Freedom of Speech

derchin · 1st July 2012, 10:59 PM

A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited.

Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing?

If yes, why so?

If no, then what should stay and what should go and why?

Korren · 2nd July 2012, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited.

Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing?

Allowed where? In the privacy of their own home? In my home? On the airwaves? On a soap-box in town square? On a privately owned web forum? In an e-mail? In their work e-mail? In a scientific paper? In a television ad? In an anonymous letter? In an anonymous letter to a target of their vitriol? On the public street outside my house, shouting at two a.m. in the night?

Brian-M · 2nd July 2012, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing?

That depends on what you mean by "what's on their mind".

If by "what's on their mind" you mean express a personal opinion during discussion in a way that makes it clear that it's a personal opinion and not necessarily a statement of fact, then yes.

If by "what's on their mind" you mean "allowed to say absolutely anything they want" then no. Slander and libel laws exist for a reason. People shouldn't be allowed to ruin other people's reputations by lying, such as telling people that someone is a registered sex offender, embezzler or kleptomaniac if it's not true.

Beyond this, there's lots of other situations where freedom of speech is legally curtailed, and for good reason. Lying to customers about a product's effectiveness, perjury, incitement to riot. Hell, even speaking up in a courtroom could get you fined for contempt of court.

angrysoba · 2nd July 2012, 01:08 AM

Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public?

1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile).
2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.)
3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.)
4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard)
5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.)
6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.)
7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.)
8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries).
9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.)
10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.)

The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal.

rjh01 · 2nd July 2012, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Korren

Allowed where? In the privacy of their own home? In my home? On the airwaves? On a soap-box in town square? On a privately owned web forum? In an e-mail? In their work e-mail? In a scientific paper? In a television ad? In an anonymous letter? In an anonymous letter to a target of their vitriol? On the public street outside my house, shouting at two a.m. in the night?

I think this is about right. There should be places where you can say almost anything short of inciting a criminal act. But in many other places eg work, it needs to be limits.

Darat · 2nd July 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

...snip...
7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.)
...snip...

Just as a FYI: It may well be held to be blasphemous by some but the offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008.

Aepervius · 2nd July 2012, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited.

Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing?

If yes, why so?

If no, then what should stay and what should go and why?

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. What people *wishes* is to be able to say what's on their mind without the consequence be it from the government, or their peers looking at them.

Now where that line of "non consequence" "punishment" is set by the government, or your peer , is a matter of culture and history. But even the US has that line somewhere, and no country has a consequence free freedom of speech.

I am fine with how where the line is in most western countries, except the few one with still blasphemy law that is.

WildCat · 2nd July 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

I am fine with how where the line is in most western countries, except the few one with still blasphemy law that is.

You support Holocaust denial laws?

Some countries have such a loose definition of "incitement" that it includes offending someone.

Beerina · 2nd July 2012, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public?

1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile).
2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.)
3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.)
4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard)
5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.)
6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.)
7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.)
8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries).
9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.)
10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.)

The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal.

It's good the debate is in this area rather than "Congressman Smith sucks". And let's keep it that way.

angrysoba · 2nd July 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Just as a FYI: It may well be held to be blasphemous by some but the offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008.

D'oh! You know what I meant. Anyone good news on the abolition of criminalized blasphemy.

Soapy Sam · 3rd July 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited.

Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing?

If yes, why so?

If no, then what should stay and what should go and why?

Say what you like.
But be prepared to take the consequences.

derchin · 3rd July 2012, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Say what you like.
But be prepared to take the consequences.

Verbal? Physical?

JeanFromBNA · 3rd July 2012, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public?

1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile).
2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.)
3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.)
4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard)
5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.)
6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.)
7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.)
8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries).
9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.)
10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.)

The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal.

All of them, except #9, which is a matter of public safety.

(# 2 and #3 made me giggle. "You've got a week and a bit . . ." tee hee)

arthwollipot · 3rd July 2012, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA

(# 2 and #3 made me giggle. "You've got a week and a bit . . ." tee hee)

They are a direct quote of a tweet that actually got someone prosecuted and sent before the courts. A final decision from the second court of appeal is currently pending.

baron · 4th July 2012, 06:06 AM

Up until recently I was of the view that freedom of speech should cover everything but very specific instances, such as overt racism or false allegations. Now I'm tending towards a complete freedom of speech, the right to say whatever you like whenever you like to whomever you like. I think existing legislation is sufficient to cover the implications if used correctly, so speech could still be slanderous or threatening or have evidential consequence and be dealt with as such under law, but in absence of these specific factors everything should be allowed.

