Switch Theme:

Freedom of speech  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







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.

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:


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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:


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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/18 20:45:42


Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







I guess whoever came up with the sticks and stones thing had never heard "the pen is mightier than the sword."
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I guess whoever came up with the sticks and stones thing had never heard "the pen is mightier than the sword."


"The pen is mightier than the sword, but the Big Red Button is Da Bomb."

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:


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).


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

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.


That's not good. Hope your safe.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Although the rights of the child can out-way the rights of the parents in certain cases, child abuse specifically.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

david choe wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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?

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
david choe wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
 sebster wrote:


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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

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.

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


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.



Prestor Jon wrote:


Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults.


Prestor Jon wrote:


Because children don't have any legal rights



Prestor Jon wrote:

children don't have any legal rights


Wait, what?


Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


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.


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


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.



Prestor Jon wrote:


Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults.


Prestor Jon wrote:


Because children don't have any legal rights



Prestor Jon wrote:

children don't have any legal rights


Wait, what?


Prestor Jon wrote:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

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.

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:


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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/18 21:59:45


   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 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?

KMFDM 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

david choe wrote:
 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.

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 purplefood wrote:
david choe wrote:
 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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

david choe wrote:
 purplefood wrote:
david choe wrote:
 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.

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

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.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in th
Regular Dakkanaut





 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.

KMFDM 
   
Made in ie
Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon





Dublin


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.

I let the dogs out 
   
Made in gb
Renegade Inquisitor de Marche






Elephant Graveyard

School curriculum isn't quite the same as freedom of speech.
Aren't funerals private ceremonies anyway?

Dakka Bingo! By Ouze
"You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: