I’m Tired, or Some People Are Spiritually Bankrupt
Different people link to some of my articles, and sometimes, well…it just makes me tired. Reading the hate and self-righteousness, wanting to respond, and realizing I won’t be heard at all, is really discouraging and frustrating. It feels like a literal slap in the face.
And the thing is, their biggest argument is that they are abused, they are oppressed, they are disadvantaged. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette. When told that the peasants were starving and had no bread to eat, she reportedly said, “Let them eat cake”. No clue. Completely out of touch with reality.
Here’s to spitting in the wind.
Warning: The following is extremely sexist, disturbing, and offensive. Read at your own risk.
http://dirtyrottenfeminist.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/are-men-oppressed-when-it-comes-to-domestic-violence/
May 8, 2008, 8:47 pm
Filed under: Dumbshits, ViolenceA troll, whose comments I will not be approving, tried to tell me that “MEN are the oppressed class in the great majority of “domestic violence” cases.”
Let that sink in for a moment. Laugh, if it will make you feel at least a bit better that there are people who actually think this out there. I know it did me.
I was not going to address his whole diatribe of hatred, but after a long talk with a good friend of mine last night who works with Project SAFE and is involved with domestic violence cases, oh, every day, I felt that this could not go ignored. I mean, said friend has new horror story every day–a woman set on fire by her ex, a man chasing his girlfriend around with a knife, women dying at the hands of their so-called loved ones.
First off, I would like to know what is meant by “oppression” in this sense. Now, I have understood the word, from which I have had done numerous readings in both race and gender studies contexts, the most helpful being Marilyn Frye’s “Oppression”, to mean the systematic denial of rights of the less-powered class to the powerful class. This would mean along the lines of sex, race, class, religion, etc etc. Dictionary.com (hey! I packed my Webster’s up a while ago and sent it home since I’m moving out!) offers a more broad definition:
1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
2. an act or instance of oppressing.
3. the state of being oppressed.
4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. So, if we take this definition, how can it be applied to men in domestic violence cases? The troll directed me to an article by Cathy Young about how men are punished unfairly by the court systems in domestic violence cases. Since we live in a sexist society, men cannot be oppressed based on their gender. But they can be treated unfairly or otherwise abused…so I won’t discount that when examining this issue. Now, first of all, to understand this, we have to look at the No Tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence. Obviously, there is a reason why it has come to this–could it be that in 1998, the same time this article was written, 31% of American women “report[ed] being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives”? That probably had something to do with it…yeah. So, to recap, so all the trolls can keep up: yes, some men have been caught up wrongfully in the justice system when it comes to domestic violence, but that is because of an overall trend in domestic violence that needs to be addressed. I will agree with the trolls that this system DOES NOT WORK. But not because a few men fell through the cracks and had to attend a $400 anti-battering class…though that’s not really fair exactly, either…. My main beef with the current handling of domestic violence cases is IT DOES NOT WORK. I guess while they are busy punishing all those “innocent” menz (ya know, I just smacked her around, it wasn’t like I beat he senseless or anything!) they aren’t actually addressing the problem. I mean, 54% of women killed by a stalker (which is usually an ex-lover) actually had reported their stalkers’ actions to the police and 25% had restraining orders. THAT IS OVER HALF. So, I guess, the police aren’t doing a bang-up job, now, huh?
Next, we have to look more closely at the pattern of marriage and heterosexual relationships to fully understand the implications of domestic abuse. Young’s article mentions a 1996 case involving “…Seattle City Councilman John Manning, who came home one day and was shocked to find his wife loading her things into a truck, was charged with assault for grabbing her shoulders and sitting her down on the tailgate (causing no injuries)….” So while there were no physical injuries, this issue of control really upsets me. He didn’t want her to leave him, so he physically forced her into a seated position. But there were no injuries, so it was ok!!!!
No. It’s not ok. It is not ok to manhandle another human, ESPECIALLY one you are supposed to be in a loving relationship with. But somehow excusing it since there were no injuries is complete bullshit if you ask me. Like I said, we have to look at the whole big picture of romantic relationships between men and women and the power structure within them. And for the trolls: that is not to say EVERY MAN TRIES TO CONTROL HIS LOVER OR A WOMAN NEVER TRIES TO CONTROL HIS. But, from what I hear from my friends and such, this is subtle problem that seems to be more perpetuated by stereotypes about masculinity.
84% of domestic abuse victims are female… Male victims are usually no the victims of Intimacy Terrorism–rather, they fall victim to the kind of situational violence where both parties are involved. (This is still a problem…but it still does not really fall into the “men are oppressed” argument.) Women who are abused, however, are victims of Intimacy Terrorism, where their husband or boyfriend is controlling, abusive both emotionally and physically, and then withholds resources so the woman really has no way to leave. Women and children are the main victims of Intimacy Terrorism, and men are the perpetrators. Again, for the trolls: NOT EVERY MAN IS AN INTIMACY TERRORIST!!! If you want to read more about it, check it out here. And there is even a link for info on abuse against men! Again, it happens, but the trend is mostly against women. And since women are the oppressed gender, we are the ones whose victimization in domestic violence cases is more assuredly caused by culture-wide issues in gender.
Women are five-to-eight times more likely than men to be the victims of domestic abuse.
How can anyone try to argue that men are more oppressed in this situation? Yes, there are problems IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM which is run predominantly by (gasp!) men. So women are not oppressing men in this case. Rather, the system is flawed. It is failing the women it is meant to protect, it has been punishing the wrong people, and since Americans like to rely on it to solve problems like this, it doesn’t allow for the actual causes of the problems to be addressed–problems in our sex and gender roles, institutional problems with marriage, and the social equality of women.
The world is over-run with people who are just too blind to see outside of their narrow blinkered boxes.
Fortunately there are some people, women and men, who hold to standards of Truth that go well beyond their egos. They hold onto a rock that is much more stable than the crumbling, degenerate ideologies, which are many and varied but all relying on a diet of lies.
Feminists are just one sub-set of a range of ‘victim’ ideologies that are designed to divide us. Of course you will get their lunatics and the self-righteous drivel peddlers who trot out the tired and mendacious statisticoids reaped from ’studies’ undertaken by the highly qualified staffs one finds in Women’s magazine editorial offices and Women’s Studies AgipProp Departments that infect our Universities, who glean their valuable insights into male violence against women from self-selected samples of abusive, manipulative harridans with foul mouths.
These same women are the daughters of the women who sent death threats to Erin Pizzi, the founder of the first women’s refuge only to be driven out by violent women hell bent on destruction.
YOU do everyone a service by seeking and telling Truth.
You are not alone.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:06 amSmiles for you, Amfortas. And my vote.
May 11th, 2008 at 8:19 amKelly, I find that the more I view these kinds of people as “Conflict Junkies”, the easier it becomes to deal with their nonsense.
Remember that they WANT you to get all worked up and indignant — regardless of whether you’re for them or against them. They’re like lowest-commmon-denominator talk-radio ‘hosts’ who make their living by driving their emotionally vulnerable listeners into frothing derangement.
They’re basically nothing more than demagogue-wannabe
confidence tricksters — con artists, swindlers, grifters, scammers; palmists, card readers, faith healers, psychics. And while unlike the professionally criminal, they do it more out of neurotic and obsessive psychological compulsion than sociopathically indifferent greed, that’s not to say there is no sociopathic indifference involved on their parts. The only distinction is that sometimes their primary “profit” tends to be the sick emotional charge they receive from getting all worked up themselves.
A lot of the time, however, they can also make a pretty good living for themselves, in academia and at the public trough, through exploiting the vulnerable, just like palmists, card readers, faith healers, and other ‘psychic’ thieves.
Always keep in mind that just like many other advertisers selling sizzle instead of steak, they want to induce an emotional reaction in you in order to profit off the momentary irrationality it causes.
May 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pmShe’s just going by the hackneyed standard feminist playbook a la Feministing etc….simply having a differing opinion means you’re a troll, and you are not treated with even a basic level of common courtesy. It shows how immature and unstable they are, that a different opinion is basis for an attack,it shows how exclusionary they are, like brats on a playground not letting somebody with the ‘wrong’ sneakers play.
To hell with ‘em.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI posted the following comment on her site:
There is ample evidence that domestic violence is far more complex than you have presented here. Contrary to the Canadian government statistic of 84 percent female victims and 16 percent male, the U.S. government says that male victims are 38 percent in terms of injuries (CDC). A 2007 study by U.S. Centers for Disease Control Researchers (PDF) revealed that in relationships where domestic violence is one-way, over 70 percent of the time it was from the woman beating on the man. This contradicts your assertion that when women are abusive, it’s primarily in relationships where abuse is reciprocal. The fact is that women abuse men thinking that it is their prerogative, men take it because it would be shameful to complain about it, and a few men get fed up with it and completely pulverize a woman one day when their rage has culminated following an extended period of victimization.
In my state, California, there is data that show that police are becoming more aware over the years of the hidden and subtle abuse that women have gotten away with. Arrest rates for domestic violence (Excel) show a trend over the last 23 years with increasing arrest rates for women. In 1980, 1 percent of arrests for DV were for women; by 2004, the number was 20 percent (and it’s probably still climbing). Source (PDF).
You are correct in your statement that the existing system is ineffective at preventing or addressing domestic violence. One indicator of this is the effect of mandatory arrest laws. According to the following studies (one of which is a government study), mandatory arrest actually led to an increase in retaliatory homicides. Legislators had been noting that, mostly in the 1980s, arrests for domestic violence corresponded to a lower reoccurrence of subsequent violence. So, stupidly, they assumed that they would enact laws that made it mandatory that police must arrest when an allegation has been made, or when probable cause exists. They assumed that the success of optional arrest would be carried over if they implemented mandatory arrest. It turns out that they ended up indirectly killing members of certain demographic groups, which were affected by their misguided policy. Here are the studies:
“Exposure Reduction or Backlash? The Effects of Domestic Violence Resources on Intimate Partner Homicide”
Authors: Laura Dugan ; Daniel Nagin ; Richard Rosenfeld
Study sponsored by the US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/Publications/Abstract.aspx?ID=186194
“Does the Certainty of Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence? Evidence from Mandatory and Recommended Arrest laws”
Author: Radha Iyengar
National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13186
As you can see, there is plenty to reform in existing polices. There is also plenty of abuse heretofore unacknowledged, namely the seriousness of domestic violence against men. Perhaps a more open attitude about this in our culture would lead to more willingness of men to report abuse they suffer by women. I personally believe that the tendency is for men to endure being hit, slapped, punched and kicked for a time, thinking that it is shameful to retaliate. Then he reaches a certain point and says, “Fuck this!” and retaliates disproportionately, causing significant injury. He then is labeled as a batterer, and must take a batterer’s program (a “$400 program” as you referred to it) which labels him as an abuser, who is supposed to accept the idea that he caused any violence that his partner committed against him. It’s not the cost of the program that is the problem; in such programs, the true problem is the complete displacement of blame and responsibility from abusive women onto men. I know; I was required to take such a program, and it was pure hell.
May 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pmSo when men are abused they are in mutaully abusive relationships, but when women are abused they are not?
How can you wrap your head around that kind of thinking?
May 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pmSo when men are abused they are in mutaully abusive relationships, but when women are abused they are not?
Hardly.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:30 amKellyMac I’m sure you’re tired. It must be exhausting maintaining your superiority over those of us who are moral lepers and spiritually bankrupt.
By the way the cdc link doesn’t work and don’t the Ca arrest rates mean that law enforcement is becoming more aware of female on male abuse? It’s that a good thing?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:43 amActually, it’s exhausting trying to teach robots compassion.
Sorry about the link, looks like someone made a mistake. Should we just smack John Dias with a frying pan? Oh, I know! Let’s kick him in the balls. That always gets a laugh.
As for your point about CA arrest rates, when they pass a law requiring mandatory arrest of female abusers, it may mean a little more. As it is now, even when we acknowledge that a female can abuse, we always give her an excuse and feel sorry for her.
“He was abusing me, so I had no choice but to shoot him in the back at point blank range with a shotgun while he was sleeping, and then take the kids and flee across state lines.”
“My husband forced me to stay at home and have babies even though I was mentally ill and needed medication but my religion didn’t allow it so I had to drown all of my children - one by one by one.”
“My new boyfriend doesn’t like kids, so I had no choice but to drive my car into the river with them inside and leave them there to drown.”
May 14th, 2008 at 1:20 pmKelly, Kelly, Kelly - leaping to conclusions and gross generalizations as always. If any one is a robot it’s you spouting the party line allowing for no opinions but your own.
I just want the link fixed. You in your very warped mind must feel the failure of the link needs punishment.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:17 pmPoor winecat. Once again, you have completely and utterly missed the point.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pmIt must be a burden to be so self-righteous, you have my pity.
No I didn’t miss the point. You continue to compartmentalize people, put words in their mouths, claim to know their thoughts and cast aspersions upon any one who dares disagree with your very narrow point of view.
After all total agreement IS your point, isn’t it?
And give me a fricking break about finding excuses for women who batter. Battering is wrong for anyone. You know it, I know it, basically I’m pretty sure most of the world knows it. Perhaps you’d like to spend a day in DV court with my friend the ADA? But you probably wouldn’t want to because she’s a women and therefore in your view biased against men.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:07 pmAfter all total agreement IS your point, isn’t it?
Nope. Try again.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pmHas winecat actually addressed the OP? As in, why are police mandated to assume the male is always the perpetrator, and the female is always the victim? Should we drag in the Duluth model?
May 15th, 2008 at 5:14 am“Has winecat actually addressed the OP?”
Winecat can be relied upon to miss the point, misrepresent your position and play the bleeding Martyr until the cows come home.
No, she hasn’t addressed the OP and she never will. Out of the 90 posts in the last exchange, she never made an argument. Not even once. But who cares? She and her kind are the last of the Feminist locust swarms that devestated the land in the 60s and 70s. Like the mighty dinosaur they will shortly be extinct–even their High Priestesses are selling out and admiting what a scam it all was, abandoning ship to get married while the galley slaves drown chained to their robotic Feminist oars.
Unfortunately for the useful idiots who made up the rank and file, their Conditioning is just too strong to break and they’re stuck with their warped views for the duration. Brainwashing of this magnitude has not been seen since Jim Jones led his little religious expedition into the jungles of Guiana. The winecats of the world are unable to understand that we are attacking their poisoned preconceived Ideology, and not them personally. That’s why she lashed out with the profanity last time. It’s a losing battle; fortunately we don’t really need to win it. Time will shortly take care of these people for us. The damage they’ve inflicted on the West will take generations to repair (if we’re lucky), but Feminism itself is being increasingly marginalized as younger women reject its tenets in order to pursue healthy relationships with men and the world that we all live in.
“Kelly, Kelly, Kelly - leaping to conclusions and gross generalizations as always. If any one is a robot it’s you spouting the party line allowing for no opinions but your own.”
In the meanwhile, have yourself a hearty laugh while watching this dime store demagogue attempt to score Condescension Points by accusing Kelly (again) of leaping to conclusions and spouting a party line! I mean, seriously! It’s difficult to imagine living inside a mind so dysfunctional that hypocrisies as rank as this pass unnoticed. It’s like Mengele had risen from the grave in order to chastise the medical community for violations against the Hippocratic oath.
And finally, here’s a little blast from the past for the drive home at five! that’s right, it’s a Winecat Rock block! Enjoy!
“To Fint’s Gunner Ok I give up. It appears that civil debate is impossible.”
“So Flint’s Gunner GO FUCK YOURSELF. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY BASIS FOR YOUR SUPPOSED MISERABLE, PATHETIC, DEMENTED LIFE”
Stop leaping to conclusions, Kelly mac!
May 15th, 2008 at 5:46 am“It must be a burden to be so self-righteous, you have my pity.”
And you have ours. It must be a burden to be so unable to control your emotions that you are given to screaming profanities and vicious ad hominems at strangers on the Internet who refuse to tell you what youw ant to hear.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:48 am@winecat…
Credit for persistence.
What did you do when you first heard about Lorena Bobbit’s little escapade? Were you one of the millions of women who shamelessly stood and applauded? I’m not asking you to answer but to reflect.
Why bother making excuses for female abusers? Everybody’s too busy alternately laughing at or denigrating their victims to have time left for that.
Can you organise a day with your ADA “friend”? I’d be in that. Perfect opportunity to do what feminist groups have been allowed to do for years - pass judgment on the system and the individuals within it. Question really would have to be whether your “friend” has the capacity to deal with me. Particularly if she knows I will write about it and I will be public with what I learn. AND that I talk to politicians. After all, if everything is above board what have they to fear?
By the way your final question could use some work. Exactly what do you mean?
@John Dias…
Your post hasn’t appeared. Or were you the “troll” her entire strawman is based upon?
@Kelly…
Were you the “troll” rather than John?
Same as always. Why bother? Nobody reads her blog anyway. She’s probably had more traffic from your site than she’s ever seen before.
D R Feminist wrote(sic)…
In politics we frequently see what are termed “Dorothy Dixers”. These are questions put by colleagues to ministers or representatives with the purpose of allowing that rep to give a particular speech or rant. Often they are used for the purpose of attacking opponents. D R’s is a variant of that approach which has the added advantage of not requiring the engagement of a flunky to put the question. You can simply make it up if you wish. A proper snake oil vendor would at least put the veneer of respectibility on proceedings and use a real agent provocateur.
If D R had any real belief in the truth or importance of what she posits why not just write about it? Why the masquerade?
But this…
Huh?
Just what I like in a woman…articulate and a sense of compassion for all.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:02 amhttp://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22081/39949-ten-reasons-christmas-tree-better
Here’s some more of that warped sexist humor Feminists love so much. Of course, this will be excused as ‘just a joke’ and I will be loudly denounced for my lack of humor. What do you think would happen if I wrote 10 points on why a jar of Vaseline is better than a woman?
Or what if I made a ‘joke’ about plugging the vaginas of Feminists with Kwik-Dry Cement if they don’t shut up? Why, in that case I’m a vicious Mysogynist! A Neanderthal throwback of the Patriarchy! A Chauvinist pig .Of course, Feminists are completely unable to make mental connections, so the fact that this kind of thing, when directed at men, passes without comment will suggest nothing to their muddy brains.
If only civil debate were a possibility, eh Sports Fans?
May 15th, 2008 at 6:19 amClass conflict is Marxist theory, which has been discarded by everyone except Western feminists.
Victim politics is false interpretation of liberal “rights” theory (where do rights come from? how does one earn rights?)
Gender equality is idealism divorced from history and biology.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:28 amOh here we go again. Yes I’m the moral equivalent of a slug because why not paint all feminists with the same brush. It’s so much easier for you that way.
And let me tell you it’s much easier for me I don’t need to worry about the way our country is falling apart, the upcoming elections, the Supreme Court, the futile war in Iraq, thousands dying in Burma and China or even piddling little things like OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, bride burning in India or honor killings in the middle east
May 15th, 2008 at 8:31 amOh, the Lorena Bobbit issue. My first thought was that must have been incredibly painful, the second that guy was either seriously drunk or a very heavy sleeper because how on earth would he let her come at him with a knife.
I know not compassionate or understanding at all is it?
May 15th, 2008 at 9:12 amPerhaps you’d also like to discuss Ramon Salcido
Ramón Salcido’s life was rapidly unraveling. He thought his wife Angela was having an affair with his boss, Tracey Toovey, a vintner at the Grand Cru Winery in Sonoma, California. To make matters worse, Angela was planning to leave him. He also suspected that he was not the father of his oldest daughter, Sophia.
After spending a night snorting cocaine and drinking, he packed his daughters in the car and went looking for Angela. Unable to find her he drove to a dump near Petaluma where he slit the girl’s throats with a fishing knife. Sophia, 4, and Teresa, 1, died. Carmina, 3, the middle child survived and now lives with a family outside California.
He then went to his in-laws’ house and clubbed to death his mother-in-law, Marion Richards. He also slit the throats of Marion’s two youngest daughters, Ruth, 12, and Marie, 8, whom he sodomized and otherwise sexually assaulted. Next, he went back home where he found Angela and shot her to death. He drove off drinking champagne. He finished his busy day by killing his boss at the winery whom he suspected was having an affair with his wife.
After the killings he headed to his hometown of Los Mochis in Mexico to see his mother. There he was arrested by authorities and extradited to California to stand trial for his bloody rampage.
But I’m pretty sure you’re going to blame his wife.
I talked to my former ADA friend (no quotes) and suggested she read your comments. As she has a husband, 3 small boys and a job she declines to spend her limited time with you. As she said “they’ve already decided they are or are going to be abused by the system. Nothing I say will change their minds”
Now if you’ll excuse me I’m off to attend my cousin’s law school graduation. She decided to take up family law in part because her father left her, her mother and 2 older sisters 18 years ago and has yet to pay a penny of child support. She feels this is somewhat unjust.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pmOk, I’ll bite. What does this shocking, graphic, horrible story have to do with the unfair way men are treated in our so-called “blind” justice system?
We can all come up stories about psychos, winecat. You posted something for shock value. Congratulations.
You still have yet to come up with anything to rebut what has been said. Don’t they teach you girls to think in college any more? Have you ever taken a class in logic?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pmI have no intention of rebutting what was said. There is absolutely no reason to try and have a conversation with any of you. As Flint Gunner’s comment above shows nothing I say is accepted and it never will be. I’m supposed to accept everything the rest of you say at face value but I’m not accorded the same curtesy. In fact I’m denigarted on a regular basis.
I did not post it for shock value I posted it to show the horrible things men do to women just as you claim women to horrible things to men.
By the way Flint’s Gunner do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Yes I was way, way, way out of line. I apologize. Yes I kiss my mother with my mouth she taught me to speak my mind.
