After spending most of the day, listening and debating in the streets with the general public, Moss had his fill for the day. He was slowly walking away from the rabble of people who were still debating in the street, slowly massaging the temples either side of his head, he glimpsed a man in what only can be described as rags, shouting in the face of a well dressed man. It got him thinking about a topic that affected even himself today. Moss slowly looks down the street where he could go and put his feet up and relax, and then looks back at the soap box stands full of people around them. Sighing slowly, he walks back into the rabble of people.

Pushing through the crowds, Moss saw an old, slightly tattered soap box that didn’t look like it had been used in a long time. Thinking of the saying “beggars can’t be choosers”, he steps onto the soap box and clears his throat. Seeing that no one had noticed him, he cleared his throat in a louder, more authoritative manner.

I bring to you today a topic that has most likely been asked in the past, however with the times changing, I do feel that it is a subject that should really be addressed once more. The topic I bring to you today is that of Freedom of speech, or lack of.

Clearing his throat once more, Moss pauses for a few seconds to try and collect his words. Taking a deep breath as he looks at the amassing general public, he continues with his speech.

Recently, with the decline of old leaders and the rise of new faces, policies and rules have been brought forth and changed. The way of our lives are to be changed, at least in some way shape or form. Some people have embraced these changes with open arms, others have voiced their concerns. That is not really the topic at hand, but rather the way we voice our opinions.

We all know that in the heat of debate, harsh words and unpleasantries can be exchanged without really stopping and thinking about what you are saying. Pretty much no one is innocent and it has happened to most people in a certain manner. However, when is the line crossed from a healthy debate, to just out and out arguing and insulting? Is it really the case that we can only argue up to a certain point with a crew leader or district head, but carry on as we please with someone of a lesser rank? If someone initiates an argument, does the victim then have an opportunity, or even a right to reply, without fear of someone from the higher echelons of our society getting involved. Would you treat someone who outranks you in a better manner than a fresh faced gangster trying to make his way in the world?

Also, I leave you, the general public with this last question: Are we really living in a state where we can confidently say we have complete freedom of speech especially with restrictions and repercussions from words being stated in the streets, or is the notion of freedom of speech just an idealistic utopia that will never happen?

Looking around, Moss hopes that this topic has at least piqued the interest of the general public. Stepping down, he invites anyone and everyone to voice their opinion.

Quick answer, there never was freedom of speech. I don't know where people get this idea, but everything you do and say in this thing comes at a cost whether you understand what that cost is or not.

 Is it really the case that we can only argue up to a certain point with a crew leader or district head, but carry on as we please with someone of a lesser rank?

It is the case if those at the top won't enforce the same standards for others. If you're gonna be a dick whether you started it or not you should expect consequences... and as for fearing the upper echelons you clearly either don't understand how to conduct yourself or don't understand what you should and shouldn't be afraid of if you're afraid of them coming down on you for speaking your mind. I've personally accused one Godfather of being a creepy stalker, accidentally convinced another I don't like talking to people and belittled glorified Godmother Maria with that beautiful suit of hers. Honestly, I dare say it's my favorite suit to look at in the history of this thing. So let me tell you that you have nothing to fear so long as you stick to logical reasoning and avoid petty pointless insults. It's when you go to unfounded petty pointless insults that you get yourself into trouble.

Are we really living in a state where we can confidently say we have complete freedom of speech especially with restrictions and repercussions from words being stated in the streets, or is the notion of freedom of speech just an idealistic utopia that will never happen?

It's not an idealistic utopia and its lack of existence comes from the fact everyone should be held accountable for their words, whether in this thing or anywhere else you might think on 'Complete Freedom of Speech'.

Ted hears the conversation outside on the Streets and decides he'll go out and give his opinion, surely the people of the Mafia are more than willing to hear what he has to say on any subject. Chicago has been rather active on the chatting front recently, and he was more than willing to help continue with their discussions. He listened to what both Moss and WhereWasI had to say and then he began to speak his own piece on the matter.

I don't believe there should be freedom of speech, that sounds like some sort of jargon best left for the rest of America. What we do requires a top and a bottom, and the top always dictates what the bottom is allowed to say or not. Without it, we would no longer be the mafia and more like politicians. 

If a lesser rank wants to debate, then he or she should be ready to deal with the fact that people above them are free to be rude as they wish, and it is up to the people of higher stations to dictate what is allowed and not allowed. Their opinion can change on a whim, and there is nothing I believe that should be changed about that. If you are at the top, then you are at the top for a reason, and your opinion should definitely hold more weight than that of someone under made.

With that said, if someone above Made becomes overly crass and speaks shit on everyone and their mother, then that is again up to the people in high positions on if it is worthy of death or not. I don't believe there is freedom of speech, and more sometimes you're free and other times you're fucked speech. It's all up to the Godfathers and that's how it should always be-- otherwise Godfather is just another name.

Ted smokes a cigar or something. Who knows? 

Quick answer, there never was freedom of speech. I don't know where people get this idea, but everything you do and say in this thing comes at a cost whether you understand what that cost is or not.

Albeit I agree that there is not a utilised system where full freedom of speech is prevalent, I personally do believe that there is a state where you can speak what is on your mind and are able to engage in debates amongst others in the street. Is this a form of freedom of speech albeit only slightly, or is this just a controlled environment for the vocal? I am not really one hundred percent on this point, but I do believe there is no right or wrong answer. I guess it comes down to how a person perceives the immediate surroundings and the environment from which they make their daily lives.

...and as for fearing the upper echelons you clearly either don't understand how to conduct yourself or don't understand what you should and shouldn't be afraid of if you're afraid of them coming down on you for speaking your mind.

There are certain things that should not be stated in the streets, but I do believe that certain leaders hold different standards to what should and shouldn't be said.  I do believe that the change of scenarios, the change of the crew leaders involved does have an affect on the outcome, and thus changing the parameters of what you should and shouldn't be afraid of.

It's not an idealistic utopia and its lack of existence comes from the fact everyone should be held accountable for their words, whether in this thing or anywhere else you might think on 'Complete Freedom of Speech'.

Again, I think this is debatable and for some people would class this as a utopia. However, I think I could have used a lesser extremity of the word. 

Thank you for giving the time to reply to this topic at hand, WhereWasI. I welcome any further responses from you.

If a lesser rank wants to debate, then he or she should be ready to deal with the fact that people above them are free to be rude as they wish, and it is up to the people of higher stations to dictate what is allowed and not allowed. Their opinion can change on a whim, and there is nothing I believe that should be changed about that. If you are at the top, then you are at the top for a reason, and your opinion should definitely hold more weight than that of someone under made.

I fear that if I respond more to the rank side of this insight from you Ted, I may actually hit a different topic entirely, so I will try my best to respond without throwing the whole system of rank into the fray.  I understand that the notion that someone who is a higher rank, especially that of Made and higher, is generally accepted to have say, perhaps more leeway with regards to what they say, but should this really be the case. Take for example, a Earner or Wise Guy who has tried their best to be part of the debating scene, only to be talked down to by a higher rank that rarely graces the streets. Should they still be given the same leeway, or does it now come down to the person who actively takes part in the streets? How much does the idea of rank really bring to the streets?

Thank you Ted, I again appreciate the time you have taken to have your input and welcome any responses.

Take for example, a Earner or Wise Guy who has tried their best to be part of the debating scene, only to be talked down to by a higher rank that rarely graces the streets. Should they still be given the same leeway, or does it now come down to the person who actively takes part in the streets? How much does the idea of rank really bring to the streets?

Moss, I do believe rank carries weight when it comes to street speaking. You cannot exactly expect a low ranker to run his mouth against someone who greatly outranks them and get away with it. I believe when a made member comes out to speak in the streets, he represents his family in every way. If he's insulted by some mere thug or gangster, it's pretty much the same as insulting the family he represents.

Now I'm not suggesting that low rankers are devoid of freedom of speech, but that they must measure their words before going up against someone who outranks them. Like you mentioned, some rules may have changed with the rise of new leaders, but I highly doubt that a nobody could get away with insulting, say a Godfather.

Also, from recent events we've seen that sometimes, even districts as a whole try to lay low in hopes that it will avoid conflict with other cities. I don't know to what extent this is true though, I heard someone make a speech about this not very long back. So it's hard to say how free one is to talk out here. Though one may not be restricted by the people in power, it may even be his own self-restraint that keeps him from venturing into the streets, possibly fearing for his own life. Remember, people still get killed over things said in the streets.

Moss, I do believe rank carries weight when it comes to street speaking. You cannot exactly expect a low ranker to run his mouth against someone who greatly outranks them and get away with it. I believe when a made member comes out to speak in the streets, he represents his family in every way. If he's insulted by some mere thug or gangster, it's pretty much the same as insulting the family he represents.


As Daemon mentioned, I too personally believe this 'freedom of speech' should by all means be reserved for those at the top. I can't remember the last time 'outside this thing of ours' that a mere gangster or anything under Made man had the privilege to even speak to a Godfather, let alone poke fun at him/her on the streets and get away with it, hell even arguing or debating with one would be highly inadvisable...

However, If it's just the right to voice your opinions in the streets (as I am now), I think for me personally it would depend on the topic being discussed. 

Allah proceeds his lean on the wall awaiting further contribution on this very good topic.

I do believe that there never was the option of having a "Freedom of Speech", and the higher ranked and uppers in this thing of ours will always get to have the right in which direction we are meant to follow. But which high ranking person will accept disrespect that gets shown to them at times when a person does not know when to stay in their place? None, very often a person of lesser status ends their disrespectful and manner-less talking by falling asleep in a grave.

The upper structures have worked very hard to have gained the respect that comes with their titles/ranks and shall then not be disrespected by a lesser rank what so ever, as in this thing of ours that is a no go area period.

The amount of freedom someone has is determined by the top dogs in the pack. If they are lenient, have a sense of humor, or just generally don't pay attention/give a shit, lots of things occur. Most of us can recall the rag referred to as the Gwarble Barble. It could be offensive, humorous, or just done right informative. This was able to occur because the top dog at the time, Roman, allowed it to happen. Having the backing of a powerful Godfather gives people some serious leeway.

Could something along those lines occur today? I'm not sure really. The current crop of leaders are a bit more serious about things, but I guess they could surprise me.

My good friends in Latin America have demonstrated freedom of speech isn't essential to the success of the perpetual revolution so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

Recently, Comrade Barry made a fantastic point in regards to bloodlining. He rightly pointing out that what people decry as bloodlining and what is actually bloodlining are two very different things. When complaints about bloodlining are made, it is often merely an attempt to shift the prerogative onto someone else and deflect personal responsibility.

I think we see a similar question with asinine complaints about the Freedom of Speech. Complaining about the fact you can't say certain things is mere shorthand for admitting that you're unable to debate a point with sufficient subtlety, that you lack the ability to take a nuanced approach and that, as a result, people - often big, bad people - become upset with what you have to say for yourself. It's much easier to say 'My father was killed for his opinions! This is an injustice! An outrage!" than it is to say "Wow, if my father had made that argument differently he might still be alive.". One path assumes personal responsibility and the other path absolves it; and as we have pretty clearly seen on the streets this year, adopting a siege mentality and playing the victim is an extremely easy option to take.

Incidentally, as a parting thought, a very common argument made against freedom of speech is 'Freedom of speech? Bahaha, this is the fucking mafia, chucho!" This, too, is taking the easy path and doesn't really add much to the discussion so allow me to provide a perspective nobody else has.

Is your freedom of speech now, or has it ever been, restricted?

Let me ask again, has your freedom of speech ever been physically restricted?

Have you ever been literally unable to say precisely what you want, whenever you want?

Provided that you stay within the parameters set down by City Hall, then the answer to these questions is inevitably no. With that in mind, the complaint here is not about freedom of speech, the complaint is about the freedom of others to react.