Should Teens get banned from Smartphones for SnapChat

[mysticmagic788]

I see where you are coming from. Its a sign of the times. Speech is only free for the populace as long as they have the intelligence to cover their backs.
I knew better if I am honest. Mobiles make me lazy because its such a pain to get a point across because of the tiny keyboards never mind adding extras to keep it vague ha ha.
All future rants will be 'it could be argued that' , 'alleged' etc etc

How about this?

It could be argued that governmental policy appears to lean towards getting children used to censorship so that they can adapt to it easier than many adults currently do now.

With this viewpoint, children, when moving into adulthood, will be more at ease to the notion of further restrictions to their liberties and freedoms.

[peterb]

How about this?

It could be argued that governmental policy appears to lean towards getting children used to censorship so that they can adapt to it easier than many adults currently do now.

It could be so argued, but you would need to provide some arguments that would justify that proposition - and defend them if/when they were challenged.

[wasabi]

It could be argued that governmental policy appears to lean towards getting children used to censorship so that they can adapt to it easier than many adults currently do now.

With this viewpoint, children, when moving into adulthood, will be more at ease to the notion of further restrictions to their liberties and freedoms.

Think it is the other way round personally. Government using the usual 'think of the children!' and 'terrorists!' hysteria to get the thin end of the wedge in.

[Saracen]

I see where you are coming from. Its a sign of the times. Speech is only free for the populace as long as they have the intelligence to cover their backs.
I knew better if I am honest. Mobiles make me lazy because its such a pain to get a point across because of the tiny keyboards never mind adding extras to keep it vague ha ha.
All future rants will be 'it could be argued that' , 'alleged' etc etc ....

Not quite what I was saying, but close.

My main point was that newspapers, etc, cover their rears, and PART of the way they do it is such caveats. The rest is in being very careful in quite what they assert.

Any self-respecting journalist educates him/herself in law, as it pertains to journalists, unless they're lucky enough to get formal coyrses on it. I certainly had to. They therefore have some idea where the mines are, and how to step round them. HEXUS just tries to avoid going into the minefield, and sometimes that means editing or removing things.

One thing. Free speech always has limits. In previous threads, I've challenged people to come up with any society, in any country, at any point in history, where speech was truly free. Nobody has yet taken up the challenge.

It is ALWAYS free, up to a point. That point might be a charge of incitement to riot, or a defamation lawsuit, it might be a Taliban or dictator's firing squad, it might be the King dumping you in a dungeon, the Witchfinder General "testing" you, a knight challenging you, or the local village hardman beating the wotsit out of you, but there are always limits. Completely free speech is, and always has been, an illysion .... and often (though not always, obviously), for good reason.

[mysticmagic788]

Ah but Peterb, justification and defence of arguments would leave you open.
We could even theorise that implying that an argument is leaning towards a set outcome negates that.

One such hypothesis would be that the human mind will always fill in the pieces just as easily as if you missed the odd word out of a sentence. Its wired that way.

In theory they would still reach the conclusion you were aiming for and even treat it as a factual statement you have made, but, you havent actually said anything.

[mysticmagic788]

Saracen, I have heard that argument many times before.

It all depends how you look at it.

No society has true free speech, but that doesnt mean that societies shouldnt aim for it

If a populace is conditioned to constantly worry about offending people then the freedoms they do enjoy will be taken away.

You will never please all of the people some of the time, never mind all of it.

It is that which makes the human race so wonderful. The uniqueness of the individual.

Yes the same thing can make them horrific but which way do you go?

Just as there is good in people there will be bad. So do we focus on what makes us good and inevitably have a couple of unique individuals who try to spoil it by imposing their will and skewed belief structure?

Or

Do we focus on the bad and restrict everyones liberties?

You will know which option I believe in.

[kalniel]

So do we focus on what makes us good and inevitably have a couple of unique individuals who try to spoil it by imposing their will and skewed belief structure?

Or

Do we focus on the bad and restrict everyones liberties?

You don't really think it's one or the other do you? There's a whole range of options between just focusing on either end of the spectrum. Typically, I don't think we should be open enough some people restrict the beliefs of others, nor should we be closed enough that only the beliefs of authority matter.

On forums, a bit of restriction enables more people and age ranges to have access and meaningfully take part for example. While the freedoms that are lost to the restriction aren't adding as much as is gained by the increased community.

[mysticmagic788]

Yes wasabi, but thats with the premise that its an either-or scenario.
Could it not just be as valid to say one leads to the other.

The more thin wedges used the more the children get used to restrictive living.

[mysticmagic788]

Kalniel I dont think its an either or. I used those extremes for a reason.

Because both extremes are what is waiting for us if we as a people persist in pushing towards them.

The more we restrict the closer we get to or. Whereas if we allow ourselves to become more accepting we have a chance of either.

The latter should be the aim of a progressive people.

[kalniel]

The more we restrict the closer we get to or. Whereas if we allow ourselves to become more accepting we have a chance of either.

Aren't you just suggesting pushing to one extreme?

[Saracen]

Saracen, I have heard that argument many times before.

It all depends how you look at it.

No society has true free speech, but that doesnt mean that societies shouldnt aim for it

If a populace is conditioned to constantly worry about offending people then the freedoms they do enjoy will be taken away.

You will never please all of the people some of the time, never mind all of it.

It is that which makes the human race so wonderful. The uniqueness of the individual.

Yes the same thing can make them horrific but which way do you go?

Just as there is good in people there will be bad. So do we focus on what makes us good and inevitably have a couple of unique individuals who try to spoil it by imposing their will and skewed belief structure?

Or

Do we focus on the bad and restrict everyones liberties?

You will know which option I believe in.

