Freedom of Speech

[swansont]

I am proposing that the parents should be in control of what their children see and hear. The government should only empower the parent's control. Having certain channels that are profanity free is fine' date=' but strict, all-encompassing government laws against profanity is a violation of free speech. I believe alot of the disuse of profanity on American channels such as NBC and CBS is due to self-enforcement.

[/quote']

 

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Libel/slander, inciting to riot and obscenity are among the things that are not protected. The government can prevent you from parading around shouting profanity at the top of your lungs, partly because I can't choose to not hear you if I'm standing around, minding my own business. They can't muzzle you for the content of your speech, but as I said before, profanity doesn't really have any content. Anything you can say with it you can say without.

[LucidDreamer]

They can't muzzle you for the content of your speech' date=' but as I said before, profanity doesn't really have any content. Anything you can say with it you can say without.[/quote']

Profanity does have content. I can remove almost any adjective, verb, and many nouns from my vocabulary and still say the same thing without them. But profane words have their own nuances of meaning, just like any other words--maybe more so. They indicate displeasure, anger, surprise, etc. It all depends on how you say them.

[Sayonara]

I may be wrong, but I do not believe there is a federal law against profanity in the United States. It's possible that some states have made laws against it, but I believe its more in the jurisdiction of the cities or counties.

In the post you quoted I was talking about the first amendment, not some mythical law against profanity.

 

 

I am proposing that the parents should be in control of what their children see and hear. The government should only empower the parent's control. Having certain channels that are profanity free is fine, but strict, all-encompassing government laws against profanity is a violation of free speech.

No it isn't. As I already pointed out in the post you originally replied to, the free speech that is protected is what you say (i.e. the content), not how you say it (i.e. the vocabulary). 'Free Speech' refers to the rights of an individual or group to share their ideas or opinions - it is not a license to be vulgar or indecent.

 

 

Exactly. That's because profanity and vulgar words are not strongly regulated by the government. We would have a much different situation if the government really made it their business to oppress the use of vulgar words. In the United States laws only become more numerous with a greater spheres of control.

Isn't this effectively the opposite of what you said in the part of your post I was replying to? Also, the "exactly" suggests that you agree, whereas I directly challenged your assertion that the 'list of swear words gets bigger'.

 

 

That's only one-half of the problem. The other half of the problem is the complacency of the people as the government slowly erodes away their liberties. Freedoms are stolen bit by bit. The best place to stop it is at the beginning.

I don't see how that's related to deciding whether or not something is covered by a particular law that already exists.

 

 

Profanity does have content. I can remove almost any adjective, verb, and many nouns from my vocabulary and still say the same thing without them. But profane words have their own nuances of meaning, just like any other words--maybe more so. They indicate displeasure, anger, surprise, etc. It all depends on how you say them.

That's not content.

[LucidDreamer]

The government can prevent you from parading around shouting profanity at the top of your lungs, partly because I can't choose to not hear you if I'm standing around, minding my own business.

They can also prevent me from running around a movie theatre yelling "I am the knight that says ni," over and over. They should have the right to stop me doing that, but they should not have the right to stare over my shoulder as I'm talking to my friends, waiting to fine me for saying the wrong thing.

[Sayonara]

They can also prevent me from running around a movie theatre yelling "I am the knight that says ni," over and over. They should have the right to stop me doing that, but they should not have the right to stare over my shoulder as I'm talking to my friends, waiting to fine me for saying the wrong thing.

Well quite.

 

One would hope however that society is not so cynical that the average person can't distinguish between a non-existent shadowy crack-team of Swear Catchers, and a ruling that is intended to make people think about being nicer to each other.

[budullewraagh]

haha, for the 7 terrible words, refer to george carlin

[LucidDreamer]

In the post you quoted I was talking about the first amendment' date=' not some mythical law against profanity.

[/quote']

But we are talking about a law against profanity and I believe the first amendment protects against that.

No it isn't. As I already pointed out in the post you originally replied to' date=' the free speech that is protected is what you say (i.e. the content), not how you say it (i.e. the vocabulary). 'Free Speech' refers to the rights of an individual or group to share their ideas or opinions - it is not a license to be vulgar or indecent.

[/quote']

You say that as if you think that's the obvious and only interpretation. The constitution is only so many words. The bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret. It sounds crazy to me that you wouldn't also protect the way something is said, including vocabulary. There have been many court rulings that show I am not the only one that believe this.

 

 

There is great importance in how something is said. The vocabulary used is very important. Just look at the difference between Bush and Kerry.

Isn't this effectively the opposite of what you said in the part of your post I was replying to? Also' date=' the "exactly" suggests that you agree, whereas I directly challenged your assertion that the 'list of swear words gets bigger'.

[/quote']

You misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was saying that if a law was passed against swearing and serious effort was given to enforce it then the list of swear words that the police could fine you for would only increase.

I don't see how that's related to deciding whether or not something is covered by a particular law that already exists.

It is saying that every effort should be made by the people to make sure that our bill of rights' date=' which defines our freedoms, is interpreted as liberally as possible in favor of the people. Any law that will effectively erode those rights to any degree, without great reason, should be fought no matter how inconsequential the right might seem.

 

That's not content.

Of course it is. This could be a disagreement on the definition of content, but I feel that words that very effectively convey a person’s emotional state have content.

 

Example:

Damn! They passed the law.

 

I think damn very succinctly shows that I have a great emotional attachment to the law. Just saying they passed the law would not have the same meaning.

[drz]

I know not how true this is, but had once heard that most our modern profane words come from the french. Like, some battle a few centuries back, when the english kicked the frenchs bum (see, I feel ass makes that sentance 10times better, and bum is honestly just as vulger). Anyhow, they declared certain french words to be vulgar, and its pretty much stuck with us.

 

Anyhow, while I used to be much worse at cussing, I've grown up and really only use cuss words as decriptors or to depict excitement. We sweep them under the rug, but honestly I think english teachers should address the usage of cuss words. The old saying "a time and place for everything" really holds here.

 

My favorite example was when I first started working with my dad. I was installing vinyl siding, and my hammer glanced the nail, smashing my thumb. At this point, I yelled GD, to which my dad responded "You praying over there boy?"

 

And he knew exactly what had happened, went and prepared some first aid type stuff for me, and I never told him I hit my finger.

 

In short, I don't think the government should be able to restrict a certain list of words. I can use the word "buddy" in such a tone as to make it sound like I should have said "asswipe".

 

"Hey buddy, why don't you go jump off a bridge."

"Hey asswipe, why don't you go jump off a bridge."

 

Said in the same tone, it is just as insulting.

 

A better example you can try on your own; walk up to a sweet looking old lady, and, as if you were going to say "Hey, Go to Hell!!!" say "Hey, Go to Heaven!!!", at first, the person will think you just told them to go to hell, and then get a laugh out of it once they realise what you said.

[budullewraagh]

i would agree. at the same time, i would like everybody to consider the meanings of these words and their synonyms. then i would like you to separate the connotations attached to them. think about it for awhile.

 

sometime in history, people said they didnt like certain words and forbade people from saying them. i think some pope contributed greaty to that problem

[ydoaPs]

In short' date=' I don't think the government should be able to restrict a certain list of words. I can use the word "buddy" in such a tone as to make it sound like I should have said "asswipe".

 

"Hey buddy, why don't you go jump off a bridge."

"Hey asswipe, why don't you go jump off a bridge."

 

Said in the same tone, it is just as insulting.

 

A better example you can try on your own; walk up to a sweet looking old lady, and, as if you were going to say "Hey, Go to Hell!!!" say "Hey, Go to Heaven!!!", at first, the person will think you just told them to go to hell, and then get a laugh out of it once they realise what you said.[/quote']

 

Your post is full of chocolate pudding!

 

Wow, it almost works.

[budullewraagh]

connotation is everything in speech. think about it

[Mad Mardigan]

The Bill

 

To amend section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.

 

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

 

(1) by inserting `(a)' before `Whoever'; and

 

(2) by adding at the end the following:

 

`(b) As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `shit', `piss', `****', `cunt', `asshole', and the phrases `cock sucker', `mother ****er', and `ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'.

 

And the lawsuit

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726

[LucidDreamer]

I don't think the origin of swear words comes from any one event or person. Nearly every society has swear words, including societies that have only recently come in contact with the west. Swear words are a natural part of communication. Just as every society needs words that describe friendship or love, so does every society need words that will convey great displeasure or anger. If you outlaw the words sh**, Fu**, and ass then you will have words that take their place in the time it takes you to say crap.

 

Making laws against swearing has nothing to do with an arbitrary choice of syllables. It's a means to control rebellious or unruly behavior. Saying swear words is a no-no. Swearing is usually a sort of semi-taboo that is lightly restricted. That's fine as long as you don't take the restrictions too far. Getting the government too involved is bad idea.

[ydoaPs]

The Bill

 

To amend section 1464 of title 18' date=' United States Code, to provide for the punishment of certain profane broadcasts, and for other purposes.

 

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

 

(1) by inserting `(a)' before `Whoever'; and

 

(2) by adding at the end the following:

 

`(b) As used in this section, the term `profane', used with respect to language, includes the words `shit', `piss', `****', `cunt', `asshole', and the phrases `cock sucker', `mother ****er', and `ass hole', compound use (including hyphenated compounds) of such words and phrases with each other or with other words or phrases, and other grammatical forms of such words and phrases (including verb, adjective, gerund, participle, and infinitive forms).'.

 

And the lawsuit

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726[/quote']

 

lawsuit? wow, we are a litigious society.

[Mad Mardigan]

How to use the word properly though.

 

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/fwordflash.html

[Sayonara]

But we are talking about a law against profanity...

Did you just not read the bit where I said that Refsmmat was incorrectly ascribing features of the first amendment to the Russian culture? I think the flow of this discussion may have been broken slightly.

 

... and I believe the first amendment protects against that.

You seem to be having difficulty separating the concepts of content and emphasis.

 

 

You say that as if you think that's the obvious and only interpretation. The constitution is only so many words. The bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret.

While this is true, it's not really useful to us without example interpretations that have set precedent.

 

It sounds crazy to me that you wouldn't also protect the way something is said, including vocabulary. There have been many court rulings that show I am not the only one that believe this.

As has already been pointed out, perhaps you are simply not familiar with the concepts of libel, slander, incitement to riot, obscenity or hate speech.

If there have been rulings that are actually relevant and would make an anti-profanity order illegal, on the grounds of protecting free speech, show them.

 

 

There is great importance in how something is said. The vocabulary used is very important. Just look at the difference between Bush and Kerry.

I'm not suggesting in any way that vocabulary and emphasis have no importance.

 

 

You misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was saying that if a law was passed against swearing and serious effort was given to enforce it then the list of swear words that the police could fine you for would only increase.

No, I did not misinterpret anything. You were originally talking in the present tense. The above explanation is future tense and deals with a hypothetical situation which does not (yet?) exist. I can't be expected to respond to your points in a meaningful way if you don't know what you are trying to say, and seeing as I am talking about the current state of play re: civil rights, I don't really have any interest in second-guessing the future.

 

 

It is saying that every effort should be made by the people to make sure that our bill of rights, which defines our freedoms, is interpreted as liberally as possible in favor of the people. Any law that will effectively erode those rights to any degree, without great reason, should be fought no matter how inconsequential the right might seem.

Seeing as you don't live in Russia, don't you think you are jumping the gun by assuming that your society will agree with you that anti-profanity laws would "erode rights without great reason"?

 

 

Of course it is. This could be a disagreement on the definition of content, but I feel that words that very effectively convey a person’s emotional state have content.

No, they don't. The definition of content in the context of a discussion on language and speech has precise meaning - it is the concept or core idea that is being communicated, along with peripheral information that can directly modify that concept or idea. Vocabulary, structure and emphasis are simply a means of delivery. They may be capable of delivering additional information such as emotional states, but these are in addition to the conceptual content and do not modify it (well actually vocabulary can modify the content but this is through misuses as opposed to use, which we aren't really interested in).

 

 

I think damn very succinctly shows that I have a great emotional attachment to the law. Just saying they passed the law would not have the same meaning.

Both phrases have precisely the same meaning, only the emphasis has changed. Moreover, there are numerous ways to communicate exactly the same degree of emphasis without profanity, therefore this approach is the false dilemma fallacy and your rights to express yourself have not been impinged. QED.

[swansont]

But we are talking about a law against profanity and I believe the first amendment protects against that.

 

It depends on the context. Profanity is not necessarily protected, especially if it's directed at another person - the so-called "fighting words" exception (Chaplinsky test).

[YT2095]

Ebat! eto vse yadren baton (that should buy me a few years in a Russian goulag) LOL

 

personaly I don`t mind the odd "profanity" in fact I don`t think there`s an adult alive that has`nt sworn or cussed at sometime in their life (I do on occasion).