Korren · 4th July 2012, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Now I'm tending towards a complete freedom of speech, the right to say whatever you like whenever you like to whomever you like. I think existing legislation is sufficient to cover the implications if used correctly, so speech could still be slanderous or threatening or have evidential consequence and be dealt with as such under law, but in absence of these specific factors everything should be allowed.

So, basically, what you're saying is that all speech should be free, except such speech that isn't? Or are you conflating non-free speech with censored speech?

baron · 4th July 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Korren

So, basically, what you're saying is that all speech should be free, except such speech that isn't? Or are you conflating non-free speech with censored speech?

Neither, I said that consequence under law should be the basis for any retribution. There's no such thing as censored speech. If one person says to another they must rob a bank otherwise their kid gets killed then various laws outside of speech laws cover the consequence. If someone announces that all homosexuals should be killed or that black people are monkeys then the response should be one of societal condemnation rather than legal action.

mike3 · 4th July 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by baron

Neither, I said that consequence under law should be the basis for any retribution. There's no such thing as censored speech. If one person says to another they must rob a bank otherwise their kid gets killed then various laws outside of speech laws cover the consequence. If someone announces that all homosexuals should be killed or that black people are monkeys then the response should be one of societal condemnation rather than legal action.

What would be the problem with a speech law that would cover that kind of "rob" speech?

Skeptical Greg · 4th July 2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Say what you like.
But be prepared to take the consequences.

Originally Posted by derchin

Verbal? Physical?

Legal?

The point was to be prepared for the consequences, regardless of the appropriateness of the response..

Exercising your uncompromising right to free speech toward Mike Tyson, might take a different direction than it would with Pee Wee Herman..

baron · 4th July 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by mike3

What would be the problem with a speech law that would cover that kind of "rob" speech?

There's no need for it. Furthermore, any such law runs the risk of criminalising those who deserve to remain innocent as we see on a regular basis.

Jarlaxle · 4th July 2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

It's good the debate is in this area rather than "Congressman Smith sucks". And let's keep it that way.

But Congressman Smith DOES suck. He's a Congressman, they ALL suck!

epepke · 4th July 2012, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA

All of them, except #9, which is a matter of public safety.

Funny. Christopher Hitchens shouted "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium as part of his speech, and nobody got hurt. Perhaps you could get the State to sue his estate.

Incidentally, if Holmes' statement in the context he said it were taken seriously, every war protestor would have been executed by now. Hooka dooka!

JeanFromBNA · 5th July 2012, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by epepke

Funny. Christopher Hitchens shouted "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium as part of his speech, and nobody got hurt. Perhaps you could get the State to sue his estate.

Where did I say I wanted to do that? Have much fun hiding cheap insults behind your fascinating internet personality?

BStrong · 5th July 2012, 07:58 AM

You can say anything you want, in whatever venue you choose.

You then have to accept the consequences for that speech.

I see no problem.

Beerina · 5th July 2012, 08:03 AM

Well, absolutism is wrong, absolutely. And if thine ear burneth, rippe out thy neighbor's tongue.

Maybe there should be a democratic exemption where politicians can silence particularly outrageous statements as long as most people feel mmmmmmgmgggphf

Jono · 6th July 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

You support Holocaust denial laws?

Some countries have such a loose definition of "incitement" that it includes offending someone.

I think I read about a canadian mathematics (Tremaine I think his lastname was) teacher who got jailtime for writing on Stormfront et al in a manner inline with the given forum (i.e, denoted as hate-speech or something to that end).

Is it that strict in Canada?

Jono · 6th July 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

You can say anything you want, in whatever venue you choose.

You then have to accept the consequences for that speech.

I see no problem.

"I see no problem" regardless of what those consequences might be?

1st July 2012, 10:59 PM	#1
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Freedom of Speech A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited. Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing? If yes, why so? If no, then what should stay and what should go and why?
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

2nd July 2012, 12:02 AM	#2
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by derchin A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited. Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing? Allowed where? In the privacy of their own home? In my home? On the airwaves? On a soap-box in town square? On a privately owned web forum? In an e-mail? In their work e-mail? In a scientific paper? In a television ad? In an anonymous letter? In an anonymous letter to a target of their vitriol? On the public street outside my house, shouting at two a.m. in the night?
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344

2nd July 2012, 01:14 AM	#5
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,197	Originally Posted by Korren Allowed where? In the privacy of their own home? In my home? On the airwaves? On a soap-box in town square? On a privately owned web forum? In an e-mail? In their work e-mail? In a scientific paper? In a television ad? In an anonymous letter? In an anonymous letter to a target of their vitriol? On the public street outside my house, shouting at two a.m. in the night? I think this is about right. There should be places where you can say almost anything short of inciting a criminal act. But in many other places eg work, it needs to be limits.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

