1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sat May 03, 2014 10:49 am UTC

OmniLiquid wrote:
zmic wrote:According to the comic, the free speech amendment means that the government "cannot arrest you for what you say". This suggest that the first amendment only protects you from acts by the government, which is disingenuous at the very least. The first amendment actually says that there can be no law that abridges the right of free speech. The conditions under which you can be fired are subject to law. A law that lists the expression of your political opinion as a valid reason for dismissal would be unconstitutional. Meaning that the first amendment protects you against certain actions of your boss -- a private person.

If Eich went to court for this, I think he would win easily.


*facepalm* *headdesk* "Ouch, my flipper!"

I barely know where to begin...

1. The first amendment says Congress can't do a few things, and says nothing about whether other entities can do those things, so it does in fact only protect you from the government.


are you seriously suggesting that there are no free speech rulings concerning conflicts between two private parties?

2.


Your first point already being demonstrably wrong, we might just as well stop here and give you an opportunity to try again.
Last edited by zmic on Sat May 03, 2014 10:50 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
OmniLiquid
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:24 am UTC
Location: Burning in the Texas heat.

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby OmniLiquid » Sat May 03, 2014 10:58 am UTC

zmic wrote:
OmniLiquid wrote:
zmic wrote:According to the comic, the free speech amendment means that the government "cannot arrest you for what you say". This suggest that the first amendment only protects you from acts by the government, which is disingenuous at the very least. The first amendment actually says that there can be no law that abridges the right of free speech. The conditions under which you can be fired are subject to law. A law that lists the expression of your political opinion as a valid reason for dismissal would be unconstitutional. Meaning that the first amendment protects you against certain actions of your boss -- a private person.

If Eich went to court for this, I think he would win easily.


*facepalm* *headdesk* "Ouch, my flipper!"

I barely know where to begin...

1. The first amendment says Congress can't do a few things, and says nothing about whether other entities can do those things, so it does in fact only protect you from the government.


are you seriously suggesting that there are no free speech rulings concerning conflicts between two private parties?

2.


Your first point already being demonstrably wrong, we might just as well stop here and give you an opportunity to try again.


I am saying there are no free speech rulings concerning conflicts between two parties in which the ruling is an interpretation of the first amendment as preventing a private party from preventing another party's speech. Since you claim such exists, you have the burden of proof. Find an example or answer the other points. Actually, those other points apply whether the first one does or not (they were separate points, not steps in a proof). Go ahead and answer them too.
Eris = best deity.
(cis male he/him/his)

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sat May 03, 2014 11:31 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:We will of course never know what was truly intended (unless Randall tells us) so my wondering is mostly on the same level as when dissecting the message of shakespeare novels and French revolution propaganda posters (whose authors intentions will never be clarified) instead of trying to speculate on the true intentions of the author (note my use of "the comic" as the subject instead of "the author").

I assume you meant to say "Shakespeare plays", but anyway, the viewpoint you espouse is known in literary criticism circles as Death of The Author.

From http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fTheAuthor
Death of the Author

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations."
— Umberto Eco, postscript to The Name of the Rose

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of his or her writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of the readers.

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different.

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are not available or not willing to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others — or, in some cases, even to themselves.

Although popular amongst postmodern critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the name) and we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions about their work are a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher actively goes back and changes it (and even then it can be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it). One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar but not identical concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat May 03, 2014 12:52 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:We will of course never know what was truly intended (unless Randall tells us) so my wondering is mostly on the same level as when dissecting the message of shakespeare novels and French revolution propaganda posters (whose authors intentions will never be clarified) instead of trying to speculate on the true intentions of the author (note my use of "the comic" as the subject instead of "the author").

I assume you meant to say "Shakespeare plays",

You're right: I had another example (I don't remember which author, it was late when I wrote it) and changed it to Shakespeare but forgot to change the type of work accordingly.
PM 2Ring wrote:but anyway, the viewpoint you espouse is known in literary criticism circles as Death of The Author.

From http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fTheAuthor
Death of the Author

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations."
— Umberto Eco, postscript to The Name of the Rose

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of his or her writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of the readers.

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different.

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are not available or not willing to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others — or, in some cases, even to themselves.

Although popular amongst postmodern critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the name) and we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions about their work are a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher actively goes back and changes it (and even then it can be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it). One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar but not identical concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

This seems what I intended, yes. Except that I would consider Randalls comments more relevant than others comments if he would ever make them, I just wouldn't want to go as far as to read our interpretations of his work as his intentions. Interesting it has a name though, I just find it a dubious term for discussing works before the author actually dies. I would have expected better terminology from professional literary critics.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat May 03, 2014 2:06 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:We will of course never know what was truly intended (unless Randall tells us) so my wondering is mostly on the same level as when dissecting the message of shakespeare novels and French revolution propaganda posters (whose authors intentions will never be clarified) instead of trying to speculate on the true intentions of the author (note my use of "the comic" as the subject instead of "the author").

I assume you meant to say "Shakespeare plays",

You're right: I had another example (I don't remember which author, it was late when I wrote it) and changed it to Shakespeare but forgot to change the type of work accordingly.
PM 2Ring wrote:but anyway, the viewpoint you espouse is known in literary criticism circles as Death of The Author.

From http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... fTheAuthor
Death of the Author

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations."
— Umberto Eco, postscript to The Name of the Rose

Death of the Author is a concept from literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (the author's politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of his or her writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of the readers.

Intentions are one thing. What was actually accomplished might be something very different.

The logic is fairly simple: Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and "real" than the ways writers write them. There are also the more practical facts that a lot of authors are not available or not willing to comment on their intentions, and even when they are, artists don't always make choices for reasons that make sense or are easily explained to others — or, in some cases, even to themselves.

Although popular amongst postmodern critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author (hence the name) and we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions about their work are a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and therefore are not necessarily consistent with what's written unless the author or publisher actively goes back and changes it (and even then it can be argued that, since the original work still exists, the author has merely created a different version of it). One critic's understanding of the author's background and opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Modernists are more likely to appeal to the similar but not identical concept of the Intentional Fallacy, which does not discount biographical information or other works by the same author.

What an interesting subject you have stumbled onto.