 

I do draw the line when it`s embarrasing, I have a few mates that swear almost every second word, although they are my friends, I find myself telling them not to cuss so much or at least keep their voice down a little when there`s others around (esp female, and no I`m not a sexist per se).

 

I realise it`s actualy a reflection upon them logicaly, as they must be either stuck for words or it`s a bad habit, but I can`t help but feel somewhat embarassed at times around them. who knows, maybe it`s MY PROBLEM?

[LucidDreamer]

I may disagree with you but I am still respecting your opinion. Your replies are filled with pointless subtle attacks. I only ask that you give me the same respect that I give you.

Did you just not read the bit where I said that Refsmmat was incorrectly ascribing features of the first amendment to the Russian culture? I think the flow of this discussion may have been broken slightly.

I did in fact read that bit. The primary emphasis of this thread has been about whether profanity is protected under free speech. Whether or not the current Russian government can legally pass laws against profanity is a matter for Russian lawyers and lawmakers. I don't think the intention of the original poster was to discuss the intricate details of the Russian judicial system or lawmaking bodies.

 

You seem to be having difficulty separating the concepts of content and emphasis.

My disagreement with you does not necessarily constitute a lack of understanding on my part. If I say' date=' "I am unhappy with this" then the content of my sentence is about me being unhappy. If I say Damn in a certain way then I am saying the same thing. They are both filled with content if my point is that I'm unhappy.

 

While this is true, it's not really useful to us without example interpretations that have set precedent.

If you agree that this is true then there is no need for me to provide a precedent.

As has already been pointed out' date=' perhaps you are simply not familiar with the concepts of libel, slander, and incitement to riot, obscenity or hate speech.

If there have been rulings that are actually relevant and would make an anti-profanity order illegal, on the grounds of protecting free speech, show them.

[/quote']

 

It depends on the context. Profanity is not necessarily protected' date=' especially if it's directed at another person - the so-called "fighting words" exception (Chaplinsky test).

[/quote']

 

I can tell by your previous posts that you would be familiar with libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc. I would think that you would know by now that it is likely that I am familiar with these things as well. You mention these things yet none of them have anything to do with the law passed in Russia or the article provided. The article was about passing a law against saying profanity in public. Nothing about libel, slander, incitement to riot, or hate speeches. I'm not sure what an obscenity speech is.

 

I can libel someone, incite a riot, slander someone, or give a hate speech without the use of profanity. I can also use profanity in a public place without libeling someone, inciting a riot, or giving a hate speech. I am fully aware of both the existence and need for some restrictions on certain things that might be considered to fall under free speech. I am arguing that its not worth stopping a few teenagers from saying potty words if it means that the society must take a step in the wrong direction,without great need, when it comes to free speech.

 

I could provide precedents but I don't think that we really want to spend our time searching through law libraries to have a simple discussion about free speech. Do I really need to provide previous rulings about obscenity or profanity where the ruling was that the person's right to do or say something that someone else considers obscene or profane is protected under free speech?

 

And now you are talking about free speech. I thought you wanted to limit the discussion to the Russian laws.

No' date=' I did not misinterpret anything. You were originally talking in the present tense. The above explanation is future tense and deals with a hypothetical situation which does not (yet?) exist. I can't be expected to respond to your points in a meaningful way if you don't know what you are trying to say, and seeing as I am talking about the current state of play re: civil rights, I don't really have any interest in second-guessing the future.

[/quote']

I was only saying that there was a misunderstanding about what I was saying. I wasn't implying that you were maliciously misrepresenting me. I know exactly what I was trying to say. Misunderstandings during communication are common, especially in short paragraphs of text posted on forums. This is why I explained what I meant.

 

We are always interested in the future results of current events. It's not farfetched or off topic to comment on future repercussions. It doesn't take anything more than the most basic level of inductive reasoning to realize that a law which generates money in fines will expand its area of control and its ability to generate more revenue at the expense of the people. If you need a precedent examine the traffic laws of any city in the United States.

 

Seeing as you don't live in Russia' date=' don't you think you are jumping the gun by assuming that your society will agree with you that anti-profanity laws would "erode rights without great reason"?

[/quote']

Again I don't think this discussion is really about the ability to pass profanity laws under the current Russian government. It's about free speech. I believe that every democratic free society must have free speech as one of their inherent rights.

No' date=' they don't. The definition of content in the context of a discussion on language and speech has precise meaning - it is the concept or core idea that is being communicated, along with peripheral information that can directly modify that concept or idea. Vocabulary, structure and emphasis are simply a means of delivery. They may be capable of delivering additional information such as emotional states, but these are in addition to the conceptual content and do not modify it (well actually vocabulary [i']can[/i] modify the content but this is through misuses as opposed to use, which we aren't really interested in).

 

 

 

Both phrases have precisely the same meaning, only the emphasis has changed. Moreover, there are numerous ways to communicate exactly the same degree of emphasis without profanity, therefore this approach is the false dilemma fallacy and your rights to express yourself have not been impinged. QED.

 

They don't mean the same thing. One says that they passed the law and I am unhappy about it. The other one only says that they passed the law. The first one has more content. If I had provided an example where I said, "I am unhappy," then another example where I said, "Damn, I am unhappy," then this would be an example of emphasis. In this case I would still argue that the damn is important because emphasis is an important part of communication.

 

Like I said before there are many words that you could remove from the English language and still have the ability to communicate the same idea, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to outlaw any of them. The lines between emphasis and content are blurry. I have forgotten which author but there is an interesting story that concerns this. This author wrote a book and published it but went on a trip immediately afterwards. He was up all night wondering about how his book was being received. He sent his publisher a letter that only contained a single question mark. His publisher sent a letter back with a singe exclamation mark. Usually an exclamation mark is considered just a mark of emphasis but in this case it had great meaning and content. The book was being exceptionally well received. If the book was doing poorly then I believe that the publisher should have the right to send the single word damn without having to worry about both of them being fined or carted of to jail if the author opened and read the letter in public.

 

Btw, what does QED mean?

[YT2095]

"Btw, what does QED mean?"

 

Quad Errat Demonstrandum if I rem correctly it`s Latin for "was demonstrated" meaning a conclusion that it was proven by line of reasoning or demonstration.

 

 

I can`t be 100% sure though, it was a LONG TIME ago since I did this stuff!

[Sayonara]

I may disagree with you but I am still respecting your opinion. Your replies are filled with pointless subtle attacks. I only ask that you give me the same respect that I give you.

No, if I wanted to attack you I would not make it subtle. I can't be responsible for how you interpret my posts, but I can make an effort to ensure they are less ambiguous. So I will.

 

 

I did in fact read that bit. The primary emphasis of this thread has been about whether profanity is protected under free speech. Whether or not the current Russian government can legally pass laws against profanity is a matter for Russian lawyers and lawmakers. I don't think the intention of the original poster was to discuss the intricate details of the Russian judicial system or lawmaking bodies.

Right. Let me make it more clear what I was talking about:

- Refsmmat asked if "[Russia] should be allowed to do this?" in a thread entitled "Free Speech".

- Afaik Russia does not actually have a law or constitutional ruling regarding free speech in the same way that the USA does, hence my reply "yes?".

- Refsmmat then made a post that had absolutely nothing to do with the Russian situation, and discussed both his distaste for hearing profanities (which I take to be in his culture, which means the USA) and a non-profane option available to "you" (which I take to mean his contemporaries in his culture, which means citizens of the USA).

- Hence my reply regarding free speech. It had nothing to do with the Russian law - it was relating to and descriptive of USA law and followed on from the original poster's comments.

 

You assumed that I was talking about something else, so I certainly hope that helps clear things up a bit.

 

 

My disagreement with you does not necessarily constitute a lack of understanding on my part. If I say, "I am unhappy with this" then the content of my sentence is about me being unhappy. If I say Damn in a certain way then I am saying the same thing. They are both filled with content if my point is that I'm unhappy.

The content is the subject, the object and the action. Emphasis of any kind can be added or removed without changing the content. What emphasis does change is the tone of the content, which is not content in itself but a property of it, and therefore the overall meaning of what is said (where 'meaning' is taken to be the combined concept and circumstances - my response to your novelist example is a bit more straightforward.)

 

 

If you agree that this is true then there is no need for me to provide a precedent.

That's not correct, because theory is often different from practice, especially where practical examples require additional constraints or parameters.

 

In this particular case, me agreeing with "The bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret" does not magically lead on to "profanity is covered by the first amendment".

 

 

I can tell by your previous posts that you would be familiar with libel, slander, incitement to riot, etc.

Ah, an ad hominem. Hurrah.

