Zappa and "Words"

[ThatRobGuy]

As you can see from the Avatar change, I've been in a Zappa sorta mood...but listening to a lot of his interviews, a lot of his music, etc...

I've always been a big fan of his music, and more so, his opinions.

I was even thrilled to find out that he was a fellow constitutional conservative, showed the world that not every conservative was staunch republican with ties to the church...

But, I found one of his best opinions to be the statement he made pertaining to free speech.

Frank Zappa on Crossfire - YouTube

Do you think society's one-sided when it comes to free speech? I notice that there are many who are the first to quote the first amendment when someone is trying to censor something they like, but when someone else wants to invoke that freedom for something they don't like, they try to abuse constitutional loopholes via "interpretation" to try to find a reason to get it silenced.

I've seen it go both ways from both the liberal side and the conservative side.

I'm with Frank, words are just words and nothing should be off limits...what do you think?

 

[Blayz]

I think he is wrong. Words can hurt, you should not be allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded cinema, nor throw around offensive racial epithets.

I also think he was wrong to name his children Moon Unit, Dweezil, and Diva Muffin, although it could have been worse
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Depressed cupboard cheesecake



I would, however, like to thank him for his burnt studio that inspired Smoke On The Water.

 

[ebia]

Speech is an action like any other action. If words were "just words" and not powerful free speech would be irrelevant.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Speech is an action like any other action. If words were "just words" and not powerful free speech would be irrelevant.

Then where does the line get drawn and which one person draws that line? Obviously as soon as you have more than one person involved, you'll never come to a decision since no two people would have a 100% identical position on the matter.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think he is wrong. Words can hurt, you should not be allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded cinema, nor throw around offensive racial epithets.

I also think he was wrong to name his children Moon Unit, Dweezil, and Diva Muffin, although it could have been worse
Urban Dictionary: Depressed cupboard cheesecake

I would, however, like to thank him for his burnt studio that inspired Smoke On The Water.

Well, what he names his kids is up to him, they're obviously all well over 18 now so if they were that broken up about it, they would have changed their names.

As far as your movie theater example, yes that would cause a panic, but so could just yelling random gibberish (ahhhhh!!!!) sounds that aren't even words per say. It's not the word "fire" that caused the panic it's the way the person used it, otherwise everyone would panic and riot when they walked down mainstreet and saw the sign in front of the building that said "fire department". So, because their is one misuse of the word available, should the word "fire" be banned from speech? As far as racial terms, though I would never use them, I would think that each individual has a right to their own opinions, would they not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Speech is an action like any other action. If words were "just words" and not powerful free speech would be irrelevant.

Speech is different than other actions. It's impact is based on the people who recieve the words, not the people who say them.

Yell Merde! at the top of your lungs in New York and people will just look at you funny, yell it in Paris and watch the different reaction you get.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't think words should be banned, but I think that the use of some words at certain places and times are unacceptable.

 

[selfinflikted]

As far as your movie theater example, yes that would cause a panic, but so could just yelling random gibberish (ahhhhh!!!!) sounds that aren't even words per say. It's not the word "fire" that caused the panic it's the way the person used it

It's impact is based on the people who recieve the words, not the people who say them.

I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction here. On the one hand, you say it isn't what is said, it's how it's said. Then on the other hand, you say it isn't what's said or how it's said, it's the people hearing it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction here. On the one hand, you say it isn't what is said, it's how it's said. Then on the other hand, you say it isn't what's said or how it's said, it's the people hearing it.

Sorry I didn't word my post exactly the way I wanted to this morning.

How it's said impacts how people receive it. So it's not the word "fire" itself that's the problem, it's the person's conduct while saying the word combined with how people react to it that causes the riot.

 

[selfinflikted]

Sorry I didn't word my post exactly the way I wanted to this morning.

How it's said impacts how people receive it. So it's not the word "fire" itself that's the problem, it's the person's conduct while saying the word combined with how people react to it that causes the riot.

No worries. I figured it was just that. I can agree with what you've said here.

 

[ebia]

Speech is different than other actions. It's impact is based on the people who recieve the words, not the people who say them.

Yell Merde! at the top of your lungs in New York and people will just look at you funny, yell it in Paris and watch the different reaction you get.

A lot of actions (most?) are context sensitive, not just speech.

 

[ebia]

Then where does the line get drawn and which one person draws that line? Obviously as soon as you have more than one person involved, you'll never come to a decision since no two people would have a 100% identical position on the matter.

That's true of other actions. Yet we manage with imperfect laws and imperfect court systems.