America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,781 comments
  • 1,874,007 views
Danoff
Those limits have to do with causing real-world harm, and are intimately tied with that harm. In the cases of slander, libel, and fraud, you're only on the hook for provable damages. When discussing killing someone, intent to actually carry that out needs to be proven. So the discussion itself is not illegal.

In fact, the discussion itself is never illegal (in the US), and hurt feelings never constitute damages.
Click to expand...

Of course they are tied to real world harm, that's what I've been saying all this time :P

Famine
If they're demonstrably false, you have legal recourse. Remember, freedom to say what you want is not protection from consequence of saying what you want.
Click to expand...


In freedom lies protection from legal consequence because otherwise you were not free to do it. "You can say anything you want as long as it's not illegal" is definitely a limit of the freedom of expression.

Imagine a law saying that if you criticize the government you go to prison for two years; with your reasoning that would not be a limit to the freedom of expression, because you were free to say what you did - you just went to prison as a consequence of it.
 
Scaff
Oh dear, that botched raid just got a bit more botched.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rget-al-qaeda-leader-yemen-raid-a7566211.html

Screw up the Intel, SEAL gets killed, civilians including children die and now find out you missed the target and then get taunted by them about it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like casual U.S. President gets duped.

I could show you a few instances the last 3 Presidents had this happen.

Like a strike last year that killed several civilians after screwed up intel, or this gem under Clinton order that was on quick intel as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

It's sad in the end no matter who made the call.
 
eran0004
In freedom lies protection from legal consequence because otherwise you were not free to do it.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, no.

You're free of criminal prosecution, because that would be government censure. Criminal law isn't the only law...
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Sounds like casual U.S. President gets duped.

I could show you a few instances the last 3 Presidents had this happen.

Like a strike last year that killed several civilians after screwed up intel, or this gem under Clinton order that was on quick intel as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach

It's sad in the end no matter who made the call.
Click to expand...
I agree its going to happen to any President given time, but for it to happen on your first one, and one you allegedly left the ops room during is a little more embarrassing.
 
Scaff
I agree its going to happen to any President given time, but for it to happen on your first one, and one you allegedly left the ops room during is a little more embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Obama's first drone strikes killed one militant and 10 civilians, around five of which were thought to be children.

He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize no later than 8 days afterwards.
 
Pillo-san
Once again you show that you do not know what freedom of speech is all about.. If you are missusing Freedom of speech to call someone N-word or spew other hate speech disguise as Freedom of speech then you will eventually get all Free of speech banned completely.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. Anyone should be free to say what they want without fear that it will eventually be impossible for them to say what they want.

That doesn't come without responsibility for the speaker though, as noted by @Famine:

Famine
Freedom of speech is just that - the freedom to speak without government censure. It isn't protection from consequences of exercising it.
Click to expand...
 
Famine
Freedom of speech is just that - the freedom to speak without government censure. It isn't protection from consequences of exercising it.
Click to expand...

The public prosecution service charged Wilders after police received nearly 6,000 complaints about a speech he gave following local elections in March 2014. After his party had narrowly failed to become the largest group on The Hague’s city council, Wilders asked a roomful of supporters if they wanted to have “more or fewer Moroccans” in the country. When the crowd shouted back “Fewer!”, he replied: “Well, we’ll take care of that.”
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-in-hate-speech-trial-but-no-sentence-imposed

Something like this?
 
Omg, People defending Hate speech that is openly disguised as freedom of speech. How can you not see the fault in this. It is so easy to see what is what..What you do privately or say privately is one thing, but preaching it openly to others about a certain issue that is so easy to see through what his goal actually is and defend it by saying it is free speech, is simply ridiculous.

Once again, Freedom of speech is not for spewing racist propaganda or hate openly like that...
Using it like this is simply miss use of the "Freedom of speech"...
 
Last edited:
Pillo-san
Omg, People defending Hate speech that is openly disguised as freedom of speech. How can you not see the fault in this. It is so easy to see what is what..What you do privately or say privately is one thing, but preaching it openly to others about a certain issue that is so easy to see through what his goal actually is and defend it by saying it is free speech, is simply ridiculous.

Once again, Freedom of speech is not for spewing racist propaganda or hate openly like that...
Using it like this is simply miss use of the "Freedom of speech"...
Click to expand...


You are simply confusing being put in gaol by the government for what you say, which is wrong, as opposed to people criticising and disagreeing with what you say, which is good and necessary.

The condensed Voltaire:

I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it.
 
Pillo-san
Omg, People defending Hate speech that is openly disguised as freedom of speech. How can you not see the fault in this.
Click to expand...
When you say "You have freedom of speech unless you say the following things" you mean "You don't have freedom of speech". Placing limitations on it to censor speech on it is "Censored speech".

It's not complex.

Once again, freedom of speech is the ability to speak freely without censure from the government, but not a guarantee of protection from the consequences of speaking.
 
