Home

Freedom Of Thought

With the recent website blackout protest of the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills (see here) I wanted to visit the idea of freedom of thought. Sometimes we hear people claiming their supposed United States Constitutional "right to free expression". But in reality the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights speak of "free expression". The actual phrase is: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. - Bill of Rights 1

Perhaps we would argue that expression is speech, yet expression is more vaguely defined. Speech has been defined as verbal or written expression but expression itself could be as broadly defined as ensuring and protecting a person's "right" to express themselves by burning the American flag or submerging a crucifix in a glass of urine (see ref1, ref2).

With the broadened term, "freedom of expression" there is more room for subjectivity. What is considered expression? Can it go too far? And if so, who decides what is too far?

RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY

The legal systems are trying to balance the right of "freedom of expression" with the concept of the harm principle or the offense principle. What this means is that a person has the right to freely express themselves as long as it doesn't harm or offend another person. This too becomes very subjective. What harms a person? Physically? Emotionally? Their reputation?

The concept of "hate speech" laws are built on these fluid ideas of freedom of expression and harm principle. It is about attempting to judge a person's motivations instead of their actual actions.

A definition of hate crime is:

"...state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability." - source

Notice the phrase; "motivated by". While I'm in no way advocating violence toward any of the groups mentioned in the list above, why is our justice system judging based on supposed motivation? What happened to the concept of justice being blind - that is unbaised and based on the letter of the law instead of the emotional appeal or motivation. It is already a crime to threaten a person or group with violence regardless of any of these classifications. Why not simply pursue justice based on the actual action instead of the presumed motivation?

There is an attempt to have anti-homosexual biblical preaching classified as hate speech, especially in Canada based on the harm principle. (ref)

Obviously, as our laws become less and less based on our Judea-Christian principles; the more our laws will become subjective and opinion-based.

Now, back specifically to the SOPA/PIPA issue and the idea of freedom of thought. SOPA/PIPA is the U.S. government's attempt to address copyright infringement issues; especially bootlegging. Simplistically, through SOPA/PIPA the government wants to require U.S. based Internet Service Providers to block sites deemed illegal via SOPA/PIPA. This would be a form of censorship, which is against the spirit of the Internet.

Since the government/legal system has become subjective and vague about the "freedom of speech" and what is meant by "harm" to another person; there is concern as to the government's idea of what should and should not be banned/censored from the Internet.

On a further note, what is copyright infringement, especially on the Internet where people post free material; written or audio where they are generating no revenue. When can a person cite an excerpt of this material and still be within what might be considered fair use.

FAIR USE DOCTRINE

The Fair Use Doctrine allows citation or use of otherwise copyrighted material if:

  1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work
  3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
  4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

ref = http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It is amusing when bloggers with free websites threaten lawsuits if/when someone uses excerpts of their material. This is highly opposed to the concept of freedom of thought and certainly opposed to the Fair Use doctrine. After all, these blogs are not normally commercial in nature (non-revenue generating). The amount of excerpts used is minimal. There is virtually no effect on the market or value of the original work, since it is usually offered free any how. So, when bloggers threaten legal action for utilizing excerpts of their material, it is typically for some other reason than protecting their supposed "copyright". Indeed a person may attempt to push their copyright even in this instance, but it makes them look petty and desiring to limit freedom of thought.

CONCLUSION

In the spirit of Freedom of Thought; TKC has for many years allowed unregistered guests to comment on any material here and have the opportunity to have those comments published. I have also always sought to provide a SEARCH mechanism so that people can easily find specific material on this site. It annoys me when a site has no practical way to search previous material.

So, while indeed TKC has a copyright on all material presented here, it is more to keep people from claiming the material is their own. If someone otherwise wants to "fair use" excerpts, I have no problem with it.