Is curious, I have seen Christians use public space as their personal forum all the time. I have seen preachers in public parks, talk for hours (saying very ugly things about unbelievers, infidels and members of other religions and churches in the process) and it never crossed in my mind that they ought to be arrested. But then, you still miss the point that in this case nobody is forced to watch and hear what it is said in a CABLE television channel. Nobody forces you to see it, nor to buy the signal. So I still wonder why you think you have the right to censor what you consider “indecent”.

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, again: Do you understand the difference between a boycott and the use of coercion to censor somebody? Do you understand that the former is intent to persuade people from not supporting, hearing or watching a message and the second implies that you silence that same person using force, arresting or physically impeding him or her to deliver it?

So you’re all in favor of freedom of speech, but see nothing wrong with applying pressure to advertisers to make them feel like they must pull their advertising or else suffer economic harm.

Why am I not surprised?

Well, you’re welcome to make up your own laws if you want.

But I simply don’t recognize you as having a right to be sexually explicit around kids.

Your right to free expression does not include the right to be publicly supported, or the right to use public spaces as your personal forum in any way or at any time.

Some time back I saw a skinhead set himself up in a public park and he started yelling out obscenities aimed at the local racial minorities. Do you argue that he had the right to do this, since the space was public and he has the right to freedom of speech? (Because he was arrested, after almost inciting a riot).

If you feel your urge to make other people feel violated is a genuine need, then you are welcome to go be as indecent as you want in the name of “free expression”, but you’re not welcome to do it in the schools, in the public parks, or on the public airwaves.

Oh, I am aware of that, but I do not agree that the government has such “right” nor that broadcasting whatever you want on airwaves is a “privilege” granted by the State. Anyways, if I am not wrong, the discussion is centered about something which was said on a cable television channel, which is not something broadcast thru radio waves (correct me if I am wrong).

Blake:

“The right to free speech is not the same as the right to use that free speech all the time, in all places and venues.”

But of course it is in general terms, with exceptions regarding threatening other people rights in the process (like threatening someone to death etc, which is NOT the case we are discussing). So I do not accept any of your premises about “common standards of decency”, especially when such a thing is a highly subjective question (as I said, I find many of what conservative talk radio shows say “offensive”, and not necessarily because they use curse words; but I know I have not the right to censor them). So yes, If want to be “shocking” in the public arena (TV, radio, press) I have every right, because that is what free speech is about. And yes, I do not care if my position is contrary to what the “mayority” of people think (since when the number of people that support your position make it right?).

About Rush Limbaugh: What I have seen is a movement to boycott his show, not a direct attempt to censor him or cut his program out of the airwaves thru the use of force. The former seems to me a legitimate way of fighting what you may consider offensive use of language or expression on the airwaves, because it is based on persuasion, not force. As far as I am concerned, conservatives have the same right to use such methods with expressions or people they don´t like (Bono, Bill Maher, etc…). But no, you think you are entitled to simply ban and cut of the airwaves whatever you consider “indecent”. That is unacceptable.

That said, it is also true that most Americans don’t know the difference between swearing and vulgar language. I offer a hint for those who don’t know what I’m talking about, the f-word is not a swear word.

You are confusing two different questions.

The right to free speech is not the same as the right to use that free speech all the time, in all places and venues.

You have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to say whatever you want when you are in spaces where you are rightfully expected to share the space with others.

In public shared areas or “commons”, we have standards of decency, because your right to say what you want is counterbalanced by my right to not be assaulted physically or verbally, emotionally or in any other way.

There are rules that govern restricting behaviors. For instance, it is recognized that there are types of programs – there are programs that need to be kept family-friendly, and there are programs that are more mature. This form of segregation ensures that nobody is excluded – because you’re not the only one with rights: it wouldn’t be fair if everyone had to support the commons, but your group was the only group that got to use it.

And gratuitousness matters as well. There is no reason to be offensive just for the sake of being offensive. We have not yet formally recognized the link between legitimate needs/legitimate rights, but it’s coming, because the basis of true rights has always been linked to legitimate need. You have a need for self-expression; you don’t necessarily need to be shocking just for the sake of shocking, and when the pleasure of being vulgar is precisely because it is antisocial, you are actively impinging on another person’s needs/rights – you are engaging in an activity meant to exclude others from the “turf”.

But I am glad to know you differ from the majority of those with your views.

It’s good to know that you are standing firm against the way they are trying to force Rush from the airwaves. I think you go too far, though, because if Rush were to say things as nasty and as misogynist as the ones recently reported as having been said by Bill Maher and others, I think it would be right to have some outrage. It was right in fact right and good to disinvite Louis CK from that media dinner – and it’s about darned time that people started making clear that your right to say and do whatever you want is not necessarily more important than other peoples’ right to object, which is also a form of speech.

It would be absurd to say that everyone has the “right” to broadcast whatever they choose over these airwaves. For instance, even though much pornography is constitutionally protected (that which is not “obscene”), this doesn’t mean the FCC can’t ban pornography over the airwaves. There are different 1st amendment rules governing different contexts.

For my own part, I find so much vulgarity and inanity on television that I can barely watch anything on it. I do worry that our culture is at risk from coarsening and degradation, and the idea that we need MORE indecency on television is simply beyond my comprehension. If someone really, really, really feels the need to be indecent, let them express it somewhere else. I am certain they will find many outlets for their curious impulses.

Well, for your information I am a moralist. My case is not about “tolerance” but about rights (one of those “shared values” a society must have). Free speech a basic value, and it can be censored at gun point. That´s it because even I believe in virtues, I don´t believe they can be enforced at gun point.

On other matters, just cause I recognize that people have the right of free speech, that doesn´t mean anyone have to endorse or “celebrate” what they have to say (as you pretend when you ask “Why does ´team red´ want to prohibit things they deem antisocial? Why does ´team blue´ want to celebrate and legitimize the same?”). I consider many of the things the religious right or conservative talk radio host say to be antisocial and, to be blunt, expresions of the must ugly vices. But I know I have not the right to prohibit them from expresing their thoughts. The question is why do you and your side think they have that right?

It’s not weird; the words originally used were more specific and were more in line with what the author was trying to say.

What’s weird is that you think the author should have rearranged his words more in line with what you are trying to say.

Yes, belonging to a society is inherently “coercive”; if there are no shared values – and no enforcement of shared values – then there can be none of the benefits and blessings of social life.

When I was younger, I believed in the false dichotomy between the “moralists” (who are necessarily bad people, because they want to force their views on you), vs. the “tolerant” people. But of course eventually I came to realize that the “tolerant” people are also “moralists” – they too want to impose their views on you, and the word “tolerant” refers only to what they demand from the moralists, not what they themselves are willing to give to their own ideological rivals.

What is really key is to look at the underlying values and why they matter. Why does “team red” want to prohibit things they deem antisocial? Why does “team blue” want to celebrate and legitimize the same? This is where the conflict starts to get interesting, because if you focus on the popular narratives, you come to one conclusion, but if you examine the actual arguments and the logic and what people are really doing, you start to see that the popular narratives aren’t necessarily telling the whole story, or even telling the truth.