Walt Witman changed so much as a person through his life and that change is reflected in his writing.
Young Men were Famous for quoting Walt Witman. He got to be a Grumpy Old Man. So?

The ideas of a Hopeful and Innocent Youth must not by necessity be buried in Grumpy Oldness.
Some people made it through Not so Grumpy.

Like Longfellow.
He started out Grumpy Dark and Depressed and ended up ok.
Remember the Rainy Day?

I think he was Twenty-four when he wrote that.
So funny. Were you required to Memorize it?

yeah. Me, too.
Has it ever come in Handy?
yeah. Me, too.


Review from 4th Grade.
Spoiler:
The Rainy Day

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–1882)


THE DAY is cold, and dark, and dreary;
It rains, and the wind is never weary;

The vine still clings to the mouldering wall,
But at every gust the dead leaves fall,

And the day is dark and dreary.

My life is cold, and dark, and dreary;
It rains, and the wind is never weary;

My thoughts still cling to the mouldering Past,
But the hopes of youth fall thick in the blast,

And the days are dark and dreary.

Be still, sad heart! and cease repining;
Behind the clouds is the sun still shining;


Thy fate is the common fate of all,
Into each life some rain must fall,


Some days must be dark and dreary.


It may have been my State Poem.
We all had to know it.

It was easy to know.
Everyday, if it rained, someone or many ones used that Young Man's words.

What do those words mean?
They are useful words and as an American, I am pleased with them.

Spoiler:
Those words are a fuck-of-a-lot more useful than any Rap Song or Bagger Lecture I have ever heard.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
zmic
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:38 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby zmic » Sat May 03, 2014 4:33 pm UTC

OmniLiquid wrote:I am saying there are no free speech rulings concerning conflicts between two parties in which the ruling is an interpretation of the first amendment as preventing a private party from preventing another party's speech. Since you claim such exists, you have the burden of proof. Find an example or answer the other points. Actually, those other points apply whether the first one does or not (they were separate points, not steps in a proof). Go ahead and answer them too.


After doing a little google-research I have to admit that you are totally correct. I thought it was utterly obvious that an employer cannot fire you for your political opinions, but it seems that in most states of the US he actually can. My two previous posts can be disregarded :/ Thanks for educating me!

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat May 03, 2014 4:49 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
OmniLiquid wrote:I am saying there are no free speech rulings concerning conflicts between two parties in which the ruling is an interpretation of the first amendment as preventing a private party from preventing another party's speech. Since you claim such exists, you have the burden of proof. Find an example or answer the other points. Actually, those other points apply whether the first one does or not (they were separate points, not steps in a proof). Go ahead and answer them too.


After doing a little google-research I have to admit that you are totally correct. I thought it was utterly obvious that an employer cannot fire you for your political opinions, but it seems that in most states of the US he actually can. My two previous posts can be disregarded :/ Thanks for educating me!

In Theory the Agents and Agencies of the Nation should not be used to Punish an Individual for expressing opinions in Public.
I think I had that situation.

Spoiler:
An individual or group of individuals has every right to disagree.
Even to lie, I suppose.

There may be a law against telling harmful lies.
Try to enforce That One.

I was not able to Hide on an Internet Forum.
I walked into a room and read a statement I wrote.

Other people were speaking, too!
Other people were punished, too.

Would I do it, again?
Yes. Only I would not be as Nice, today.

What about The Rich and Famous.
What are they up to, today?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3617
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat May 03, 2014 5:54 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Interesting it has a name though, I just find it a dubious term for discussing works before the author actually dies. I would have expected better terminology from professional literary critics.


I always interpreted it (my interpretation being as valid as anyone else's, by the terms of the theory) as a play on Nietzsche's "God is dead" - the author isn't literally dead (in many cases) but dethroned - the "death" isn't of the author's body, but of his privileged position - his "godhood" - in respect to his works...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sat May 03, 2014 6:43 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Interesting it has a name though, I just find it a dubious term for discussing works before the author actually dies. I would have expected better terminology from professional literary critics.


I always interpreted it (my interpretation being as valid as anyone else's, by the terms of the theory) as a play on Nietzsche's "God is dead" - the author isn't literally dead (in many cases) but dethroned - the "death" isn't of the author's body, but of his privileged position - his "godhood" - in respect to his works...

The author's opinion may not have any more weight than other reader's opinions.
While the poor soul still lives, that person may have insight into their own work.

Who Cares what Whitman thought of the young man he was?
Loads of people Loved that young man.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun May 04, 2014 9:01 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:This seems what I intended, yes. Except that I would consider Randalls comments more relevant than others comments if he would ever make them, I just wouldn't want to go as far as to read our interpretations of his work as his intentions.

Although each comic (usually) stands alone, in a sense the xkcd comics form an ongoing work, so Randall has a little more latitude than the author of a poem, novel or play. But I get the feeling that he follows the "Death of the Author" school and expects each comic (or series of comics) to stand on its own legs. A comic + author's later comments is essentially an edited version of the original comic, and so it's subject to the same problem of what is the "real" interpretation.

PinkShinyRose wrote:Interesting it has a name though, I just find it a dubious term for discussing works before the author actually dies. I would have expected better terminology from professional literary critics.

Well, as the links above say, the name is historical. But living authors ought to play by the same rules as the dead ones. :) If you want your text to say something, then do it in the text itself.


rmsgrey wrote:I always interpreted it (my interpretation being as valid as anyone else's, by the terms of the theory) as a play on Nietzsche's "God is dead" - the author isn't literally dead (in many cases) but dethroned - the "death" isn't of the author's body, but of his privileged position - his "godhood" - in respect to his works...


I'll pay that. But it is cute when a living author refuses to comment on his work by responding with "Death of the Author!", as Eliezer Yudkowsky has done in reference to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun May 04, 2014 9:11 am UTC

addams wrote:What an interesting subject you have stumbled onto.

Walt Witman changed so much as a person through his life and that change is reflected in his writing.
Young Men were Famous for quoting Walt Witman. He got to be a Grumpy Old Man. So?

The ideas of a Hopeful and Innocent Youth must not by necessity be buried in Grumpy Oldness.
Some people made it through Not so Grumpy.

Like Longfellow.
He started out Grumpy Dark and Depressed and ended up ok.
Remember the Rainy Day?

I think he was Twenty-four when he wrote that.
So funny. Were you required to Memorize it?


Yep. The Hopeful and Innocent Youth should have his own chance at immortality, despite what his Grumpy Old Man thinks.

We do study American poets in Australian schools, but we have our own poets, too.
Like Banjo Paterson, who wrote The Man from Snowy River, an Australian-flavoured cowboy story.
FWIW, part of the text of this poem is micro-printed on our $10 note.
Spoiler:
There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,
And had joined the wild bush horses - he was worth a thousand pound,
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
And the stockhorse snuffs the battle with delight.

There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,
The old man with his hair as white as snow
But few could ride beside him when his blood was fairly up -
He would go wherever horse and man could go.
And Clancy of the Overflow came down to lend a hand,
No better horseman ever held the reins;
For never horse could throw him while the saddle girths would stand,
He learnt to ride while droving on the plains.

And one was there, a stripling on a small and weedy beast,
He was something like a racehorse undersized,
With a touch of Timor pony - three parts thoroughbred at least -
And such as are by mountain horsemen prized.
He was hard and tough and wiry - just the sort that won't say die -
There was courage in his quick impatient tread;
And he bore the badge of gameness in his bright and fiery eye,
And the proud and lofty carriage of his head.

But still so slight and weedy, one would doubt his power to stay,
And the old man said, "That horse will never do
For a long a tiring gallop - lad, you'd better stop away,
Those hills are far too rough for such as you."
So he waited sad and wistful - only Clancy stood his friend -
"I think we ought to let him come," he said;
"I warrant he'll be with us when he's wanted at the end,
For both his horse and he are mountain bred.

"He hails from Snowy River, up by Kosciusko's side,
Where the hills are twice as steep and twice as rough,
Where a horse's hoofs strike firelight from the flint stones every stride,
The man that holds his own is good enough.
And the Snowy River riders on the mountains make their home,
Where the river runs those giant hills between;
I have seen full many horsemen since I first commenced to roam,
But nowhere yet such horsemen have I seen."

So he went - they found the horses by the big mimosa clump -
They raced away towards the mountain's brow,
And the old man gave his orders, "Boys, go at them from the jump,
No use to try for fancy riding now.
And, Clancy, you must wheel them, try and wheel them to the right.
Ride boldly, lad, and never fear the spills,
For never yet was rider that could keep the mob in sight,
If once they gain the shelter of those hills."

So Clancy rode to wheel them - he was racing on the wing
Where the best and boldest riders take their place,
And he raced his stockhorse past them, and he made the ranges ring
With the stockwhip, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung the dreaded lash,
But they saw their well-loved mountain full in view,
And they charged beneath the stockwhip with a sharp and sudden dash,
And off into the mountain scrub they flew.

Then fast the horsemen followed, where the gorges deep and black
Resounded to the thunder of their tread,
And the stockwhips woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back
From cliffs and crags that beetled overhead.
And upward, ever upward, the wild horses held their way,
Where mountain ash and kurrajong grew wide;
And the old man muttered fiercely, "We may bid the mob good day,
No man can hold them down the other side."

When they reached the mountain's summit, even Clancy took a pull,
It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
The wild hop scrub grew thickly, and the hidden ground was full
Of wombat holes, and any slip was death.
But the man from Snowy River let the pony have his head,
And he swung his stockwhip round and gave a cheer,
And he raced him down the mountain like a torrent down its bed,
While the others stood and watched in very fear.

He sent the flint stones flying, but the pony kept his feet,
He cleared the fallen timber in his stride,
And the man from Snowy River never shifted in his seat -
It was grand to see that mountain horseman ride.
Through the stringybarks and saplings, on the rough and broken ground,
Down the hillside at a racing pace he went;
And he never drew the bridle till he landed safe and sound,
At the bottom of that terrible descent.

He was right among the horses as they climbed the further hill,
And the watchers on the mountain standing mute,
Saw him ply the stockwhip fiercely, he was right among them still,
As he raced across the clearing in pursuit.
Then they lost him for a moment, where two mountain gullies met
In the ranges, but a final glimpse reveals
On a dim and distant hillside the wild horses racing yet,
With the man from Snowy River at their heels.

And he ran them single-handed till their sides were white with foam.
He followed like a bloodhound on their track,
Till they halted cowed and beaten, then he turned their heads for home,
And alone and unassisted brought them back.
But his hardy mountain pony he could scarcely raise a trot,
He was blood from hip to shoulder from the spur;
But his pluck was still undaunted, and his courage fiery hot,
For never yet was mountain horse a cur.

And down by Kosciusko, where the pine-clad ridges raise
Their torn and rugged battlements on high,
Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze
At midnight in the cold and frosty sky,
And where around The Overflow the reed beds sweep and sway
To the breezes, and the rolling plains are wide,
The man from Snowy River is a household word today,
And the stockmen tell the story of his ride...

Image

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sun May 04, 2014 1:49 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:
addams wrote:What an interesting subject you have stumbled onto.

Walt Witman changed so much as a person through his life and that change is reflected in his writing.
Young Men were Famous for quoting Walt Witman. He got to be a Grumpy Old Man. So?

The ideas of a Hopeful and Innocent Youth must not by necessity be buried in Grumpy Oldness.
Some people made it through Not so Grumpy.

Like Longfellow.
He started out Grumpy Dark and Depressed and ended up ok.
Remember the Rainy Day?

I think he was Twenty-four when he wrote that.
So funny. Were you required to Memorize it?


Yep. The Hopeful and Innocent Youth should have his own chance at immortality, despite what his Grumpy Old Man thinks.

We do study American poets in Australian schools, but we have our own poets, too.
Like Banjo Paterson, who wrote The Man from Snowy River, an Australian-flavoured cowboy story.
FWIW, part of the text of this poem is micro-printed on our $10 note.
Spoiler:
There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
That the colt from old Regret had got away,
And had joined the wild bush horses - he was worth a thousand pound,
So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
And the stockhorse snuffs the battle with delight.

There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,
The old man with his hair as white as snow
But few could ride beside him when his blood was fairly up -
He would go wherever horse and man could go.
And Clancy of the Overflow came down to lend a hand,
No better horseman ever held the reins;
For never horse could throw him while the saddle girths would stand,
He learnt to ride while droving on the plains.

And one was there, a stripling on a small and weedy beast,
He was something like a racehorse undersized,
With a touch of Timor pony - three parts thoroughbred at least -
And such as are by mountain horsemen prized.
He was hard and tough and wiry - just the sort that won't say die -
There was courage in his quick impatient tread;
And he bore the badge of gameness in his bright and fiery eye,
And the proud and lofty carriage of his head.

But still so slight and weedy, one would doubt his power to stay,
And the old man said, "That horse will never do
For a long a tiring gallop - lad, you'd better stop away,
Those hills are far too rough for such as you."
So he waited sad and wistful - only Clancy stood his friend -
"I think we ought to let him come," he said;
"I warrant he'll be with us when he's wanted at the end,
For both his horse and he are mountain bred.

"He hails from Snowy River, up by Kosciusko's side,
Where the hills are twice as steep and twice as rough,
Where a horse's hoofs strike firelight from the flint stones every stride,
The man that holds his own is good enough.
And the Snowy River riders on the mountains make their home,
Where the river runs those giant hills between;
I have seen full many horsemen since I first commenced to roam,
But nowhere yet such horsemen have I seen."

So he went - they found the horses by the big mimosa clump -
They raced away towards the mountain's brow,
And the old man gave his orders, "Boys, go at them from the jump,
No use to try for fancy riding now.
And, Clancy, you must wheel them, try and wheel them to the right.
Ride boldly, lad, and never fear the spills,
For never yet was rider that could keep the mob in sight,
If once they gain the shelter of those hills."

So Clancy rode to wheel them - he was racing on the wing
Where the best and boldest riders take their place,
And he raced his stockhorse past them, and he made the ranges ring
With the stockwhip, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung the dreaded lash,
But they saw their well-loved mountain full in view,
And they charged beneath the stockwhip with a sharp and sudden dash,
And off into the mountain scrub they flew.

Then fast the horsemen followed, where the gorges deep and black
Resounded to the thunder of their tread,
And the stockwhips woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back
From cliffs and crags that beetled overhead.
And upward, ever upward, the wild horses held their way,
Where mountain ash and kurrajong grew wide;
And the old man muttered fiercely, "We may bid the mob good day,
No man can hold them down the other side."

When they reached the mountain's summit, even Clancy took a pull,
It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
The wild hop scrub grew thickly, and the hidden ground was full
Of wombat holes, and any slip was death.
But the man from Snowy River let the pony have his head,
And he swung his stockwhip round and gave a cheer,
And he raced him down the mountain like a torrent down its bed,
While the others stood and watched in very fear.

He sent the flint stones flying, but the pony kept his feet,
He cleared the fallen timber in his stride,
And the man from Snowy River never shifted in his seat -
It was grand to see that mountain horseman ride.
Through the stringybarks and saplings, on the rough and broken ground,
Down the hillside at a racing pace he went;
And he never drew the bridle till he landed safe and sound,
At the bottom of that terrible descent.

He was right among the horses as they climbed the further hill,
And the watchers on the mountain standing mute,
Saw him ply the stockwhip fiercely, he was right among them still,
As he raced across the clearing in pursuit.
Then they lost him for a moment, where two mountain gullies met
In the ranges, but a final glimpse reveals
On a dim and distant hillside the wild horses racing yet,
With the man from Snowy River at their heels.

And he ran them single-handed till their sides were white with foam.
He followed like a bloodhound on their track,
Till they halted cowed and beaten, then he turned their heads for home,
And alone and unassisted brought them back.
But his hardy mountain pony he could scarcely raise a trot,
He was blood from hip to shoulder from the spur;
But his pluck was still undaunted, and his courage fiery hot,
For never yet was mountain horse a cur.

And down by Kosciusko, where the pine-clad ridges raise
Their torn and rugged battlements on high,
Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze
At midnight in the cold and frosty sky,
And where around The Overflow the reed beds sweep and sway
To the breezes, and the rolling plains are wide,
The man from Snowy River is a household word today,
And the stockmen tell the story of his ride...

Image

Thank you.
That was Fun!

That story impresses me, too.
It has been given voice and visuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo51fIu_fjk

Spoiler:
The rider on that down hill ride was better than Good.
I am so glad it has been fleshed out for people that don't know horses.

It may be a true story. Some people have Talent and when that Talent is developed well....
Ya' get the Man from Snowy River.

In the film they could not show or did not show the horse at the end of the ride.
A ride like that can kill a horse. We know that. Did they?


Everyone has an opinion.
Spoiler:
I know, the Austrailans have talked the Fate of the Horse to death.
We Did!

We decided the author saw sweat and thought it was blood.
There may have been blood mixed in.

Both human and horse blood.
Those bushes will tear a person up.

The author wrote the animal could not trot.
The rider was probably walking her down.

Head down, walking and being forced to walk.
The run was over, the horse needed to cool, slowly.

That's what we decided.
Of course, Everyone has opinions.

Megan said it was Nuts!
She'd never do a thing like that.

I said, "As good as you are, you can't do a thing like that."
We were still friends. We will never know.

She did not ride that way much and Never down hill.
Does The World know how hard that is to do?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby orthogon » Sun May 04, 2014 5:09 pm UTC

Back in the (northern hemisphere) winter I got had snippets of Banjo Paterson's "Clancy of the Overflow" stuck in my head; his meter is so perfect and hypnotic that you can get hung up on a line in the same way that a song can get stuck on a mental loop. The line that still makes my hairs stand on end is this one:
Banjo Paterson wrote:And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.

To bring my post vaguely back on topic: in this case poetic licence trumps cosmological correctness.
[Edit: "wondrous" does not have an apostrophe. Sorry, Banjo.]
Last edited by orthogon on Sun May 04, 2014 7:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sun May 04, 2014 5:37 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Back in the (northern hemisphere) winter I got had snippets of Banjo Paterson's "Clancy of the Overflow" stuck in my head; his meter is so perfect and hypnotic that you can get hung up on a line in the same way that a song can get stuck on a mental loop. The line that still makes my hairs stand on end is this one:
Banjo Paterson wrote:And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting stars.

To bring my post vaguely back on topic: in this case poetic licence trumps cosmological correctness.

Beautiful.
And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting stars.


I have not heard nor read those words in what seems like forever.
Maybe, never before. They do say a lot.

We can see such wonders And get a regular bed, bath and beer.
The deep star lit night may be worth sacrifices.

We are not asked to make such difficult choices.
Do we live lives devoid of Real Adventure?

I think the Lonely CowBoy life was Romantic as Hell from the Outside across Time.
Up close and personal, That Had To Suck!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jmdoman » Sun May 04, 2014 9:22 pm UTC

Preachy, not remotely funny or clever, and an insultingly simplistic
commentary on current controversies.
So... Not my favorite xkcd comic.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Sun May 04, 2014 9:27 pm UTC

jmdoman wrote:Preachy, not remotely funny or clever, and an insultingly simplistic
commentary on current controversies.
So... Not my favorite xkcd comic.

I thought you were supposed to say "Not cool, not funny, not a good comic."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Sun May 04, 2014 9:48 pm UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:
jmdoman wrote:Preachy, not remotely funny or clever, and an insultingly simplistic
commentary on current controversies.
So... Not my favorite xkcd comic.

I thought you were supposed to say "Not cool, not funny, not a good comic."

no. no. no.
Suposed to say, "Not cool, that hurts my feelings, not funny. Fuck the Comic."

See?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

drewder
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:47 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby drewder » Mon May 05, 2014 3:56 am UTC

If speech should be protected from government censorship it should be protected from private censorship as well. After all who is government? It's all of us. The fact that you are legally protected in attacking people for there beliefs does not make it right to do so. When you strive to take away someone's livelihood because you disagree with them you are acting as a tyrant and a bully and such behavior should not be tolerated in polite society. Yes we can use free speech to create a sacred set of societal dogmas and damn any who disagree but thinking doesn't happen in such societies, new ideas are heresy in such societies, and history has shown that societies that seek to limit ideas and thought are doomed to fail and fall to open societies that encourage free thought.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Mon May 05, 2014 8:00 am UTC

orthogon wrote:Back in the (northern hemisphere) winter I got had snippets of Banjo Paterson's "Clancy of the Overflow" stuck in my head; his meter is so perfect and hypnotic that you can get hung up on a line in the same way that a song can get stuck on a mental loop. The line that still makes my hairs stand on end is this one:
Banjo Paterson wrote:And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars.

To bring my post vaguely back on topic: in this case poetic licence trumps cosmological correctness.
[Edit: "wondrous" does not have an apostrophe. Sorry, Banjo.]

Yeah, he leaves most modern rappers for dead. :) FWIW, I almost posted Clancy of the Overflow instead of Man From Snowy River, but I went with the later because of the dynamic imagery it conjures.

But maybe this Aussie poetry stuff should go in another thread (although it does provide some nice relief here).

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon May 05, 2014 2:22 pm UTC

drewder wrote:If speech should be protected from government censorship it should be protected from private censorship as well. After all who is government? It's all of us. The fact that you are legally protected in attacking people for there beliefs does not make it right to do so. When you strive to take away someone's livelihood because you disagree with them you are acting as a tyrant and a bully and such behavior should not be tolerated in polite society.

Interesting how often "polite society" is interchangeable with "a society that doesn't let the underclass rock the boat".

Sorry, but any formulation of not letting people "take away someone's livelihood" is equivalent to "forcing them to subsidize someone's product against their will", and if money is speech (which must be true to defend Eich's donation as freedom of speech), then you're tossing aside a much greater multitude's freedom of speech in order to "protect" one privileged, oppressive dude's freedom.

Not to mention that, once again, the boycott was not done in order to silence Eich, which should be evident from the fact that it didn't take away any platform he used to make his speech. It was merely a freedom of association issue, a right that is just as important as freedom of speech.

Yes we can use free speech to create a sacred set of societal dogmas and damn any who disagree but thinking doesn't happen in such societies, new ideas are heresy in such societies, and history has shown that societies that seek to limit ideas and thought are doomed to fail and fall to open societies that encourage free thought.

Maybe, maybe. But history's shown much more clearly that societies that allow oppression of a minority are doomed to self-destruction and moral bankruptcy.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Mon May 05, 2014 2:58 pm UTC

History has shown that every society is doomed to fail and fall.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 05, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Sorry, but any formulation of not letting people "take away someone's livelihood" is equivalent to "forcing them to subsidize someone's product against their will", and if money is speech (which must be true to defend Eich's donation as freedom of speech), then you're tossing aside a much greater multitude's freedom of speech in order to "protect" one privileged, oppressive dude's freedom.

I'm pretty sure nobody is claiming that any spending of any money is to be permitted and never obliged because "money is speech". They're claiming that paying someone to speak is still speech.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon May 05, 2014 6:59 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Sorry, but any formulation of not letting people "take away someone's livelihood" is equivalent to "forcing them to subsidize someone's product against their will", and if money is speech (which must be true to defend Eich's donation as freedom of speech), then you're tossing aside a much greater multitude's freedom of speech in order to "protect" one privileged, oppressive dude's freedom.

I'm pretty sure nobody is claiming that any spending of any money is to be permitted and never obliged because "money is speech". They're claiming that paying someone to speak is still speech.

So wouldn't not paying someone to speak also be speech? Or more to the point, wouldn't paying someone who you can assume will use that money to "speak" be a tacit agreement with what is said? Wouldn't freedom of speech mean you have the right to decline your own speech in favor of this other person's speech?

It's hard to interpret an argument of "people shouldn't boycott things for non-fraud reasons" as a request other than "people shouldn't be able to choose how they 'speak' with money for non-fraud reasons", or in other words, redefining "money is speech" into a very special subset of speech that can basically only be used by the rich. For some things, it makes sense for them to be restricted to those that can afford them, but if freedom of speech is so absolutely vital, then it seems much more obvious to make sure everyone has that freedom before we start getting scared about whether that freedom could lead to disagreement, and consequences thereof. If someone can provide a formulation for why the boycott is not as much protected speech as what Eich did, that allows for freedom of speech for all not just the rich and powerful, I'd love to hear it.

(Admittedly I may not have heard it in your posts because there's so many other voices drowning it out with "we're not saying people should be forced to give money to Mozilla because we don't want our words to be followed to their logical conclusion." If you've already covered this, my apologies, but most of what I've seen is people angrily declaring that this is a fallacy but unable to point out where the fault is.)

