Freedom Of Speech

Well what are your thoughts on that?
Should it be absolute freedom. Should something be forbidden? If yes, what?

Freedom of speech is idiotic, there are tons of limitations that should be in place in my opinion. I won't start to name them all, but there will be prolly be a lot more than most forum members agree with. Freedom of thought is absolute freedom of speech is not

Yeah well this is one opinion, though one question who decides what is supposed to be limited and what not?

preciseley, fire. the large masses of population are too easy influenceable for their own actual good. they should be protected, again, for their own good, from some of those influence causes...like a certain individual's random idea on ..anything

Freedom of speech is the most important things we can have. To use freedom of speech to commit crimes is wrong. If we didn't have freedom of speech Who knows what things would be censor. And censorship has proven to be the most unjust things a group of people can do.

Well the way a democracy decided everything. everyone goes to vote on election day (making election attendance mandatory) they choose represintatives through a very proportionat system (not the first past the post stuff like they have in the UK or in the US, the german system aint bad tho) and those elected officials form a government which then makes laws about what is and is not allowed.

Well heres the other site, so I think WD is right FoS is important without any limitations. Of course there can be bad things promoted by some groups, but wwho are we to decide what these bad things are?

Well, as I mentioned in the other thread...

1. Incitement to crime

2. Slander

3. Harrassment

Three examples where literal freedom is justly restricted. The term 'Freedom of Speech' is conceptual and embodies something beyoind just a literal reading of the words.

The point is that speech should not be restricted on the grounds that other people my find it distasteful. It should only be restricted if it will actively cause harm.

freedom of speech is essential to liberty imho.
if you can be stopped from saying something, even if it inflicts no harm
or danger on anyone...where does it stop? how is the line drawn?
slippery slope

Originally posted by Fire
Well the way a democracy decided everything. everyone goes to vote on election day (making election attendance mandatory) they choose represintatives through a very proportionat system (not the first past the post stuff like they have in the UK or in the US, the german system aint bad tho) and those elected officials form a government which then makes laws about what is and is not allowed.

What if someone like Hitler would get elected, I mean its possioble so he has the right to decide what is wrong? Is that fair? So maybe Gays are not allowed to speak anymore. Or everyone isn't allowed to speak aboot Martin Luther King, is that ok?

as I said the elected government officials, if they f*ck up bad enough, the people (atleast in Belgium will make it obvious enough)

But these matters should be determined nationaly. a lot depends on the population their own relation to the laws and all. FoS always has had limits in Belgium so far, very few people care about it. I am sure that if they would go too far they would get into serious trouble.

Belgian politics always seemed to me as a bit different then other countries in the world

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, as I mentioned in the other thread...

1. Incitement to crime

2. Slander

3. Harrassment

Three examples where literal freedom is justly restricted. The term 'Freedom of Speech' is conceptual and embodies something beyoind just a literal reading of the words.

The point is that speech should not be restricted on the grounds that other people my find it distasteful. It should only be restricted if it will actively cause harm.

Well but the problem is to decide what is what

Originally posted by Bardock42
What if someone like Hitler would get elected, I mean its possioble so he has the right to decide what is wrong? Is that fair? So maybe Gays are not allowed to speak anymore. Or everyone isn't allowed to speak aboot Martin Luther King, is that ok?

In a representative system no one man has that much power. If he has, then that system has been destroyed, as happened to the Weimar Republic.

Incidentally, there is nothing less likely to help proper democracy than proportional representation...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The point is that speech should not be restricted on the grounds that other people my find it distasteful. It should only be restricted if it will actively cause harm.

that pretty much wraps it up imho.

*looks at post above*

as said before the general public has ways to bring the government down pretty fast. I also said belgium is a weird country envolving politics. you would need to own 66% of the national parliament and senat to even have a chance of changing the laws about Freedom of Speech (won't happen easily)

You dont believe in proportional Representation Ush?

*coughbushcough*

This is not true, the Weimarer Republic had a problem that it had no real unchangebal laws, but except for that it worked like any other system. The Nazis got a majority and according to Fires Definition they then could chose what is right and what is wrong

indeed, but as I said in Belgium (I'm willing to explain our entire political system but it will take a while) the chances of that happening are slim.

Besides an unchangable constitution is something I don't believe in

(as far as I know the american system is not very proportionat) almost half the people able to vote don't do it

Originally posted by Bardock42
*coughbushcough*

This is not true, the Weimarer Republic had a problem that it had no real unchangebal laws, but except for that it worked like any other system. The Nazis got a majority and according to Fires Definition they then could chose what is right and what is wrong

Only with assent from the people, which is what they got but only because the people had become intimidated and mis-led.

The Republic failed. The system fell apart, and became something it was never intended to be.

It is only an example of a FAILED democracy, not a peril OF democracy.

Well we got a few unchangable parts I mean I don't like all of it but one its our first Amendment so to say "The dignity of the human is unviolable"