 

 

I would think that you would know by now that it is likely that I am familiar with these things as well. You mention these things yet none of them have anything to do with the law passed in Russia or the article provided. The article was about passing a law against saying profanity in public. Nothing about libel, slander, incitement to riot, or hate speeches. I'm not sure what an obscenity speech is.

The point is that none of these things are protected speech under the first amendment, which is what I was talking about when you disagreed with me. It illustrates that not protecting profanity under the guise of freedom of speech is not special pleading.

 

 

I can libel someone, incite a riot, slander someone, or give a hate speech without the use of profanity.

Yes, but you will still be liable to be held accountable for what you say.

 

 

I can also use profanity in a public place without libeling someone, inciting a riot, or giving a hate speech.

Also true, but not really relevant to anything. You seem to be suggesting some relationship between libel etc and profanity, and I'm not sure why. I certainly didn't say that they were directly linked or inter-dependent.

 

 

I am fully aware of both the existence and need for some restrictions on certain things that might be considered to fall under free speech. I am arguing that its not worth stopping a few teenagers from saying potty words if it means that the society must take a step in the wrong direction,without great need, when it comes to free speech.

What you are doing here is arguing against a false proposition. An anti-profanity law would not simply be to "stop a few teenagers from saying potty words".

You are also insisting on including the conditional "without great need", despite the fact that nobody has demonstrated the condition has not been met.

 

 

I could provide precedents but I don't think that we really want to spend our time searching through law libraries to have a simple discussion about free speech.

"I could provide evidence of what I said but I don't want to".

 

 

Do I really need to provide previous rulings about obscenity or profanity where the ruling was that the person's right to do or say something that someone else considers obscene or profane is protected under free speech?

Well you seemed to be okay with "the bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret" so it seems only logical that the next step of your argument would be to demonstrate how a profanity is protected. The easiest way to do that is by precedent.

 

Note that I am talking about every-day profanities of the type the Russian law aims to reduce, not some contrived and unlikely instance that bears no relation to their common usage and is not representative of profane delivery.

 

 

And now you are talking about free speech. I thought you wanted to limit the discussion to the Russian laws.

I really don't recall saying that.

 

 

I was only saying that there was a misunderstanding about what I was saying. I wasn't implying that you were maliciously misrepresenting me. I know exactly what I was trying to say. Misunderstandings during communication are common, especially in short paragraphs of text posted on forums. This is why I explained what I meant.

This is fair enough. If anything, the continued discussion has highlighted that we have both misunderstood each other at different points.

 

 

We are always interested in the future results of current events. It's not farfetched or off topic to comment on future repercussions. It doesn't take anything more than the most basic level of inductive reasoning to realize that a law which generates money in fines will expand its area of control and its ability to generate more revenue at the expense of the people. If you need a precedent examine the traffic laws of any city in the United States.

Well yes, I agree completely. But when I am saying "this is how the law stands in country X right now", talking about a possible future law doesn't really affect what I said in any way.

I don't think that line of the discussion got either of us anywhere useful tbh.

 

 

Again I don't think this discussion is really about the ability to pass profanity laws under the current Russian government. It's about free speech. I believe that every democratic free society must have free speech as one of their inherent rights.

I share the sentiments on both issues. However I am not so certain that free speech does - or should extend to cover 'anything anybody can say'. It is very easy to say something that infringes on the rights of another person or party (which is of course why things like libel are not protected).

We have to face the fact that no society will ever be ideal or free of compromise, not even in law.

 

 

Like I said before there are many words that you could remove from the English language and still have the ability to communicate the same idea, but that doesn't mean its a good idea to outlaw any of them.

No, it doesn't does it? It can only be a good idea if you actually include a reason for doing it there as well.

 

 

The lines between emphasis and content are blurry.

Not really. There are some specific instances where emphasis can be used as content (as you illustrate below) but this is usually a form of pseudocontent that relies on context to provide the actual meaning - the pseudocontent itself does not have to be the original emphasis entity (in your example, the question mark) - it could be anything. Smilies are a good example of emphasis used as pseudocontent.

 

 

I have forgotten which author but there is an interesting story that concerns this. This author wrote a book and published it but went on a trip immediately afterwards. He was up all night wondering about how his book was being received. He sent his publisher a letter that only contained a single question mark. His publisher sent a letter back with a singe exclamation mark. Usually an exclamation mark is considered just a mark of emphasis but in this case it had great meaning and content. The book was being exceptionally well received. If the book was doing poorly then I believe that the publisher should have the right to send the single word damn without having to worry about both of them being fined or carted of to jail if the author opened and read the letter in public.