I can definitely agree that what Mozilla did, promoting and then requesting resignation based on the winds of public whim, is not so admirable. It's hard to believe they were standing up for principles when they did these things.

And yeah, most people aren't conscientous enough to do this effectively except for the more faddish boycotts. Most people say "Well, I know Walmart/Nike/Chiquita/etc. do, just, the worst, awful things, and my money is fundamentally enabling the things they do, but it's more important to me to be able to afford groceries than to stand up for my principles."

Yeah, that's a problem, but I'd say the problem is with not standing up for principles enough, not for the few times that we set aside convenience for principles.

(Disclaimer: I didn't even know this boycott was a thing until this thread, and have had such bad times using IE and Chrome that I probably wouldn't have participated even if I had known.)
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 05, 2014 8:25 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:(Admittedly I may not have heard it in your posts because there's so many other voices drowning it out with "we're not saying people should be forced to give money to Mozilla because we don't want our words to be followed to their logical conclusion." If you've already covered this, my apologies, but most of what I've seen is people angrily declaring that this is a fallacy but unable to point out where the fault is.)

I have said that I'm not saying anybody should be forced to give Mozilla money. I don't think I've said anything about a fallacy, though I do think that (that people should be forced to give Mozilla money) is a far conclusion to leap to from the kind of thing I have said (which, I believe, is similar to the kind of thing others are also saying). What I have said is that calling for someone to be fired because of things they've said is (to explain it like we're five) "mean speech". It's still speech and so still protected, nobody should be forbidden from boycotting or anything like that at all. But just because I think you should be allowed by law to call a random old lady in the street a cuntfarting twatwaffle doesn't mean I think that's a thing you should be going around saying, and likewise calling for someone to be fired because you don't like their opinion is certainly something you should be allowed to do, but not something you should do. Just like Eich campaigning to ban gays from marrying is something he should be allowed to do, but not something he should do.

You can disapprove of an action (including a speech-act) without wanting it to be prohibited by force of law. My general position is that until someone is applying physical force of their own, force of law should stay out of it, but within that broad range of actions there are still ones I would disagree with and oppose with appropriate and proportional means that are not the force of law. Eich campaigning to ban gays from marrying, OKcupid calling for a boycott of Mozilla to punish Eich for that, and (if it happened) Mozilla firing Eich because of such a boycott, all fall into that realm of "it shouldn't be illegal but I don't approve of it either" to me.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon May 05, 2014 10:18 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:(Admittedly I may not have heard it in your posts because there's so many other voices drowning it out with "we're not saying people should be forced to give money to Mozilla because we don't want our words to be followed to their logical conclusion." If you've already covered this, my apologies, but most of what I've seen is people angrily declaring that this is a fallacy but unable to point out where the fault is.)

I have said that I'm not saying anybody should be forced to give Mozilla money. I don't think I've said anything about a fallacy, though I do think that (that people should be forced to give Mozilla money) is a far conclusion to leap to from the kind of thing I have said (which, I believe, is similar to the kind of thing others are also saying). What I have said is that calling for someone to be fired because of things they've said is (to explain it like we're five) "mean speech". It's still speech and so still protected, nobody should be forbidden from boycotting or anything like that at all. But just because I think you should be allowed by law to call a random old lady in the street a cuntfarting twatwaffle doesn't mean I think that's a thing you should be going around saying, and likewise calling for someone to be fired because you don't like their opinion is certainly something you should be allowed to do, but not something you should do. Just like Eich campaigning to ban gays from marrying is something he should be allowed to do, but not something he should do.

You can disapprove of an action (including a speech-act) without wanting it to be prohibited by force of law. My general position is that until someone is applying physical force of their own, force of law should stay out of it, but within that broad range of actions there are still ones I would disagree with and oppose with appropriate and proportional means that are not the force of law. Eich campaigning to ban gays from marrying, OKcupid calling for a boycott of Mozilla to punish Eich for that, and (if it happened) Mozilla firing Eich because of such a boycott, all fall into that realm of "it shouldn't be illegal but I don't approve of it either" to me.


I get that distinction, I just don't see that it substantially changes things. If you're saying the boycott is something they shouldn't have done, you're necessarily saying that they should, with or without the force of law to enforce it, continue forwarding money to Mozilla knowing that Eich was at the helm.

It's sad that this disagreement arose in the first place, but any moral maxim, whether it's enforced by law or not, that rules out speaking against those who support oppression, I think that's inhibiting freedoms. Honestly, I think it would have been moral for Mozilla to not promote this guy in the first place, and at most I'd fault them for "leading him on", if you can call it that.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Mon May 05, 2014 10:49 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
So wouldn't not paying someone to speak also be speech?

Or more to the point, wouldn't paying someone who you can assume will use that money to "speak" be a tacit agreement with what is said?

Wouldn't freedom of speech mean you have the right to decline your own speech in favor of this other person's speech?

I'd like to Stop right there and answer your questions.
Three darned good questions.

1) Paying someone to Not Speak?
I was, sort of, Offered something to Not Speak.

I know other people were offered money to Not Speak.
I know some of them took it. I think its a good idea.

Take the money.
Go away. Live a quiet life.

That sounds like a good idea.

2) Paying another person to say what you tell them to say?
OK! Examples of That abound! TV News! All of 'em!

3) Declining one's right to speak?
That is a tricky one.

When we hire an attorney, we give that person the right to speak for us.
When we send some JackAss to Congress, we give that person the right to speak for us.

I was Threatened to Not Speak.
I did not often speak when threatened.

Sometimes, I did. Have You Met Me?
I paid a high price for my free speech.

People often don't value things they get for free.
My free speech does not impress anyone.
Not even, me.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jmdoman » Tue May 06, 2014 12:27 am UTC

Ilyak1986 wrote:Oh, one other thing, regarding the freedom of religion (also found in the first amendment):

Am I the only one that thinks it should only apply to the individual, but not to the company said individual may run?

That is, a devout Christian CEO has every right to be pro-life, against birth control, yadda yadda yadda...

But he has no right to impose those religious beliefs on his employees.