Like I have said in the begging.
People should have been thought already in school how to socialize.
If a person is not able to comprehend how and what unspoken rules there are in the society then he is psychopath which means that individual need help to function properly. A person should by default know what he should be allowed to say openly. If he does not, then he needs help as he is simply destroying what free speech really means for all of us when we will need it.
 
Pillo-san
Omg, People defending Hate speech that is openly disguised as freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

It's not a disguise. Hate speech is speech...

In the US, we don't need to stand up for the freedom to state that we agree with and wholeheartedly support the Trump administration. The government isn't going to squash that anytime soon. It's the edgy stuff that actually needs protecting.

Pillo-san
but preaching it openly to others about a certain issue that is so easy to see through what his goal actually is and defend it by saying it is free speech, is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

In the US, we're pretty protective of our ability to express ourselves.

Pillo-san
Once again, Freedom of speech is not for spewing racist propaganda or hate openly like that...
Using it like this is simply miss use of the "Freedom of speech"...
Click to expand...

No, that's just a use of the freedom of speech. Racist propaganda is speech, and we have codified that our government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".

Pillo-san
Like I have said in the begging.
People should have been thought already in school how to socialize.
If a person is not able to comprehend how and what unspoken rules there are in the society then he is psychopath which means that individual need help to function properly. A person should by default know what he should be allowed to say openly. If he does not, then he needs help as he is simply destroying what free speech really means for all of us when we will need it.
Click to expand...

If it's an unspoken rule, that means you don't go to jail for breaking it.
 
RESHIRAM5
I don't agree with the should part though, I don't think someone should be dictated to say anything to someone "correctly".
Click to expand...

I think people should strive to be considerate. That's my opinion. I'm not talking about forcing anyone to be considerate when I say should, just that it would be a good thing.

RESHIRAM5
I'm not comparing being trans and an opinion like that as they are different, however they both are supported by stuff governing our freedom, Trans are allowed to freely express themselve due to this and I support that. We are also allowed to make our decisions and have our own say on matters I support that as well. I simple support both freedoms and don't think it's any sort of dickish. It would be dickish to attempt to remove any of these freedoms from both parties.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for a removal of any rights.
 
Pillo-san
Like I have said in the begging.
People should have been thought already in school how to socialize.
If a person is not able to comprehend how and what unspoken rules there are in the society then he is psychopath which means that individual need help to function properly. A person should by default know what he should be allowed to say openly. If he does not, then he needs help as he is simply destroying what free speech really means for all of us when we will need it.
Click to expand...

Whoa there, shut the front door, are you a mental health professional qualified to make an evaluation on someone, hell, anyone? I don't think so. I don't get offended easily but what you just typed is borderline extremely offensive. You do realize there are people with special conditions like Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's syndrome (to name a few) that are completely incapable socializing in a normal way, and you just incorrectly classified these people as Psychopaths.

And also, free speech is free speech just because the majority may find something offensive, that doesn't mean that right is restricted or that it's being misused. That is some very thin ice you are walking on there with that argument
 
Scaff
I agree its going to happen to any President given time, but for it to happen on your first one, and one you allegedly left the ops room during is a little more embarrassing.
Click to expand...

What was staying going to do or achieve. I mean any time a President makes a call on intelligence there is risk of the unknown. The fact that he made a go ahead on it and trusted the intel the DoD was providing due to intelligence we greatly have set up there for years is a sad irony, especially his first time out I don't see how the way the Independent framed it really holds true.

Also Famine posted what I was going to post if you had pressed me for examples from Bush and Obama. Also let's not forget he (Obama) did this, and then pressed on to do masses of more strikes that were some successful and others not.
 
Last edited:
DDastardly00
Whoa there, shut the front door, are you a mental health professional qualified to make an evaluation on someone, hell, anyone? I don't think so. I don't get offended easily but what you just typed is borderline extremely offensive. You do realize there are people with special conditions that like Autism, Tourette's syndrome that are completely incapable socializing in a normal way, and you just incorrectly classified these people as Psychopaths.

And also, free speech is free speech just because the majority may find something offensive, that doesn't mean that right is restricted or that it's being misused. That is some very thin ice you are walking on there with that argument
Click to expand...

Wth are you talking about. Maybe you should not be clutching at straws?
Like usual some try to twist stuff out of context...

I am pretty sure that in due time you will get restrictions on how one will be able to make public speeches when the "minorities" get fed up an demand a change to what is considered as free speech.

If someone do not know how to behave in public then they will surly get help :P

Why do you think laws and stuff are for.

It is the people of the country that decide the course of the country after all, if they desire a restriction on something because a few are miss using a right and hiding behind the pretence of "free speech", you will get that restriction.
It will after all not affect a normal citizen.
Most of us want to live a life in peace, and be able to criticize the government or injustice we come across, not spew hate around...
 
Last edited:
Famine
To be government censure it does...
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter; either you are allowed to say it or you are not. It doesn't matter if it's criminal law or civil law, any limit of the freedom of expression is a limit of the freedom of expression.

Danoff
He's talking about civil law, specifically the ability of someone to sue someone else for damages.

