http://mingle2.com/topic/show/215715

it's april fool's day....it was a joke

Well yuck it up. I still don't like anything that looks like a virus. When it comes to computer viruses I don't have a very good sense of humor I guess. I was about to check out of this bug infested motel.

it's fixed now

Everybody with an opinion on free speech and media censoring needs to have heard this track by the group Bassnectar. It's nothing new (at least I hope not.) But it's put together in a way that keeps your attention, and is easy to share with others. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Inspire the Empathetic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ih0HJm7dz4

I have been accused of having no filter between my brain and my mouth. Personally I find it offensive to have to worry about every word you might say in pubic. I am educated and intelligent and at the same time I do have opinions. My opinions may not be politically correct. But I should have some kind of voice.

Good for you. Keep it up unfiltered. At least people know where you are coming from.

No filter between thought and speech equals not thinking about the most effective manner of conveying one's thoughts to the audience. One must be aware and conscious of the fact that there are those who may not have the same level of understanding about a subject matter being discussed.

That is not at all to say that any one perspective is more or less valid than another. It is to say that one's perspective, when expressed, reflects much more than just the meaning of the words being used. Certain subjects and key words/phrases bring about an entire conceptual understanding at times. The level of connotative meaning between individuals regarding terms and subjects can differ tremendously. This difference is usually clearly reflected in the conversation being held. In essence, even though two people can clearly state the face value of the subject being discussed, often one or both may not be aware of the totality of unconscious material that the subject itself brings to the surface.

Freedom of speech, without the proper consideration of the audience and it's tendencies, does not convey intention in the most effective way and often equates to the freedom to express self-centeredness.

While the above may be a sincere opinion, proper "consideration" of the audience has to do with manners, and effective speaking, not freedom of speech.

Lately, while using twitter, where you are only allowed 140 characters for each tweet I have been learning how to condense an entire article into 140 characters. You should try it. It really helps a person get to the point.

You can check out my tweets for my website here: http://twitter.com/Springfld_CO

I have a script that posts them on the front page of my site at http://www.springfieldcolorado.com

Speech has a purpose.

Words bring about other thoughts and mindsets. A speaker attempting to share the experience that s/he is writing about is more effective if the words contained in the text allow the reader's mindset and thought pattern to mimic, as closely as possible, the mindset and emotional content of that experience.

Words limit one's ability to convey everything they have experienced.

While one may know the rules and regulations concerning horseracing, the names of every popular jockey and his/her horse and their tendencies, the tracks and their properties, the dates of the races, etc.; This information alone enables one to only be able to effectively communicate many things concerning horceracing, but no amount of this empirical knowledge being expressed can allow the reader to know what it is like to be a jockey in a race.

This inherent property of language affects speakers and listeners alike in a way that affects what thoughts each carry away from a conversation.

The more people that can personally relate to what is written, the better, and sometimes that requires a little forethought added to the ability to think beyond the ego's need to be right.

I have no disagreement with the above post. I was under the impression that the initial purpose of this thread was about freedom of speech. I guess the conversation is evolving?

Of course speech has a purpose. I certainly can't disagree with that.

Speech and conversation in sales.

Perhaps there are some people who have a lot of time to sit and read or listen to a long winded well written or well spoken approach to something and maybe there are some people who need to be lead gently to the point.

But I have spent hours on the Internet reading stuff, particularly how to run an internet business and make money from home via the computer. I have poured over tons of material from beginner to advanced so I know what is out there. I know most of the names of the big time Internet gurus and what they are selling.

I personally have come to the edgy point of appreciating people who get to the point and don't waste my time. I am a book collector. I have a good library of books on how to make websites, how to learn photo shop, Painter IX, CSS, PHP, how to live a long and healthy life, how to do remote viewing, get out of your body, find the love of your life, Legal guides, Law of attraction books, etc. These are real books, not ebooks. I have even more ebooks on my computer.

I love information that I can directly use and apply to my life.

I am reading about NLP and conversational and covert hypnosis, the art of persuasion, and becoming acquainted with the methods and tactics of selling. I listen to tapes from Internet gurus on their method of selling and persuasion and on their new secrets to making a living on the Internet.

Yes, speech has a purpose I love to learn about stuff and about how people operate in their reality. Some of it is useful and some of it is informative.

I scroll past the pitches and the testimonials to get to the bottom line on sales pages. How much? How much do you think your information is worth and what do you think you can get people to pay for it?

On websites I quickly evaluate the value of the information and whether or not it is simply "spider food" for google bots or real information from real people or real news.

Now I have reached a point where what I like best is genuine honesty and someone who can get to the point without wasting a lot of my time.

I look for and can recognize a real connection with a person no matter how much their auto response programs try to "personalize" their email with my name. I recognize a genuine communication and a real article pretty easily because I can literally hear their voice and feel their spirit behind their words. I can also feel the energy of a communication that has been written for a crowd or for an email list of ten thousand or for a google bot to fake content on a web page set up to sell a particular product.

What I want is real communication with real people and I have waded through tons of tons of information, good and bad and found a very few friends or personal business relationships. That's okay, that's just the way it is.

Sorry for the long post. I guess I am just ranting.

Very well put Creative. I’d like to expound on that a little.

“What thoughts each carry away from a conversation” is largely dependent upon what thoughts each brings into the conversation. Or, more precisely, what meanings each ascribes to the words being used.

For example, the sentence, “He carried the faggot home.”

200 years ago, this would have simply referred to someone returning home after gathering kindling wood for a home fire. Today, it would probably refer, derogatorily, to a passed out gay person being helped to get home after a night of heavy drinking.

Any offense in that sentence depends entirely upon the meanings that the listener assigns to the words being used.

And it is these differences in word meanings that are the heart of nearly all miscommunication.

