Freedom of Speech vs. Bullying: So, which is it?

a reply to: thesmokingman

First off, about your Interview point. It's already been done.
Death of a President (2006 film)

Death of a President is a 2006 British high concept docudrama political thriller film about the fictional assassination of George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. President, on 19 October 2007 in Chicago, Illinois. The film is presented as a future history docudrama and uses actors, archival video footage as well as computer-generated special effects to present the hypothetical aftermath the event had on civil liberties, racial profiling, journalistic sensationalism and foreign policy.

George Bush was the sitting President in 2006 and there wasn't a big stink put out about that movie. So your point about Obama getting mad if a movie was made killing him is unfounded.

Second, what Hebdo did was satire. It isn't bullying.

Now about Freedom of Speech. FoS as outlined in the Constitution ONLY applies to the government restricting speech. Freedom of Speech is irrelevant in a social atmosphere, a private institution, or even a private forum like this one. Complaining that Donald Sterling said something in his home isn't a violation of anyone's Freedom of Speech. Donald Stirling isn't in jail for what he said. He was socially ostracized. There is a difference there.

People have the freedom to say what they want, but everyone else also has the freedom to tell that person he's being an asshole or is wrong about his opinions and actions.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
Now, lets talk about bullying, cyber or school, or workplace. Every time a teen commits suicide, the claim usually comes out that they were being bullied. Everyone is so outraged. The bullying MUST stop right? What is bullying? Making fun of someone because they are different or have different beliefs than you? Spreading rumors about someone? Maybe drawing nasty pictures of someone? Believe me, I am no fan of bullies, I was bullied in school, and it was horrible. I didnt want to kill myself because of it, but I do think it helped to thicken my skin for later in life. A lot of kids go through it. Fact is, it does and always has happened, its part of life.

Uh, if Kim Jong Un had hung himself over The Interview or those jackasses in Paris had eaten their own bullets instead of shooting others yesterday over Charlie Hebdo, we'd all be living in a much better world.

Personally I lean towards the traditional definition of bullying: i.e. somebody who beats down on those weaker than themselves because they're too cowardly to pick fights with their equals. Words? Pfft! Rumors? Double Pfft! I learned at a young age, when an unsavory rumor gets spread about you, treating it with the same level of IDGAF as one would treat any other insignificant distraction shuts pretty much everyone up pretty quickly.

a reply to: EternalSolace


I use my freedom of speech to stand up to bullys but i am not others just as the bully isnt others, we all are the same but we dont all think there same.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: kamatty

Here's the thing though: Someone is using their freedom of speech to bully someone. Why don't others, use their freedom of speech, to take a stand with the bullied?

Freedom of speech does come with responsibilities. However, those responsibilities swing both ways. I'd argue that we should be responsible enough to take a stand for the downtrodden and for those whom can't stand for themselves. Not exercising that type of freedom of speech is cowardly.

You are absolutely right. Great points! You know, I think it really just boils down to RESPECT. Having respect for others and their feelings/beliefs, even if you dont believe in them. Yes, it goes both ways though. I live my life like this. I dont have to agree with you, you dont have to agree with me, but when we say or so things, we should at the very least be respectful of each other. It works for me anyway. I am not easily offended either.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thesmokingman



People have the freedom to say what they want, but everyone else also has the freedom to tell that person he's being an asshole or is wrong about his opinions and actions.

This sums the whole point of it up perfectly. People just have to willing to step up and tell someone they're wrong. The freedom works both ways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: thesmokingman

First off, about your Interview point. It's already been done.
Death of a President (2006 film)

Death of a President is a 2006 British high concept docudrama political thriller film about the fictional assassination of George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. President, on 19 October 2007 in Chicago, Illinois. The film is presented as a future history docudrama and uses actors, archival video footage as well as computer-generated special effects to present the hypothetical aftermath the event had on civil liberties, racial profiling, journalistic sensationalism and foreign policy.

George Bush was the sitting President in 2006 and there wasn't a big stink put out about that movie. So your point about Obama getting mad if a movie was made killing him is unfounded.

Second, what Hebdo did was satire. It isn't bullying.

Now about Freedom of Speech. FoS as outlined in the Constitution ONLY applies to the government restricting speech. Freedom of Speech is irrelevant in a social atmosphere, a private institution, or even a private forum like this one. Complaining that Donald Sterling said something in his home isn't a violation of anyone's Freedom of Speech. Donald Stirling isn't in jail for what he said. He was socially ostracized. There is a difference there.

People have the freedom to say what they want, but everyone else also has the freedom to tell that person he's being an asshole or is wrong about his opinions and actions.

It has been done, but was not well received:

Newmarket paid one million dollars for the U.S. distribution rights.[6] The total production budget for the film is estimated to have been two million dollars.[1] Two of the largest U.S. cinema chains, Regal Entertainment Group and Cinemark, refused to screen the film; a Cinemark spokesman told UK newspaper The Guardian: “The assassination of a sitting president is problematic subject matter”.[7] In addition, major U.S. broadcasters CNN and National Public Radio refused to broadcast advertisements for the film.[8] The film was screened in the U.S. for 14 days, showing at 143 theatres at its widest release.[1][2] Worldwide, it grossed $869,352.[2] The Japanese motion picture ethics committee, the Eirin, prevented Death of a President from being shown in most cinemas in 2007, saying that the film's Japanese title ("Bush Ansatsu", translated as "Bush Assassinated") is inappropriate.[9] The film was scheduled to begin showing in Japanese cinemas on 6 October 2007.

a reply to: Jamie1
Tyranny? It's called taking the higher road. What's wrong with you people sometimes? You know how many times I've had to keep my mouth shut and put my hands in my pocket for the bigger picture?