(Sorry @Famine, I couldn't help it)
Click to expand...

And if the law allows you to sue someone else for damages it means that they weren't free to do what they did.
 
eran0004
It doesn't matter; either you are allowed to say it or you are not. It doesn't matter if it's criminal law or civil law, any limit of the freedom of expression is a limit of the freedom of expression.
Click to expand...
No, because freedom of speech is the ability to say what you like without government censure, like I've told you several times now.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee you immunity from other consequences - such as being sued for libel, losing your job, your wife leaving you, or people thinking you're stupid - just the freedom from censure by the government.

eran0004
And if the law allows you to sue someone else for damages it means that they weren't free to do what they did.
Click to expand...
No, it just means they were not protected from the consequences. Which isn't what freedom of speech guarantees!
 
Famine
No, because freedom of speech is the ability to say what you like without government censure, like I've told you several times now.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee you immunity from other consequences - such as being sued for libel, losing your job, your wife leaving you, or people thinking you're stupid - just the freedom from censure by the government.

No, it just means they were not protected from the consequences. Which isn't what freedom of speech guarantees!
Click to expand...

No, government retaliation is just one way of limiting the freedom of speech.
Wikipedia: Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4]

Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[7]

Legal systems sometimes recognize certain limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "harm principle" or the "offense principle". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[24] Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example speech codes at state schools.
 
Oh man, he copied the boiler plate from a Wikipedia article. Watch out everybody.

Pillo-san
Once again, Freedom of speech is not for spewing racist propaganda or hate openly like that...
Using it like this is simply miss use of the "Freedom of speech"...
Click to expand...
So who gets to be the arbiter of such a thing being misusing the concept of free speech or disguising hate speech? You?
 
Last edited:
Pillo-san
Wth are you talking about. Maybe you should not be clutching at straws?
Like usual some try to twist stuff out of context...

I am pretty sure that in due time you will get restrictions on how one will be able to make public speeches when the "minorities" get fed up an demand a change to what is considered as free speech.

If someone do not know how to behave in public then they will surly get help :P

Why do you think laws and stuff are for.

It is the people of the country that decide the course of the country after all, if they desire a restriction on something because a few are miss using a right and hiding behind the pretence of "free speech", you will get that restriction.
It will after all not affect a normal citizen.
Most of us want to live a life in peace, and be able to criticize the government or injustice we come across, not spew hate around...
Click to expand...

I'm talking about you calling people who can't socialize normally "Psychopaths". Those are your words, I am not twisting them and obviously you are incredibly ignorant on the subject of mental disorders if that is what you truly think.

Also, we won't be getting any new restrictions without a constitutional amendment , which won't happen, bank on it.
 
Tornado
So who gets to be the arbiter of such a thing being misusing the concept of free speech or disguising hate speech? You?
Click to expand...

No, it is often quite obvious what is what.
If I go up on a stage and say that I want to kill of all (insert group here) because of this and that.

I cant just hide behind the pretence of Freedom of speech. No, obviously I have made a serious overstep of what the right ensues.. You should be free to say what you want, but not hide behind a right that you are miss using.



DDastardly00
I'm talking about you calling people who can't socialize normally "Psychopaths". Those are your words, I am not twisting them and obviously you are incredibly ignorant on the subject of mental disorders if that is what you truly think.

Also, we won't be getting any new restrictions without a constitutional amendment , which won't happen, bank on it.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you are simply twisting my word out of context. not even worth to talk with you when you behave this childish..

If the people desire a amendment or a change then they will get it. It is simple, no piece of paper have more power then the population of the country.

Do you even know what a psychopath is?
 
Last edited:
Pillo-san
No, it is often quite obvious what is what.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have asked you twice if it was "quite obvious" where protected free speech ends and non-protected hate speech began. You've already used one example (someone dropping racial slurs) where it is "quite obvious" you didn't think through the implications of limiting free speech on that level, so I certainly hope it isn't you who would be put in charge of this definitely-going-to-happen amendment to the Constitution, but who would it be? What would their criteria be?
 
Famine
Obama's first drone strikes killed one militant and 10 civilians, around five of which were thought to be children.

He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize no later than 8 days afterwards.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that it was hit first strike that did that.
LMSCorvetteGT2
What was staying going to do or achieve. I mean any time a President makes a call on intelligence there is risk of the unknown. The fact that he made a go ahead on it and trusted the intel the DoD was providing due to intelligence we greatly have set up there for years is a sad irony, especially his first time out I don't see how the way the Independent framed it really holds true.

Also Famine posted what I was going to post if you had pressed me for exampled from Bush and Obama. Also let's not forget he did this, and then pressed on to do masses of more strikes that were some successful and others not.
Click to expand...
That does depend on what advise he was given, if it was against the DoD advice then it's an issue worth raising.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
445 446 447
Replies
13K
Views
629K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
453 454 455
Replies
14K
Views
775K
jesse100190
J
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
850
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
77
Views
8K
TB
TB

Latest Posts

Back