Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?
I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.
I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.
I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.
For one, how does that change anything? For two, how on earth do you define "direct insult"? For three, congratulations you just made backstabbing and lying the norm as opposed to honesty.
Computron wrote: Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?
To infinity and beyond. Even the most hateful, ignorant, stupid, repugnant speech should be protected. You should have the right to say all the most reprehensible things you can come up with: and everyone else should have the right to tell that person what an idiot they are however they see fit.
The one limit to this that i can think of is incendiary speech intended to cause immediate and specific panic or harm (like yelling "bomb!" on an airplane, or "fire!" in a theatre, etc). I frankly don't even think hate speech or fighting words should be a thing.
I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.
Without question.
I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.
Slippery slope. What if direct insults toward the government are political beliefs, but the government says those beliefs are direct threats to it ? As my favorite law professor said when he asked our Legal Theory class if we agreed that it would be a good idea if Sodium Pentothol should be used on people during criminal questioning if we could be shown evidence (note, not prove - shown evidence!) that wrongful convictions would be greatly reduced or eliminated as a result: when most of the class agreed, framed in that lens, his response was "Do not so easily be led into fascism."
I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.
Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.
Again, i return to the person yelling BOMB on a plane, or FIRE in a crowded theatre. Should that be protected speech ?
I don't think so. But its just about one of the only exceptions i can think of.
Computron wrote: Simple really, do you believe in it, how far should it extend?
I think any political belief should be allowed to be said.
I think direct insults or threats should be censored or banned.
I ask because I saw something a couple of weeks back which suggested that younger people (in the UK I think) were more likely to accept restrictions on what you can say than older people.
Pretty much agree with you.
threats shouldn't be allowed, nor should slander (although I have no issues with insults).
Free speech for all who support free speech and against all who oppose free speech.
Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.
Well, I think that would fall under other laws, like maybe attempt to cause a panic? Is that a law? Something like that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Free speech for all who support free speech and against all who oppose free speech.
Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.
There should be no restrictions on speech whatsoever. If someone wants to make a political, religious or social statement, they should be allowed. If someone wishes to offend someone else, they should be allowed to, with the natural condition that they should have to stand by the consequences of that (for example, if someone says something offensive to a certain race, they should not complain when they are branded a racist arse). Threats are an outlier as the consequences of them (both for the speaker and the target) are more severe, but then it becomes a matter of danger rather than one of offence.
On the note of being offensive or offended, I still stand by the above. You should be able to speak your belief, no matter what they are, and if they offend someone else, then so be it. Better to be offensive and honest about it than sycophantic and two-faced, if you ask me.
Of course, none of this extends to those who talk at the theatre. They should be banned entirely...
Freedom of speech is totally inalienable, and whether you believe you have that right or not, you do.
I can say whatever I like, whatever words I choose to use are mine and mine alone. No one can silence you, no matter what they might say. Even if someone has a gun to your head they still can't take away your right to speak your mind.
How can we, as humans, have any rights at all, or expect that any of our rights are protected, if we cannot accept the stone cold fact of free speech? How are gays supposed to get married if they are fooled into thinking they can't say whatever they want? How are women supposed to gain equality if they cannot speak freely?
I could go on. Truly the freedom to speak as you wish is the cornerstone of all human rights. How can freedom be possible, even in the slightest if our words are manacled by civility, political correctness and social conditioning?
Granted, if you call a person a bad name you probably ought to be ready to get punched...
Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think. It's about how your government can't stop you from speaking, or close down media they don't like. You know, like Russia where the bureaucracy always seems to come down heavily on newspapers that say anything Putin doesn't like.
It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.
Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...
How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?
Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.
I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean what you think. It's about how your government can't stop you from speaking, or close down media they don't like. You know, like Russia where the bureaucracy always seems to come down heavily on newspapers that say anything Putin doesn't like.
It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.
No, it's not a license to troll people, because well, what I pointed out may happen. But the right is still there. You do have to stand up for what you say, I agree. Freedom of speech is inalienable, and so is responsibility.
It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.
Of course not. Nothing can, except maybe being on a space station orbiting the Moon with a laser defence grid...
But I would say that those consequences should never delivered by a form of government. If I want to take to a town square and start proclaiming that I think our current government are all a bunch of fascists (just an example, not something I'm likely to do), they shouldn't be able to drag me away and lock me up somewhere.
A while back, the Home Secretary was calling for new legislation to clamp down on those 'inciting extremist views'. I can't recall if it got through or not, but I would love to have a chat with her over what precicely that definition covers. At the time, she was quite clearly talking about Islamic extremism (it was in the wake of a few UK residents joining ISIS), but I wonder, would it also cover someone talking about extreme socialism? Or autocracy? Or calling for a redistribution of wealth from the super-rich? All of these could pretty easily be classed as 'extremist views' should the Government need to shut someone up, which is why I was so appalled when it was suggested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkcloak wrote: Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...
How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?
Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.
I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.
I agree to some extent. I certainly believe one should be able to go to whatever length neccessary to defend themselves, their home or their family with no fear of prosecution, and at the same time, should be free to intervene should they see someone else in danger. I don't think it's right to throw the first punch unless you have been threatened and violence is inevitable, but you should be able to defend yourself without being branded as a perpetrator yourself.
Paradigm wrote:
Of course, none of this extends to those who talk at the theatre. They should be banned entirely...
Or at the Library! It's the Goddamn LIBRARY people!
Haight wrote:
Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.
This really interests me too. I wonder how the millennials view this? Part of me thinks they (well I guess WE even though I'm 32) are used to a larger government influence than Gen X'ers while the other part of me is fairly certain that there is a growing Libertarian sentiment among them. I dunno. If I could get hold of a decent data set I could crunch the numbers. Otherwise it would be a good research topic.
It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.
Of course not. Nothing can, except maybe being on a space station orbiting the Moon with a laser defence grid...
But I would say that those consequences should never delivered by a form of government. If I want to take to a town square and start proclaiming that I think our current government are all a bunch of fascists (just an example, not something I'm likely to do), they shouldn't be able to drag me away and lock me up somewhere.
A while back, the Home Secretary was calling for new legislation to clamp down on those 'inciting extremist views'. I can't recall if it got through or not, but I would love to have a chat with her over what precicely that definition covers. At the time, she was quite clearly talking about Islamic extremism (it was in the wake of a few UK residents joining ISIS), but I wonder, would it also cover someone talking about extreme socialism? Or autocracy? Or calling for a redistribution of wealth from the super-rich? All of these could pretty easily be classed as 'extremist views' should the Government need to shut someone up, which is why I was so appalled when it was suggested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkcloak wrote: Sorry to derail, but I think this ties in sort of...
How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?
Obviously we aren't gonna murder anyone, or use violence unnecessarily, but in the context I think violence is just fine. I fully expect that if I offend someone, there could be a fight. I also expect that if someone wants to be a jerk to me, then they too ought to prepare for violence.
I just don't want anyone thinking I'm some brute who knocks people out, cuz that is definitely not me! I just think that in certain circumstances, you need to wear your knuckles on someone else's face.
I agree to some extent. I certainly believe one should be able to go to whatever length neccessary to defend themselves, their home or their family with no fear of prosecution, and at the same time, should be free to intervene should they see someone else in danger. I don't think it's right to throw the first punch unless you have been threatened and violence is inevitable, but you should be able to defend yourself without being branded as a perpetrator yourself.
Oh good! I was worried no one would understand what I was trying to say. I'm definitely not the type to throw punches and I'd much rather resolve my problems calmly. But sometimes man.... Yikes! Don't ever trash talk a mans sister, or his mum! Whoo boy! Or his wife! Lol
That's about the extent of my capacity for violence. I just find it truly alarming that nowadays so many people are anti-violence and think they can change the world with a bowl of petunias. It's like I'm watching this long slow fall into complacency. I fear one day we will all be amorphous blobs on hover beds like in Wall-E
Hitting someone cause they said something you disliked maybe the stupidest thing I've heard, violence should only be used for defense on yourself or others. I guess in war too.
Only if anonymity is removed from the Internet. The worst abuses of free speech are not actions by citizens against the government, but by citizens against other citizens, who have no recourse.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
How do we feel about violence? As per my above statement, not like war and that, I mean exactly this. If someone calls you a bad name or screws you over is a bit of fisticuffs okay?
Here's how I personally would "legalize" this: If person A says "you're a big weenie" and person B responds with "let's settle this in the parking lot", and person A obliges; AND there's no alcohol involved. As long as there's no permanent damage (scars, cuts, bruises and scrapes aren't permanent, and no claiming mental trauma here either.. you were a consenting party), that should be the end of it.
Seems like a great many dudes could use a good fisticuff to blow off some steam now and again
Anyhow... to the OP, the only "limit" that I can conceive, and even then, I'm very hesitant on it, is the "public safety" laws... no yelling fire in a theater, that sort of thing. I would kind of classify incitement under this category, because if you're a particular set of parents who live in a certain state in the middle part of the US, in a town relatively near a rather French soundting town; And you're yelling things like "F the police, let's burn this motha down!!!" and people "burn that motha down"... you just created a situation that is extremely hazardous to public safety, and you should be dealt with accordingly.
Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
Generally speaking, from my own personal, anecdotal experience, minors have "fewer rights" in many situations as compared to adults.
But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.
Freedom of speech is necessary to a free society. Considering that, I'm perfectly happy with how the U.S. government currently handles it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit: How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
While I might not be a parent (I hope), I did use this once against my mother. Her response was something like this:
"Yes, honey, you do. I have the right to free speech, too. I also have the right to enroll you in a military academy. Would you like me to exercise that right?"
Scared the gak out of me. Admittedly, I was 6, but it did worked.
But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.
I've no real opinion on it all, but I don't entirely understand this concept. I mean, basically, there's no other way to stop someone from saying something, except for applying consequences. I mean, the statement might as well be, "free to say what you want, except when we put a chip in your brain that will shock you before you try to say something."
Am I making any sense? It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.
Compel wrote: It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.
It's not. Freedom of speech defines one's ability to speak without consequence imposed by law or governance. It is not a freedom from all consequence, such as public condemnation at the hands of society at large. In its essence the point of Freedom of Speech is to allow for an unrestricted by law public form, not a public form that is unable to call racism racism, or tell someone they're being stupid/an idiot/a pig/whatever. Being shamed into silence is NOT censorship. Censorship is the act of a system, not a conscious decision on the part of an individual that "maybe I should shut up now before I embarrass myself further."
But, it still falls under the "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" banner.
I've no real opinion on it all, but I don't entirely understand this concept. I mean, basically, there's no other way to stop someone from saying something, except for applying consequences. I mean, the statement might as well be, "free to say what you want, except when we put a chip in your brain that will shock you before you try to say something."
Am I making any sense? It just seems like a meaningless phrase to me.
To allude to an earlier example: If, for instance, I go out into an area in Tacoma or Seattle that is heavily populated with [x] minority, and start shouting every racist thing against them that I can come up with, it's going to piss quite a few of them off.... Even if they don't do anything to me while I'm doing this activity, they are still making a mental note of me, and no matter what I do in that area in the future, I will always be that "racist a-hole", and quite probably be denied services in food establishments and other shops/stores, etc.
I personally think that there are many people who are extremely racist internally, but never communicate that racism, because of the negative consequences of being labelled a racist or the potential of having violence perpetrated against them for those views.
I hope that sort of clears it up?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the reason why the 1st Amendment in the US constitution is written the way it is, is to hold the government accountable, and the people are saying, "If we're unhappy with the way things in government are going, we have the Right to speak out against it, and you CANNOT put us in jail for those views"
If you look in history, quite a number of places that limited freedom of speech did so to "protect" the government or the head of state from criticism (ie, Nazi era Germany, Fascist Italy, etc)
People shouldn't be able to stop or restrict what you say, but by the same token people shouldn't have to give you a platform to say what you want to say. So if you firmly believe that the Mexican Jew Lizards are taking over the planet, then by all means tell it to anyone who will listen, but not one should need to give you a place to say it. Figure that part out on your own.
Interesting. Is this something you could link to ? I'd love to read it if so. I would almost assume it would be the opposite in the US... at least i know GEN X (my gen) are super duper 1st amendment sensitive.
Ha. I somehow knew that article would be about that T shirt design... I had one myself in my college days, and I thought I was 'sticking it to the man' by wearing it.
Sining wrote: Man, what is with people who hate anonymity on the internet and freedom of speech? It's so....soviet russian. Or something I expect N.Koreans to say
The anonymity of the Internet allows private citizens to threaten other citizens with violent action (rape, murder, etc) free of consequences, even though making such a threat is a crime in every state of the Union. The victims of these crimes (most of them people of some degree of fame, however slight) have no real recourse to defend themselves, and the anonymity afforded by the vectors by which these threats are communicated permits those making such threats to continue to do so, free from consequence.
Seems like a great many dudes could use a good fisticuff to blow off some steam now and again
There are arenas for that, and they aren't just for dudes. Sadly all of those arenas cost money, and showing up to work with a swollen face is often considered bad; especially if you're working at point of service.
I think I've come to the opinion that what matters isn't that the government not be able to punish you for saying certain things, it's that the punishment be transparent. The government should be able to punish people for saying certain things (for example, you shouldn't be able to tell someone you're going to kill them) but that should be carried out on the record.
Personally, I think it's evident that the government needs to be able to use its monopoly on force to stop people from saying certain things because otherwise that speech can be used to suppress other people's free speech. For example, if I say "hello I am a Muslim" and you are like "you horrible terrorist, leave the country or I'll kill you" then you are using threats to suppress my freedom of speech. Just, that whole process should be transparent so that we can see the government is doing the right thing, as in any other criminal trial.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think no form of speech should be banned what so ever.
Agree 100%
How?
Anyone employed in trustworthy positions would be able to talk all they wanted. You go to the doctor, 10 min later the doctor posts pictures of your embarassing disease online. Or posts that you just been diagnosed by cancer. Anyone could share valuable business secrets and ruin workplaces.
You could even send death threats and blackmail without worry.
As soon as it criticises Putin, Russia or Communism it should be banned.
Just kidding.
I think freedom of speech should be as unrestricted as possible.
Only threats and confidential information should not be allowed to be spoken freely. I also think insults should be banned, but that is probably way too iffy to put in law properly.
I think freedom of speech should be as unrestricted as possible.
Only threats and confidential information should not be allowed to be spoken freely. I also think insults should be banned, but that is probably way too iffy to put in law properly.
The confidentiality thing is interesting. Part of me thinks that organisations shouldn't have as much right to confidentiality as individuals, but my thoughts on it are not very developed.
I've seen a lot of corrupt politicians and businesses hide from consequences by using confidentiality as an excuse.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
A gunman fired on a cafe in Copenhagen as it hosted a free speech event Saturday, killing one man, Danish police said. The event was organized by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad.
Danish police said the gunman shot through the windows of the Krudttoenden cafe, which the TV2 news channel said were riddled with some 30 bullet holes. Helle Merete Brix, one of the event's organizers, told The Associated Press that Vilks was at the meeting but was not hit.
"I saw a masked man running past," Brix said. "I clearly consider this as an attack on Lars Vilks."
Police were looking for the perpetrators, who they said drove away in a dark Volkswagen Polo after the shooting, which took place shortly before 4 p.m. (1500 GMT, 10 a.m. EST).
In a statement, Danish police said the victim was a 40-year-old man inside the cafe attending the event. He has not yet been identified.
Police spokesman Henrik Blandebjerg said three police colleagues at the event were also shot.
"I heard someone firing with an automatic weapons and someone shouting. Police returned the fire and I hid behind the bar. I felt surreal, like in a movie," Niels Ivar Larsen, one of the speakers at the event, told the TV2 channel.
Brix said she was ushered away with Vilks by one of the Danish police guards that he gets whenever he is in Denmark.
The cafe in northern Copenhagen, known for its jazz concerts, was hosting an event titled "Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression" when the shots were fired.
François Zimeray, the French ambassador to Denmark who was at the conference, tweeted that he was "still alive."
Vilks, a 68-year-old Swedish artist, has faced several attempted attacks and death threats after he depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog in 2007.
A Pennsylvania woman last year got a 10-year prison term for a plot to kill Vilks. In 2010, two brothers tried to burn down his house in southern Sweden and were imprisoned for attempted arson.
After Islamic militants attacked the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris last month, killing 12 people, Vilks told the AP that even fewer organizations were inviting him to give lectures over increased security concerns.
Vilks also said he thought Sweden's SAPO security service, which deploys bodyguards to protect him, would step up the security around him.
"This will create fear among people on a whole different level than we're used to," he said. "Charlie Hebdo was a small oasis. Not many dared do what they did."
Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.
now that's an extreme circumstance.
but like I said freedom of speech is just lip service in this country, since those who we do not agree with when it comes to their bigotry and so on are ostracized for their free speech, and only the conformist are not, then there is the whole what does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.
free speech is without limits, and yet while we tout free speech we have placed limits on it.
@Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
-Expressly trying to incite violence (Saying everyone listening should immediately go out and do some horrible thing)
-Expressly threatening someone, or uttering anything that you know will absolutely lead to a dangerous social situation, ie: threatening the President's life, or yelling "bomb" or "he's got a gun" when the situation does not warrant it, etc.
Otherwise, fair game and it goes both ways. Tell someone a racial slur, and they should be free to openly declare you a guttertrash inbred scumbag that should have been aborted, if they decide they need to lower themselves to that level.
You still need laws to enforce against stupidity, or you just get anarchy.
Spetulhu wrote: It's not a license to troll people. It doesn't free you from the consequences of speaking.
Indeed.
I'm all for Freedom of Speech... but it should be combined with the responsibility to use it appropriately.
Having the freedom to say what you want doesn't mean it's always a good idea, or always necessary. Nor does it abrogate a person's responsibility to be considerate of others.
To me, free speech and expression is the single most important right to have. In my mind it is not a civil right, but an inherent right that all people have.
Asterios wrote: Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.
I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.
does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.
How exactly is walking around naked considered "speech"? Maybe you'd have a point if it was some kind of protest and had a clear message included, but you're really not understanding the concept of freedom of speech if you think that laws against public nudity violate your rights.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit:
How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
He can mouth off and swear at me. As his legal guardian, I can ground him until he's 18.
Asterios wrote: Free speech is a touchy subject since it doesn't exist, free speech means you can say anything with no reprisals, and yet if things are said that are found offensive to other groups reprisals are met, while the US law respects the right of free speech, elements within this country do not, look at the owner who was forced to sell off his team because of a (what he thought was private) conversation about his wife(ex?) going to games with a certain color group of people, was it offensive? perhaps, was it free speech? yes, did it have reprisals? hell yeah the NBA forced him to sell his team because of some morals clause.
I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.
does free speech constitute bit, say if a guy decided to walk nude in front of school, would you object? even though this is his idea of free speech, to basically let it all hang out and show the world he has nothing to hide.
How exactly is walking around naked considered "speech"? Maybe you'd have a point if it was some kind of protest and had a clear message included, but you're really not understanding the concept of freedom of speech if you think that laws against public nudity violate your rights.
ok for starters, how would you feel if in a private conversation your having with someone you say something that is disparaging about someone else, then your friend tells your boss and he fires you?
as to Nudity being a form of free speech, believe it or not that has been shown to be a constitutional right as those in Berkley will admit, furthermore the supremem court has even said nude dancing in strip clubs is considered a form of free speech, but its all in how its presented, and very circumstantial, but on the other hand public nudity is permitted in Oregon as long as its not intended to arouse, and consider it a form of free speech.
furthermore free speech is not just the government, but for everyone, everyone has the right to their form of free speech, but not everyone is ridiculed for it.
furthermore what do you think free speech is all about? I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what free speech is all about.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech and expression allows you to express yourself freely, it doesn't shield you from the consequences of your actions.
True. And it's not supposed to do so either - despite many people sadly thinking that their freedom of speech is violated if using it to frequently and openly hate on specific parts of the population.
Please don't just post links. Especially not links to a GIANT wall of text NOBODY is going to read anyway. If you want to make a point, then please make that point. Just hinting at it by posting a naked link is lazy and shows a lack of interest in participating in the discussion on your part.
Sigvatr wrote: Please don't just post links. Especially not links to a GIANT wall of text NOBODY is going to read anyway. If you want to make a point, then please make that point. Just hinting at it by posting a naked link is lazy and shows a lack of interest in participating in the discussion on your part.
it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
and yet I've seen many a posts do the same thing and yet they do not get spotlighted like this, if this is how a mod will treat me then I've got better places to be then here, adios amigos.
Asterios wrote: ok for starters, how would you feel if in a private conversation your having with someone you say something that is disparaging about someone else, then your friend tells your boss and he fires you?
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
furthermore what do you think free speech is all about?
The government not being able to restrict speech, other than in exceptional circumstances (death threats, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).
I'm thinking you don't quite grasp what free speech is all about.
No, you just keep confusing "freedom of speech" with "I should be able to say whatever I want and nobody should be able to criticize me for it". Freedom of speech ONLY applies to the government, private citizens are free to react however they like (within legal limits) to your speech. And those individuals choosing to react in a way that you don't like doesn't mean that your rights have been violated.
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games. His being forced to sell the team, IMO, violates that freedom of speech (IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?), and he should be free to say what he wants. However, when he says some stuff like that and its made public, the "appropriate" response should be for those who really are upset about it to react in their own appropriate ways (again, stop working and stop showing up to games... he's a rich dude, the only real thing that's going to hurt him, is if you financially hurt him)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
I know, he referred to it explicitly in a previous post. I'm just trying to get him to clarify how exactly it's a freedom of speech issue.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
(IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?)
That doesn't necessarily make it a freedom of speech issue. I seriously doubt any court ruled that he must sell the team because of what he said (if they had it would certainly be appealed and overturned). The only thing a court could rule on would be interpreting the NBA's ownership agreements and whether or not they allow the NBA to force the sale. That's an issue of contract law, not freedom of speech.
and he should be free to say what he wants.
But he is, and the government did not do anything to punish him for it. This is the equivalent of kicking a guest out of your home because they won't stop making racist rants about all of your friends.
There are situations in which freedom of speech doesn't apply. Mods on forums, for example, have the ability to censor speech at will because this is a private discussion board rather than a public venue. You can say whatever you want, you just won't be able to do it on these forums if it's against the rules. Similarly, whats-his-name can make all the racist comments he wants, the NBA just won't let him stay on as an owner for it.
Asterios wrote: it was a link to the definition of freedom of speech, which I thought was evident in the address of the link. and not needing further explanation since I assumed everyone here has at least 3rd. grade comprehension skills.
And posting such a link with no context and no attempt to actually participate in the discussion serves no useful purpose for furthering said discussion.
and yet I've seen many a posts do the same thing and yet they do not get spotlighted like this, if this is how a mod will treat me then I've got better places to be then here, adios amigos.
Utterly for it until you reach the point of screaming fire in a theater. But condemning political leaders, slander, satire, criticism, etc should all be legal. I'd rather not ride down the slippery slope of regulating what you can and cannot say, because it leads to nothing good.
I also especially hate the stupidity of nations like Germany that try to ignore and stamp out Nazism and do things like ban Swastikas or other symbols. That simply enables it to be forgotten by the public, meaning they're liable to repeat what happened.
Ignorance is the only true evil to mankind, and the greatest threat to the species.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
It's not necessarily a fallacy, but yes, the way most people use it, it is. It's a fallacy when there is no particular reason to think that things will actually slide down said slippery slope.
Say we're talking about allowing a national socialist party to form. There's a new hitler-figure pushing for allowing it, and he's got a very questionable agenda. In that case, you can expect him to keep pushing down that slippery slope until there's a whole new nazi regime. On the other hand, if it's just some random skinheads and there's no way that they're going to be able to garner any meaningful political power, then there's no reason to expect giving them a bit of free speech will suddenly lead to the rise of the fourth reich or whatever and the slippery slope argument becomes invalid.
Freedom of speech can not be 100%, that would degrade everything.
But what I find really weird is the amound of people and even whole nations that ban blasphemy. Everything is blasphemous and to illegalize it would be to illegalize absolutely everything. Furthermore I find it shocking the amount of people thinking blasphemy can not be art or can only be made for provocation's sake. Blasphemy is just as important at keeping theocracy away as political criticism is at keeping dictatorship away.
Most relevant example is with the shootings in Denmark. One side make drawings, other side shoots people. It's absurd.
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Sterling's ban wasn't really about the comments. The guy is an unmitigated donkey-cave, and the NBA had been trying to get rid of him for a long time; the comments were just a convenient excuse.
I wouldn't like that, but I don't see what that has to do with freedom of speech.
He is backhandedly referencing the former owner of that NBA team, who's "girlfriend" apparently recorded, then leaked to the media some racist comments that he made... que lazy protests, harsh language, and ultimately he was forced to sell his team.
Since we'ere talking FoS, I should say, that while I don't agree with the guy personally, in that situation, I don't think anything should have been able to be done to him. If people felt that strongly about what he said, let the players quit and walk out on their contracts (they can't join another team till their contract is up), let the fans quit coming to the games. His being forced to sell the team, IMO, violates that freedom of speech (IIRC, didn't a local court side with the NBA and allow them to force the selling?), and he should be free to say what he wants. However, when he says some stuff like that and its made public, the "appropriate" response should be for those who really are upset about it to react in their own appropriate ways (again, stop working and stop showing up to games... he's a rich dude, the only real thing that's going to hurt him, is if you financially hurt him)
The government did not force him to sell his team, the focus of private citizens did, and the NBA (which is a privately-owned business) chose to enforce their legal right (and requirement) to do what is best for their bottom-line. There's no FoS violation here.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
That's probably why the NBA fined him 25 million USD for moving the Clippers to LA in 1984. Of course the fine was eventually reduced to 6 million USD due to a 100 million USD counter-suit, but the point stands. And why he almost lost ownership of the team in '82 for essentially refusing to pay players, staff, and creditors until they sued him. A practice he continued throughout his tenure as owner.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
Why should the NBA take that loss? They're a business, and allowing him to remain an owner wasn't in their best interest. Remember, a team isn't entirely your own property like a house or car, you have to sign contracts that limit what you can do with the team and what rules you have to follow before you buy it. And your continued ownership depends on you following those rules. If you don't want to obey the league's rules then don't buy a team.
That's probably why the NBA fined him 25 million USD for moving the Clippers to LA in 1984. Of course the fine was eventually reduced to 6 million USD due to a 100 million USD counter-suit, but the point stands. And why he almost lost ownership of the team in '82 for essentially refusing to pay players, staff, and creditors until they sued him. A practice he continued throughout his tenure as owner.
The NBA should have moved the team to an at will state and then just told him not to come in the next day, or indeed ever again. Or does that law only work for poor people?
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway. Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
a) there's no such thing as an inalienable right, the rights exist because we say they do.
b) slander, libel, and defamation laws exist for a reason. If they didn't it'd be far too easy to utterly wreck someone's life.
c) spreading lies about, agitating against, or otherwise inciting violence against races, sexual orientations, or similar things where the people making up part of those groups did not have a choice in being part of those groups should not be allowed.
To expand on c), I give you the following example:
Let's assume someone's running a campaign telling the world how evil the Jews are, how they eat babies and all that classical anti-Semitic rhetoric. Us Dakkaites are generally a sensible bunch, and so will simply dismiss those ideas as completely insane, but there's a not insignificant portion of the population that would potentially be willing to accept that as "fact", no questions asked. Thus, stereotypes, misconseptions, prejudices, and wrongs that directly affect Jews negatively are perpetuated through this agitator's actions; in other words, he's directly trying to cause people distress, injury, or similar simply because they were born into a group, completely outside their control. If he were to walk up to someone Jewish and punch him in the face completely unprovoked we'd put him in jail for assault, so why is it that we're unwilling to accept that ideas can cause just as much damage as actions?
There's a bunch of other circumstances where I'd feel a limitation to the freedom of speech is completely logical as well (national security, for instance), but suffice it to say that I think the sooner we can drop the whole "anyone willing to give up a little freedom" schtick the better. There are merits to a whole lot of limitations of various rights, we just have to decide as a society on a case-by-case basis whether we're willing to make certain tradeoffs.
To finish off a bit pretentiously, the Buddha is sometimes quoted as saying:
Siddharta Gautama wrote:Words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.
I would posit that it is also true that false and cruel words can change the world. In a sense free speech is a lot like capitalism; both have tremendous potential for human development, but completely unshackled they could just as well consume us.
In general, I can agree with you. However there are some problems with ideas like that. While I agree, that it would be nice if everybody would be kind to eachother, the c) part has one very big problem. laws regarding hate speech are always extremley vague, which means that they can be used to suppres any opinion. For example, those laws could be used in this way. Lets say, that a journalist writes a long article critisizing Russia's recent actions, however, these laws against hate-speech could then be used to censor that paper as agitating agains russians. Also, the biggest reason why said laws are not needed is, that even if the speech is legal, the actions that you listed in your example would be illegal anyways, so it would still be criminal to do said actions.
Your example is where accountability of the state enters the picture. As courts are separated from the executive power, "the state" as a monolithic entity doesn't exist, and as such won't be oppressing anyone anytime soon, and if an individual Court makes a faulty judgment there's always appeals. If the courts are doing the bidding of another pillar of government the nation is already fethed, free speech or no.
On a different note, I've never understood how "it's a slippery slope" is OK as an argument in favour of free speech. Isn't that one of the most famous fallacies in existance?
What stops a private induvidual charging somebody with this law? Note that in my example the journalist did not live in Russia, and I apologise if it appeared as such. Also, if the law is faulty then appeals won't fix the faulty judgement. And finally, some have argued that when the "slope" can be proven to exist then it can be used in an argument.
Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway. Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
>Nothing stops a private individual from charging somebody with the law, that's why courts exist. Again, if we cannot trust the courts to be (at least reasonably) fair and impartial then we're fethed anyway.
This is exactly why laws like this cannot work. The law should be objective, and it should be always same and clear. However, it will not be that if the law is always interpereted by the jugde, as it is so unclear, which will in turn mean that the law will be different for each judge. It will also mean that it is very easy to corrupt, as somebody with influence over the court could use this law to put anybody that opposes him to jail.
> Further, if the law is faulty then surely the solution would be to fix it, not to simply throw our hands in the air and give up?
May I ask you, how would you then define this law and make it work? At the moment it seems, that it is impossible to make laws like that to work, as I have seen no jurisdical system do that.
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
And the neckbeard duck guy, he signed a contract, I'm sure somewhere in his contract is a clause where he can not say things that embarrass TLC. His suspension had nothing to do with free speech, but a breach of contract that he voluntarily entered & violated.
I'd bet most companies large enough to have a human services department also has limitations to your FoS in the contract you have to sign for employment.
While some might claim you still have the freedom to say such things and those are just additional consequences. I'd disagree, for you to honor your contract, you are promising not to engage in certain things that would fall under FoS.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
The point is still valid though. Anyone talking about "lesser people" like that, no matter his nationality, is extremely disturbing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
We don't have to, but you did. As soon as your reply to a poster from Germany asked what the German for "lesser people" was the comparison was as obvious as it was cliched
The point is still valid though. Anyone talking about "lesser people" like that, no matter his nationality, is extremely disturbing.
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
>Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
Corruption is illegal in all countries, but that does not mean that there are no corrupt countries.
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
You not understanding the two terms is going on.
"Untermenschen" refers to people who were born less privileged according to the nazis, i.e. slavs and jews. "Lesser people" as used above was used to describe people openly and offensively acting against free speech, i.e. who actively chose to defy it.
...and let's not even start with the fact that the former is a coined term whereas the latter is an opinionated made-up term.
This. It's so hilariously over the line that I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. Anyone calling someone "Untermenschen" would become a pariah almost instantaneously, and yet "lesser people" is apparently entirely OK (and yes, I'm aware that "Untermenschen" is technically "subhuman", same concept).
And now Iron_Captain is agreeing with me, too! What is going on?!
You not understanding the two terms is going on.