Real power is not executing your right but the ability choose not to execute your right That's where the power is. Not the other way around. Oh people, so much growing and learning to do. It's a shame

a reply to: thesmokingman

I don't see anything in that blurb about the sitting president getting upset and trying to prevent the release of it. I see a bunch of private corporations and organizations, as well as international ones making that decision for him though. Which is all perfectly legal.

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: thesmokingman


Funny that phrase ... FREEDOM OF SPEECH which we are told we

have and should be so proud of having.

Then you go on to mention Donald Sterling who was only

exercising this very same freedom of speech in the private

confines of his own home ... and then being crucified for the

content!!


FREEDOM OF SPEECH

LOL!! Not for every one!!

Donald Stirling wasn't arrested for what he said. Explain to me how the government silenced Stirling. Or was it just the media exercising ITS freedom of speech to call Stirling a racist?

originally posted by: kamatty
I belive freedom of speech and bulling are 2 differnet things, yes you are free to say what you like to anyone, if you choose to use your freedom of speech to make someones life hell you are a bully, a bully uses his freeedom of speech for hateful reasons.

I belive they are not the same but one is used by the other.

An instance >>>>

You are overweight. I could sugar coat it, but I come straight out

and say you're fat (because its a fact) You know its true, but you

still take offense. Would you consider I have been verbally bullying

OR exercising my right to freedom of speech?? There was no intent

just a statement of fact

Seems to me there's a very fine line..... mostly how the recepiant

takes it.

a reply to: thesmokingman

It has been done, but was not well received:

If it hadn't been for all the free publicity and people seeing it to stand up for freedom the Interview wouldn't have been well received either ..... yeah that's not fishy , kill two birds with one hack.

First Amendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Bold added by me.

So many forget that Freedom of Speech ONLY applies to government limiting speech NOT any other institution.

originally posted by: eletheia
An instance >>>>

You are overweight. I could sugar coat it, but I come straight out

and say you're fat (because its a fact) You know its true, but you

still take offense. Would you consider I have been verbally bullying

OR exercising my right to freedom of speech?? There was no intent

just a statement of fact

Did the person ask for your opinion on their weight or did you share it because you aimed to offend?

Seems to me there's a very fine line..... mostly how the recepiant

takes it.

And if the recipient has poor self esteem? Mental problems? A history of abuse? It's NOT "how they take it."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


People have the freedom to say what they want, but everyone else also has the freedom to tell that person he's being an asshole or is wrong about his opinions and actions.

And who gets to judge which one is right and which one is wrong?

Surely both are right from their own perspectives?

a reply to: eletheia


It depends on the reason your telling me im fat, if your telling me im fat for just beacuse im fat id be inclined to sujest your using your freedom of speech to bully me, although it all depends on the circumstances in which you tell me. I dont think offence would be the right word to descrbe my feeling if I knew for a fact I was fat, I may be hurt, embarresed or a number of other things

a reply to: EternalSolace

It ends up being a tug o war. Just because one isn't willing to concede. There will never be progress if it continues like that. At some point one needs to realize that if you concede, even when correct, you are the bigger person. That's all that matters in the end. I choose not to choose. It's gets philosophical

a reply to: eletheia

Well seeing as how we all have the freedom of speech, everyone is allowed to judge. Right and wrong is determined by prevailing majority social opinions. So if the majority deem someone wrong, then he has been judged wrong. If the majority sympathize with him, then he is right. The government doesn't care either way. They have no say one way or the other.

Part of the difference between what went on with Hebdo in France and with bullying is that Hebdo was not targeting specific individuals with its publication. They were targeting and religion, one of many they routinely targeted. So it isn't even like muslims could say they're religion was a special target of anti-muslim rhetoric on the part of Hebdo.

With bullying, it's usually targeted specifically and viciously at an individual with no other attempt than to cause shame and hurt.

You can't really compare the two.

That being said, you have to be careful when you try to start policing speech because what you're really trying to police is the thought behind the speech, and so much of what we get out of speech is how we perceive it. What someone says to me might seem bullying but not be intended that way.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Donald Stirling wasn't arrested for what he said. Explain to me how the government silenced Stirling. Or was it just the media exercising ITS freedom of speech to call Stirling a racist?

The point I was making is that what ever anyone else said and

even if it was racist he was entitled to voice his 'freedom of

speech'

Silencing anything just sends it under ground, it doesn't cure the

problem.

a reply to: eletheia

Of course he's entitled to his freedom of speech. The government didn't arrest him for what he said. Then other entities used THEIR freedom of speech to call him a racist.

No one silenced anyone. The media maybe shaming someone, but that is their right using THEIR freedom of speech. At no point has the government gotten involved with ANY of this to say that such and such cannot be said. This whole conversation is a red herring since Freedom of Speech doesn't apply to social shaming. It ONLY applies to the government telling you what you can and cannot say. Did you not read the first amendment I posted earlier?