And gwallan please do not trash my friend (again no quotes, not exactly sure what the quotes are supposed to mean. Perhaps I made up my friend?) I spoke for her without talking to her first feeling fairly certain that she would like to comment. She doesn’t, end of conversation. No she’s not afraid of you or politicians, she’s just busy.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pmsorry that should be denigrated
May 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm@winecat…
Regarding Ramon Salcido. Did millions of men overtly applaud his act? Was his victim pilloried globally? Was Salcido the recipient of standing ovations from male audiences on national television?
The Bobbit story demonstrated something for all the world to see if they care to look. Generally any man who hurts a woman can expect other men or their institutions to harm him. A woman who hurts a man can expect her sisters to applaud her and laugh at her victim. Meanwhile feminist groups are advocating that women never be imprisoned for anything.
Again I urge you to reflect on your own response at the time.
winecat said…
Except that the horrible things men do to women are rarely applauded. It’s not about the offender or what they did winecat. It’s about the public and institutional response.
winecat said…
As far as I can recall I’ve never assumed you’d made anything up. I may have tried to offer an alternative interpretation…but disbelief? Only on the identity of the wage victim was I concerned.
I have no interest in “trashing” your friend. I’d like the same opportunity that feminist groups are commonly afforded. That of access to the system as observer, commentor and arbiter of performance. I’d also like the opportunity to provide sensitivity training to police and judiciary on behalf of male victims, particularly of sexual abuse, something that has NEVER been done. What is wrong with wanting the same opportunities given feminists? Ask your friend if she is willing to listen to advocates for male victims of female rapists. Would she be willing to involve those advocates in the training programs her city undoubtably conducts for police, judiciary and court staff? Explain to her that the crimes I’m talking about are a production line for future violent rapists and that a bit of gender equality in the handling of these issues could very well be preventative.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:07 amOf course I kiss my mother with this mouth–I’M not the one screaming profanity. I was also taught to speak my mind. I think you’re brainwasheed and I think your adherence to the Feminist cause is foolishness. And so I go ahead and say so. For this you denigrate ME, then claim you speak your mind as if it’s a badge of honor. It goes both ways, doesn’t it? If you get tos peak yours I get to speak mine. Can’t you quite grasp that? I’m not insulting YOU as an individual, I’m being very forthright about my scorn for your blind spot in the matter of rthe rampant misandry that surrounds us. This is what I mean when I say things like “Feminists are ibncapable of drawing inferences.” Stop ranting at me and try to hear what I’m actually saying. I’m not going to apologize because you are unable to connect the dots. If you want to be taken seriously it is incumbent on YOU to start making actual ARGUMENTS to refute my point of view. All you do is call me names and insist that you are somehow being treated unfairly. No one is forcing you to come here. No one is insulting YOU, we are mocking your feminist Hive Mind. Until you can see these distinctions you are not even ready to take part in this debate. You whine about ciivil debate and respect and all the other cant designed to make it appear that YOU are the reasonable party, but thus far the real ugliness has come ONLY from you. Do you think we are children that we will miss the obvious lessons to be drawn from all this?
As for this Ramon person–you just go right on MISSING THE POINT. Yes, we KNOW men do horrible things. No one is suggesting otherwise. But the criminal justice system DEALS HARSHLY with men who do such things. Women like Mary Winkler who do the same sort of crimes DO NOT EVEN GO TO PRISON. How can you not understand our point? We live in a culture where women are given preferential treatment. Can you construct an argument to refute this point? The FBI stats PROVE that women receive far less harsh sentences than their male counterparts. Is that equality? Did you read the link I posted? Do you think it would be viewed as humor if it was directed at women? Can you construct an argument to refute this point?
Go to Amazon and buy Legalizing Misandry. The authors have done an exhaustive job of collecting examples of legal and social double standards that favor women. If you are really serious abouut understanding us, make the effort to educate yourself. At the very LEAST let us have no more of this nonsense that you are being somehow attacked. It’s getting really threadbare at this point.
“I have no intention of rebutting what was said. There is absolutely no reason to try and have a conversation with any of you.”
Yeah, you’re the one seeking ‘understanding’ all right! You have no intention of a rebuttal because you know very well you CAN’T. You keep saying there’s no point in having this conversation and blah blah blah but you keep showing up, like an outbreak of Herpes. If you’re so vastly superior to us then by all means leave us to our fate and stop wasting our time and yours.
“I’m supposed to accept everything the rest of you say at face value but I’m not accorded the same curtesy.”
No one’s asking you to accept anything; feel free to rouse yourself to the effort of doing actual RESEARCH. We have nothing to hide, unlike the opposition. You can start by learning about the oft refuted Wage Gap idiocy, with which you chose to begin your tenure here. Go on. We’ll wait.
“I did not post it for shock value I posted it to show the horrible things men do to women just as you claim women to horrible things to men.”
How can you be this obtuse? seriously? It is the SENTENCING which illustrates the double standard. Do you understand that? Don’t bother addressing me again without an acknowledgment that you finally get this.
“By the way Flint’s Gunner do you kiss your mother with that mouth?”
Right. I’m the one with the problem. And as the ONLY person to plunge into the gutter thus far you are emminently qualified to criticize me. And then you wonder why we sneer at you.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:23 am“As she has a husband, 3 small boys and a job she declines to spend her limited time with you.”
Right. That’s exactly why she declines. After all, the rest of us were hatched from eggs and so have no family. friends or interests outside of this web site. What a shame your friend isn’t in the same shoes, otherwise we could only benefit from her unbiased viewpoint.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:30 amI keep coming here trying to gain understanding. Thanks for the book reference.
gwallen the presidental pay gap I referred to is real fact.
Flint’s Gunner
“As she has a husband, 3 small boys and a job she declines to spend her limited time with you.”
Right. That’s exactly why she declines. After all, the rest of us were hatched from eggs and so have no family. friends or interests outside of this web site. What a shame your friend isn’t in the same shoes, otherwise we could only benefit from her unbiased viewpoint.
You lost me there.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pmWhile I’m waiting for my book you might like to comment on this
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/85524/
and this
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html
and this
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html
and this
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm Why are young me opting out of going to college? Is it because Mr. Bush makes appearing stupid an acceptable option, do they not want to do the work, just what? It’s certainly not good for our country.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI’ve done a little research on the VAMA tonight. So far I’ve discovered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act that the act was sponsored in Congress by Joe Biden, a man, and approved by the 103th Congress (481 men, 43 women) and signed into law by a male president.
It was reauthorized in 2000 (470 men, 65 woman) and yet again in 2005 (462 men, 74 women) and signed into law by a male president.
So how can you claim “feminists” have done anything to you? Notice the preponderance of men here? Did feminist take each and every one into the back alley and threaten their very lives? How was this evil perpetrated upon you not once but 3 different times?
Damn I wish I had known we had that much power. Imagine a world where every child gets a decent education, where only old men who think war is a good thing have to fight it, health insurance, oh the dreams.
I’ve yet to do any research on the gender makeup of the Judicial system.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:49 pmThe second president to sign the VAMA, yes none other than Shrub. Yes the most anti-woman president in a long, long time signed the VAMA into law.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:10 pmJudical for a start
Only two women have served on the U.S. Supreme Court during its first two hundred years of existence
Surely Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg are not the makers of your supposed abuse.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:13 pmAs for the US Circuit Court of appeals - from the data I can find there are 209 justices, 46 of whom are women.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am@winecat: What does the gender makeup of governing bodies have to do with the feminization of our laws and their enforcement? I challenge you to explain the correlation.