2nd July 2012, 05:30 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by angrysoba ...snip... 7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.) ...snip... Just as a FYI: It may well be held to be blasphemous by some but the offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

2nd July 2012, 05:45 AM	#7
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,761	Originally Posted by derchin A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited. Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing? If yes, why so? If no, then what should stay and what should go and why? Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. What people wishes is to be able to say what's on their mind without the consequence be it from the government, or their peers looking at them. Now where that line of "non consequence" "punishment" is set by the government, or your peer , is a matter of culture and history. But even the US has that line somewhere, and no country has a consequence free freedom of speech. I am fine with how where the line is in most western countries, except the few one with still blasphemy law that is.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

2nd July 2012, 12:26 AM	#3
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,276	Originally Posted by derchin Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing? That depends on what you mean by "what's on their mind". If by "what's on their mind" you mean express a personal opinion during discussion in a way that makes it clear that it's a personal opinion and not necessarily a statement of fact, then yes. If by "what's on their mind" you mean "allowed to say absolutely anything they want" then no. Slander and libel laws exist for a reason. People shouldn't be allowed to ruin other people's reputations by lying, such as telling people that someone is a registered sex offender, embezzler or kleptomaniac if it's not true. Beyond this, there's lots of other situations where freedom of speech is legally curtailed, and for good reason. Lying to customers about a product's effectiveness, perjury, incitement to riot. Hell, even speaking up in a courtroom could get you fined for contempt of court.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 2nd July 2012 at 12:27 AM.

2nd July 2012, 01:08 AM	#4
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,579	Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public? 1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile). 2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.) 3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.) 4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard) 5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.) 6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.) 7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.) 8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries). 9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.) 10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.) The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal.

2nd July 2012, 06:20 AM	#8
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,098	Originally Posted by Aepervius I am fine with how where the line is in most western countries, except the few one with still blasphemy law that is. You support Holocaust denial laws? Some countries have such a loose definition of "incitement" that it includes offending someone.

2nd July 2012, 06:21 AM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by angrysoba Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public? 1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile). 2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.) 3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.) 4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard) 5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.) 6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.) 7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.) 8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries). 9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.) 10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.) The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal. It's good the debate is in this area rather than "Congressman Smith sucks". And let's keep it that way.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

2nd July 2012, 06:24 AM	#10
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,579	Originally Posted by Darat Just as a FYI: It may well be held to be blasphemous by some but the offence of blasphemy was abolished in 2008. D'oh! You know what I meant. Anyone good news on the abolition of criminalized blasphemy.

3rd July 2012, 02:37 PM	#11
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by derchin A heavily debate topic on numerous forums I visited. Should people be able to say what's on their mind, whether it's offensive, controversial, unintelligent in nature, or hate-inducing? If yes, why so? If no, then what should stay and what should go and why? Say what you like. But be prepared to take the consequences.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

3rd July 2012, 08:08 PM	#12
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 325	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Say what you like. But be prepared to take the consequences. Verbal? Physical?
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

3rd July 2012, 09:43 PM	#13
JeanFromBNA Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by angrysoba Which of these should be allowed, by law, in public? 1) "Mr Smith is a paedophile." (In reality, he is an elementary school teacher and not a paedophile). 2) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (In reality, he is joking.) 3) "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your ** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (Genuine threat.) 4) "Behead All Those Who Insult the Prophet!" (Written on a placard) 5) "Mohammed Was a Paedophile." (He was too, although most people were a lot more relaxed about peadophilia in those days.) 6) "The Holocaust Is a Lie!" (It is illegal to say this in some countries, particularly in those where there are sensitivity issues.) 7) "Jesus Is a Lie!" (Maybe still blasphemous in the UK although nobody would be convicted for saying it these days nor would any TV shows which said it be prevented from broadcast.) 8) "Let's go downtown and lynch some black people!" (Incitement to racial hatred and murder in many countries). 9) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is not actually on fire.) 10) "Fire!" (In a crowded theatre which is actually burning down.) The thing is that although all of those statements would get me arrested in some contexts, if I say that it in the context of a forum post then I imagine that they're all legal. All of them, except #9, which is a matter of public safety. (# 2 and #3 made me giggle. "You've got a week and a bit . . ." tee hee)

3rd July 2012, 11:36 PM	#14
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA (# 2 and #3 made me giggle. "You've got a week and a bit . . ." tee hee) They are a direct quote of a tweet that actually got someone prosecuted and sent before the courts. A final decision from the second court of appeal is currently pending.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

4th July 2012, 06:06 AM	#15
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Up until recently I was of the view that freedom of speech should cover everything but very specific instances, such as overt racism or false allegations. Now I'm tending towards a complete freedom of speech, the right to say whatever you like whenever you like to whomever you like. I think existing legislation is sufficient to cover the implications if used correctly, so speech could still be slanderous or threatening or have evidential consequence and be dealt with as such under law, but in absence of these specific factors everything should be allowed.
	__________________