Name a recent case where this has happened.
First, really think about it.

jmdoman
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:19 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jmdoman » Tue May 06, 2014 12:29 am UTC

addams wrote:
WibblyWobbly wrote:
jmdoman wrote:Preachy, not remotely funny or clever, and an insultingly simplistic
commentary on current controversies.
So... Not my favorite xkcd comic.

I thought you were supposed to say "Not cool, not funny, not a good comic."

no. no. no.
Suposed to say, "Not cool, that hurts my feelings, not funny. Fuck the Comic."

See?


Well, as long as you're reading my mind... you didn't. It didn't hurt my feelings at all.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Tue May 06, 2014 12:34 am UTC

jmdoman wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:Oh, one other thing, regarding the freedom of religion (also found in the first amendment):

Am I the only one that thinks it should only apply to the individual, but not to the company said individual may run?

That is, a devout Christian CEO has every right to be pro-life, against birth control, yadda yadda yadda...

But he has no right to impose those religious beliefs on his employees.


Name a recent case where this has happened.
First, really think about it.

ok. It is a valid thought experiment.
What if you work for a Guy that is Pro-Life and you think your life is important.

What if you have an abortion?
He finds out and fires you.

You did nothing wrong.
It's legal, safe and cheap.

You lost your job and can't get another one, (ya little baby killer, you)
Who told him? Did your best friend tell him? Why?

What are you going to do, now?
He has every right to hate a Sinner. right?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 06, 2014 12:48 am UTC

jmdoman wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:Oh, one other thing, regarding the freedom of religion (also found in the first amendment):

Am I the only one that thinks it should only apply to the individual, but not to the company said individual may run?

That is, a devout Christian CEO has every right to be pro-life, against birth control, yadda yadda yadda...

But he has no right to impose those religious beliefs on his employees.


Name a recent case where this has happened.
First, really think about it.
Are you under the impression that it hasn't happened recently, or what?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10224
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby addams » Tue May 06, 2014 1:47 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
jmdoman wrote:
Ilyak1986 wrote:Oh, one other thing, regarding the freedom of religion (also found in the first amendment):

Am I the only one that thinks it should only apply to the individual, but not to the company said individual may run?

That is, a devout Christian CEO has every right to be pro-life, against birth control, yadda yadda yadda...

But he has no right to impose those religious beliefs on his employees.


Name a recent case where this has happened.
First, really think about it.
Are you under the impression that it hasn't happened recently, or what?

oh! oh!
A two for one!

A zealot uses the mechanism of The Government to do his dirty work.
A man has a Right to hold public office and Worship HimSelf above all else, too.

Want Names?!?
No man, I don't care what Government position he holds or what country he holds it in.
No man, sends RuthLess Murdock's calls into Junk Mail.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue May 06, 2014 1:04 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
drewder wrote:If speech should be protected from government censorship it should be protected from private censorship as well. After all who is government? It's all of us. The fact that you are legally protected in attacking people for there beliefs does not make it right to do so. When you strive to take away someone's livelihood because you disagree with them you are acting as a tyrant and a bully and such behavior should not be tolerated in polite society.

Interesting how often "polite society" is interchangeable with "a society that doesn't let the underclass rock the boat".

Sorry, but any formulation of not letting people "take away someone's livelihood" is equivalent to "forcing them to subsidize someone's product against their will", and if money is speech (which must be true to defend Eich's donation as freedom of speech), then you're tossing aside a much greater multitude's freedom of speech in order to "protect" one privileged, oppressive dude's freedom.

Not to mention that, once again, the boycott was not done in order to silence Eich, which should be evident from the fact that it didn't take away any platform he used to make his speech. It was merely a freedom of association issue, a right that is just as important as freedom of speech.

drewder didn't mention Eich though. He did say speech, but it could have actually meant speech, instead of donating money. The post also mentioned censorship, I think censorship relates exclusively to speech proper, money can be used for censorship but preventing monetary donations is not necessarily censorship (at least not of the donor, if the recipient is an organisation like wikileaks it may have constituted infringement of the recipients free speech).
KrytenKoro wrote:
Yes we can use free speech to create a sacred set of societal dogmas and damn any who disagree but thinking doesn't happen in such societies, new ideas are heresy in such societies, and history has shown that societies that seek to limit ideas and thought are doomed to fail and fall to open societies that encourage free thought.

Maybe, maybe. But history's shown much more clearly that societies that allow oppression of a minority are doomed to self-destruction and moral bankruptcy.

The Romans were successful over a long period of time, as were the colonial powers, and modern Middle-Eastern societies. All powers fall, but I don't think this is affected by their being more or less oppressive.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue May 06, 2014 4:35 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:drewder didn't mention Eich though. He did say speech, but it could have actually meant speech, instead of donating money. The post also mentioned censorship, I think censorship relates exclusively to speech proper, money can be used for censorship but preventing monetary donations is not necessarily censorship (at least not of the donor, if the recipient is an organisation like wikileaks it may have constituted infringement of the recipients free speech).

He's talking about people losing their livelihood. The comic didn't mention that, and the closest it or the forum has gotten to mentioning that, that I've seen, is in reference to the boycott against Eich.

The Romans were successful over a long period of time, as were the colonial powers, and modern Middle-Eastern societies. All powers fall, but I don't think this is affected by their being more or less oppressive.

Like I said, self-destruction and moral bankruptcy. Your examples are just kinda proving me right here.

If drewder gets to claim that societies that allow disagreement with bigots will someday fall, I get to point out that plenty of societies imploded (or at least required a civil war to reboot them) due to those bigots.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Goranson » Tue May 20, 2014 6:42 am UTC

Ok, so beyond the mere legal question of what the first amendment does or does not strictly do, what about what it should do? Namely, why shouldn't it provide protection from corporate entities firing people for exercising free speech? It's a commonly accepted role of government, except perhaps among libertarians, to provide strict guildelines of behavior and limitations of power for corporations. And, frankly, the modern world is so far beyond what the founders could have imagined when constructing the first amendment, that to suggest that we need to strictly adhere to the letter of the law that was laid down back before anybody could put any thought down on a keyboard and the entire world could have access to it instantaneously, and in an era before corporations were so insanely powerful as to have usurped kings and popes in terms of sheer power and wealth, is pretty fucking silly. The first amendment is really just nice lip service if we limit ourselves to saying "well, OF COURSE the government can't do anything to you, but any corporation has the right to fire you for daring to express any opinions that might be contrary to what they want their employees to express, whether at work or at home, after all freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences!". So maybe you donated to some new law that proposes raising salaries above $10,000,000 a year to a 90% tax rate, and your boss doesn't like that, why shouldn't he fire you, or strongarm you into resignation? After all, freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

