Democrat Control Means Hate Bill Will Pass .Free Speech GONE

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you mean freedom of expression would be allowed, if a freedom of speech is not?
What if you feel there is something wrong with you religious or political system? How exactly are you going to express yourself in a way that it doesnt violate freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are pretty much mother and daughter.

let us not get lost in blind idealism. unless you feel people should have the right to scream "fire" in a movie theater, or someone should have the right to bear false witness in a court of law.

only a sith deals in absolutes

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is a topic where the oinions of people are quite different. I for one see total freedom of speech as a rather good thing.

Then it is fortunate that no rational society agrees with you.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Then speech is not free at all.

If 'free speech' were to be completely unfettered, many crimes would suddenly become non-criminal.

There has to be a balance between the realistic right to say whatever you choose, and the necessity of laws which prevent certain crimes that occur as a result of speech.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Then it is fortunate that no rational society agrees with you.

Fair enough. Just saying that it is not as obvious as you make it out to be. It is also controversial. And not only with persons who want to be able to continue with their "Hate Speeches".

bardock's just frustrated because he's forbidden by law from goose stepping and saluting hitler

It's not actually very controversial among legislative circles; it tends to be a particular sort of person that has issue with it. The fact that no reasonable society is ever going to come close to literal free speech indicates, basically, what an absurd idea it is considered to be.

Actually, spinning off from that point, you can go too far. Free Speech might not be literal but it is a concept that needs serious attention being paid to, and all this stuff on the Continent about Holocaust denial being illegal is really quite silly.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How do you mean freedom of expression would be allowed, if a freedom of speech is not?
What if you feel there is something wrong with you religious or political system? How exactly are you going to express yourself in a way that it doesnt violate freedom of speech.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech, are pretty much mother and daughter.

Internet is still the only place where freedom of speech as reached an absolute. 👆

You...kind of don't really know what freedom of speech actually covers, do you.

Speech is free up until the point where it violates the rights or safety of someone else. Saying you disagree with the government is protected under it. Saying you dislike how your church did something is protected under it. Going into a crowded area and yelling "fire!" is not, as it will incite a riot. Saying that (insert group here) should die is not, because hate speech sure as hell violates the rights of the people targetted by such speech.

And actually, free speech is non-existant on the internet. All sites are privately owned by people and thus you are bound to any and all rules that they set.

Originally posted by PVS
bardock's just frustrated because he's forbidden by law from goose stepping and saluting hitler

This does bother me to be honest. I can see that screaming fire in a Theatre has ..."bad"...consequences. But it is hard (for me to draw a line) and although it might not be useful for a society to allow it I think free speech should be free. Certainly the free expressions of ones feelings. If one has the opinion that "Allm whites are selfish bastards" or "All woman should cook and shut up or "All niggers should be killed" I think they should have the right to say so. As idiotic as I find it myself. I just can't see why "I think gays should have the right to marry" can't be forbidden by that reasoning as well. I don't think it is a slippery slope, I don't think bad things would happen if we forbid it, I just think it is a freedom we lose that we don't have to lose.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
and all this stuff on the Continent about Holocaust denial being illegal is really quite silly.

i agree. simply being an ignorant ass does not endanger anyone, and once that is forbidden, its a very slippery slope. once laws forbid offending certain parties, i think that particular society is ****ed

Okay, that is embarrassing, but I did jump to a conclusion too fast. There are things that should not be covered by free speech. Forgive me for stealing your folks time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Certainly the free expressions of ones feelings. If one has the opinion that "Allm whites are selfish bastards" or "All woman should cook and shut up or "All niggers should be killed" I think they should have the right to say so. As idiotic as I find it myself. I just can't see why "I think gays should have the right to marry" can't be forbidden by that reasoning as well. I don't think it is a slippery slope, I don't think bad things would happen if we forbid it, I just think it is a freedom we lose that we don't have to lose.

The distinction is made where it could possibly lead to harm. If someone wants to say someone is an idiot, stupid, or whatever, that's fair, but if they try to persuade someone to kill them, it's one of those things that will naturally evolve into the system we have now.