"Untermenschen" refers to people who were born less privileged according to the nazis, i.e. slavs and jews. "Lesser people" as used above was used to describe people openly and offensively acting against free speech, i.e. who actively chose to defy it.
...and let's not even start with the fact that the former is a coined term whereas the latter is an opinionated made-up term.
Can't see the difference? Shame on you.
Pray tell, how is labelling people whose opinions on the subject differ from yours as "lesser" conductive to an honest debate?
You're triviliazing freedom of speech to "having different opinions"? Is freedom of speech, according to you, on the same level as debating your favorite book?
Sigvatr wrote: You're triviliazing freedom of speech to "having different opinions"? Is freedom of speech, according to you, on the same level as debating your favorite book?
Not on the same level, but ultimately the same principles apply, yes. Take the example you yourself provided, in stating that the freedom of speech is "birth-given", i.e. inherent at birth. A constructivist approach would completely disagree with that, stating instead that it is something we as a society have decided upon. A positivist would scoff at the statement that it is "birth-given", since that cannot be observed and thus is impossible to test. If we cannot debate the nature of freedom of speech, we do not have it on a meta-level. There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
There are and have to be restrictions on speech. People worry about a thin end of the wedge, but they miss the reality that there will always be a wedge in place. There never has and never will be a society in which people are free to slander, or able to escape punishment for maliciously causing harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
As such, forming an absolutist position that speech must be absolutely free is actually a very dangerous position, because it leaves you without the tools to discuss how to consider issues of speech when people point out the limits already in place. "We can't allow any restrictions to speech because it will be the thing end of the wedge and more and more restrictions will happen" doesn't work when restrictions have been in place for generations, without spiralling out of control.
Instead what is needed is an understanding of how to balance speech, and how to balance it against other rights where it might threaten them. For instance, if you were to state that a radical Imam should be free to make his case because everyone should be speak, then people might reply that there are already restrictions on the kind of things he’s been saying, such as incitement to violence. The absolutist position has no comeback. But if you instead have a framework that can balance free speech against other rights, it is possible to make the argument that incitement to violence only voids free speech when there is an imminent call to violence, and that simply saying horrible things about another group of people doesn’t isn’t an incitement to violence, and so should remain protected.
Sigvatr wrote: Keep in mind, however, that free speech doesn't mean you can do everything without being persecuted by the law. Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want.
No, it doesn't. That's like claiming we have free murder because we can't stop you committing murder, just punish you for it afterwards.
Free speech means that you are free from government punishment for speaking your mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Just out of curiosity and to stir the pot a bit: How many of you advocating for total (more or less) freedom of speech are parents? If so, if your child mouthed off to you, swore at you, insulted you, etc., how would you react to their "freedom of speech" defense?
The problem with the analogy is that as parents, we have to balance the child’s right to speak his mind in his own home, against the need to teach the kid respect and proper behaviour. But in the case of government, it is absolutely, in no way the job of the government to teach adults how they ought to behave, and so there is no competing interest there at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: It's not. Freedom of speech defines one's ability to speak without consequence imposed by law or governance. It is not a freedom from all consequence, such as public condemnation at the hands of society at large.
Which is fine, but "free to say what you want, not free from the consequences of what you say" is really poor description of that principle, because it misses out the really important bit – that there will be no consequences from government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: I don't think you understand the concept of freedom of speech. It means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for what you say, it does not in any way require that individuals refrain from reacting to speech they don't like. The NBA forcing the owner to sell his team is no different than you having a guest at your house and telling them to leave when they keep saying things you find offensive.
Where this becomes interesting is when we think of how society informally works to make all kinds of speech banned. It becomes difficult, especially for public figures such as academics and business leaders, to speak frankly on difficult subjects when there's a chance they will be targeted and attacked if they give unpopular opinions.
I am not saying the public cannot exercise their judgement, just that we need a stronger culture to tolerate stuff we don’t like. The recent internet culture of head-taking whenever someone says something objectionable is not a good thing, and it will lead to a stifling of debate.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
No, it doesn't. That's like claiming we have free murder because we can't stop you committing murder, just punish you for it afterwards.
Free speech means that you are free from government punishment for speaking your mind.
This would be the case if the "government" was one centralized institution. As with all modern governments, however, there's a seperation of powers - which is absolutely necessary. Freedom of Speech isn't a blanket allowance for hatespeech, threats etc. Freedom of Speech isn't above all else, there's other fundamental rights on the very same level such as the human rights. Freedom of Speech, in a pragmatic understanding, i.e. how it's actually practiced, allows you to express your opinion regardless of what your opinion is. The question is how you express it. A political party or organization that openly stands for the discrimination of hetero- or homosexuals is well within Freedom of Speech. Giving a speech where you ask people to actively go out and attack said group is not okay. That's inciting a crime and thus a crime by itself.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
That would depend entirely on how one defines freedom of speech. Give me a definition and I'll try to think of something.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm. Although with some groups like children the definition might be slightly different.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm.
Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Mill's Harm principle is an excellent starting point, but then one runs into the issue of defining what constitutes "harm", which is why the subject is so interesting.
I can agree that the harm principle is the best method to define when something should be illegal, and the best way to define is something harmful is to see, does it cause direct harm, or immidiate proven indirect harm.
Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door. Further, unduly influencing a Court is already very illegal.
In regards to making it work, I suppose one could make it a subclause of defamation, libel, or slander, in that if someone makes a public claim that group X or group Y eats babies that person can be asked to prove these accusations and, if unable to, be sanctioned, in the same manner that I can sue someone that says that I as a person kill babies for libel. To modify one of our beloved Dakka maxims, "groups of people are people!".
Sigvatr wrote: @Dreadclaw: That's what freedom of speech is about. There are lesser individuals and lesser countries who despise freedom of speech, fear it, and want to actively oppress it. But such a valuable thing needs to be protected and exercised by people who know its real value. People will always die for making use of this birth-given right as there will always be lesser people who are envy of it. Freedom isn't free.
What's German for "lesser people" again?
Is it 'Godwin'?
We don't even have to make it about Nazis, the whole "primitive beings who don't know better" reeks of Imperialism as well. It's a rather disturbing statement TBH, and one that refuses to accept that one's own point of view could potentially be wrong.
>Every law can be interpreted to some extent, if that's the lithmus test of whether a law can work or not then we might as well throw the entire judiciary out the door.
It is true that laws have to fill other requirements, however that does not mean that it is not important that laws should have one definition and only one definition, as it tells that it is a good law, and a law that lacks these qualities will be bad, as if the law can have many interperations, then the law is not fair, as the judgement can differ according to the judge's opinion on the people that are charged. Also, your statement that then all laws are worthless is wrong, as all the other laws are very clear on their definitions, and cannot be interpereted. For example, everybody can tell that is something a murder, or not.
Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
>Why, though? You're making a definitive statement and then not backing it up.
We can probably all agree thet the best society is one in which unjust harm is as little as possible, so becasue of that reducing it is a good idea. However, all indirect harm can't be illegal, as almost anything can cause indirect harm, and people should only be responsible for their own actions. For example, it is illegal to stab a person, but if also all indirect harm is illegal, then the knife manuafacturer would be also a criminal, as he indirectly helped to cause the harm.
>Then make it as so: "Is the speaker advocating harm, defaming, falsley representing, or otherwise lying towards or about the subject being spoken of?". If the answer is "yes", sanctions are in order, if it's "no" then they are not. Lies can be disproven, defamation, libel, and slander are already well-established concepts, and misrepresentation can be shown to be just that, using the same methods that every other crime is judged by, i.e. by the judging of the evidence present.
A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Sienisoturi wrote: A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
Hate crimes would still be hate crimes, because they would be aimed at a protected group due to them being part of that group.
In which case the courts would have to remind said soccer moms that being annoyed is not the same as being harmed. If what is making the politician look bad is in fact true then tough luck.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: In which case the courts would have to remind said soccer moms that being annoyed is not the same as being harmed. If what is making the politician look bad is in fact true then tough luck.
Under the definition being played with soccer moms would determine if your free speech is free or if you should be punished.
Substitute the local pasta being representative as desired.
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Oh my god, that's like a total cop-out
It seems that both of us share a similar definition. I also consider freedom of speech a very important thing to have, if not the most important, but as stated in my pevious post, it has its limits and, most of all, even the very broad definition does not inherently limit any action taken against people expressing their opinion.
"I hate all left-handed people and would like to see all of them die." falls under Freedom of Speech. Or, more relevant:
"Our prime minister is treating us in an inacceptable manner." Again, Freedom of Speech.
Now...
"Kill all left-handed people!". Inciting a crime, not Freedom of Speech.
"Kill the prime minister!"...likewise.
Yet I still don't think that this answers my previous question - when do you think is no Freedom of Speech better than having Freedom of Speech?
"A system where the individual is, in general, allowed to freely speak his or her mind without being sanctioned by the state." The problem, of course, arises from the "in general", in that there are times where being able to say anything without consequences is clearly detrimental, most notably in courts, business, police interrogations, etc. There simply are times when individuals (or groups) need to be accountable for their actions, including what they say. If one sees the act of speaking as trying to influence one's fellow citizens, then it becomes easier to rationalize why certain instances of speech cannot be permitted.
Oh my god, that's like a total cop-out
It seems that both of us share a similar definition. I also consider freedom of speech a very important thing to have, if not the most important, but as stated in my pevious post, it has its limits and, most of all, even the very broad definition does not inherently limit any action taken against people expressing their opinion.
"I hate all left-handed people and would like to see all of them die." falls under Freedom of Speech. Or, more relevant:
"Our prime minister is treating us in an inacceptable manner." Again, Freedom of Speech.
Now...
"Kill all left-handed people!". Inciting a crime, not Freedom of Speech.
"Kill the prime minister!"...likewise.
Yet I still don't think that this answers my previous question - when do you think is no Freedom of Speech better than having Freedom of Speech?
In the military, or when handling sensitive information. As already mentioned, in court. When acting in the capacity of an official or a civil servant.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: There is no one definition of freedom of speech that everyone agrees on, pretending like there is and labelling those that do not want it as "lesser" is both lazy and doing the concept a disservice; there's plenty of good arguments in favour of freedom of speech without reaching for some "inherent superiority" nonsense.
Hm. Interesting. In what circumstances would you consider not having freedom of speech a good thing?
I believe the purpose of freedom of speech is to allow political opinion and religious belief to be practiced without discrimination. I think where freedom of speech ends is where someone walks up to you and randomly says "f... you a'hole" or similar. It was never meant to be a vehicle for someone to be rude or hurtful. Now sure, people can take offence at anything you say and think, but within reason, protections should be for ideas rather than insults.
So while you may hate some street preacher telling you about the word of god, he has the right to do so, but the drunk homeless guy screaming obscenities at passers by does not and hopefully a cop will show up to move him on or arrest him.
