Fairness and Freedom New Zealand and USA

[Ali]

Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you.     I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate  )

Interestingly,
NZ government recently made an arrangement such that Women on DPB (Domestics Puposes Benefit - Solo Mums requiring government financial support) can choose to get long term contraceptives for free (at the expense of government)

Instead of seeing this as freedom (without financial pressure) to choose contraceptives, many saw this as abhorrent government forcing poor not to have children.
State pressure worries beneficiaries
Stuck for ideas, Govt preys on powerless

That's very interesting.  I think of the government offering the option of free contraception as very fair (and freedom supporting) action to take, so long as there are no sort of strings attached.  Like "get free contraception" = good.  "Get free contraception and get a monetary bonus for receiving said contraception" = creepy and bad.  Or "get free contraception or else no food stamps for you!" = creepy and bad (sorry Siz!)

[Firebird]

I agree 100% with Ali on freedom of speech, and I've expressed it before on here. It does make for uncomfortable situations, like legalizing the right of a church to hold "God Hates F***s" posters and talking about how all gay people will burn in hell. But as she points out, it also means we don't have to worry about proclaiming our atheism, among other things, just because someone finds it offensive.

As for whether it provides a truly free stage, that is true for the most part. The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is the one most cited. You're also not allowed to threaten the life of the president or vice president. Someone on another board I was once on joked about killing Al Gore when he was VP, and the Secret Service actually went to the house of the webmaster and demanded his weblogs just to track down who it was. They didn't press any charges against the poster in the end, but they made it clear that they could have.
However, there are fuzzier situations. You can sue someone for libel or slander, for example. I believe that's mostly on the state level as opposed to federal though.

The fairness vs. freedom argument is rather interesting though, and definitely illuminates the difference between mentalities. And unfortunately, "freedom" as a concept is twisted by people in the US for their own means.

[Firebird]

Free education and lack of elite private schools puts the poor on a level playing field with the rich. A poor child can get the same education and same prospects for a job, can get themselves out of the poverty cycle. Well, as long as the govt provides enough support for the family to survive such that they don't take their children out of school and into work in order to support the family.

But this could be fairness or freedom, it fits both labels.

Right, but here's where people in the US would twist the word "Freedom". By denying them the right to create their own privately funded schools, some would say you're encroaching on their freedom to give their children the education they want to provide their children. Same with this:

That's very interesting.  I think of the government offering the option of free contraception as very fair (and freedom supporting) action to take, so long as there are no sort of strings attached.  Like "get free contraception" = good.  "Get free contraception and get a monetary bonus for receiving said contraception" = creepy and bad.  Or "get free contraception or else no food stamps for you!" = creepy and bad (sorry Siz!)

Churches and other religious organizations claim this is a violation of their "religious freedom" because they have to pay for something they consider sinful.

I'm not saying I agree with this twisting of "freedom"; in fact, I think it's crap. But that's where elements of US society would find a distinction between fairness and freedom. I say "elements" because this country is actually quite polarized in many ways

[Siz]

Agreed on all counts Firebird.

If freedom is going to work (within a framework of fairness) tolerance from all sides must be embraced. You want me to respect your beliefs? Then you respect mine. Bottom line.

[The Magic Pudding]

I really do find it shocking.  It seems like such a slippery slope to me.  Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism? 

Ah the good old slippery slope threatens so we must stay still.  This particular slope slides both ways though, like a ridge line.  We have had some brutal examples of what can happen when a group spreads hate for another.

The Supreme Court first began to develop a coherent doctrine of First Amendment liberties in a series of decisions arising out of federal legislation designed to stifle opposition to American participation in World War I.

Americans seemed restrained from objecting to the start of the second Gulf War whereas UK and Australians citizens felt free to object.  The idea that a citizen should be able to object to the government seems fair though the Gabrielle Giffords case would argue for some limitations.  There seems less danger in having laws preventing hate speech between groups in society than restricting anti government talk.  Who is the potential bully?  I'd say large groups over small and government over opposition groups.  The fair thing is to protect the weaker group, in general at least.

[Recusant]

Americans seemed restrained from objecting to the start of the second Gulf War whereas UK and Australians citizens felt free to object.

A side note, not an attempt at a derail of this worthwhile thread:

It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.

[Firebird]

It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.

Indeed there was. I was one of those protesters, marching on Washington just before the war started. There were millions of us who opposed the war and said so. Unfortunately it was not enough. But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech. Freedom of speech means both sides get to speak their points of view, and unfortunately that often means the popular idea wins out over the logical one.

[The Magic Pudding]

It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.

But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech.

I do understand that distinction and yet...
It is easier for those without a public profile to stand up for their views.  It didn't seem to me that supporters of the war, avowed defenders of freedom, did much defending of the right to free speech.  One way or another many people were intimidated to not speak out whilst elsewhere people felt free to question.  I started off saying the American idea of freedom puzzled me, it still does there's too many contradictions, it doesn't seem an entirely rational aspiration.  Alcohol and drug prohibitions, McCarthyism, Vietnam war conscription are a few events I see as contradictory to a pursuit of freedom.