The reason such things are illegal is because it is grossly juvenile to deny a link between allowing the incitement of bad things, and then those bad things actually happening, which it would be a total failure of Government if they did not act to prevent it at source.

The reason some things are alloiwed and some are not are based on a moral judgment made by society as reflected by elected representatives and the reason you can't see the distinction is because you really don't have much truck with that whole moral area.

The reason you think you have something to lose is made on the assumption that all freedom is good. It is not; that is a blanket view that does not stand close examination.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, that is embarrassing, but I did jump to a conclusion too fast. There are things that should not be covered by free speech. Forgive me for stealing your folks time.

do me

Originally posted by Lana
You...kind of don't really know what freedom of speech actually covers, do you.

Speech is free up until the point where it violates the rights or safety of someone else. Saying you disagree with the government is protected under it. Saying you dislike how your church did something is protected under it. Going into a crowded area and yelling "fire!" is not, as it will incite a riot. Saying that (insert group here) should die is not, because hate speech sure as hell violates the rights of the people targetted by such speech.

And actually, free speech is non-existant on the internet. All sites are privately owned by people and thus you are bound to any and all rules that they set.

No.

You cannot use phrase ''freedom of speech'' then staert spuring bullshit about limitations of it.
There is no freedom of speech, and if there is, it is UNLIMITED. Fact.

If you feel happy thinking that freedom of speech is free upuntil some point, and then its not anymore, than thats fine. It does not make it so, however.

Originally posted by PVS
let us not get lost in blind idealism. unless you feel people should have the right to scream "fire" in a movie theater, or someone should have the right to bear false witness in a court of law.

only a sith deals in absolutes

Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If 'free speech' were to be completely unfettered, many crimes would suddenly become non-criminal.

There has to be a balance between the realistic right to say whatever you choose, and the necessity of laws which prevent certain crimes that occur as a result of speech.

Not sure what you base that on.

How would freedom of speech make certain crimes non-criminal?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The distinction is made where it could possibly lead to harm. If someone wants to say someone is an idiot, stupid, or whatever, that's fair, but if they try to persuade someone to kill them, it's one of those things that will naturally evolve into the system we have now.

That is very subjective though. That's a line I would aim at, but what to take in and leave out is very broad.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The reason such things are illegal is because it is grossly juvenile to deny a link between allowing the incitement of bad things, and then those bad things actually happening, which it would be a total failure of Government if they did not act to prevent it at source.

The reason some things are alloiwed and some are not are based on a moral judgment made by society as reflected by elected representatives and the reason you can't see the distinction is because you really don't have much truck with that whole moral area.

The reason you think you have something to lose is made on the assumption that all freedom is good. It is not; that is a blanket view that does not stand close examination.

Wow. Hey, I might be wrong a lot of the time, but at least I do not believe I found the absolute truth.

Originally posted by PVS
do me

Nah, I'm a failure,...you can find better.

Deano is correct. Most of those who are somewhat intelligent, know that its all a cover up to limit "free speech" as it pertains to Christians. Half of you are so blind and delusional its scary. The other half are just following along with program, probably being cohersed by the self proclaimed powers that be, or too afraid to say anything - but the way I figure it -- they really don't have any real power to begin with, so that's why I really don't care.

I'm not going to be intimidated. If I gotta say something that's true - then I'll say it, and whatever consequences come about so be it. Wouldn't be much love in this life without a bit of sacrafice and risk eh?

Very few outside of religions claim to have found absolute truth. To be searching for it is different. That is what most legal systems try to do.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really idealism. I am not for a complete freedom of speech anyway.
I was marely responding to the idea that people use term ''freedom of speech'' then condem hate speech.

You can't have both. It is simple as that.

to condemn 'hate speech' which does not endanger the lives of others imho is a tremendous breach in freedom of speech. however according to black/white thinking i can say that freedom of speech would mean having the right to lie in court and even perhaps hire a hitman.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is very subjective though. That's a line I would aim at, but what to take in and leave out is very broad.

It is, but it's one of those things where it's probably better to err on the side of caution. I tend to favour the right of not having one's life endangered over the right for someone to do that. It's a law that could be officially abused, but then so can many things.

It's a weird idea anyway, complete freedom of speech. Like complete freedom of action, wihtout having to consider the consequences.