@Walrus: That, however, isn't covered by Freedom of Speech as the individual willingly accepts the limit to Freedom of Speech. Noone forces him to agree to it, he decided to do so at free will.
Sienisoturi wrote: A law like that would have one main problem though. If. as it is defined like that, it would mean that almost all negative statements are illegal, and as a effect for example almost all journalists would as a result be criminals. Also, another problem of that law would be, that if the statement was thought to be true at the moment it was made, but later new evidence made it false, then it would be criminal that you made the statement. And finally, by that law most crimes that are considered hate crimes would then again not be hate crimes.
Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
Hate crimes would still be hate crimes, because they would be aimed at a protected group due to them being part of that group.
>Negative statements would not be illegal, only those that are demonstrably false. Essentially it'd be an extention of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", in that you'd not be allowed to accuse people or groups of people of something you could not prove. For example, you'd still be perfectly free to claim that the world is run by lizard Jews, but if you can't put up, then you'd just have to accept that you don't have any proof and either get it or drop the issue.
By that definition most speeches that are considered hate speech are not, as many of them do not make stetements, but are for example encouraging somebody to do something.
>The "retroactive" illegality would be covered by the concept of acting in good faith.
That part of the law would completely destroy it so to say, as anybody could then claim that they thought that their statement was true when they said it.
Also, I must ask this know, that what harm would lying about one group cause to that group always, as to limit somebodys freedom there needs to be a serious reason to do that?
Also, I must ask this know, that what harm would lying about one group cause to that group always, as to limit somebodys freedom there needs to be a serious reason to do that?
Mostly political propaganda.
Also, inciting public action (or inaction) that is directly harmful to the public good, public welfare and public health.
Sigvatr wrote: This would be the case if the "government" was one centralized institution. As with all modern governments, however, there's a seperation of powers - which is absolutely necessary. Freedom of Speech isn't a blanket allowance for hatespeech, threats etc. Freedom of Speech isn't above all else, there's other fundamental rights on the very same level such as the human rights. Freedom of Speech, in a pragmatic understanding, i.e. how it's actually practiced, allows you to express your opinion regardless of what your opinion is. The question is how you express it. A political party or organization that openly stands for the discrimination of hetero- or homosexuals is well within Freedom of Speech. Giving a speech where you ask people to actively go out and attack said group is not okay. That's inciting a crime and thus a crime by itself.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
To expand on that – remember that the government can actually stop you saying something. Consider a person who makes it known they are about to walk in to a crowded theatre and shout ‘fire’ – a policeman on the scene will be lawful in detaining that person and preventing them from their malicious statement So your statement that ‘Free speech merely means that you are allowed to say what you want” isn’t true – government can and will prevent certain statements.
So when looking at free speech we can’t simply look at whether prevention or punishment exist – they will always exist for certain kinds of speech that cross certain boundaries. Instead we have to look at what those boundaries are, where we draw a line between political speech and hate speech for instance, or the line between art and vulgarity.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Freedom of speech is the right to not get arrested or censored by the government regardless of what you say. It doesn't offer you protection from private individuals telling you to feth off.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea.
I believe that he sort of has the right idea of what has been done, but used the wrong term... Hatespeech by itself, isn't a crime. Waving your arms madly on the street corner, exclaiming that people should do X isn't a crime... until someone does it, and it can be proven that "person wildly waving arms and screaming" caused that someone to do X.
I think, IIRC, that the appropriate term is actually incitement. (Isn't Frazz some kind of legalese type person? Not asking for legal advice, but perhaps clarification/definition here). You can have whatever hateful views/ideas you want, but as soon as you have caused others to violate laws by means of your speech, then it becomes an issue. It's why I think that angry, distraught parents who are on top of vehicles, yelling to crowds "justice was not served, burn this mother down!" should have been considered incitement, and possibly against state/fed. laws.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea.
I believe that he sort of has the right idea of what has been done, but used the wrong term... Hatespeech by itself, isn't a crime. Waving your arms madly on the street corner, exclaiming that people should do X isn't a crime... until someone does it, and it can be proven that "person wildly waving arms and screaming" caused that someone to do X.
I think, IIRC, that the appropriate term is actually incitement. (Isn't Frazz some kind of legalese type person? Not asking for legal advice, but perhaps clarification/definition here). You can have whatever hateful views/ideas you want, but as soon as you have caused others to violate laws by means of your speech, then it becomes an issue. It's why I think that angry, distraught parents who are on top of vehicles, yelling to crowds "justice was not served, burn this mother down!" should have been considered incitement, and possibly against state/fed. laws.
I think it would be difficult to be legalled held responsible for the actions of another in that scenario. Person X publicly proclaims that people Y should be exterminated. Person Z murders some of people Y. Person Z is the one that made a conscious choice to commit a criminal act, nobody forced person Z to do anything. We all have free will and choose to do or not do whatever actions we want. Person Z chose to murder people and that individual choice would be hard to lay at the feet of another if there was no outright coercion involved.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
All I know is freedom of speech is a treasure and everybody who got it should fight to keep it.
Where I live at the moment, I've lost it last year in Thailand.
I could get arrested just to do a mock revolution three fingers salute from Mocking jays movie because we have a coup govrt. At the moment. It is crazy here, people have been getting arrested for using this movie salute as a comparison to real life situations of oppression.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be. Threatening to kill somebody, depending on the manner in which it is done and the veracity it conveys is already a crime. Making threats is entirely different from "hate speech." A threat is a specific statement that conveys a clear intent to commit a violent felony that's nothing akin to making a bigotted statement like people of race X are genetically inferior to people of race Y or that people of race X should be exterminated. A private individual does not have the ability to singlehandedly wage genocide whereas an individual does have the capacity to commit a violent felony against another individual so one is criminal behavior and the other is free speech.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea.
I believe that he sort of has the right idea of what has been done, but used the wrong term... Hatespeech by itself, isn't a crime. Waving your arms madly on the street corner, exclaiming that people should do X isn't a crime... until someone does it, and it can be proven that "person wildly waving arms and screaming" caused that someone to do X.
I think, IIRC, that the appropriate term is actually incitement. (Isn't Frazz some kind of legalese type person? Not asking for legal advice, but perhaps clarification/definition here). You can have whatever hateful views/ideas you want, but as soon as you have caused others to violate laws by means of your speech, then it becomes an issue. It's why I think that angry, distraught parents who are on top of vehicles, yelling to crowds "justice was not served, burn this mother down!" should have been considered incitement, and possibly against state/fed. laws.
mmm I think thats a correct word.
in the US for a threat to be criminally actionable it typically has to be direct, actionable, and immediate. Note this falls under various laws and rulings.
Leader of mob: "First we kill all the cat lovers!" not direct nor particularity actionable.
Leader of mob: "Hey there's a cat lover! Get him!" direct (specific person), immediate (right now), and actionable (directing mob to grab that specific individual).
david choe wrote: All I know is freedom of speech is a treasure and everybody who got it should fight to keep it.
Where I live at the moment, I've lost it last year in Thailand.
I could get arrested just to do a mock revolution three fingers salute from Mocking jays movie because we have a coup govrt. At the moment. It is crazy here, people have been getting arrested for using this movie salute as a comparison to real life situations of oppression.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because we feed them and take care of them. Children are the future and parents are the Now...with out now, there is no future.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because we feed them and take care of them. Children are the future and parents are the Now...with out now, there is no future.
But even without an individual parent society will still care for children.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
The state does not have the ability or the right to listen in on all of the conversations between parents and children and to decide which conversations/statements were good and which were bad and to then criminalize the bad and punish the parent for it. Should somebody be fined or jailed every time they say something hurtful/insulting to somebody? Does telling your wife that she looks fat in that dress constitute a hate crime because it hurt her feelings? Should causing emotional pain be criminalized?
In what society are children and adults awarded equal rights and privileges under the law? If one of my children says something mean to his/her classmate in school should that be criminalized as hate speech? What if the classmates of one of my children inflict emotional damage on my child because my child gets picked last to be on a team in gym class? Should those children by punished by the state for their emotionally hurtful actions?
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Voicing an opinion/belief/idea is not a crime, it harms no one. Whatever the most horrible idea/opinion/belief you can think of is, voicing it won't hurt anyone and nobody, person or state, has the moral or legal authority to tell you that you aren't allowed to think or voice that horrible idea/opinion/belief. Hate speech is criminalizing the verbal expression of an idea because the state has decided that the idea is a bad idea. That's wrong. Not only is it effectively impossible to control ideas it's also morally wrong to have a state decide what are good and bad thoughts. Once you allow the state to determine what can and cannot be thought/said then you will find the state will continue to redefine what is and isn't allowed and infringe further on people's freedom of speech. Here in the US a person is free to hold whatever opinion/idea he/she chooses and he/she can proclaim it publicly with no fear of govt prosecution. Now, depending on how you voice your opinion/idea you may be guilty of violating noise ordinances or public nuisance statutes etc. but you won't be punished based on the content of your opinion/idea.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a proverb because it's true. You hold any bigotted negative stereoteype about a group of people you want and express it with words and it's not going to harm anyone. It's just a thought and your thoughts are your own, think what you want about whoever and whatever you want, it's a free country.
Blatantly false. Try telling someone that you're going to kill them every day for ten years and then see if it's affected their psyche negatively. Tell a child that he or she is worthless for 10 years and see if words can damage someone.
Telling a child that he/she is worthless is cruel and bad parenting but it's not illegal and shouldn't be.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because we feed them and take care of them. Children are the future and parents are the Now...with out now, there is no future.
But even without an individual parent society will still care for children.
True....then the society is the parent in this case...and paterts should always have more rights. Of course, I am not talking about child abuse.
As a parent, I know kids are stupid. They have more rights.. It is over. Not all parents will abuse our rights..... But ALL kids will abuse their rights.
I have a 5 year old, if we gave her the right to eat candy at anytime... She will be sick or even die from eating too much candy. Parents must more rights or we can't take care or protect them from themself even.
No one is saying that. Just that you can do a lot more damage with words than you think.
Free Speech is important but it comes with a certain amount of responsibility.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Should somebody be fined or jailed every time they say something hurtful/insulting to somebody? Does telling your wife that she looks fat in that dress constitute a hate crime because it hurt her feelings? Should causing emotional pain be criminalized?
When it can be proven that it has been done repeadedly over time then yes, absolutely, because then it's a systematic attempt to hurt the other person as opposed to just airing your own views.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
Why does the right of the parent trump that of the child?
Should somebody be fined or jailed every time they say something hurtful/insulting to somebody? Does telling your wife that she looks fat in that dress constitute a hate crime because it hurt her feelings? Should causing emotional pain be criminalized?
When it can be proven that it has been done repeadedly over time then yes, absolutely, because then it's a systematic attempt to hurt the other person as opposed to just airing your own views.
I disagree. The fat wife should leave. Words can hurt, but if it is fact, then truth hurts. You can not fined or jail people for stating the fact.
Emotional policing is a censorship.
If it is a slander, then you can sue or whatever. If the wife is not " fat", then she might have a slander case.
Are you kidding me?
Did you just say psychological abuse is fine as long as it's true?
That's absurd!
If you had a child or even a partner you emotionally and psychologically abused for 10 years you'd be locked up and rightly so.
There's a BIG difference between a one time comment (True or not) and a constant and unending tirade of emotional and psychological abuse.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
My bad, wrong usuage of words. My previous post was better worded and made the difference clear. T-shirt idea was dumb.
purplefood wrote: Are you kidding me?
Did you just say psychological abuse is fine as long as it's true?
That's absurd!
If you had a child or even a partner you emotionally and psychologically abused for 10 years you'd be locked up and rightly so.
There's a BIG difference between a one time comment (True or not) and a constant and unending tirade of emotional and psychological abuse.
See what you did there? I said telling the truth and you said psychological abuse and you suggested a 10 year time frame to support your position.
Right or wrong and....legal or illegal are two different things. I agree that it is wrong, but to make it a law is very difficult to enforce or even to judge.
The thing about verbal abuse is, it usually comes with physical abuse too and that is measurable and arrest able.
As adult goes, you have the right to exit that verbal abuse relationship.
Child, what can you do about verbal abuse? Sometime that punk kid need to be yell at and "abuse" by saying like... You are a looser. If you keep skipping school and hang out with those looser friends... You will stay as a looser! Kind of hard to judge verbal abuse to me.
Oh... What About boot camp in the military? Is that verbal abuse for the drill sgt. To call private a sissy?
purplefood wrote: Are you kidding me?
Did you just say psychological abuse is fine as long as it's true?
That's absurd!
If you had a child or even a partner you emotionally and psychologically abused for 10 years you'd be locked up and rightly so.
There's a BIG difference between a one time comment (True or not) and a constant and unending tirade of emotional and psychological abuse.
See what you did there? I said telling the truth and you said psychological abuse and you suggested a 10 year time frame to support your position.
Right or wrong and....legal or illegal are two different things. I agree that it is wrong, but to make it a law is very difficult to enforce or even to judge.
The thing about verbal abuse is, it usually comes with physical abuse too and that is measurable and arrest able.
As adult goes, you have the right to exit that verbal abuse relationship.
Child, what can you do about verbal abuse? Sometime that punk kid need to be yell at and "abuse" by saying like... You are a looser. If you keep skipping school and hang out with those looser friends... You will stay as a looser! Kind of hard to judge verbal abuse to me.
Oh... What About boot camp in the military? Is that verbal abuse for the drill sgt. To call private a sissy?
You were responding to a person who said this "When it can be proven that it has been done repeadedly over time then yes, absolutely, because then it's a systematic attempt to hurt the other person as opposed to just airing your own views. "
The words "repeatedly" and "systemic" are important here.
purplefood wrote: Are you kidding me?
Did you just say psychological abuse is fine as long as it's true?
That's absurd!
If you had a child or even a partner you emotionally and psychologically abused for 10 years you'd be locked up and rightly so.
There's a BIG difference between a one time comment (True or not) and a constant and unending tirade of emotional and psychological abuse.
See what you did there? I said telling the truth and you said psychological abuse and you suggested a 10 year time frame to support your position.
Right or wrong and....legal or illegal are two different things. I agree that it is wrong, but to make it a law is very difficult to enforce or even to judge.
The thing about verbal abuse is, it usually comes with physical abuse too and that is measurable and arrest able.
As adult goes, you have the right to exit that verbal abuse relationship.
Child, what can you do about verbal abuse? Sometime that punk kid need to be yell at and "abuse" by saying like... You are a looser. If you keep skipping school and hang out with those looser friends... You will stay as a looser! Kind of hard to judge verbal abuse to me.
Oh... What About boot camp in the military? Is that verbal abuse for the drill sgt. To call private a sissy?
You were responding to a person who said this "When it can be proven that it has been done repeadedly over time then yes, absolutely, because then it's a systematic attempt to hurt the other person as opposed to just airing your own views. "
The words "repeatedly" and "systemic" are important here.
I understand, but boot camp is the same thing.
I guess because I hold the rule that people have the right to leave, if forced to stay...it is kitnapping ....so I rather have the liberty to say whatever and take the bad abuse in the mix than to put regulation and censorship.
Like I said..., I don't have this freedom anymore in Thailand. I would rather have a few "abused" people who can't or didn't want to leave the relationship than have govt. who will tell you what your relationship can and can't say to each other.
purplefood wrote: Are you kidding me?
Did you just say psychological abuse is fine as long as it's true?
That's absurd!
If you had a child or even a partner you emotionally and psychologically abused for 10 years you'd be locked up and rightly so.
There's a BIG difference between a one time comment (True or not) and a constant and unending tirade of emotional and psychological abuse.
See what you did there? I said telling the truth and you said psychological abuse and you suggested a 10 year time frame to support your position.
Right or wrong and....legal or illegal are two different things. I agree that it is wrong, but to make it a law is very difficult to enforce or even to judge.
The thing about verbal abuse is, it usually comes with physical abuse too and that is measurable and arrest able.
As adult goes, you have the right to exit that verbal abuse relationship.
Child, what can you do about verbal abuse? Sometime that punk kid need to be yell at and "abuse" by saying like... You are a looser. If you keep skipping school and hang out with those looser friends... You will stay as a looser! Kind of hard to judge verbal abuse to me.
Oh... What About boot camp in the military? Is that verbal abuse for the drill sgt. To call private a sissy?
You were responding to a person who said this "When it can be proven that it has been done repeadedly over time then yes, absolutely, because then it's a systematic attempt to hurt the other person as opposed to just airing your own views. "
The words "repeatedly" and "systemic" are important here.
I understand, but boot camp is the same thing.
I guess because I hold the rule that people have the right to leave, if forced to stay...it is kitnapping ....so I rather have the liberty to say whatever and take the bad abuse in the mix than to put regulation and censorship.
Like I said..., I don't have this freedom anymore in Thailand. I would rather have a few "abused" people who can't or didn't want to leave the relationship than have govt. who will tell you what your relationship can and can't say to each other.
There's a difference between having a government say what you can or cannot say or think and allowing people to simply abuse others.
Not everyone even has the option of leaving.
Abusive relationships often go on for far longer than they should because the abused person cannot leave for whatever reason. Often they are not forced to stay but do so out of guilt, emotional vulnerability, money issues or a whole host of other problems including the abused persons own bloody family.
Abused children have very little ability to leave home for a very long time.
Boot camp is not that same as either of these things. As far as I understand it you can leave at any time during boot camp. Though if i am wrong someone correct me.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have freedom of speech. Just that words are not as harmless as you seem to believe.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you honestly can't imagine any worse verbal abuse than a husband calling his wife fat then I don't think it matters what we say.
Its not calling her fat. Its waking up in the hospital after, thats the bad part.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If you honestly can't imagine any worse verbal abuse than a husband calling his wife fat then I don't think it matters what we say.
Let me put it like this... I like it as is in America.
By and large I do agree with free speech, but consider he following scenarios
1) A group of neo-nazis showing up to a Jewish burial and making an antisemitic sermon on the sidelines (which isn't a personal insult)
2) You're a firm believer in evolution. The school your kids are going to decide that half their science curriculum will be taught as per Creationist beliefs. (the teachers board are Creationists, and they feel it is their right to free speech to teach all their students their beliefs).
Those are extreme scenarios, but my point is staunch belief in free speech breaks down when you find yourself subjected to a message you perceive as an assault on your values or beliefs, or otherwise intolerant. We're not robots after all. I've found that some people (and I stress some and not all) who tend to play the "freedom of speech" card are bigots, or otherwise obnoxious persons. What's more they think their right to free speech transcends the law, and won't acknowledge that they are for example disturbing the peace. In many cases they are ignorant of the law altogether, and when they're thrown in jail all they do is bitterly complain for what they ignorantly perceive as a violation of their rights.
Its all well and good in principle. In practice, if the speaker disregards social etiquette or is disrespectful towards others' beliefs, it will reach a point where conflict ensues.
By and large I do agree with free speech, but consider he following scenarios
1) A group of neo-nazis showing up to a Jewish burial and making an antisemitic sermon on the sidelines (which isn't a personal insult)
2) You're a firm believer in evolution. The school your kids are going to decide that half their science curriculum will be taught as per Creationist beliefs. (the teachers board are Creationists, and they feel it is their right to free speech to teach all their students their beliefs).
Those are extreme scenarios, but my point is staunch belief in free speech breaks down when you find yourself subjected to a message you perceive as an assault on your values or beliefs, or otherwise intolerant. We're not robots after all. I've found that some people (and I stress some and not all) who tend to play the "freedom of speech" card are bigots, or otherwise obnoxious persons. What's more they think their right to free speech transcends the law, and won't acknowledge that they are for example disturbing the peace. In many cases they are ignorant of the law altogether, and when they're thrown in jail all they do is bitterly complain for what they ignorantly perceive as a violation of their rights.
Its all well and good in principle. In practice, if the speaker disregards social etiquette or is disrespectful towards others' beliefs, it will reach a point where conflict ensues.
It is part of the price of freedom of free speech and I would take it.
Again, I live in a land where my rights of free speech is gone now. We can not talk about our govt or the monarchy, to do so will land you in jail. I ain't mean a few days in jail....they can throw the book at you and you can be there for 15 years!
Since my rights are gone, I laugh at the people complaining about being call fat.
The price for the abused of the small individuals doesn't out weight the liberty for the society as a whole. I rather not give power to the govt about censorship or policing verbal abuse. Not worth it.
Trust me "les majesty" can be aply by my govt to get anybody they want in jail. Oh you said that the tax is too high? Well that is talking bad about our Monachy because they support this tax rate....you are breaking les majesty law. 6 months jail!
But even without an individual parent society will still care for children.
Not necessarily, and sometimes despite best intentions, the child grows up feeling abandoned due to no parents being around. If you look at the Rotherham child prostitution ring, involving at least 1400 girls, those girls were from broken homes, many were in State care facilities. The lack of a proper family environment (and community network) left them open to being exploited by these grooming gangs.
Okay, but you didn’t actually respond to my point, you just gave started a new essay on what you think about freedom of speech. To clarify – you stated that free speech doesn’t mean you can’t be punished, it just means you can’t be stopped from saying what you want. To which I pointed out that a state in which a murder can’t be stopped, but simply punished afterwards would meet your definition, and so that state could be considered as having ‘free murder’. Which is obviously ridiculous.
You misunderstood my post then. As stated above, freedom of speech allows you to have and represent any opinion you might have, as ridiculous as it may be. What matters, though, is how you do so. You can always express your opinion without being persecuted. As above...you could go out with a "I hate gays" t-shirt and that'd be totally fine. Going out with a "Kill all gays!" t-shirt is...borderline okay...standing on top of an orange box and wildly shouting that people should kill all gays isn't okay, that's a crime. That is more than expressing your opinion, it's hatespeech. Freedom of Speech does not mean "Say all whatcha want brah!", it means that you're free to have and share any and each opinion of yours - as long as you don't violate other people's basic rights.
Hatespeech = thought crime. It's a wholly unjustifiable act of censorship and the attempt of the state to police one's thoughts. Wearing a tshirt that says "I hate gays", wearing a tshirt that says "Kill all gays" and standing on a street corner yelling "Everyone should help kill all the gays!" are all just expressions of a belief/opinion/idea. While I concur that such vehement bigotry is unappealling and distasteful, it's not a crime to have an opinion and it's not a crime (here in the US) to express an opinion no matter how distasteful. Having the idea in your head that all homosexuals should be murdered is disturbing but not criminal because ideas don't harm anyone and the state cannot legislate against ideas in your own mind. The state has no moral or legal authority to declare that some thoughts are good and other thoughts are bad and are therefore criminalized. If you as a person conspires to murder gays, attempts to murder gays or murders gays, those are actions, actions can be criminalized, prosecuted and punished. Thoughts are free, nobody, citizen or state, has the right or the ability to control what you can and can't think and punish you for thinking the "wrong" thoughts.
Speech isn't just words that are spoken or written, it's about the ideas that those words convey. Thoughts are free and unfettered by the state. Actions are governable by the state. Yelling Fire! in a theater, committing slander, libel, fraud etc., and inciting a riot are all actions, therefore people can be punished for choosing to commit criminal actions. Expressing your personal belief of (whatever) is not a crime. One is free to believe whatever ignorant bigotted nonsense one wants with impunity because holding a particular belief in and of itself is not a crime, it is free speech.
You're conflating freedom of speech with freedom of conscience. One is indeed free to hold whatever bigoted belief one wants, but as you correctly point out, speech is actions, and actions are punishable. If libel and slander are prosecutable offenses, then why should spreading lies about groups of people not be?
Words are not thoughts, pretending that they are just so one can use a 1984 reference is not going to do much good for the debate.
Except libel and slander are NOT prosecutable offenses, at least in the states. They are torts, meaning that one can seek civil redress and recompense in the civil courts, but no one is getting arrested for Slander.
I hate Hate Speech. I love the right of idiots everywhere to engage in it. In fact speech we dislike - loathe even - is the most important speech to fight to protect.
The other great thing about purveyors of hate speech is that they immediately confirm what idiotic gakkers the speaker is without wasting a lot of time otherwise coming to that conclusion that it takes me with most people.
EDIT: also... there's a metric feth ton of pseudo law in this thread relating to children, their rights, the rights of parents and guardians, and the rights of parents and guardians in relation to their kid (and by proxy there should be talk of the states rights to intervene in some and / or all of these scenarios, and yet there's not...). I won't take the time to directly comment on all of it, but there's a lot of Family Law misinformation in this thread. I just wanted to point that out.
Two final points on that; my comments are all from the point of view of law in the US. And, two, nope, not a lawyer, but several law degrees, and a certified paralegal that did freelance paid legal research and writing for many, many years, focusing on criminal and IP law as concentrations.
At this point it's probably a good idea to separate laws that affect rest of the freedom of speech and laws that regard libel, slander etc., as cases like that are easy to judge according to the harm principle. Also, I do not intend this as an attack, but simply a question of interest, that AllMighty, how do you feel about the current situation in Sweden in regard of the media and freedom of speech?
To be honest I think that the biggest problem with Freedom of Speech in Sweden at the moment is that so many people have no fething clue about what it is, complaining about "censorship" when they're not allowed to use newspaper comment fields and the like to spew their drivel. You would've thought that it'd be easy to understand that it only regulates what the state is allowed to do, but no...
purplefood wrote: School curriculum isn't quite the same as freedom of speech.
Aren't funerals private ceremonies anyway?
Your right, maybe not the best example. Yes they are private, but there's nothing stopping a hate group hanging out a short distance away. Take these guys guys for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church#Funeral_pickets 100% freedom of speech...and 100% despicable.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be honest I think that the biggest problem with Freedom of Speech in Sweden at the moment is that so many people have no fething clue about what it is, complaining about "censorship" when they're not allowed to use newspaper comment fields and the like to spew their drivel. You would've thought that it'd be easy to understand that it only regulates what the state is allowed to do, but no...
What about government funded organisations that actively go after the governments political opponents? Also, to be honest I think that sppech should be also protected from some non governmental actions, as without that there will be no de-facto freedom of speech.
It is part of the price of freedom of free speech and I would take it.
Again, I live in a land where my rights of free speech is gone now. We can not talk about our govt or the monarchy, to do so will land you in jail. I ain't mean a few days in jail....they can throw the book at you and you can be there for 15 years!
Since my rights are gone, I laugh at the people complaining about being call fat.
The price for the abused of the small individuals doesn't out weight the liberty for the society as a whole. I rather not give power to the govt about censorship or policing verbal abuse. Not worth it.
Trust me "les majesty" can be aply by my govt to get anybody they want in jail. Oh you said that the tax is too high? Well that is talking bad about our Monachy because they support this tax rate....you are breaking les majesty law. 6 months jail!
If that happened in my country, I'd feel the exact same way. As mentioned I'm all for free speech except where its incitement to hatred, etc. A line has to be drawn somewhere between what is free expression and what is discrimination and incitement to hatred.
I wrote a speech on this for homework! Here it is:
"Freedom of speech in Modern Society
Freedom of speech is highly important in the modern world. It is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.” It is included in the UN declaration of Human rights and is recognised in the US with the first amendment to the US Constitution. It has recently been in the news due to the Charlie Hebdo shootings. On the 7th January 2015 two masked muslim extremists went into a publisher of a french comedy magazine and shot many staff in the building, after they published an image of the prophet Muhammad, which goes against their religion, this has lead to many arguments of how far freedom of speech should go, in many countries “hate speech”, which is statements which are intended to cause offence to a particular group, is illegal and is normally excluded from the freedom of speech laws. In France, I believe they have a well thought stance on religion, they allow anyone to practise any religion or belief of their choice privately, but does not allow people to push their beliefs onto the wider public, and also allows people to mock public figures and religions. In most Islamic countries, freedom of speech does not cover mocking Islam, which is considered blasphemy. I feel that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but mocking others based on their race, religion, gender or sexuality oversteps the line."
Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.
Hmm. if you believe in something as black and white as "people should be able to say whatever they want, period" (and correct me if that's not what you're saying) then good luck with that. From my observations and reading into societies both past and present things are a lot greyer than that. Laws aren't fair -for example a law which imposes harsh sentences on thieves isn't fair to thieves. Likewise a law which allows free speech for hate groups isn't fair to the people who are subjected to abuse by those groups. And on the other hand a law which classes the propaganda of those groups as incitement to hatred would not be perceived as fair by those hate groups. Often laws or social conventions are determined by what is fairest to most people.
Only a moral relativist thinks a slippery slope is not wet.
Hmm. if you believe in something as black and white as "people should be able to say whatever they want, period" (and correct me if that's not what you're saying) then good luck with that. From my observations and reading into societies both past and present things are a lot greyer than that. Laws aren't fair -for example a law which imposes harsh sentences on thieves isn't fair to thieves. Likewise a law which allows free speech for hate groups isn't fair to the people who are subjected to abuse by those groups. And on the other hand a law which classes the propaganda of those groups as incitement to hatred would not be perceived as fair by those hate groups. Often laws or social conventions are determined by what is fairest to most people.
Or fairest to the ones with the most power. Thats why a bright line is better.
As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.
Parties are not the state though.
But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.
EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.
Yes, but you forgot the other part, that parties are the ones that in the end make all the decissions in a country.
But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies. If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.
As far as I know for example the swedish anti-fa receives funding from leftists parties.
Parties are not the state though.
But then again parties receive money from the government and they also make the decissions.
EVERYONE recieves some sort of benefit from the state.
Yes, but you forgot the other part, that parties are the ones that in the end make all the decissions in a country.
But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies. If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.
>But not in their capacities as parties. There's a difference between the State, in its capacity as the sovereign wielder of legitimate violence, trying to silence detractors and some of the constituent parts of the State trying to counter their political enemies.
It is true that the parties are not really the state de-jure, but de-facto the parties are the ones that rule the country especialy in the case of social democrats in sweden.
>If parties were not allowed to try to counter their political opponents there would be no election debates, no creating opinion whatsoever.
I doubt that the practices of the swedish anti-fa can be considered legit ways to influence political opinion, as it often includes threats and violence.
Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.
Sienisoturi wrote: Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.
So no advocating harm or spreading falsehoods about groups of people then? That's what I've been saying all along!
Sienisoturi wrote: Anyways, enough of this part of the argument. The real question in this case is not that are parties effectively the state or not, but the real question now is that what to think about organisations, that by the threat of harm (losing job, violence, etc.) try to oppose freedom of speech. Many in this thread have said that freedom of speech only protects from the government, but in my opinion it should also protect you from harm that can be caused by other people. For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.
So no advocating harm or spreading falsehoods about groups of people then? That's what I've been saying all along!
When have I defended the right to do illegal threats in this thread? Also there is a general difference in doing something, and saying that you will do it. It is better to look at some examples then now in this case. For example the employer could have the freedom to say to his workers that he will fire them for demanding more pay, but he could not actually fire them then (Of course the workers should then know their rights including that they can't be fired then.). However then also the employer that said that can't be fired for that reason alone. Also, there is a difference in an illegal threat, and the hate speech laws that you support. For example, it would be illegal to point at someone with a gun and tell them to do thing X now or get shot, as the chance of violence towards the person to whom this is told is an imminient risk, and not obeying the person saying that would result in death or injury. This is especially true if the person that wants this done has done the thing already before, as then it is likely that he will do it again. However, this is different from somebody saying, that everyone that does thing X should be shot, as then the threat of violence is not imminient, and the chances that it will be done are minimal.
