Woman Sued for Free Speech in Chat Room

[Hoffma]

Woman Sued Over Chat Room Criticism (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020109/D7GUARL81.html)

This animal lover lady is being sued by the Atlanta Humane Society for insulting their executive director. She made the comments after hearing that the AHS was killing animals without trying to find homes for them. She refered to him as "Mr. Kill" and said he was unworthly to lick poop off of shoes, so the AHS is filing a lawsuit.

"The fundamental issue here is that I was criticizing (Garrett's) performance, and the First Amendment guarantees I can do this," she said. "They picked the wrong person. I'm prepared to fight it all the way."

Garrett's attorney, Edward Greenblatt, said the comments were untrue and malicious.

"I'm a strong believer in the freedom of speech, but it does have its limitation," Greenblatt said.

:rolleyes

Sound familiar? 8|

"There ought to be limits to freedom." --George W. Bush

:sowrong

[SMETZ]

out of context.... try again.

[Gutspiller]

Originally posted by Hoffma
the comments were untrue and malicious.

Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about. I bet this guy got beat up a lot in school. I woulda called him Doctor Death. <img src=images/icons/icon31.gif>

[Hoffma]

Originally posted by SMETZ*99
out of context.... try again.

Pardon?

[Hoffma]

I assume this is what you wanted when you mentioned context.

Click Here for MP3 (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/3137/limits_to_freedom.mp3)

What this context has to do with anything here is beyond me. Yes, I know, it can be misleading to the point of intentional deception to quote people out of context, but in this situation, context just happens to be completely irrelevant. If you listen to that MP3, Bush himself is not speaking in context. He heard the question, whether or not he was actually listening, and goes on to leave that question unanswered, committing this fallacy in the process.

The man in the MP3 asks, “How far should these guys go?” and Bush proceeds to not answer the question twice, first by drawing a parallel between politics and garbage, and next by saying, “There ought to be limits—There ought to be limits—There ought to be limits to, uh, uh, to freedom.” Perhaps the MP3 cuts off before he actually does answer the question, but that’s also irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is that George Walker Bush, on May 22nd, 1999, said, “There ought to be limits to freedom.” At least that’s what he intended to say, had he not been stuttering.

Speaking of parallels, here's the one I was trying to draw:

gwbush.com satirizes Bush.
Bush says freedom should be limited.

A woman in Georgia makes insults of the executive director of her local Humane Society.
That executive director says freedom should be limited.

I'm just fucking stunned by the fact that there are people in the world, some of them leading us to war, who don't seem to understand that freedom and limits are mutually exclusive. "Freedom" is defined as "the condition of being free of restraints." If something that is free has limits or restraints imposed upon it, it is no longer free and no longer has freedom.

It’s a base-level fallacy that shouldn’t require a logician’s interpretation. It's a fucking stupid thing to say, whether you're the President or a Muppet, and in the news today, the executive director of the Atlanta Humane Society is quoted as having said just that.

[lmwblw]

Originally posted by Hoffma
I'm just fucking stunned by the fact that there are people in the world, some of them leading us to war, who don't seem to understand that freedom and limits are mutually exclusive. "Freedom" is defined as "the condition of being free of restraints." If something that is free has limits or restraints imposed upon it, it is no longer free and no longer has freedom.

Kinda like fucking and stunned? 'Fact' and 'seem'? Or 'is' is not is?
Let us explore 'freedom' 'the condition of being free from restraints'. Does this mean no rules? Rules are 'restraints'. No laws? What about when two people's freedom contradict? Ex. I want to be free of you Democratic propaganda, therefor I tie you down and gag you. Me? I'm free. You? Are not. Who is in the right? Freedom in a political arena is the ability to pursue happiness, but not to impose upon others' 'freedom'.
Yes, freedom has it's limits and is necessary. I can not run naked with Mr. Bitchtits (GS) in a park downtown. So what would we call this restrained freedom? For you definition to be literal would create anarchy and chaos. So please tell us what our new Democratically defined 'restrained freedom' is called.

[Hoffma]

Let us explore 'freedom' 'the condition of being free from restraints'. Does this mean no rules? Rules are 'restraints'. No laws? What about when two people's freedom contradict? Ex. I want to be free of you Democratic propaganda, therefor I tie you down and gag you. Me? I'm free. You? Are not. Who is in the right? Freedom in a political arena is the ability to pursue happiness, but not to impose upon others' 'freedom'.
Yes, freedom has it's limits and is necessary. I can not run naked with Mr. Bitchtits (GS) in a park downtown. So what would we call this restrained freedom? For you definition to be literal would create anarchy and chaos.

Let us explore Bush’s quote, “There ought to be limits to freedom.” This quote contains the implication that there are currently no limits to freedom. But are there? Yes. There are laws, leashes, restraints, walls, limits, bridles, and many other synonyms as well. When I read this quote, I don’t think that Bush is referring to an America that is absolutely free. Rather, I believe him to be referring to the land and people of the United States under their current government with its current laws, as free as it probably has been since this land was stolen from its natives.

I generally think of the word “freedom”, unless it is modified by any form of the word “absolute” or any synonyms thereof, to simply mean “more free than not.” Of course, this leaves us with a hazy definition that is open to individual interpretation, and that’s why, for the sake of conversation, I used the literal definition of “freedom” in my previous post. Were Bush as wordy as I tend to be, he may have said, “There are currently laws which limit our freedom, which is not absolute. It is my opinion that there should be more such laws to impose more limits on our freedom of speech.” If that was the Bush quote I was working with in this thread, I probably wouldn’t have needed to clarify myself nearly as much.

Having established that America is not absolutely free, but rather at least more free than not, lets look at how that quote works in context. When Bush was asked how far a proprietor of a critical website should go when they’re condemning him, he responded that this current freedom, which is not absolute, should be limited. The only meaning I can garner from this is that Bush believes our current freedom of speech to be too lenient. Reconsidering, I suppose Bush didn’t necessarily leave the question unanswered, but rather answered it indirectly. If you’ve interpreted this differently, by all means, tell me what you think of it.

In the news piece I posted, Edward Greenblatt is quoted as having said, "I'm a strong believer in the freedom of speech, but it does have its limitation." In this quote, I believe Greenblatt to be confusing his own opinion of what is good and proper with actual legislation. I’m unsure if there are hate-speech laws or any such “speech limits” in our code, but last time I checked there was no law that said you could not insult or criticize someone in a position of authority, ipso facto.

That’s the issue here. The question is, “Have Americans been granted the freedom to vocally criticize authority?” I infer by their respective quotes that Bush’s answer would be akin to, “Yes, but this freedom should be revoked,” and that Greenblatt’s answer would not be unlike, “No, they do not have this freedom, and this woman in this chatroom did vocally disrespect my authoritah, so I’m going to sue her.”

If the freedom of speech granted in the first amendment were so restrictive as to keep anyone from legally criticizing certain people based on their authority, then it would be my opinion that such freedom of speech doesn't even reach the mark of “more free than not”. Rather, it is totalitarian. If there were laws in the books against such things, then it would be my opinion that our so-called “freedom of speech” would impose more restraint than it would grant liberation. Keep in mind, this is my opinion of a hypothetical law. This is my opinion of what it would be like if it were illegal for someone to speak negatively of corporations, the upper 1%, executives, politicians, or perhaps even self-proclaimed “leaders”.

Do you disagree? If so, why?