And for all the people defending the protest and resignation of Mozilla's CEO on the grounds that the crime of having opposed gay marriage years ago is such a heinous offense, why is the outrage so selective? Barrack Obama did the same thing, and I have not seen massive protests demanding resignation on his part by anyone for that. You could find any number of people who have opposed it, but I guess the fact that Brendan Eich was also opposed to EME and that almost immediately after he "resigned" Mozilla announced they would be incorporating it are just coincidences.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 20, 2014 12:22 pm UTC

It's almost as if you too failed to actually read through any of the arguments that have already been hashed and rehashed in this thread a dozen times.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue May 20, 2014 3:34 pm UTC

I think this shows a fundamental problem with human rights in general: they were designed to prevent oppression of many by a few people (the aristocrats in the French revolution), not to prevent oppression of minorities by majorities and for some rights this shows.

Free speech is an especially strong example of this: if anyone can say what they want, people will hear more of the majority. So a minorities call for rights without sufficient sympathy from others will be drowned out. Both sides of the Eich discussions also show this flaw: Eich, as a majority member (and of the elite social class) tried to oppress a minority. This minority gets an increasing amount of sympathy though, so the majority opinion suppressed Eich's oppressive opinion (although Eich's opinion isn't really a minority opinion).

People controlling large corporations are definitely rare and form part of the current elite social class, but Eich was one of them (and probably still is or will be again soon). Eich's elite social status was not what human rights were supposed to protect, but what they were supposed to protect from.

Gebba
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 8:17 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Gebba » Tue May 20, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

This comic is spot on, but one question seems to be missing from the forums:
How does the right to free speech apply if the government (that doesn't arrest you) instead taxes you and gives your money to media refusing your voice?

Goranson
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:36 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Goranson » Tue May 20, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It's almost as if you too failed to actually read through any of the arguments that have already been hashed and rehashed in this thread a dozen times.


I'd be surprised if anyone had mentioned EME, since the last post before mine was made before that news was even announced. But if you have any posts on the subject that are paragons of originality, you're free to link me to them.

PinkShinyRose wrote:I think this shows a fundamental problem with human rights in general: they were designed to prevent oppression of many by a few people (the aristocrats in the French revolution), not to prevent oppression of minorities by majorities and for some rights this shows.

Free speech is an especially strong example of this: if anyone can say what they want, people will hear more of the majority. So a minorities call for rights without sufficient sympathy from others will be drowned out. Both sides of the Eich discussions also show this flaw: Eich, as a majority member (and of the elite social class) tried to oppress a minority. This minority gets an increasing amount of sympathy though, so the majority opinion suppressed Eich's oppressive opinion (although Eich's opinion isn't really a minority opinion).

Eich donating what was probably less than 1% of his income years ago in opposition to gay marriage is oppressive? I think the president of the United States publicly announcing that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" is considerably more oppressive if we're going to start playing that game, which again raises the question: Why is the outrage in this instance so selective?

PinkShinyRose wrote:People controlling large corporations are definitely rare and form part of the current elite social class, but Eich was one of them (and probably still is or will be again soon). Eich's elite social status was not what human rights were supposed to protect, but what they were supposed to protect from.

His donation was $1000. Most middle class families could afford to donate that much. I'm all for keeping corporate money and lobbying out of politics, but the donation in question was in no way egregious, and you're just saying that the fact that he was a CEO by itself makes his personal views more oppressive than anyone else's, no matter how they're expressed.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Wed May 21, 2014 8:23 am UTC

Goranson wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:People controlling large corporations are definitely rare and form part of the current elite social class, but Eich was one of them (and probably still is or will be again soon). Eich's elite social status was not what human rights were supposed to protect, but what they were supposed to protect from.

His donation was $1000. Most middle class families could afford to donate that much. I'm all for keeping corporate money and lobbying out of politics, but the donation in question was in no way egregious, and you're just saying that the fact that he was a CEO by itself makes his personal views more oppressive than anyone else's, no matter how they're expressed.

I think I was kind of vague: he can afford to spend 1000 dollars far more easily than a poor person. This by itself makes it more objectionable because he suffers fewer direct consequences of losing the money (he can probably still buy a new car). My main point though was that the only consequence was his (temporary?) loss of his elite social status, while his disproportionate influence was not what freedom of speech was intended to protect.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PM 2Ring » Wed May 21, 2014 12:58 pm UTC

Goranson wrote:I'd be surprised if anyone had mentioned EME, since the last post before mine was made before that news was even announced. But if you have any posts on the subject that are paragons of originality, you're free to link me to them.

Thanks for linking to that EME stuff, Goranson.

Goranson wrote:Eich donating what was probably less than 1% of his income years ago in opposition to gay marriage is oppressive? I think the president of the United States publicly announcing that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" is considerably more oppressive if we're going to start playing that game, which again raises the question: Why is the outrage in this instance so selective?

Attitudes towards same-sex marriage have changed somewhat in the years since that clip was made... That clip comes from 2008, before Obama was elected president, and at the time it would've been political suicide for him to make a strong pro same-sex marriage statement. He was campaigning to be the leader of a country where it was belived that the majority wasn't comfortable with legalising same-sex marriage; his statement was congruent with that belief.

But even in that clip Obama says that he wouldn't want his Christian ideas of marriage enshrined in the Federal constitution, and that he has no problems with same-sex civil unions.

The Eich case is different because Mozilla has clearly proclaimed itself a supporter of LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, but then goes and promotes Eich to CEO when they knew he was so against same-sex marriage as to be a financial supporter of Prop 8. Now I don't believe that people should be punished for having such opinions and acting on them, but I also don't believe that it was appropriate for Mozilla to have promoted him to the CEO role. Sure, the boycott ultimately punished Eich, but I primarily see it as punishing Mozilla for having promoted Eich when that appears to be at odds with their stated policy (as discussed earlier in the thread).


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 37 guests