True communication requires that the ideas behind the words be duplicated.

Example: I think I was 10 before I knew that the word “cornflower” referred to a shade of blue, not yellow. Up until that time I simply assumed that, because corn was yellow, “cornflower” must be a shade of yellow. Needless to say, the idea behind the word “cornflower” was never duplicated by me before I found out the true definition, so when I heard the word “cornflower”, I never really knew what the speaker was talking about.

Insisting that a word can and must only have the meaning that one believes, is not only self-centered, but foolish. And the epitome of this foolish and self-centered viewpoint is the insistence that “this word means such-and-such and if you don’t agree, you don’t know what you’re talking about”. Well, in fact, he does know what he’s talking about. It’s the person who insists on their own private meanings being the only valid ones, that doesn’t know what the other person is talking about. Such self-centeredness indicates that the speaker is not really interested in communicating. Their only interest is in “being right”. (Or, worse, having the other person be wrong, which is a poor substitute for being right.)

This situation is particularly volatile in media where the written word is all that is available for communication – these forums for example. It is all too common to see people debating an issue where it is obvious (to me anyway) that the two opposing debaters are basically not even talking about the same thing.

[end_rant]

rant and roll, roll and rant, insight roll and rant and grow, free speech take it higher let all grow, watering words the plant the seeds that grow, minds growing like weeds, words connecting like all toegether as family, words like seeds morphed higher and higher into a beanstalk, towering into the sky the unknown, free speech grow the mind let er go, watch er grow watch er sow, let er rock and roll higher intelligence to sow, rock and roll, roll and rock, free speech let er rip and go, climb climb climb, into the heavens take the minds higher, into the clouds of understanding, flying high rants open the eyes of can't, fires that burns with fires of freedom, rant's and rant's and rant's, erase all can'ts, let's er rip and grow and glow higher and higher...

Even though this post was titled "Philosophically speaking..." the Freedom of speech issue is entirely a legal issue.

People should have freedom of speech. That a country had to make an issue out of it means that there developed somewhere in some society the lack of the freedom of speech and it was curtailed by the powers that be or the government in charge whether it be a dictator or the monarchy.

People did not like this. So they decided to declare their independence and in doing so made a law regarding the right to freedom of the press and freedom of expression even if it was against the current government.

In a lawless society freedom of speech was held by the person with the fastest draw or biggest gun.

I would agree, and such things can often display the results of presupposition. If a discourse is to lead to a mutual understanding, then a common definition and meaning of the terms being used must be had. Often, this can be accomplished through trying different approaches by one, the other, or both. This notion lends support to earlier aspects of communication between you and I, in which the focus was upon being misunderstood, a problem inherent within language and meaning.




Uh...no! It is only a legal issue if and when only legal aspects are being considered. Much of the conversation has been on those legal matters, however, that was not the intention of the OP. That was obvious in the beginning. Sky and I had began to discuss the philosophical side, and abra also referenced it as well.

Jb, you failed to recognize this in the conversation at that time. Your focus has been exclusively upon the legal aspects and such. Several times I attempted to re-direct the conversation back to the intended focus.

Hence...

Philosophically speaking...

If "freedom of speech" is not entirely a legal issue, then it would have to be simply a matter of who has the biggest weapon or who has the power to shut you up or fire you, or prevent you from speaking your mind or prevent you from printing or publishing something.

If it is not entirely a legal issue then what would you call it?

Everyone has the ability to speak if they are not mute. And even a mute can write.

Freedom (of speech) is granted or protected by the law unless you live in a lawless or oppressive society. (Like communism or a dictatorship.) It is also sometimes prevented by oppressive governments and even laws of those governments.

So if it is not entirely a legal issue then what on earth are you talking about???

In this country people are made to believe that we fight for freedom. Soldiers go to war with that belief. They fight for our freedom.

If we did not have the freedom to speak out against our government, or print the truth in our newspapers, or on our websites without being charged or jailed, then it would be clearly obvious to the people that we have no freedom.

Then what do you think would happen? The government could no longer spread the propaganda that we send our sons and daughters to war for the sake of preserving our FREEDOM because we don't have any freedom if we don't have freedom of speech!

It (freedom and freedom of speech) is entirely about the law, and the government! If it is not, then again, what the heck are you talking about???

Of course my focus is on the legal aspect of it. Freedom is all about the law within a society. (unless you are above the law.)

Now if you want to talk about what you think is nice and not nice to say in certain situations, then that's about manners not freedom. And if you want to talk about communication and all of the problems that arise there, that is about communication, ~ not about freedom.

If you want to talk about spreading lies and untruths about people to ruin their reputation, that's about libel and that is a civil matter that must be decided and settled in civil court.

Libel is against the law when (and only when) it is proven in court. Then there is a fine to pay, not jail.

Telling a lie is not against the law unless it was done UNDER OATH AND CAN BE PROVEN TO BE A LIE.

So where is any of this concerning "freedom of speech" NOT a legal matter?

JB, with all due respect...

Read the recent exchange between Sky and I. Read the earlier one as well. It clearly spells out some basic philosophical issues and paradoxes surrounding the concept of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is an ideal which is founded upon and therefore directly affected by the language game. The language game is of a philosophical nature concerning the elements of language and communication which, consequently, affect the concept of freedom of speech.

I am not sure why you have not grasped the difference, and it really does not matter. I did not want to discuss the legal aspects. If I wanted to discuss those I would do so in the political forum.

This forum is supposed to be about science and philosophy, although it rarely is.

[[[[[[[insert walking away while looking down and shaking my head emoticon]]]]]]]

With all due respect to you, you are certainly entitled to your opinions and discussions. You apparently did not comprehend my post.

Freedom of speech is about law and government. I don't see anything philosophical about it.

So I simply disagree with you.