This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why is freedom of speech so vastly different in the USA compared to the rest of the world? What does that mean in today's global culture?
Well, i may be exaggerating when i say "so vastly different", but it is my inalienable right to lie and exaggerate if that helps to get my point across.
Or is it?
Is there a limit to the amount of insults or lies i can utter in order to get a point across? or worse off, not even to get a point across, but simply to provoke a reaction on certain audience?
One of the main differences between the way freedom of speech is understood in the USA and elsewhere, is the concept of "hate speech".
Seems to me that in the USA, all the responsibility is passed to the listener, to remain rational in the face of lies and provocations, and never indulge in the most minimal reaction (other than use hate speech back).
Being a parent, I can say with certainty that not everybody can control their irrational impulses equally. Teenagers, in particular, are prone to act first and think later. And this has been known and exploited for centuries.
Can someone honestly claim innocence when making a speech that is capable of provoking this kind of out of control reaction in someone? Isn't that one of the things that could get you accused of treason, for example, when your speech incites people to rebel against your own government?
Now, to the second part of my question. Jurisdiction. If i say something that may be protected by free-speech in the USA, but which may not be protected as such in a different country (due to their differing definition of "hate speech", for example), under whose jurisdiction does this speech fall? Can someone honestly claim that they innocently released a comment on the internet for "domestic consumption only", and that they are not responsible of its international repercussions?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
David Hamilton 50+
A friend of mine, an elementary school teacher told me this story. One of his favorite students, was walking a mile, very slowly... A kid who had picked on him in class came running up behind him, and threw a rock at him. He responded, by throwing a fist in his face... There was a fight. My friend said "I was so disappointed in this kid. He's really smart, and the other kid is just a trouble maker... Why did he fight back?"...
My friend is a liberal... I responded "Gosh darn right he fought back, good for him...". My friend was shocked "He's been suspended, he's in serious trouble." Suddenly, I was the one shocked... This is socialism. "Both boys are at fault, because they both escalated the situation, they name called, etc... We don't tolerate bullying"
My response is of course "What the heck are you talking about "you don't tolerate bullying"... You've institutionalized it. You rewarded the psychopath who threw a rock, by bringing down the intelligent student. This is exactly how bullies want the school to run". "No we teach our children never to be violent". "NO! You teach them to let people throw rocks at them, and it's disturbing"... Not a fun conversation to have with a friend.
Words will never hurt. The kid who throws the rock is wrong... and if they throw a rock at your son or daughter, I don't care what they said... Tell them to punch that kid in the face : )
Andres Aullet 10+
cheers
John Moonstroller 20+
Freedom of speech, is such a fragile concept that it wouldn't take much to derail the idea. I guess that is why so many Americans will tolerate such things as movies that demean their religion, way of life, etc. without jumping up and down in the streets, burning other countries flags (well, maybe their bible by a few people), and committing acts of violence. Sometimes people just need to get some things off their chest and freedom of speech helps to accomplish this without turning into a fist fight. During the Occupy Wall Street protest, people were charge with other crimes but no one was charged with yelling obscenities, or declarations of change or ideas of revolution. They were charged with trespassing, mostly.
Every since the Supreme court ruled speech had to incite "imminent lawless action, it has been legal to falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.
To allow intolerant speech needs at least one element, a tolerant listener.
Robert Winner 50+
Joey is a bully ... pickes on the wrong guy ... gets his butt whipped. Teacher sees it. Joey gets detention and a butt whippin ... loses face .... maybe will stop the crap.
Some one disses you or gets physical with you at school and you do not respond ... paint a target on your forehead ... and kiss your lunch money good-by.
David is leaps and bounds ahead of you guys in playground philosophy.
Davids teacher friend was wrong to report it in a manner that got the second kid thrown out. He saw what happened and still blamed the victim for defending himself. Victims have rights. The teacher stated that the kid was a trouble maker and threw his "favorite" into the same category as a fighter trouble maker. Poor decision making.
Next time a mugger attacks you in the alley with a knife please don't defend yourself or the teacher will be disappointed in you also.
All the best. Bob.
Andres Aullet 10+
The conversation gets interesting, and regardless of some superficial differences, seems that we all share many points of view regarding kids and bullying. I stand by my comment that i think anti-bullying policies are a good thing, but I agree with David, I think the way they are implemented in most schools is a disaster.
In fact, David has a very good point regarding teaching our kids not to let the bully get away. I have two kids and I have had that exact conversation with them. I grew up and survived in Mexico City where even today the rules of the street are the ones to follow between kids. So no, I do not advocate for kids to passively accept what comes their way unless it gets physical.
But nobody has picked on one of the main points of my question: hate speech. Everybody makes the unquestioned assumption that violence is only physical, and that hate speech cannot be put in the same category as physical violence.
There is where I disagree. There are plenty of examples where people does not require physical violence to be pushed beyond their limits, and their reactions often carry fatal consequences. And it's all to easy to dismiss it as a case of someone who just went nuts. Period.
As a society, we should take more responsibility and we should try to learn from those cases.
Someone said wisely: "we tend to blame society for such psychopaths, but how easily we forget that WE ARE society"
cheers
David Hamilton 50+
There's a part of me, that almost thinks it's okay for a jewish person to punch someone in the face for having a swastika tattoo on his neck... but, that's what it comes down to... almost. I choose to live in a country where people are allowed to be insanely batshit crazy... because most of us don't choose the path of neck nazi... Most of us choose the path of self respect, family, and community, without it being forced on anyone.
We do not choose this path because it is easy... but, because... it is hard.
John Moonstroller 20+
I saw the race wars when I was a child, heard the talk at home around the dinner table, heard the unending slur of insults. I grew up with that.
It is amazing that I am not and never was a part of that attitude. There has to be an explanation why some are so easily given to that kind of speech while others just don't get it, don't see the connection to race, intellect, deformity, sexual association or religious affiliation.
Perhaps there is a TED video that might explain it to us?
Barry Palmer 50+
I disagree, I do not think we are wise enough to define grey areas in law. I do think that sometimes throwing a punch is well worth a day or two in jail, if you can keep the violence within limits. There was a time in this country when a few punches would end it. Now a punch might be answered with a gun.
Part of the problem we are seeing today is the break down of very old social contracts. In school, the old rule was, apply common sense and good judgment, and the parents will try to see your point of view. Now the rule is avoid law suits; parents are bat-shit crazy.
Perhaps we should start teaching those old social contracts in school, starting day one.
Linda Taylor 50+
Andres Aullet 10+
Indeed we need more male teachers. But I think that a big part of this problem would be solved if we parents actually took the task of instilling in our kids some respect for others.
It is difficult to go against the primal instinct of "grouping", distrusting the "others" and believing that "our group" is always right and always good. Seems to me like most kids learn from a very young age the same unwritten lesson: "we are better than them", "distrust others", "if someone is not with us, then that someone is against us"
Most hate speech stems from this lesson drilled over and over during the early years of every child's life.
Tolerance not only means ignoring when someone is calling us names, tolerance also means refraining (and teaching our kids to refrain) from calling names ourselves
Linda Taylor 50+
If parents could make a living wage they could establish the behavior earlier instead of being at work all the time. If parents could raise their children in a vacuum for the first 5 years of their lives. But most piece together an elaborate system of daycare between family members, high school kids and daycare.
And we wonder where kids learn 'distrust.'
John Moonstroller 20+
Kids with guns is not something I ever experienced when I was in school. There is something fundamentally different today, Perhaps it has more application with what Andres is proposing "hate speech" rather than kids in school, picking one one another. Something experienced everyday in other parts of the world, where kids as young as twelve can be recruited into a violent revolution, given ak47's and instructions on how to use them. Our children see these kids on TV and realize that kids their age can have adult like potential at an early age and associate the idea of "Guns" with adulthood like behavior.
Where does the hate come from that would enable a couple of students to massacre fellow students and teachers?
When hate speech turns into violence of this sort, something is seriously wrong. To imply that we should augment this symptom by hitting the bully back only gives rise to the possibility that the bully will bring a gun to school.