You are synonymising (sp?) meaning and content. Unlike content, which is presented "as is", meaning can be derived. This is made very easy in a scenario like the one you described, where the context is already set and only several avenues of interpretation are qualified by the expectations of both parties.

 

 

Btw, what does QED mean?

What YT said ^

[LucidDreamer]

Ah' date=' an ad hominem

[/quote']

Lol, I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that I can tell that you are well educated and have probably heard of those laws.

 

Right. Let me make it more clear what I was talking about:

- Refsmmat asked if "[Russia] should be allowed to do this?" in a thread entitled "Free Speech".

- Afaik Russia does not actually have a law or constitutional ruling regarding free speech in the same way that the USA does' date=' hence my reply "yes?".

- Refsmmat then made a post that had absolutely nothing to do with the Russian situation, and discussed both his distaste for hearing profanities (which I take to be in his culture, which means the USA) and a non-profane option available to "you" (which I take to mean his contemporaries in his culture, which means citizens of the USA).

- Hence my reply regarding free speech. It had nothing to do with the Russian law - it was relating to and descriptive of USA law and followed on from the original poster's comments.

 

You assumed that I was talking about something else, so I certainly hope that helps clear things up a bit.

[/quote']

OK. No reason to argue about that. We are talking about free speech now, right?

The content is the subject' date=' the object and the action. Emphasis of any kind can be added or removed without changing the content. What emphasis does change is the [u']tone[/u] of the content, which is not content in itself but a property of it, and therefore the overall meaning of what is said (where 'meaning' is taken to be the combined concept and circumstances - my response to your novelist example is a bit more straightforward.)

What word has all those elements anyway? An a$$hole is a noun like any other noun, and it has as much content as an unlikable fellow does. My dictionary says content means “significance or profundity.” I was using that definition. This seems like the definition that is most relevant.

In this particular case' date=' me agreeing with [i']"The bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret"[/i] does not magically lead on to "profanity is covered by the first amendment".

My point in bringing that up was that just because the first amendment doesn't expressly say that how you say things is protected doesn't mean that it wasn't implied or that we shouldn't interpret it that way. No magic involved.

 

The point is that none of these things are protected speech under the first amendment' date=' which is what I was talking about when you disagreed with me. It illustrates that not protecting profanity under the guise of freedom of speech is not special pleading.

 

 

Yes, but you will still be liable to be held accountable for what you say.

 

Also true, but not really relevant to anything. You seem to be suggesting some relationship between libel etc and profanity, and I'm not sure why. I certainly didn't say that they were directly linked or inter-dependent.

[/quote']

Point taken. So we agree that profanity is something entirely different than the other examples of things not covered under the First Amendment.

 

What you are doing here is arguing against a false proposition. An anti-profanity law would not simply be to "stop a few teenagers from saying potty words".

You are also insisting on including the conditional "without great need"' date=' despite the fact that nobody has demonstrated the condition has not been met.

[/quote']

 

But that is what the article focused on. I find the idea of a more encompassing law even more unnecessarily subjugative. What exactly would you propose a suitable law against profanity then?

 

"I could provide evidence of what I said but I don't want to".

Well you seemed to be okay with "the bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret" so it seems only logical that the next step of your argument would be to demonstrate how a profanity is protected. The easiest way to do that is by precedent.

Note that I am talking about every-day profanities of the type the Russian law aims to reduce' date=' not some contrived and unlikely instance that bears no relation to their common usage and is not representative of profane delivery.

 

That's not correct, because theory is often different from practice, especially where practical examples require additional constraints or parameters.

[/quote']

 

Fine, I didn't feel there was any need, but here you go.

 

Man says profanity charge violates free speech rights

By AP/mjh

Posted: 12/6/2003

(Manistee-AP) -- A man who prosecutors say broke a local ordinance while cursing and making obscene gestures at a police officer in public is arguing such actions are constitutionally protected.

 

Duane Barton is on trial after being charged in a July encounter with Manistee Police Officer Jeff Pefley during which prosecutors say Barton grabbed his groin area and yelled at the officer.

 

Barton denies he used profanity and, he says, it would have been constitutionally-protected speech if he had.

 

In April 2002, the state Court of Appeals struck down a state law against using vulgar language in front of women and children

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/newsdefaultpopoff.asp?cmd=view&articleid=9658

 

The mother of three was rushing a load of groceries to her sister's house when she was pulled over by an officer who said she had made an incomplete stop.

When told her driver's license was suspended, Upshaw used a profanity to describe her day. She ended up in jail for her choice of words.

A judge dismissed the charges, again because Johnson's words were not sexually obscene

 

Every state has laws against foul language, but the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have generally agreed that the words have to be used in a violent or sexually obscene context, said John Burkoff, associate dean and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Uttering something vulgar or profane is not, in itself, grounds for arrest, he said.

 

The second case involves Amy Johnston, 27, a Chatham University undergraduate student and part-time children’s nanny, and Gregory Lagrosa, 29, a library assistant with the Carnegie Library and part-time graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. On November 26, 2000, the couple was exiting the Homestead Giant Eagle grocery store when a police car nearly ran them over in the crosswalk. When Amy yelled, “It’s a crosswalk, asshole,” the officer chased them down and made enraged comments about being called an “asshole.” He then arrested both of them. A judge subsequently dismissed all charges.

 

“Not one of these three people did anything illegal,” said Bruce Boni, a volunteer ACLU lawyer handling the Upshaw case. “The police officers were offended by profanity, so they abused their authority and misused the public trust by arresting upstanding, law-abiding citizens.”

 

Several witnesses to the Johnston/Lagrosa arrest protested to the arresting officer that Johnston and Lagrosa had done nothing wrong and that he was not hired to arrest people because he doesn’t like their language.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n070202a.html

 

Perhaps we have another misunderstanding. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be illegal to be sexually explicit with a child or other specific instances. I am talking about a law like the one mentioned in the article where they can prevent you from using profanity in a harmless context.

This is fair enough. If anything' date=' the continued discussion has highlighted that we have both misunderstood each other at different points.

[/quote']

I agree

I share the sentiments on both issues. However I am not so certain that free speech does - or should extend to cover 'anything anybody can say'. It is very easy to say something that infringes on the rights of another person or party (which is of course why things like libel are not protected).

We have to face the fact that no society will ever be ideal or free of compromise' date=' not even in law.

[/quote']

Agreed. Our argument lies with what is a suitable compromise. I don’t feel that the benefits of a law against profanity will justify the loss of freedom.

 

No' date=' it doesn't does it? It can only be a good idea if you actually include a reason for doing it there as well.

[/quote']

Yes, now it is time for you to provide your reasoning for why you feel this law would benefit a free society.

Not really. There are some specific instances where emphasis can be used as content (as you illustrate below) but this is usually a form of pseudocontent that relies on context to provide the actual meaning - the pseudocontent itself does not have to be the original emphasis entity (in your example' date=' the question mark) - it could be anything. Smilies are a good example of emphasis used as pseudocontent.

 

You are synonymising (sp?) meaning and content. Unlike content, which is presented "as is", meaning can be derived. This is made very easy in a scenario like the one you described, where the context is already set and only several avenues of interpretation are qualified by the expectations of both parties.

[/quote']

Again, my dictionary says content means “significance or profundity.” I was using that definition. This seems like the definition that is most relevant.

 

What you are doing here is arguing against a false proposition.

an ad hominem

Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it one. In fact sometimes calling something a logical fallacy can be considered a logical fallacy itself.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My opinion of this discussion:

Christ. On. A. Stick

 

In other words, this argument is totally unnecessary. (most of it anyways) A lot of the argument is just semantics and laws totally unrelated to Russia.

So...

Jebus. On. A. Totem. Pole.

[LucidDreamer]

Lol, so we were suppose to be discussing Russian laws. Never mind, I should get back to studying anyway.

[swansont]

I can tell by your previous posts that you would be familiar with libel' date=' slander, incitement to riot, etc. I would think that you would know by now that it is likely that I am familiar with these things as well. You mention these things yet none of them have anything to do with the law passed in Russia or the article provided. The article was about passing a law against saying profanity in public. Nothing about libel, slander, incitement to riot, or hate speeches. I'm not sure what an obscenity speech is.

 

...

 

And now you are talking about free speech. I thought you wanted to limit the discussion to the Russian laws.

[/quote']

 

My response was to

 

But we are talking about a law against profanity and I believe the first amendment protects against that.

 

"First Amendment," to me, implies US Constitution. A Google search shows that the Russian Constitution's free speech section is Article 29.

 

It was not I that changed the subject in this exchange.