Re: Mind's Eye Re: Is free speech free?

"At a minimum, speech will have to be limited for the sake of order. If we all speak at once, we end up with an incoherent cacophony. Without some rules and procedures we cannot have a conversation at all and consequently speech has to be limited by protocols of basic civility. It is true that many human rights documents give a prominent place to the right to speech and conscience, but such documents also place limits on what can be said because of the harm and offence that unlimited speech can cause."

That's more or less what the vast literature condenses to, whether you look at the academic archive or even what has been said in ME over the years, and through people who were not all Gabby-Alters, including some notable contributions from Gabby herself.

I guess Molly and I don't want to exclude any views in principle, but this is impossible in practice.  It would be good to have Islamic contributors - yet one quickly despairs.  We don't talk about the Jihadis, though I have occasionally let one in.  This only delays the ban button.  "Bob" showed up recently writing in Chinese and was, in fact, some kind of spam.  RP may have been real at some point, though as 1234rp@gmail.com has clearly become a German alter by numbers.  Gabby's emails to me as 1234rp might be interesting conversation over a beer at the end of a bad hair day at work, at least after the 5th pint.

The general problem is that 'people like us' want to talk about stuff that is already kept out of the general flow of the education-military-whats-left-of-industrial-presstitute-newsroom propaganda.  What we want to say and get response to is already excluded from dominant communication in the public domain.

I don't think academics get anywhere near what free speech is.  Over the years I've met a few people I could say more or less anything to.  My parents certainly were never in this group!  And these people were able to give me help understanding what I was trying to say and think.  Only one was an academic.  In management, the words 'tell us it warts and all' should tell the recipient to shut up and stay out of trouble.  How does some floozie sitting in comfort based on modern equivalents of slaving investments get to stop others expressing their experience as it comes in words I hear everyday?

What of silence, ignoring, that dork with the loud voice on a mobile phone, the druggie creep blaring loud musak - and the actual lack of listening, reading, even thinking it might be worth learning some stuff to share with others?  Science actually excludes idiots and those who don't understand the esoteric language games of specific practices.

I would guess trying to form a discussion group, given we end up with all kinds of rules and tedium about the 'curtains', has little to do with any vaunted notions of rationality and people would be better off, like Francis, going to night school or doing a MOOC (I've just finished one and am off to Paris to meet a couple of classmates).  I assume the only real people left in here are me, Molly, Allan and Tony - apologies to Ash and Andrew if they have actual pulses.  There are obviously a few more we have counted on as friends in the 'bush'.  I wonder if we might try to set something else up, possibly something with a tad of future commercial possibility.

For now, one needs to remember until we have done the 'blood tests'  our own freedom of speech has been severely curtailed.  

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 3:00:35 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:

Would not take much to convert to ME.. and is pretty clear.

Free speech  does not mean you can say what ever you want.. it seems mentality has deteriorated to the point that is what people think free speech means they can say what ever they want ..

تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others

-----Original Message-----
From: archytas <nwterry@gmail.com>
To: minds-eye@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 3:49 PM
Subject: Mind's Eye Re: Is free speech free?

I was subject to the following code of conduct last year, oddly not far from where Gabby says she lives.

Internationalism and solidarity are fine and long-standing principles of the labour movement. They are based on the understanding that all people are equal and deserve mutual respect at all levels. Any behaviour that creates conflict is considered unacceptable to the Global Labour University (GLU). As trade unionists and social activists we should treat one another with mutual respect, cooperation and understanding. The GLU neither condones nor tolerates behaviour that undermines the dignity or self-esteem of any individual or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Discriminatory speech or conduct based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, class, or religion will not be tolerated among participants of the GLU. Neither will harassment (using real or perceived power to abuse, devalue or humiliate) be tolerated. Discrimination and harassment focus on characteristics that make us different; and they reduce our capacity to work together on shared concerns. 

Of course, almost any idiot can copy policy.  I went with a blind friend and a colleague who uses a wheelchair.  They were not treated well.  You have it about right here Molly  And as you really say, as soon as one steps into practice, things get murky!

On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 1:57:02 PM UTC, Molly wrote:

Here is part of what Wikipedia (usually my last choice for citation) has to say about the protection of free speech under the US constitution:

Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Now, debate on where things said fall into the loose structure is certainly an option. Can someone tell me I should be ashamed of myself. I guess so, although it is certainly uncomfortable for me to see that in writing, all caps, and know it is repeated in RSS blogs across the internet. Is it slanderous? Calling someone a paranoid schizophrenic in public may be slanderous but worse is  done every day all across the globe, unfortunately. Law is in place to be argued in court, and who wants to do that except lawyers and those that have lost much because their rights were violated. 

But I think in groups there is a social contract that shapes the perimeters of civility, one that all members contribute and define by the coming and going of the group. Internet groups are complicated because of the anonymity of identity and lack of accountability possible. What members are left with is the choice to leave the group, as demonstrated here with our dwindling numbers.

I don't have an answer but believe in free speech and the group. And I must say I am enjoying the fact that every thread does not disintegrate into the same old flame war.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.