There needs to some "smart", adult minded, solutions, adults with an eye on the potentiality of the situation to reach deadly heights.
Conservative minded, rural suggestions like, "well just hit him back Johnny", "we just need to drop a bomb on them, Nuke the place and start over, put them all on a slow boat to Africa, are typical of those who don't understand the potentialities associated with students reactions to the world they live in today. Hate speech has gotten out of control.
When it comes to talking about teachers and school officials who just don't get it, you and David are offering solutions that demonstrate you are those types of people.
I wouldn't be so foolish to point to David's post as evidence of a solution. In my opinion, it reveals a rural minded approach to a serious problem.
Linda Taylor 50+
And I will happily live in that world before I live in some vanilla, politically correct, suburban hell.
Where I live now, everyone has a gun. Usually a collection and for the serious guys a nice assortment of ARs. So there is access for all kids in this area is ridiculous. So the problem with kids shooting up schools has nothing to do with access to guns and guns in school is nothing new.
What IS different is that we are telling kids that it is wrong to hate. That it is wrong to be angry and we are not helping them process any of it. Everyone understands how it feels when hormones kick in at puberty. Anger is a part of it and we have to help kids with it. Not just tell them not to feel it or get expelled.
So what are we telling kids to do.
1. Do not stand up for yourself against your oppressor. It is far better to let someone else handle your problem because you are powerless and can't do it. You are a victim.
2. Tell someone in power. Only they can fix things for you. Because at the root of it all you are powerless. You are a victim.
3. Telling will very likely result in no effect. Because the person in power has to believe you and disbelieve your oppressor for any effect to happen. Therefore, you are not only a powerless victim, but your oppressor now has more power than he did before.
4. If you are able to convince someone in power of your victim status and there is a disciplinary effect, that effect will naturally end and your oppressor will be back and will be pissed.
Are you freaking kidding me????
Are you familiar with the concept of internalize oppression and links to violence?
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=20929
I have always said we would not need to empower people if we never took away their power in the first place.
John Moonstroller 20+
You have a whole list of things you think support your ideals but they only lead to more violence in schools. So now we have, not only the bullies being violent but we have the victims being violent which doubles the amount of violence and has the potential to make bullies out of victims.
I never said there was an easy answer Robert.
I only implied that your solution would only make the problem worse.
Perhaps making Judo a part of the school curriculum from middle school throughout high school might work better towards conditioning our children to find their place in the peer group and give them the tools they need to protect themselves so they won't need guns.
My wife did an outstanding job of raising a boy, on her own; and turning him into a great man.
John Moonstroller 20+
Linda Taylor 50+
Men get this. They understand bullies more than women do. Just look at David's post! They understand that sometime a punch in the mouth resolves a lot at the age of 12. I do too as I threw several myself so I do not mean to over generalize. A decent punch can become the equalizer that allows bully and victim to become friends.
I had some business at my kids middle school. I was very impressed by the principle who had two rather large boys by the scuff of their neck, one in each hand, holding them high on to tippy toes. They walked by me and someone asked if everything was OK. The principle said it was fine that one boy ran his head into the other boys fist. I watched through the office window as he escorted them into his office on their tiptoes and seated them. He then got down to their eye level, had a serious discussion. Allowed each boy to present their rather heated side of the story keeping the discussion from getting out of hand. He talked to them at some length having the students resolve the issue. At the end of the discussion, there where handshakes all the way around. That school had a zero policy too.
I had to admire the way he modeled conflict resolution and showed the students what it meant to act like a man. He did not assign bully or victim. He gave them real world skills.
Women can teach young men many things but they cannot teach them how to act like a man.
David Hamilton 50+
How dare I teach my child to defend itself against the sociopaths and psychopaths being raised in this world? It would be much better if I teach them to just roll over, and play dead, or do what the psychopaths tell them. That works great in the real world
I must be some kind of hideous barbaric brute to expect that good men stand up against evil.
My friends child should have just continued to "rat" to the teacher "He hit me"... Then the teacher can say "Is that true?"... And, the bully can say "No, and he was picking on me".... So my friend can say "his word against yours, stop wasting my time... Quit horsing around"
That will make the child incredibly popular, and safe.
David Hamilton 50+
I grew up in New York, and lived my entire life in Los Angeles. I never had a taste for politics, and absolutely hated living under the tyranny of George Bush... Then, a charismatic, young African American democrat, came along saying things that actually made sense. He said he would veto the patriot act, close guantanamo bay, stop torturing people, and warrantlessly wiretapping US citizens. He would stop closing medical marijuana clinics, and creat a public, not for profit health insurance option for United States citizens...
If that wasn't enough, he threw the haymaker "I'll go line by line through the federal budget doing my absolute best to eliminate wasteful spending" and "I will not accept money from Political Action Commitees...
I lived in California. This man couldn't lose California... So I moved to Nevada, a much more conservative swing state, and volunteered full time for the campaign without pay, for six weeks. I registered people to vote, organized events, held parties organized around getting donations....
What did I get? Someone who hasn't spoken about the patriot act or warrantless wiretaps, in years. Someone who still uses superpacs, and proposed no legislation to eliminate them. Someone who caved on the public option instantly, and someone who put us 5 trillion dollars in debt...
I am not a Republican... The Republican Party, stole my rights as a US citizen. They added 10 trillion dollars to my generations debt burden... but "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I won't get fooled again.
Andres Aullet 10+
My comment was not meant to blame parents alone. I am a full time working parent myself, and I know that many factors contribute to a kids education (well beyond their school). But parents have a role. Kids react to the world in the same way they see adults around them react and rarely do they take those cues from their peer kids.
I am with you in that parents should be able to spend more time with their kids during theirs first years to help establish this behavior, but even if the parents received help and were able to spend 5 years of their lives entirely with their offspring, a kid whose parents laugh at other people's misfortunes, will grow up laughing at other people's misfortunes themselves.
To me, it is a complex issue that has many inputs: media, parents, friend's parents, religious leaders, political leaders, the education system. It is a problem in our culture when we fail to reduce in our kids not only their distrust in other people, but that sense of superiority that comes from feeling we belong to a group.
You don't have to take my word for it. Take a random sample of speeches/comments from politicians, from religious leaders, from mainstream media, and tell me what do they have to say about people in a group different from our own (outsiders). I think that this is where kids learn distrust
Andres Aullet 10+
I don't think anybody here is proposing a vanilla politically correct suburban hell. I must say, however, that the USA in general tries to be much more "politically correct" than other countries. I don't want to start here the fight on whether this is a "leftist" government tendency or if it is the public in general. (By the way what is considered "leftist" here in the USA is quite extreme right in most of the rest of the world)
I do not think that asking the government to set ground rules when individuals fail to agree in the most basic principles means to give total control to government. The all or nothing, black and white mentality does not apply.
The government nowadays sticks its nose in many areas of individual life that it certainly shouldn't, but something similar goes for the church.
Getting angry is not good or bad per se, I see it simply a reaction of our brain towards certain stimuli. And i think it is embedded in our DNA, so no amount of culture will ever make a person lose its ability to feel angry.
But hate is a different story. Hate involves a conscious decision to focus our anger and fears towards somebody, and I do not see this as positive. Once we teach a kid that it is ok to direct their anger (by hating) towards another individual, we can expect that it will make it easier for this kid to see this individual as inferior, and not worth of the same rights.
=====
I have never seen a study of bullying where the families of bullies are studied, their cultural values, their traditions. It would be a good starting point
cheers
Linda Taylor 50+
"I have never seen a study of bullying where the families of bullies are studied, their cultural values, their traditions"
There are many but this one is a nice integrative review and you can pick any of the articles and look them up. However, more work needs to be done.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003
Part of the conclusion states ":A social–ecological approach dictates that responses to bullies need to rely less on the traditional punitive approach, and more on targeting the patterns of behavior of both bullies and their victims, with attention to the noninvolved bystanders of the schools as well as the classroom–school climate and other influences such as family, community, and society."
If you look it up in google scholar, it will link to a pdf. But I am not going to violate any copyright.