4th July 2012, 06:14 AM	#16
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by baron Now I'm tending towards a complete freedom of speech, the right to say whatever you like whenever you like to whomever you like. I think existing legislation is sufficient to cover the implications if used correctly, so speech could still be slanderous or threatening or have evidential consequence and be dealt with as such under law, but in absence of these specific factors everything should be allowed. So, basically, what you're saying is that all speech should be free, except such speech that isn't? Or are you conflating non-free speech with censored speech?
Korren Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 344

4th July 2012, 06:30 AM	#17
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Korren So, basically, what you're saying is that all speech should be free, except such speech that isn't? Or are you conflating non-free speech with censored speech? Neither, I said that consequence under law should be the basis for any retribution. There's no such thing as censored speech. If one person says to another they must rob a bank otherwise their kid gets killed then various laws outside of speech laws cover the consequence. If someone announces that all homosexuals should be killed or that black people are monkeys then the response should be one of societal condemnation rather than legal action.
	__________________

4th July 2012, 10:56 AM	#18
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,944	Originally Posted by baron Neither, I said that consequence under law should be the basis for any retribution. There's no such thing as censored speech. If one person says to another they must rob a bank otherwise their kid gets killed then various laws outside of speech laws cover the consequence. If someone announces that all homosexuals should be killed or that black people are monkeys then the response should be one of societal condemnation rather than legal action. What would be the problem with a speech law that would cover that kind of "rob" speech?
mike3 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,944	__________________ “Ego is subversive and devolutionary, truly destructive and terrible; ego is the generator of privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Ego is the fire that burns within the pit of hell, devouring and cosuming everything that enters and leaving utterly nothing behind. Ego is horrible, cruel, and restraining, the darkness of the world, and the doom and bane of man.” – a reaction to that famous Bertrand Russell quote.

4th July 2012, 11:20 AM	#19
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam Say what you like. But be prepared to take the consequences. Originally Posted by derchin Verbal? Physical? Legal? The point was to be prepared for the consequences, regardless of the appropriateness of the response.. Exercising your uncompromising right to free speech toward Mike Tyson, might take a different direction than it would with Pee Wee Herman..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 4th July 2012 at 11:22 AM.

4th July 2012, 12:18 PM	#20
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by mike3 What would be the problem with a speech law that would cover that kind of "rob" speech? There's no need for it. Furthermore, any such law runs the risk of criminalising those who deserve to remain innocent as we see on a regular basis.
	__________________

4th July 2012, 12:59 PM	#21
Jarlaxle Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: New England Posts: 452	Originally Posted by Beerina It's good the debate is in this area rather than "Congressman Smith sucks". And let's keep it that way. But Congressman Smith DOES suck. He's a Congressman, they ALL suck!

4th July 2012, 09:09 PM	#22
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by JeanFromBNA All of them, except #9, which is a matter of public safety. Funny. Christopher Hitchens shouted "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium as part of his speech, and nobody got hurt. Perhaps you could get the State to sue his estate. Incidentally, if Holmes' statement in the context he said it were taken seriously, every war protestor would have been executed by now. Hooka dooka!
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

5th July 2012, 07:49 AM	#23
JeanFromBNA Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 399	Originally Posted by epepke Funny. Christopher Hitchens shouted "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium as part of his speech, and nobody got hurt. Perhaps you could get the State to sue his estate. Where did I say I wanted to do that? Have much fun hiding cheap insults behind your fascinating internet personality?

5th July 2012, 07:58 AM	#24
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,820	You can say anything you want, in whatever venue you choose. You then have to accept the consequences for that speech. I see no problem.

5th July 2012, 08:03 AM	#25
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Well, absolutism is wrong, absolutely. And if thine ear burneth, rippe out thy neighbor's tongue. Maybe there should be a democratic exemption where politicians can silence particularly outrageous statements as long as most people feel mmmmmmgmgggphf
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

6th July 2012, 06:04 AM	#26
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,538	Originally Posted by WildCat You support Holocaust denial laws? Some countries have such a loose definition of "incitement" that it includes offending someone. I think I read about a canadian mathematics (Tremaine I think his lastname was) teacher who got jailtime for writing on Stormfront et al in a manner inline with the given forum (i.e, denoted as hate-speech or something to that end). Is it that strict in Canada?
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard

6th July 2012, 06:05 AM	#27
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,538	Originally Posted by BStrong You can say anything you want, in whatever venue you choose. You then have to accept the consequences for that speech. I see no problem. "I see no problem" regardless of what those consequences might be?
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard