes&#33; :lol:

Get a grip, my pinko sweet=cheeks, It was a joke. (albeit rooted in some realism)