Andres Aullet 10+
cheers
Andres Aullet 10+
If you are familiar with the work of Ramachandran, pain appears to be a brain construct that allows a creature to live in a way that does not threaten the physical body. Yes, pain seems to be primarily in the brain.
It has also been found that the same brain circuits that are activated in the brain when we experience physical pain, are activated when we experience rejection from a group of humans.
And beyond that, the pain of rejection by itself can translate into elevated levels of stress, and stress translates in lower immune system, and a host of other very physical reactions. It is not rare to see a vicious circle of isolation to stress to sickness and more isolation down to more stress, more sickness...
It would be very easy to dismiss that thought, thinking that surely WE are way above that. That WE do not let stress dictate our lives and WE are always in control of what we think. Hmmm, well, I am not so sure about that.
You say that the kid who throws the rock is wrong, but you say absolutely nothing about the kid who insults the other kid. And that is exactly one of my main points in this discussion: I want to learn how does culture get so polarized (and so black and white) to allow a full free pass to a kid uttering hate speech, and the minute some other kid reacts by slapping him in the face, the same culture comes down t lynch him
Would you agree that it is very likely that without the insult there would probably not be a slapping? How do we fix this problem at its root and not at the end point?
Thanks for bringing some interesting points to this discussion!
cheers
David Hamilton 50+
I should actually add some details to this story. First, sometimes children will throw pebbles at childrens shoes while they are running, to annoy them... This was not a pebble, it was a stone... To the head. The bully ran up behind the productive child, threw a rock at his head, and then laughed at him. The only human male response to that situation, that should ever be accepted, is a punch to that kids face. That bully, should be the only one punished, if anyone is punished.
My point is that I have emotional sympathy for this whole liberal, grey area, emotions are important, words hurt, hippy daisy bs... but I have no legal sympathy, and no institutional sympathy for it. The problem with words, is that you can't prove them... you can see a mark from a rock. A kid can say another kid called him names... and it can be a bold faced lie. There is no proof, it's all hearsay, and bs.
If someone throws a rock, that is an event, of violence, that is the escalation from talking to physical force... People can see this, and there can be evidence. That is where institutions are meant to step in with physical force, detention, suspension, etc.
Andres Aullet 10+
Not so easy if the kid who insults the other on a daily basis suddenly gets a slap in the face, i guess.
Funny that the gray area is liberal, i certainly have not been singing kumbaya lately, I promise... does that mean that the black and white is conservative? :-)
One of the main points of my question is to highlight how limited is the legal system when it comes to dealing with gray areas, as you point out.
My contention is that when it comes to gray areas, people (even members of a jury) resort back to their emotions (this feels "right", that feels "wrong") and loses a lot of their critical rational skills.
Evidence, fact and truth are very malleable concepts when spoken in a courtroom.
And whether words hurt or they merely force some immature brains to boil easier than others, words can have predictable consequences.
David Hamilton 50+
Part of this, is a free speech issue, "even if the other kid was insulting the bully, you punish the kid who throws the first punch, or in this case stone..."
Part of it, is an old school stoic masculinity issue. "Young boys need to learn to control their emotions. They will be overrun by them if they are not careful... We must teach them clear rules, which they can obey. Clear lines they cannot cross... and allow them to push up against those boundaries with all their might, in order to get out the vicious and desctructive energy often burning deep within them. A boy truly becomes a man, when you can endure the slings and arrows of insult, without resorting to violence."
Part of it is the old hunter, samurai, king of the mountain. "Once someone crosses that line. Once their emotions, lead them to violence.... You must be better trained at violence than they are. You must be able to defend yourself and protect your family, at all times, at any cost, when faced with real villains.
These may be antiquated feelings, un necessary in modern society... But, I think all men understand and are familiar with these concepts, on a primal, unconscious level.
Also, the bullying issue, in regards to "punish both of them", leans a little communal... It's "we're all in this together, no one can be violent"... It's a little anti military... Do we want our kids to grow up cowards? Some would say yes, I don't think that will make us safer, quite the opposite.
"I'm prone to isolation over sympathy for devils" Aesop Rock