I hope I don't sound too preachy, I could say some nice things about yas too.

[Ali]

It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.

But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech.

I do understand that distinction and yet...
It is easier for those without a public profile to stand up for their views.  It didn't seem to me that supporters of the war, avowed defenders of freedom, did much defending of the right to free speech.  One way or another many people were intimidated to not speak out whilst elsewhere people felt free to question.  I started off saying the American idea of freedom puzzled me, it still does there's too many contradictions, it doesn't seem an entirely rational aspiration.  Alcohol and drug prohibitions, McCarthyism, Vietnam war conscription are a few events I see as contradictory to a pursuit of freedom.

I hope I don't sound too preachy, I could say some nice things about yas too.

McCarthyism and the like is yet another great example of why freedom of speech is so important.  Interestingly, our government doesn't always follow it's own laws.  But I do like to think that if something like that happened now, the ACLU would be all over it. 

I never felt intimidated speaking out against the war.  Then again, when all of this started, I was a 21 year old college student, and speaking out against wars is what 21 year old college students are obligated to do.

[The Magic Pudding]

McCarthyism and the like is yet another great example of why freedom of speech is so important.  Interestingly, our government doesn't always follow it's own laws.  But I do like to think that if something like that happened now, the ACLU would be all over it.  

I never felt intimidated speaking out against the war.  Then again, when all of this started, I was a 21 year old college student, and speaking out against wars is what 21 year old college students are obligated to do.

I don't think laws are enough, people have to value them and hold politicians accountable.  It seems you have a regard for freedom which prioritises free speech but that doesn't seem universal.  Aren't there a lot of people who claim to value freedom which means guns and a resentment for government regulation?  It's my impression (I only have impressions reached far away) these champions of freedom don't give a fork for the rights of lefties.  Those foresightful things those admirable founding fathers put in your constitution, the things that would keep despots at bay, things worthy of being held sacred are often passed over.  

During a London concert ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States [George W. Bush] is from Texas".[1] The positive reaction to this statement from the British audience contrasted with the boycotts that ensued in the U.S., where "the band was assaulted by talk-show conservatives"[2] while their albums were discarded in public protest.[/size]

The Dixie Chicks may seem an odd example and I'd agree, a girl band fearing for their lives because one of them spoke their mind.  I heard Tom Waits decline to comment because he wanted to be able to continue working back home.  It seems for some this freedom thing justifies some ugly stuff.  I suppose freedom is an aspiration but people don't necessarily look at the old words, they just apply their own meaning to the word.

[Crow]

I really do find it shocking.  It seems like such a slippery slope to me.  Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism?  Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism?  Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings".  AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?

Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism.  I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.

I believe in freedom of speech myself and can not argue against it even if I wanted to play devils advocate. But there is a big however attached to that freedom of speech for me, I think anyone should be allowed the opportunity to express an opinion no matter how unpopular that is, but I do not think inciting hatred in anyway should not be tolerated by anyone in society, by this I mean those that are calling for violent or abusive action against others not that they are expressing a view. As the westboro baptist church was mentioned I will use them as an example, even though they are expressing their vile opinions they are not inciting hatred, what they are currently preaching might arouse or provoke a violent action but they are not calling for violent action therefore they can express there views as much as they like.

[Firebird]

Magic Pudding, you definitely make very valid points. But there is still a distinction between the examples you brought up in the public sphere and what the law actually does. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, including dumbasses who protest the Dixie Chicks because of what they said. And often, the dumbass element is the loudest, sadly. But it also means that the minority view, even the unpopular one that people want to shout down, can still be said out loud without repercussions from the government. It does mean you will have to defend yourself in the public sphere, of course.
You are correct in pointing out that we have not been perfect about this by any means. McCarthyism, the Red Scare, Nixon's enemies list, etc are all shameful examples where free speech was restricted. But there were repercussions to those violations. McCarthy was eventually driven out of power. Nixon resigned in disgrace. We eventually discovered there were no WMD's in Iraq after all and screamed it out loud, albeit later than it should have been. It's an ideal we strive for. But it's a value important to all of us, including the minorities such as atheists, liberals, etc.

[Ali]

I really do find it shocking.  It seems like such a slippery slope to me.  Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism?  Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism?  Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings".  AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?

Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism.  I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.

I believe in freedom of speech myself and can not argue against it even if I wanted to play devils advocate. But there is a big however attached to that freedom of speech for me, I think anyone should be allowed the opportunity to express an opinion no matter how unpopular that is, but I do not think inciting hatred in anyway should not be tolerated by anyone in society, by this I mean those that are calling for violent or abusive action against others not that they are expressing a view. As the westboro baptist church was mentioned I will use them as an example, even though they are expressing their vile opinions they are not inciting hatred, what they are currently preaching might arouse or provoke a violent action but they are not calling for violent action therefore they can express there views as much as they like.

That's a good point too;I do think that threatrning specific individuals is illegal in most parts of the US.  I would imagine that calling for violence against them falls into that category.