Another example would be to consider the statements like "rob the banks", and the statement, "we will rob this and this bank at this and this time", as it is clear that in the former example there will be no harm actually caused to the banks, as it is extremely unlikly that they will actually be robbed, but in the latter one the danger of harm is very real. However, in both this and the above example, context is very important, as words alone can't be considered a threat. For example, if the person that makes the statement "we will rob this and this bank at this and this time" has no weapons and no objects that would indicate that he will actually do that, then his words should not be considered illegal. Again, it is all about the harm principle, as only when the statement causes direct harm, or when it tells about planning the causing of harm should the statement be illegal. However, in the case of planning the harm the statement itself is not illegal, as shown by my example, but the planning of the harm itself is illegal. Also it is very good to keep in mind that the planning part depends heavily on context. Also the advocating harm part should follow the same idea that the palnning does, so that it heavily depends on the context, and only when it can directly cause harm should it be illegal, and to be honest most of the time public statements are not causing direct harm, as any harm that might come is indirect, for example e leader of a criminal group could be tried because he gave orders to kill somebody. Again, context is very important.
To emphasize further for the context of the planning and advocating harm, the words themselves are not the ones that are illegal, but the cause of harm as that it causes. This can be further observed by another example. Let's say a criminal group uses the words "collect the milk" as words that mean killing somebody. In that case for example the boss of the group could be tried for saying that to a person in detail, so that the target person(s) would be known that after the person who was ordered to, killed that somebody who was known, but then it of course has to be proven in court that in that context the statement means exactly that. However without that detailed context, nobody could be tried for saying that.
Poly Ranger wrote: Tolerance should never be used as an excuse to tolerate intolerance.
Sounds good until you try to define tolerance. Afteral, what some people regard as rights, others regard as highly offensive behaviour. Sometimes that behaviour is regarded as inappropriate, as hateful - such as hate speech, as provocative, other times behaviour is regarded as freedom of expression, belief, free speech.
Problems arise not in the concepts of freedom, but in the understanding of what is acceptable and what is not, things which are often defined by culture rather than universal morality. If you look at the Charlie Hebdo example, a cartoonist was fired from there for making cartoons that certain jewish groups found insulting. Granted they didn't shoot up the whole office, but then again they didn't need to, the office did their bidding of getting rid of the offending cartoonist. They refused to retract their cartoons that muslims found offensive which is why they were targeted.
Then what followed? World leaders from countries where the press is limited, where freedom of speech is limited, took part in ridiculous marches with other world leaders to condemn this attack on freedom of speech. Now some jewish student union in France is calling on hate speech to be banned online, what they mean though is anything they deem to be offensive, I don't believe for a second that they mean banning cartoons or opinions that are offensive to anyone else.
So while some people can agree that certain things are offensive, it would be very difficult to work out what doesn't offend anyone, perhaps political cartoons should be banned as they are offensive by nature, or should people and groups accept a bit of offence in order to preserve a wider expression of free speech?
For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.
In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.
For example, I think that workers should be protected from losing their jobs when they speak up against bad wages, as otherwise they can be silenced by the employer by threatening that they will lose their way of income.
In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.
There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.
I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do
In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.
There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.
This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.
As such, if someone is working for Disney, and signed something that says "you will not disclose nor discuss how much money you make with anyone" and you do so, especially in a public sphere, then that someone should kind of expect a backlash from it.
This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.
I'm shocked. I don't know anything about it, but doing a little background reading it seems that if that were true it would be very illegal. I'm shocked that someone whose job is presumably some kind of employment specialist would say something like that.
Sining wrote: I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do
You know, in my experience there's at least as many people complaining about how PC is bad because they're being called on being gigantic douches.
This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.
I'm shocked. I don't know anything about it, but doing a little background reading it seems that if that were true it would be very illegal. I'm shocked that someone whose job is presumably some kind of employment specialist would say something like that.
I think it makes sense... Imagine if you will for a moment, that you work for... say, Microsoft as some big time Software Writer... top of your business. You're at a trade show or other job related event and someone from Apple comes up and asks, "how much do you make per year?" and you tell them "200k". A week later, you get a phone call or email or something from Apple saying, "hey, I know you work for MS, and are making 200k per year, we would love for you to come work for us and we'll pay you 300k per year"
IMO, it doesn't violate free speech if you are hired on to a company and knowingly sign a document saying "I will not disclose X, Y, and Z" and one of those items is your salary.
Obviously this doesn't apply for public sector employees, like teachers or firefighters/police, politicians and the like, because budgets are supposed to be a matter of public record to "reassure" the tax payer that their money isn't being wasted (it is... just not on salaries in most places)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think it makes sense... Imagine if you will for a moment, that you work for... say, Microsoft as some big time Software Writer... top of your business. You're at a trade show or other job related event and someone from Apple comes up and asks, "how much do you make per year?" and you tell them "200k". A week later, you get a phone call or email or something from Apple saying, "hey, I know you work for MS, and are making 200k per year, we would love for you to come work for us and we'll pay you 300k per year"
IMO, it doesn't violate free speech if you are hired on to a company and knowingly sign a document saying "I will not disclose X, Y, and Z" and one of those items is your salary.
Obviously this doesn't apply for public sector employees, like teachers or firefighters/police, politicians and the like, because budgets are supposed to be a matter of public record to "reassure" the tax payer that their money isn't being wasted (it is... just not on salaries in most places)
Oh, it makes sense for companies to try to do something like that, but then again, business aren't usually the go-to places for pro-competition policies. Thing is, that Microsoft/Apple example is exactly how it is supposed to work in a competitive employment marketplace. It's how an person can actually ensure that they are being paid fairly, by working for the company who will pay them the most. It's why it is against the law (in many places). You're pay is actually a form of protected speech, one you can't sign away.
Oh, it makes sense for companies to try to do something like that, but then again, business aren't usually the go-to places for pro-competition policies. Thing is, that Microsoft/Apple example is exactly how it is supposed to work in a competitive employment marketplace. It's how an person can actually ensure that they are being paid fairly, by working for the company who will pay them the most. It's why it is against the law (in many places). You're pay is actually a form of protected speech, one you can't sign away.
I guess the distinction could actually be down to where the "price" is coming from... I mean, if I'm sitting in the 2nd or 3rd interview, and salary is being discussed, and somewhere I say to the effect of, "I will not work for less than X" is one thing, or I could say, "I was making X before, so I expect that is a fair starting point".... but the employer themselves cannot ask you to disclose how much you were making.
I don't know, it all seems quite a bit legalese to me, so employment practices lawyers could probably speak to this better than I can... it's merely how it was told to me when I was leaving the army
Sining wrote: I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do
You know, in my experience there's at least as many people complaining about how PC is bad because they're being called on being gigantic douches.
At which point you're agreeing that there's as many people using PC to stifle freedom of speech
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.
It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).
For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.
Sining wrote: I wish. But there are way too many people out there who would use 'political correctness' to stifle people they don't like while excusing the same from people they do
Yeah and the whole Social Justice Warriors "movement".
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.
It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).
For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.
This seems to be a common misconception but if you're trying to say only the government can censor things, ACLU disagrees with you.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.
It's an exersize of free speech (as is all communication), but not a matter of free speech. No one is actually being prevented from saying what they want to, others are simply able to privately shame or inflict punishments that they have the power to do (such as blacklisting people from tv channels).
For example, if I started spouting racial epithets on this forum, my comments would be deleted. Free speech has nothing to do with that.
This seems to be a common misconception but if you're trying to say only the government can censor things, ACLU disagrees with you.
No, I'm saying that what private citizens do to stop you from expressing your ideas (blacklisting form tv channels, no news coverage, expulsion from clubs, ect.) is not a matter of freedom of speech.
If censorship isn't limited to the governement, why is freedom of speech only limited to them?I mean at what point do you say 'okay, as a private entity, I will refuse to even air you on my tv channel, give you no news coverage and expel you from this club and it's totally ok' and who do you think it is ok to do this to?
Because we have no right to be there. They do not stop us from talking, merely make us less likely to be heard.
It is not a good thing for them to do, in fact it is cowardly, but they have the right to do so if it is their property. Do I condone corporate censorship, no, but at the same time I realize that it is nit covered by freedom of speech.
Just because something is not illegal, doesn't mean it's not wrong.
Psienesis wrote:In the US, workers are protected by the National Labor Relations Act and can do exactly this. Any employer that threatens to fire workers for discussing wages, unionization, working conditions, etc. is in violation of Federal law.
There is actually a really excellent example of this stuff going on right now. Namely in the US animation industry, where some of the big names have been colluding to suppress wages, and doing all sort of other unethical stuff, including incidences of docking wages and firing employees for discussing their remuneration packages. Google 'Disney Wage Scandal' Oh, and it has connections to the tech industry as well. Huh.
This may not be universal, but when I was going through all the "get out of the army training" they were constantly talking about how, when most people are hired on to a company, one of the many things they agree to when they sign their name on whatever contract they do, is that they do not discuss their compensation. At all.
As such, if someone is working for Disney, and signed something that says "you will not disclose nor discuss how much money you make with anyone" and you do so, especially in a public sphere, then that someone should kind of expect a backlash from it.
Posting about it online might be enforceable, but there is no legal way an employer can prevent you from talking with your co-workers about your pay-scale, working conditions, etc.
If you and Bob both work for ABC Corporation, and do the same work, have the same job-title, same background, same qualifications, etc. you would expect to be making the same amount of money as Bob, right? That's the expectation. It is perfectly within your rights to say "Hey. Bob, I'm making X dollars an hour doing this, how much are you making?" Bob, of course, is under no compulsion to tell you (it is, likewise, his right not to discuss this topic), but if Bob is willing to discuss it, it is a violation of Federal law for your employer to take actions against you for this conversation.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Free speech only applies to the government. People shaming or ridiculing people for things they perceive as wrong has nothing to do with free speech.
Actually, that has everything to do with free speech. It is the very exercise of it: that people on more than one side of an argument or opinion can say whatever they want to about it.
His point is that if you have a disagreement with someone else, that other person usually can't arrest you because they don't like what you're saying.
The political aspect of free speech is in reference to the government, that the government cannot abridge the freedom of speech or expression as a matter of law.
The "Free Speech" idea has several moving parts to it, its not one overarching umbrella. I think the governmental / political (note, not political speech, political motivated aspects OF free speech... it's a subtle distinction, but a sure one) is what he was getting at.
Censorship is another portion of the moving parts of free speech, but i'm not even going to touch on that one, its a thread all its own (gak, one PIECE of censorship could take a year's worth of sundays to explain and digest in a rational debate, and were' not going to get that on the internet.... that one little piece is "Obscenity". And i don't mean swears. I mean as a legal term as a basis for legally censoring. It's a goddamn quagmire if you like things like sense, sanity, and logic. That famous quote "I can't tell you what's obscene, but i know it when i see it" is so cleverly and ironically true (i probably didn't get that quote dead on, but you get the gist)).
As my favorite law professor said when he asked our Legal Theory class if we agreed that it would be a good idea if Sodium Pentothol should be used on people during criminal questioning if we could be shown evidence (note, not prove - shown evidence!) that wrongful convictions would be greatly reduced or eliminated as a result: when most of the class agreed, framed in that lens, his response was "Do not so easily be led into fascism."