*hint* Kindergarten-level answers like “Well, most of the members have penises, therefore they vote in favor of men” won’t do it.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:23 amI don’t need to explain the feminization of our laws. I think it about time women were treated as equal under the law. But gee, since women don’t have a lot of input into making the rule of law or enforcing it how indeed are the laws getting feminized? I’m sure you have an opinion.
Perhaps feminists have taken the members of Congress out behind the woodshed. Are members of Congress so terrorized by women that they feel the need to abandon men to us moral and spiritual lepers?
And since the majority of members of Congress are men why are they choosing to vote for these laws? Clearly they’re not voting in favor of men in your opinion, who’s coercing them?
You and the horse you rode in on.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:37 amI can’t figure out if you’re stupid, or just deliberately obtuse. You brought up the VAWA law, not me (and it’s VAWA, btw, not VAMA). If that’s not a feminist law, I don’t know what is. As far as I know, violence against anyone was already illegal, but now we need special provisions for women?
Whatever, winecat. The fact is, feminism is about the girls against the boys. Equality would be all of us working together, and everyone being subject to the same laws and their enforcement.
We do agree on one thing. Women should be treated equally under the law. But our feminist society will never allow that.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pm>>bride burning in India
Note that it is 100% done by women to women. check it out. What kind of mentally ill person would blame men for something that is exclusively done by women?
Historically, civilized societies made provisions for women who have an extreme hatred and fear of men. They called them convents and society was thus protected from the large number of false charges filed by these mentally ill women against good men.
Today, we put these mentally ill women in charge of government offices with extreme power to destroy any man who upsets any other mentally ill woman.
The old, tired argument that these insane laws are correct because male legislators passed them transcends boredom. We are nominally a republic, which means we elect our legislators. Any legislator who does not bow and scrape in front of the couple hundred thousand vicious man-haters who essentially run this nation will lose the next election. Women are a majority of voters, and like bees in a hive obediently obey the wackoes who tell them how to vote and think.
Kelly Mac, you are a better person than I am. If I had my own blog, posters like winecat would be sent packing if they continued to post sexist comments and continued to refuse to supply logical support for their misandry.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pmFor Anonymous age 66
from Wikipedia
Bride burning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Related terms:
Dowry
Bride-burning is a form of domestic violence practiced in parts of India, Pakista
[edit] References
1. ^ A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance
2.
3. ^ R.A.V v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382-84 (1992)
4. ^ Slate Explainer
5. ^ BBC
6. ^ Repubblica
7. ^ NYT
8. ^ Congressional Testimony: “The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?”. Microsoft.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Freedom of speech
* Timeline: a history of free speech
* UN-Resolution 217 A III - (Meinungsfreiheit.org)
* ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression
* The journalist fired for calling Bush a coward after 9/11
* Banned Magazine, the journal of censorship and secrecy.
* International Freedom of Expression Exchange
* irrepressible.info - Amnesty International’s campaign against internet repression
* Organization of American States - Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
* Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Representative on Freedom of the Media
* African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights - Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
* UNESCO - Programme on Freedom of Expression
* FREEMUSE - Freedom of Musical Expression
* Ringmar, Erik A Blogger’s Manifesto: Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet (London: Anthem Press, 2007)
* The BOBs - weblog award promoting freedom of speech
* UN undermines freedom of expression, rapporteur to nail anti-Islamic speech
* The Expressionist: India’s track record
* Worldwide Governance Indicators Worldwide ratings of country performances on Voice and Accountability and other governance dimensions from 1996 to present.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech”
Categories: Civil rights and liberties | Freedom of expression | Human rights
Hidden categories: Articles with limited geographic scope | Articles needing additional references from July 2007
Views
* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History
Personal tools
* Log in / create account
Navigation
* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article
Interaction
* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help
Search
Toolbox
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page
Languages
* ???????
* ?????????
* Català
* ?esky
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Eesti
* Español
* Français
* ???
* Hrvatski
* Italiano
* ?????
* Latviešu
* Nederlands
* ???
* ?Norsk (bokmål)?
* ?Norsk (nynorsk)?
* Polski
* Português
* ???????
* Simple English
* Sloven?ina
* Suomi
* Svenska
* Ti?ng Vi?t
* ??????????
* ??????
* ??
Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation
* This page was last modified on 13 May 2008, at 16:20.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation LicenseFreedom of speech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Free speech)
• Interested in contributing to Wikipedia? •
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the general concept. For freedom of speech in specific jurisdictions, see Freedom of speech by country. For the 1943 painting/poster, see Freedom of Speech (painting).
Globe icon
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Part of a series on
Freedom
By concept
Economic freedom
Philosophical freedom
Political freedom
Liberty
By form
Assembly
Association
From government
Movement
Press
Religion and beliefs
Speech & expression
Thought
Self-defense
Other
Censorship
Coercion
Children’s rights
Human rights
Indices
Media transparency
Negative liberty
Positive liberty
Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Theories of free speech
o 1.1 Self-governance
o 1.2 Discovering truth
o 1.3 Promoting tolerance
* 2 Restrictions on free speech
* 3 The Internet
* 4 See also
* 5 Research Resources
* 6 References
* 7 External links
[edit] Theories of free speech
One justification for free speech is a general liberal or libertarian presumption against coercing individuals from living how they please and doing what they want. However, a number of more specific justifications are commonly proposed.
For example, Justice McLachlin of the Canadian Supreme Court identified the following in R. v. Keegstra, a 1990 case on hate speech:
1. Free speech promotes “The free flow of ideas essential to political democracy and democratic institutions” and limits the ability of the state to subvert other rights and freedoms
2. It promotes a marketplace of ideas, which includes, but is not limited to, the search for truth
3. It is intrinsically valuable as part of the self-actualization of speakers and listeners
4. It is justified by the dangers for good government of allowing its suppression.
Such reasons perhaps overlap. Together, they provide a widely accepted rationale for the recognition of freedom of speech as a basic civil liberty.
Each of these justifications can be elaborated in a variety of ways and some may need to be qualified. The first and fourth can be bracketed together as democratic justifications, or a justification relating to self-governance. They relate to aspects of free speech’s political role in a democratic society. The second is related to the discovery of truth. The third relates most closely to general libertarian values but stresses the particular importance of language, symbolism and representation for our lives and autonomy.
This analysis suggests a number of conclusions. First, there are powerful overlapping arguments for free speech as a basic political principle in any liberal democracy. Second, however, free speech is not a simple and absolute concept but a liberty that is justified by even deeper values. Third, the values implicit in the various justifications for free speech may not apply equally strongly to all kinds of speech in all circumstances.
Noam Chomsky states that:
* “If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”
o Source: In Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992
* “If we don’t believe in free expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
o Source: Interview by John Pilger on BBC’s The Late Show, November 25, 1992
[edit] Self-governance
Freedom of speech is crucial in any participatory democracy, because open discussions of candidates are essential for voters to make informed decisions during elections. It is through speech that people can influence their government’s choice of policies. Also, public officials are held accountable through criticisms that can pave the way for their replacement. The US Supreme Court has spoken of the ability to criticize government and government officials as “the central meaning of the First Amendment.” New York Times v. Sullivan. But “guarantees for speech and press are not the preserve of political expression or comment upon public affairs, essential as those are to healthy government.” Time, Inc. v. Hill.
Some suggest that when citizens refrain from voicing their discontent because they fear retribution, the government can no longer be responsive to them, thus it is less accountable for its actions. Defenders of free speech often allege that this is the main reason why governments suppress free speech – to avoid accountability.
However, it may be argued that some restrictions on freedom of speech may be compatible with democracy or even necessary to protect it. For example, such arguments are used to justify restrictions on the support of Nazi ideas in post-war Germany. They have also been used to justify restrictions on obscenity, which was long thought to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Research conducted over the last decade, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, recognizes that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. Voice and Accountability within a country, defined as “the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media”[1] is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.
[edit] Discovering truth
A classic argument for protecting freedom of speech as a fundamental right is that it is essential for the discovery of truth. This argument is particularly associated with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” In Abrams v. United States Justice Holmes also invoked the powerful metaphor of the “marketplace of ideas.”
This marketplace of ideas rationale for freedom of speech has been criticized by scholars on the grounds that it is wrong to assume all ideas will enter the marketplace of ideas, and even if they do, some ideas may drown out others merely because they enjoy dissemination through superior resources.
The marketplace is also criticized for its assumption that truth will necessarily triumph over falsehood. It is visible throughout history that people may be swayed by emotion rather than reason, and even if truth ultimately prevails, enormous harm can occur during the interim. However, even if these weaknesses of the marketplace of ideas are acknowledged, supporters argue that the alternative of government determination of truth and censorship of falsehoods is worse.
Alan Haworth in his book Free Speech (1998), has suggested that the metaphor of a marketplace of ideas is misleading. He argues that Mill’s classic defence of free speech, in On Liberty, does not develop the idea of a market (as later suggested by Holmes) but essentially argues for the freedom to develop and discuss ideas in the search for truth or understanding. In developing this argument, Haworth says Mill pictured society not as a marketplace of ideas, but as something more like a large-scale academic seminar. This implies the need for tacit standards of conduct and interaction, including some degree of mutual respect. That may well limit the kinds of speech that are justifiably protected.
Another way of putting this point is to concede Mill’s claim that freedom of speech of certain kinds is needed for rational inquiry. This can support the claimed need to protect potentially unpopular ideas. However, it can then be added that this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a wide range of speech, including offensive or insulting speech, must be given the same protection.
As put by Mill, the argument can also be seen as somewhat elitist, since it may seem that relatively little speech or expression appeals primarily to the intellect. However, there are senses in which this justification can be extended beyond the speech of individuals who are involved in narrowly intellectual inquiry, such as scientists and academic scholars. In one sense, it merges with justifications based on autonomy, if it is interpreted as relating to the psychological need felt by individuals to pursue truth and understanding. In another sense, it may be extended to the protection of literature and art that has a claim to some kind of social value.
[edit] Promoting tolerance
Still another explanation is that freedom of speech is integral to tolerance, which some people feel should be a basic value in society. Professor Lee Bollinger is an advocate of this view and argues that “the free speech principle involves a special act of carving out one area of social interaction for extraordinary self-restraint, the purpose of which is to develop and demonstrate a social capacity to control feelings evoked by a host of social encounters.” The free speech principle is left with the concern of nothing less than helping to shape “the intellectual character of the society”.
This claim is to say that tolerance is a desirable, if not essential, value, and that protecting unpopular speech is itself an act of tolerance. Such tolerance serves as a model that encourages more tolerance throughout society. Critics argue that society need not be tolerant of the intolerance of others, such as those who advocate great harm, such as genocide. Preventing such harms is claimed to be much more important than being tolerant of those who argue for them.
[edit] Restrictions on free speech
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)
Socialists have historically been denied freedom of speech in a number of countries. This poster promotes Eugene V. Debs’ (left) 1912 bid for President of the United States. In 1920 Debs ran again but while incarcerated for speaking out against American involvement in World War I.
Socialists have historically been denied freedom of speech in a number of countries. This poster promotes Eugene V. Debs’ (left) 1912 bid for President of the United States. In 1920 Debs ran again but while incarcerated for speaking out against American involvement in World War I.
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of ‘free speech’ it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was “likely to incite imminent lawless action”. To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.[2]
Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies in many places around the world, have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved.
Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:
* Defamation (slander and libel)
* Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
* Obscenity
* Threats
* Lying in court (perjury)
* Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
* Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (sub judice).
* Speaking publicly without a permit
* Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
* Limits on the size of public demonstrations
* Profanity
* Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
* Noise pollution
* Speech that contains a copyright infringement
* Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
* Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
* Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[3]
* Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
* Fighting words doctrine:(U.S. 1942) “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”
* Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
* Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
* Blasphemy is illegal in several Western and Muslim countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)
* The first clause of UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 punishes “Encouragement of terrorism” with up to seven years in jail.
* In Sweden a law called “Hets mot folkgrupp” (”Agitation against an ethnic group”), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia.
* In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited “services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures”. (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code)
* Article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, makes it illegal to insult ‘Turkish national identity’.
Specific recent examples that may involve freedom of speech include:
* Virginia Law - § 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another.
If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 18.1-255; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)
There is often a fine line defining what speech may or may not be censored. Members of Westboro Baptist Church frequently challenge this line and have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
There is often a fine line defining what speech may or may not be censored. Members of Westboro Baptist Church frequently challenge this line and have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
* Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia (Gunns Website) is suing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three non-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20 (Friends of the Gunns 20). Although this example involves a private law suit, not government censorship, some claim that it is an abuse of defamation law, since it ties up the environmental activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns may build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania. According to this view, the plaintiffs are not genuinely seeking to vindicate their reputations and they are seeking to scare off other activists with the prospect of ruinous legal expense. Such cases raise interesting questions about the extent to which powerful corporate interests should have access to defamation law.
* In the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in 2005 banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, under the Cenotaph in October, without police permission.[4]
* In Italy, media Tycoon Silvio Berlusconi censored the satirical Raiot series by Sabina Guzzanti after the first broadcast on RAI (the state TV), arguing that it was plain vulgarity and disrespectful to the government. As his company Mediaset threatened a lawsuit for €21,000,000, the RAI board of directors, appointed by Berlusconi’s political majority, closed the series effective immediately, claiming that such a lawsuit was an economic liability for the company. Ms. Guzzanti went to court and won the case, but the Italian government and RAI refused to follow the court order and the show never went on air again. Berlusconi had previously had two highly esteemed journalists (Michele Santoro and Enzo Biagi) and a comedy actor (Daniele Luttazzi) removed from RAI by saying explicitly, in a press conference in Bulgaria, that the new board of directors, which his majority had just appointed, should not allow their “criminal usage” of television.[5]
* In some European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the Holocaust in February, 2006.
* In many countries, public school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality). Canadian Chris Kempling was suspended without pay for writing letters, on his own time, to a local newspaper to object to LGBT-related material being introduced into public schools. Kempling pursued the freedom of speech issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada without success.
* Some consider the deportation of a foreign peace activist Scott Parkin from Australia in September 2005 to have been an attack on free speech, claimed by the federal government to be a risk to national security.
* Prominent South African journalist and media personality, Jani Allan, has criticized freedom of speech in South Africa. In October 2000, when her contract with Cape Talk Radio was terminated, she claimed that the owners had found her show too controversial and “politically incorrect”. [6]
* In 2008 the Electoral Finance Act was voted into law by the New Zealand Government. This Act severely limits political expression during election year. [7]
* On January 27th, 2008, The Hong Kong Police Force arrested suspects who were accused of uploading pornographic images after a multi-billion entertainment company filed a complaint about these photos available on the internet having been fabricated and might charge the offender for defamation. [8] [9] [10]
* In the United States, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever in the private sector. For example, per the terms of at-will employment, an employee can be fired for stating an opinion that the employer disagrees with.
* On March 6, 2008 Associated Press published article called 9/11 attacks harm First Amendment[1] in which its President and CEO Tom Curley states that The shadow of the Sept. 11 terror attacks is eclipsing press freedom and other constitutional safeguards in the United States.
[edit] The Internet
The development of the Internet opened new possibilities for achieving freedom of speech using methods that do not depend on legal measures. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) allow free speech, as the technology guarantees that material cannot be removed (censored). A gripe site is one of the latest forms of exercising free speech on the Internet.
Web sites which fall foul of government censors in other countries are often re-hosted on a server in a country with no such restrictions. Given that the United States has in many respects the least restrictive governmental policies in the world on freedom of speech, many of these websites re-host their content on an American server and thus escape censorship while remaining available to their target audience. This is especially the case with neo-nazi and other sites promoting racial hatred, since these are prohibited in a number of European countries. It should be mentioned, however, that the US Government has attempted to regulate certain acts and speech on the Internet (US v. Baker).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an organization dedicated to protecting freedom of speech on the Internet. The Open Net Initiative (ONI) is a collaboration between the Citizen Lab at the Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, the Advanced Network Research Group at the Cambridge Security Programme, University of Cambridge, and the Oxford Internet Institute, at Oxford University which aims to investigate, expose, and analyze Internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible and non-partisan fashion.
Many countries utilize filtering software sold by US companies.[11]
The Chinese government has developed some of the most sophisticated forms of internet censorship in order to control or eliminate access to information on sensitive topics such as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Falun Gong, Tibet, Taiwan, pornography or democracy. They have also enlisted the help of some American companies like Microsoft, who have subsequently been criticized by proponents of freedom of speech.[12]
Main article: Internet censorship in mainland China
[edit] See also
* Censorship
* Clear and present danger
* Copyleft
* Copyright
* Fighting words
* Fleeting expletive
* Free content
* Freedom of information
* Freedom of the press
* Gripe site
* Heckler’s veto
* Imminent lawless action
* Media transparency
* OAS Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
* Parrhesia
* Worldwide Governance Indicators
[show]
v • d • e
Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
General Principles
Article 1: Freedom, Egalitarianism, Dignity, and Brotherhood · Article 2: Universality of rights
Civil and Political Rights.
Treaty: International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights
Article 3: Right to life, liberty and security of person · Article 4: Freedom from slavery · Article 5: Freedom from torture and cruel, unusual punishment · Article 6: Right to personhood · Article 7: Equality before the law · Article 8: Right to effective remedy from the law · Article 9: Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, and exile · Article 10: Right to fair trial · Article 11.1: Presumption of innocence · Article 11.2: Prohibition of retrospective law · Article 12: Right to Privacy · Article 13 Freedom of movement · Article 14: Right of asylum · Article 15: Right to a nationality · Article 16: Right to marriage and family life · Article 17: Right to property · Article 18: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion · Article 19: Freedom of opinion and expression · Article 20.1: Freedom of assembly · Article 20.2: Freedom of association · Article 21.1: Right to participation in government · Article 21.2: Right of equal access to public office · Article 21.3: Right to universal suffrage
Social, Cultural and Economic Rights.
Treaty: International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights
Article 22: Right to social security · Article 23.1: Right to work · Article 23.2: Right to equal pay for equal work · Article 23.3: Right to just remuneration · Article 23.4: Right to join a trade union · Article 24: Right to rest & leisure · Article 25.1: Right to an adequate standard of living · Article 25.2: Right to special care and assistance for mothers and children · Article 26.1: Right to education · Article 26.2: Human rights education · Article 26.3: Right to choice of education · Article 27.1: Right to participate in culture · Article 27.2: Right to intellectual property
Context, limitations and duties
Article 28: Social order · Article 29.1: Social responsibility · Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights · Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations · Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Human Rights Category · Human Rights Portal
[edit] Research Resources
* First Amendment Library
* International Freedom of Expression Exchange
[edit] References
1. ^ A Decade of Measuring the Quality of Governance
2.
3. ^ R.A.V v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382-84 (1992)
4. ^ Slate Explainer
5. ^ BBC
6. ^ Repubblica
7. ^ NYT
8. ^ Congressional Testimony: “The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?”. Microsoft.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-18.
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Freedom of speech
* Timeline: a history of free speech
* UN-Resolution 217 A III - (Meinungsfreiheit.org)
* ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression
* The journalist fired for calling Bush a coward after 9/11
* Banned Magazine, the journal of censorship and secrecy.
* International Freedom of Expression Exchange
* irrepressible.info - Amnesty International’s campaign against internet repression
* Organization of American States - Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
* Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe - Representative on Freedom of the Media
* African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights - Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
* UNESCO - Programme on Freedom of Expression
* FREEMUSE - Freedom of Musical Expression
* Ringmar, Erik A Blogger’s Manifesto: Free Speech and Censorship in the Age of the Internet (London: Anthem Press, 2007)
* The BOBs - weblog award promoting freedom of speech
* UN undermines freedom of expression, rapporteur to nail anti-Islamic speech
* The Expressionist: India’s track record
* Worldwide Governance Indicators Worldwide ratings of country performances on Voice and Accountability and other governance dimensions from 1996 to present.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech”
Categories: Civil rights and liberties | Freedom of expression | Human rights
Hidden categories: Articles with limited geographic scope | Articles needing additional references from July 2007
Views
* Article
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History
Personal tools
* Log in / create account
Navigation
* Main Page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article
Interaction
* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help
Search
Toolbox
* What links here
* Related changes
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link
* Cite this page
Languages
* ???????
* ?????????
* Català
* ?esky
* Dansk
* Deutsch
* Eesti
* Español
* Français
* ???
* Hrvatski
* Italiano
* ?????
* Latviešu
* Nederlands
* ???
* ?Norsk (bokmål)?
* ?Norsk (nynorsk)?
* Polski
* Português
* ???????
* Simple English
* Sloven?ina
* Suomi
* Svenska
* Ti?ng Vi?t
* ??????????
* ??????
* ??
Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation
* This page was last modified on 13 May 2008, at 16:20.
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
Yes I agree that the tired old argument transcends boredom. First to believe that legislators co tow to a few hundred so-called feminists is beyond stupidity. Just how in the hell are a few hundred people who want something done supposed to brainwash an entire country?
Also I getting tired of the insult that feminist equals manhater. Wouldn’t you agree women are the majority of voters because men are far to lazy to get involved.
Last but not least it’s alright for everyone else who post to makes sexist comments with no logic to back them up but not me? Why is that? Why is nothing I say treated with respect when I’m supposed to tow your party line?
To Kelly Mac,
you are apparently having a problem grasping the concept. Given that the majority of the Legislature is male who is getting them to pass laws that are supposedly bad for them and their fellow men? Is it the few hundred mental ill feminists that anonymous 66 thinks run the country?
Who are these mentally ill women and just what positions of power do they hold?
I see the laws as treating people equally. If you don’t that’s your problem. That’s how the world should operate. Please quiet putting words in my mouth it’s rude and condesending.
from Wikipedia
The Violence Against Women Act’s programs range from policies to encourage the prosecution of abusers, to victim’s services to prevention programs. VAWA helped forge new alliances between police officers, courts, and victim advocates.
No where do I see this law as creating special circumstances for women. They refer to abusers, period, no gender attached.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pmAnd since it doesn’t seem fair to play with the lunatic fringe (anon age 66 - pot, kettle mean anything to you?)
I’ll say TTFN
May 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pmfor those of you who’ve never read Winnie the Pooh that’s ta, ta for now
Don’t tease, winecat.
May 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pmTo Kelly Mac,
you are apparently having a problem grasping the concept. Given that the majority of the Legislature is male who is getting them to pass laws that are supposedly bad for them and their fellow men? Is it the few hundred mental ill feminists that anonymous 66 thinks run the country?
Who are these mentally ill women and just what positions of power do they hold?
I see the laws as treating people equally. If you don’t that’s your problem. That’s how the world should operate. Please quiet putting words in my mouth it’s rude and condesending.
from Wikipedia
The Violence Against Women Act’s programs range from policies to encourage the prosecution of abusers, to victim’s services to prevention programs. VAWA helped forge new alliances between police officers, courts, and victim advocates.
No where do I see this law as creating special circumstances for women. They refer to abusers, period, no gender attached.
What are you talking about “few hundred mentally ill feminists”??? Our entire society has been feminist since the sixties!
Try to follow this, winecat: From the time they are born, children get the same kinds of messages.
Men are stupid buffoons (look at nearly any movie on the market today, television commercials, sitcoms, TV dramas, billboard advertising, etc.).
Men are all rapists (look at the way girls are told “men only want one thing”, 6-year old boys having “sex offender” put on their permanent records because they kissed a 6-year old girl or flipped her dress up, teaching kids about date rape and marital rape and statutory rape – who is the rapist in these scenarios?).
All domestic violence is perpetrated by men (the famous Super Bowl Sunday hoax, movies like “Enough” and “The Burning Bed”, when a gender is used in DV laws, it is always “he” doing the abuse and “she” on the receiving end, when a woman hits her man with a frying pan or shoots him in the back, we automatically assume he must have done something to deserve it – she is always portrayed as a victim).
White men have all the advantages in business (the ad nauseum perpetuation of the wage gap myth, Affirmative Action and the lawsuits filed using the implied discrimination, the proverbial “old boys network”, the fact that there are more men in positions of power than women).
Child molesters are all men (the “48-hours” type investigations, movies, “stranger danger” portrayals, not allowing children flying alone to sit next to a man, men being reported to the police by strangers for holding hands with their own children).
You get told often enough that you’re a monster by parents, teachers, friends, relatives, the media, and you start to believe it. You get told often enough that you’re oppressed and victimized, you start to believe it.
Talk to any feminist man – he’ll feel bad for being male. Is it any wonder at all that in the process of apologizing for “thousands of years of male oppression”, and trying to make it all better, that they pass laws and enforce them to women’s advantage?
Not only that, but there’s a simple little concept called the “Power of Pussy”. See if you can find an entry on THAT in the Wikipedia.
As for the Violence Against Women Act, why in the world do you think it would be named that if it were really the Violence Against Humans Act?
You see the laws as treating people equally. Some may be written that way, but they are by no stretch of the imagination enforced that way. Girl, use the intelligence you were born with, open your eyes, and figure it out.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:53 pmSounds like winecat might be a true believer, or, as her cynical feminist sisters might say, a useful idiot
May 20th, 2008 at 5:47 amwinecat said…
What makes you think feminist groups have had no input in this area? Who do you think provides the training to enforcement and judiciary regarding the treatment of domestic and sexual abuse cases? In the US VAWA funding is provided to advocacy groups specifically for this purpose. Groups involved tend to be feminist based and do not present their training in a gender neutral manner. Why is it that ninety five percent of male sexual assault victims and eighty percent of IPV victims who try to report are turned away?
Were that it so simple. You’ve swallowed the oppression angle hook, line and sinker winecat. So have our politicians for the most part. When advocacy groups present information and statistics to politicians one would normally hope that that information would be reasonably accurate. In Australia domestic violence legislation and funding was created after long term lobbying by womens groups. Same with VAWA in the US. The research they presented in support of their advocacy was gender specific. If politicians act on the basis of slanted information why would you expect anything other than slanted legislation?
Another who believes that male politicians are always biased toward men? Wrong winecat. It is women who will act in a partisan manner based on gender. Only a female politician would demand women vote for her on the basis of gender. Only a woman would assume that it’s impossible to be gender neutral in one’s dealings.
If the past fifty years demonstrates nothing else it is this. In that time men have responded to women’s demands for equality by opening up previously male dominated systems and institutions to women. In addition governments have set up numerous departments and commissions specific to womens issues. They have enabled laws, such as those pertaining to equal opportunity, to be broken if it would service women. For example it is illegal to run a commercial business restricting service to one gender - except where exemptions are granted which they invariably are for women. Hence female only gyms, health commisions, womens studies courses and so on. Where women, particularly feminist women, have control of services invariably they seem to be gender specific.
The proof is in winecat. It is women who will govern or administer in a partisan manner - not men.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pmI can’t believe that feminists are so dumb as to not notice the social and legal changes IN THEIR FAVOUR in the West, especially since the ’60s, as Gwallan points out. That must mean that they lie about it, which makes sense if they’re just gaming the system like their unionist predecessors (ask for 20% and settle for 13, haggling 101)
May 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pmwinecat is at it . .. again.
One thing I’d like to address before I come back in short order is that Ginsberg has backed a few un-Constitutional things, but citing Joe Biden and Bush as promoting and giving their stamp of approval of the VAWA is unimpressive.
I already know that.
As a politician, to be against such an act is to draw serious criticism and heavy fire from not just feminists. Lord forbid that any politician of any stripe be against protecting women, even if on paper! (and by doing so, keeping them in office).
Lobbyists also have quite the say so. Feminists with specific agendas, apparently, must have influence if major gender-specific laws that favor women, perhaps don’t benefit men or cast suspicion on them—or even punish men for a whiff of DV, are on the law books and implemented.
Btw, those men were also voted into office by women as well, and even women, LIBERAL women are skeptical of female politicians. I’ve even spoken to feminists that are not voting for Hillary.
Why is that?
And think about it; many men simply don’t know that Bush signed VAWA (even though they should be alarmed at it’s ramifications), thinking he or any neoCon is inherently anti-feminist because they dub themselves as Republican.
They’re not.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 amWell I just hope young men in the dating phase keep clear of woman like winecat, like I have said on many blogs on the web breed them out, I teach this in my dating course. The young guys are really waking up to women like her, if a person only can see the bad in people, that is all you get….
May 31st, 2008 at 12:51 amthey continue to focus on men as the perps of domestic violence…what do they say when you show them the US government data showing that women abuse and murder more children in US families than any other perp. I suggest we change the definition of ‘domestic violence’ to include violence upon one’s children. women are NOT “sugar and spice and everything nice”. They are just as vile as men, if not more vile than men. They just have better marketing.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 pmI’m going to go out on a limb here and post regardless of possibly getting flames here, but the truth of the matter is that abuse on anyone is not right. I’ve been a victim of abuse, and my brother is currently going through the courts for being a victim of an abusive girlfriend. Let me tell you his story real quick.
He was dating this girl that, in my opinion, is bi-polar and completely out of control. She calls him up one day, after they had broken up, and tell him that she was out at this bar, she dra