What is FREE SPEECH?

[Nathyn]

Hey guys, I sent a shout out to DVXuser.com on my latest article on my Myspace blog. If you find any mistakes let me know, I tried to get them and probably didn't find everything.

-Nate

 

[ugafan]

according to their own website, digg.com is a "digital democracy", in which "you participate in determining all site content". if that is the case, i can see why people got upset when topics were censured, and users banned.

i have no problem with a site making rules and setting guidelines as far as what they tolerate. it should just be made more clear what users are allowed to do.

 

[Nathyn]

True, but no site is allowed to participate in breaking the law. If it's found out it could be major problems and Digg's fans should be understanding of that. I love DVXUser, I don't want it shut down. (Join date March 2004). I can't see myself just deciding screw Barry and Jarred I'll do what I want at the cost of the site.

Digg doesn't want to get shut down nor sued (which normally can end with a shut down). And let me tell you this, no pure democracy works. People are simply not decent enough. Too many people are okay with causing harm to their fellow man whether it's big corporations or the other vice-versa The Digg situation is case in point.

-Nate

 

[HorseFilms]

I couldn't agree more, Nathyn. We have moderators here for a reason. They keep things in order and out of trouble. I'd hate to see this place shut down. It's too important to filmmakers. It's really a free film school.

 

[Kirk Gillock]

I agree too, Nathyn.

I'm tired of people who are always claiming "I can do this" or "I can say this" because of the First Amendment. When they should be asking themselves, "Should I do this?" or "Should I say this?".

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

You can burp in someone's face, but it doesn't mean you should.

 

[Nathyn]

I don't think the "shoulds or shouldn'ts" are really taken into account by some people, especially teens whom I assume populate Digg, Myspace and the rest. And every time I hear someone screaming about free speech I cringe because it's rarely used in the right context.

-Nate

 

[-zach-]

You know what would be ironic?

If this conversation strays into the wrong territory and gets shut down by a mod.

That would pretty much sum up the whole thing.

 

[Zak Forsman]

considering this is a filmmaking web site and the issue of should/shouldn't having been raised.... i already see a lot of irony.

 

[ugafan]

True, but no site is allowed to participate in breaking the law. If it's found out it could be major problems and Digg's fans should be understanding of that. I love DVXUser, I don't want it shut down. (Join date March 2004). I can't see myself just deciding screw Barry and Jarred I'll do what I want at the cost of the site.

Digg doesn't want to get shut down nor sued (which normally can end with a shut down). And let me tell you this, no pure democracy works. People are simply not decent enough. Too many people are okay with causing harm to their fellow man whether it's big corporations or the other vice-versa The Digg situation is case in point.

-Nate

as far as i'm concerned, the digg situation is unique and very different from dvxuser. dvxuser is an online community of filmakers that discuss various topics related to making movies. it's not an "online democracy". there are moderators that lock threads, delete posts, and ban people that they feel don't follow the rules of the forum. users do contribute to site content, but objectionable posts are taken down.

digg.com operates under a different model. the whole concept is that users get to talk about whatever stories interest them. popular stories get bumped up and less popular ones get bumped down. they police themselves. unfortunately, this structure can create problems, as exhibited by what happened this past week.

if digg.com wants to change their policy, that's fine. but they need to let people know that not everything that is submitted will be voted on by the digg community, as they currently claim.

 

[bosindy]

Nathyn, I agree with the basic premise of your argument. Where you may be misleading is in that freedom of speech is only protected against laws enacted by congress. Reading law on its face rarely tells the whole story.

Freedom of speech is protection from general government interference on all levels. There are public policy limits to speech (advertising, slander, copyright, inciting) but beyond that, no level of government can interfere with speech or persecute a person for that speech. States have put free speech language in their state constitutions expanding or reaffirming the general principles, but they could not (or local govts could not) impermissible restrict speech beyond federal constitutional limits. (supremacy clause and 14th amendment)

As you mentioned, the private sector can limit speech as it sees fit. (as in the Imus example) (of course this argument becomes complicated when private institutions receive governmental support and become quasi private or public)

 

[Nathyn]

considering this is a filmmaking web site and the issue of should/shouldn't having been raised.... i already see a lot of irony.

Actually the issue does come up around here and on a lot filmmaking forms I've been on. The idea of just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. Just recently we (DVXUser) was embroiled in a discussion about a website that found a legal way to rent content without permission of the content creator without the creators being paid, but because it was legal they felt justified.

Freedom of speech is protection from general government interference on all levels. There are public policy limits to speech (advertising, slander, copyright, inciting) but beyond that, no level of government can interfere with speech or persecute a person for that speech.

True but we all know of situations where the government has censored people.

You know what would be ironic?

If this conversation strays into the wrong territory and gets shut down by a mod.

That would pretty much sum up the whole thing.

Ironic? LOL. Wouldn't even surprise me but then again it does go back to this being a privately owned site. But yes the last Digg conversation got shut down for obvious reasons so I tried to stir mine somewhat down another path to keep it from straying but considering freedom of speech is something near and dear to all of us I think it's important to discuss what it actually is so I think we're pretty safe.

-Nate

 

[Zak Forsman]

Actually the issue does come up around here and on a lot filmmaking forms I've been on. The idea of just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. Just recently we (DVXUser) was embroiled in a discussion about a website that found a legal way to rent content without permission of the content creator without the creators being paid, but because it was legal they felt justified.

yeah, i remember. followed that one closely. i also see an irony in that filmmakers are faced with a should/shouldn't dilemna in nearly every story/character-oriented choice they make. meaning, because I can find an audience in men's fantasies for the "hooker with a heart of gold", should I perpetuate those unrealistic stereotypes? should I contribute to the glorification of violence without realistic consequences? just because I'm a capable storyteller, should I continue to use my gifts to reassure the audience of things that aren't true; or do I have a responsibility as a human being that wants to contribute something that matters, to not sit idly by as the prevailing wisdom that "sex and violence sells" washes over us... that sort of thing.

 

[Nathyn]

yeah, I remember. followed that one closely. I also see an irony in that filmmakers are faced with a should/shouldn't dilemna in nearly every story/character-oriented choice they make. meaning, because I can find an audience in men's fantasies for the "hooker with a heart of gold", should I perpetuate those unrealistic stereotypes?

OMG I got a hooker with a heart of gold in my flick. Well not a heart of gold but certainly a hooker whose not happy with the lifestyle. But you know what, you're right, when I think about it, there is kind of a weird a fondness for the hooker with a heart of gold. Pretty Woman made Julia Robert's career. It's funny because even I must admit some fondness for that film and I'm certainly not a JR fan.

Wow, that's interesting. I personally don't believe every woman on the street wants to be there but the "Heart of gold" thing is somewhat unrealistic. But then I again what do I know, I'm waiting to see a man with the powers of a Spider take on a Man made of sand and an Alien that for some reason decides to become his costume. Guess that tells you a lot about me. But then again, with great power comes great responsibility.

Big audience for hookers with a heart of gold? I guess that explains some things.

-Nate