Still missing the point, I fear.

WE don't wish to be sued because YOU freely express YOUR opinions.

If you wish to incite violence, for instance, feel free to find a street corner. If you wish to defame somebody, as far as we're concerned, go right ahead ..... on your own dime, as it were.

The thing is, no forum (run by anyone with any common sense, at least) is entirely free to speak your mind, without limit. Nor, frankly, do I want to be part of one that does. We impose some restrictions, some standards. Partly because of limiting our legal liability, partly because it sets the atmosphere for the little community we have here.

There's not much in the way of opinions you hold that you can't express, provided you bith stay within the law, and do so reasonably courteously.

I also tend to differentiate between expressing a view that someone else finds offensive, and setting out deliberately to be offensive. The first deserves discussion, debate, etc, buf the second .... well, a mod is likely to stop it.

The other point is that the forum is not society, but a reflection of a subset of one.

Should we aim for absolutely free speech? Not until, IMHO, absolutely everyone, down to the last individual, can be relied upon to exercise it responsibly. I'm not holding my breath.

For instance, should you have enough freedom of speech to, without consequences, falsely shout "fire!!" in a crowded theatre, football stadium, etc. It is not hard to predict that a very plausible outcome is people getting hurt, even killed, in the resulting crush for the doors.

You, for instance, may desire the right to freedom of speech to defame someone, but does that person not have the right to expect their life not to be wrecked by you exercising your freedom of speech?

Surely the right to free speech needs to have consequences IF, when exercised, it causes harm to others?

And a member here, exercising free speech to the point of defaming others, risks the owners here getting sued.

It's a great academic argument, for society, over what level of restriction to free speech is acceptable. Research some of the US Supreme Court arguments over issues like the above for exrensive examples. But here, we exercise our right to take steps to limit our exposure to getting sued.

Your right to freedom of speech does, of course, include the right to set up a forum yourself, have no restrictions at all on free speech for members, and risk losing your home to pay the legal fees for defendingca libel suit. We just choose not to take that risk.

[mysticmagic788]

saracen I said in the comment after the reinstatement that I would respect the limitations of the site.
All discussions after that are pertaining to the topic itself and not the website. IE freedoms.
I understand why you have to be careful and I dont wish to put yourselves or the site at risk.

The comments I made afterwards were an argument towards society and not this website.

I disagree with your comment about restricting people until they can exercise it responsibly. But I mean generally and not with this site as I fully understand your reasons.

The reason I disagree with it generally is two fold.

The first is that not everyone has the oral or literary skills to put their point across in what could be deemed an innoffensive manner.

Those peoples talents would lie elsewhere and their opinions should not be trivilised or dismissed just because they lack the skills to converse in such a manner.

The second is that what is deemed offensive is often only deemed that way because the person disagrees with the viewpoint and therefore controls the environment to suit their own core belief structure.

This causes more persecution and wars than anything else.

As I say, these comments relate to society and not this website.

I might hate what a person says and even despise him for saying it but I will defend the right for him to express his viewpoint until my dying breath.

I thank you both for showing me the same courtesy and I have enjoyed the discussion but need to get some work done. I think this discussiin has run its course.
Thanks again, its been fun

[herulach]

I always feel the need to point out in discussions like this that in the UK there isn't such a concept as freedom of speech. We have freedom of expression to the extent that it is provided for in ECHR, which has an insanely broad set of exceptions (seriously, you can tell it was written by lawyers, check out the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom...United_Kingdom).

You also have to bear in mind the libel laws here are incredibly broad compared to other countries.

To get back on topic, there's been all kinds of furore about this this morning, presumably as a result of some campaign group or other. My feeling is that 'we should legislate to be seen to be doing something' is generally an instinct to be avoided at all costs, particularly when (as appears to be the case here) there are already appears to be criminal act being committed.

More generally there needs to be a better awareness of the permanence of electronic communication. As young people are increasingly online 24/7/365 theres a lot of naivety, which is dangerous, particularly when coupled with the 'can use facebook = computer expert' mentality of a lot of people.

[wasabi]

More generally there needs to be a better awareness of the permanence of electronic communication. As young people are increasingly online 24/7/365 theres a lot of naivety, which is dangerous, particularly when coupled with the 'can use facebook = computer expert' mentality of a lot of people.

True. But I also love the assumption underlying all this that teenagers make more stupid mistakes online than adults do. One helluva presumption surely? I'm quite sure the fuss is also partly motivated by the fact parents inherently can't snoop on this kind of service, which is why Facebook is now the province of the 30+ and not teenagers.

Are there risks - sure, but not life threatening, and none that aren't already covered by other less censorious laws. And coming from the county with one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the Western world, perhaps some other form of teenage sexual activity might be preferable?

[kalniel]

True. But I also love the assumption underlying all this that teenagers make more stupid mistakes online than adults do. One helluva presumption surely?

I think the presumption is that said mistakes have rather more impact on a teenagers quality of life than they do on adults. Witness the levels of suicide attributed to cyber bullying etc.

[Galant]

I've never figured out why questions like this bring up the freedom of speech question. The two don't equate in my view. I think it's helpful, when freedom of speech is considered, to remember that speech is communication and so has a source and a target. This means that we should ask, as Saracen has done, which arena we have in mind when looking at any given question, as well as asking/reminding ourselves about the purpose of free speech law, what it is designed to protect, and in what regard.

I don't think kids should necessarily be banned from smart phones because of a particular app, I do think their parents should be, and are, responsible for protecting their kids (and maybe protecting others from their kids!), and after that, perhaps, there should be some consideration of putting protections in place with regards the app or phone. Either way though, I don't think that this is a free speech issue.