Freedom of speech. Does it exist any longer?

[lbsf1]

As long as its within the AUP that's fine, but everyone posting in this thread should be 100% sure they are before hitting the post button.

Ah, so your allowed freedom of speech, but others are not simply because they don't share the same views as you?

Sorry, but it can't work like that, and this is exactly what you are complaining about in your opening post.

You either agree to a set standard on 'freedom of speech' and apply to to everyone (and I do mean everyone) or you don't have freedom of speech.

Historically its a minefield of a topic and while the ideal of everyone can say what they want is well lauded, my family has been on the receiving end of 'free speech' used to incite violence. Something that does someone cause a rethink of your attitude. The same as the lovely "Pakistanis (actually the AUP violating shorter version and totally inaccurate as my wife is Anglo-Indian not Pakistani) are not welcome" I found on my back fence yesterday. Does freedom of speech cover that?

I personally think a line needs to be drawn after speech. If someone verbally assaults you it may be unpleasant however it doesn't do any physical damage. However once there is violence or vandalism (as in your case) that is no longer speech and therefore should be punished.

You have a choice of ignoring what people say, however it isn't as easy to ignore actions. Therefore we have freedom of speech while still safeguarding people.

That's my opinion anyway, however I have never been on the receiving end of any proper insults so therefore my view is probably quite relaxed on it.

 

[ShobThaBob]

You do not have the right to not be offended by what people say. Here, you are legally protected to say whatever you want that might offend someone. The line gets drawn when you start telling people to do something illegal. The person who incites the riot is just as guilty, if not moreso, than the people who carry it out. Requiring a riot to happen in order to prosecute the inciter seems counter intuitive to preventing them from happening in the first place.

 

[Carbonox]

Ah, so your allowed freedom of speech, but others are not simply because they don't share the same views as you?

Sorry, but it can't work like that, and this is exactly what you are complaining about in your opening post.

You either agree to a set standard on 'freedom of speech' and apply to to everyone (and I do mean everyone) or you don't have freedom of speech.

You're getting me somewhat wrong. I think it should be rather obvious that violent groups become silenced because while it's violation of freedom of speech, it's also protection of civilians so they won't have to worry about living in the fantasy world of these violent groups - not a very bright future, I'd say. There are two things that conflict here: freedom of speech for everyone and the rights of people if they were forced under the rule of violent people. Which would you pick?

 

[Famine]

You're getting me somewhat wrong. I think it should be rather obvious that violent groups become silenced because while it's violation of freedom of speech, it's also protection of civilians so they won't have to worry about living in the fantasy world of these violent groups - not a very bright future, I'd say. There are two things that conflict here: freedom of speech for everyone and the rights of people if they were forced under the rule of violent people. Which would you pick?

Both.

Violence is an offence against the physical, not an offence against speech.

 

[JacksHerer]

seems the OP wants to spread miss information rather than speak freely.

Why would you be banned for spreading miss information which fits with the Zionist media the west is conditioned with day in day out?

 

[ShobThaBob]

Nice. Love to see how that will turn out.

 

[Carbonox]

Nice. Love to see how that will turn out.

Because of the language barrier I should probably ask for clarification...

Are you guys expecting a reply from me or the mods?

 

[Scaff]

You're getting me somewhat wrong. I think it should be rather obvious that violent groups become silenced because while it's violation of freedom of speech, it's also protection of civilians so they won't have to worry about living in the fantasy world of these violent groups - not a very bright future, I'd say. There are two things that conflict here: freedom of speech for everyone and the rights of people if they were forced under the rule of violent people. Which would you pick?

I'm not getting you wrong at all, your arguing for a two tier system.

A group can be extremist it is views to a massive degree without being violent (Westboro baptist for example), what you have said is that extremist groups (lets drop the specific labels because that should not apply here) should not have the same degree of freedom of speech.

That is a clear contradiction and exactly what you have complained about in your original post.

If you want total freedom of speech it has to apply to everyone, if not you are advocating the exact situation you are complaining about.

seems the OP wants to spread miss information rather than speak freely.

Why would you be banned for spreading miss information which fits with the Zionist media the west is conditioned with day in day out?

I believe we still have a separate thread for conspiracy theories.

 

[Carbonox]

Ah, the Westboro Baptist Church, one of my favorite extremist groups.

I don't care if it even says "god hates fags" in their website's name and I don't care if they make their protests in the middle of the street, it's no one's duty to go and listen to their hate speech.

However, I do think that their right to picket funerals should be eliminated without any doubts. I know that Kansas has banned that (it was somewhat odd though that the site where I found that out was DumbLaws!) but that doesn't mean they couldn't just go and do the same elsewhere.

Protests should always be allowed if they're not violent at all, but picketing one's funeral is merely dishonorable and disrespectful and tells a lot about those people's morals. When I heard of that vigilante group who was driving them off from funerals, I immediately took the side of the vigilantes even though they were, in a way, breaking the law too.

But well, this may be more related to a moral discussion rather than freedom of speech, so I'll leave it here.

 

[Scaff]

Ah, the Westboro Baptist Church, one of my favorite extremist groups.

I don't care if it even says "god hates fags" in their website's name and I don't care if they make their protests in the middle of the street, it's no one's duty to go and listen to their hate speech.

However, I do think that their right to picket funerals should be eliminated without any doubts. I know that Kansas has banned that (it was somewhat odd though that the site where I found that out was DumbLaws!) but that doesn't mean they couldn't just go and do the same elsewhere.

Protests should always be allowed if they're not violent at all, but picketing one's funeral is merely dishonorable and disrespectful and tells a lot about those people's morals. When I heard of that vigilante group who was driving them off from funerals, I immediately took the side of the vigilantes even though they were, in a way, breaking the law too.

But well, this may be more related to a moral discussion rather than freedom of speech, so I'll leave it here.

No its freedom of speech your discussing without a doubt and you are also making it quite clear that your happy to limit the rights people you disagree with.

This:

Protests should always be allowed if they're not violent at all

and this

but picketing one's funeral is merely dishonorable and disrespectful and tells a lot about those people's morals. When I heard of that vigilante group who was driving them off from funerals, I immediately took the side of the vigilantes even though they were, in a way, breaking the law too.

says it all quite frankly.

You want the right to free speech (assuming its none violent) for yourself, but you quite categorically state that you want to limit it for those who have a differing moral view to your own, even if they are not being violent and you have even gone so far as to condone violence being used against them!!!!

Its not free speech if only a select part of the population gets it and they only way to get it is if they share your moral views.

Advocating the use of illegal force to infringe on the legal rights of people you simply disagree with is not practising free speech, quite the opposite.

 

[Carbonox]

No its freedom of speech your discussing without a doubt and you are also making it quite clear that your happy to limit the rights people you disagree with.

This:

and this



says it all quite frankly.

You want the right to free speech (assuming its none violent) for yourself, but you quite categorically state that you want to limit it for those who have a differing moral view to your own, even if they are not being violent and you have even gone so far as to condone violence being used against them!!!!

Its not free speech if only a select part of the population gets it and they only way to get it is if they share your moral views.

Advocating the use of illegal force to infringe on the legal rights of people you simply disagree with is not practising free speech, quite the opposite.

What would you do if a funeral of your relative gets picketed? These types of instances are the exact reason why extremist groups shouldn't be granted the same rights as others. Even if they're non-violently protesting, they're still causing massive grief for the people who only want the dead person to get to rest in peace.

Do you accept the Muslims protesting in England, wanting the Britons to get out of their country? Freedom of speech needs to be limited when it comes to these extreme situations - insulting people who are being buried, immigrants trying to get the real Britons to leave... There are other examples as well.

I do understand that I don't want freedom of speech for everyone, but by looking at the pure evilness of some people, I think it can be justified. If the Western culture ceases to accept everything thrown at them as equally correct with the civilized way of affecting people's opinions, we could go a step forward in reaching a better world to live.

 

[Famine]

accept everything thrown at them as equally correct

Freedom of speech is not the same as validity of speech.

You have the freedom to rant that 2+2 is 5. You can keep doing it for as long as you like and it'll never be equally correct with 2+2 is 4 (or 11, in base3).

we could go a step forward in reaching a better world to live.

Limiting freedom of speech has only ever been a step towards a worse world.

 

[Carbonox]

In the current society, Muslims are allowed to tell the Britons to get out of their country (a great example, mind you) but us Westerners are not allowed to criticize Islam or we'll be fined and possibly lose our political status.

This type of acceptance needs to go.

 

[JacksHerer]

Hi, I feel for you Carbonox, but I can only imagine your hatred of Islam is through Ignorance and miss information. I am not a Muslim, but I've read a lot of the Koran.

A few years ago I took on islamiphobia on a uk website, I posted mirrored threads but with Judaism hatred instead of Islam (because the poster was Jewish) - the threads were deleted by the admin and I was banned for life.

Interestingly that website is owned by a media group and obviously has sponsers who have an agenda to push that is why they have a News forum - but interstingly do not accept anti Israel news but love anti Iran news.

Information needs to be in context, a very good book to read is Media Control by Noam Chomsky.

 

[Famine]

In the current society, Muslims are allowed to tell the Britons to get out of their country (a great example, mind you) but us Westerners are not allowed to criticize Islam or we'll be fined and possibly lose our political status.

This type of acceptance needs to go.

What you're criticising there is the limitation of freedom of speech. What you're proposing as a solution is... limiting freedom of speech.

Ludicrous.

 

[ShobThaBob]

In the current society, Muslims are allowed to tell the Britons to get out of their country (a great example, mind you) but us Westerners are not allowed to criticize Islam or we'll be fined and possibly lose our political status.

This type of acceptance needs to go.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the assumption that plenty of nonviolent speech is banned in parts of Europe. It's not something that you have as a right. Am I wrong?

 

[Joel]

You don't have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

 

[Carbonox]

Hi, I feel for you Carbonox, but I can only imagine your hatred of Islam is through Ignorance and miss information. I am not a Muslim, but I've read a lot of the Koran.

A few years ago I took on islamiphobia on a uk website, I posted mirrored threads but with Judaism hatred instead of Islam (because the poster was Jewish) - the threads were deleted by the admin and I was banned for life.

Interestingly that website is owned by a media group and obviously has sponsers who have an agenda to push that is why they have a News forum - but interstingly do not accept anti Israel news but love anti Iran news.

Information needs to be in context, a very good book to read is Media Control by Noam Chomsky.

My hatred of Islam (if it's OK to use such a strong word) comes more from the way Muslims think they're allowed to change the world into exactly what they want it to be, including bringing Sharia into industrialized countries - that's no ordinary law, it's an insult towards the human rights in the civilized world.

Of course it works the other way as well, but if you can believe it, I think the Western countries shouldn't go and affect the rest of the world in a similar way. Multiculturality in the world is OK as long as people don't try to change others' views.

 

[Northstar]

Muslims think they're allowed to change the world into exactly what they want it to be, including bringing Sharia into industrialized countries -

That's every religion.

 

[Carbonox]

That's every religion.

Do the others bring hate and uncivilization into the Western world right here on the 21st century?

 

[Northstar]

Do the others bring hate and uncivilization into the Western world right here on the 21st century?

Nope and neither do Muslims...

I suggest you actually, you know, get to know some Muslims instead of just deciding to hate them based on what the media says.

I know quite a few Muslims, none have tried to suicide bomb me yet( they have given me a few pounds of fat though from shoving food in my face).

 

[Scaff]

What would you do if a funeral of your relative gets picketed? These types of instances are the exact reason why extremist groups shouldn't be granted the same rights as others. Even if they're non-violently protesting, they're still causing massive grief for the people who only want the dead person to get to rest in peace.

I would dislike it immensely, however a big gap exists between me disliking something and violently subjugating the people carrying it out.

I have a long-held opposition to racial motivated right-wing organisations (NF, BNP, EDL, etc); however I have never and would never deny they have a right to free speech (and my family has been targeted by every one of those groups in one manner or another). Quite the opposite, letting them vent the nonsense and noise they want tends to show them in a true light.

I actively fight the free speech of groups like this with my own free speech.

Do you accept the Muslims protesting in England, wanting the Britons to get out of their country? Freedom of speech needs to be limited when it comes to these extreme situations - insulting people who are being buried, immigrants trying to get the real Britons to leave... There are other examples as well.

As long as they are within the law I have no issue with them, I no more accept someone else's legal right being denied than I would wish my own to be denied.

What you are wishing for here is to be blunt a dictatorship.

I do understand that I don't want freedom of speech for everyone, but by looking at the pure evilness of some people, I think it can be justified. If the Western culture ceases to accept everything thrown at them as equally correct with the civilized way of affecting people's opinions, we could go a step forward in reaching a better world to live.

No it can't be justified and quite frankly what you are wishing for is what leads to the rise of radical groups (just not the ones your currently targeting), which is quite frankly not a better world at all.

We have survived as a society quite well by allowing radical elements a voice and its only when governments have attempted to limit the rights of a minority that serious issues have arisen. Next you will be calling for these groups to be housed in specific areas to ensure that we can control what they say and do.

 

[Keef]

In the current society, Muslims are allowed to tell the Britons to get out of their country (a great example, mind you) but us Westerners are not allowed to criticize Islam or we'll be fined and possibly lose our political status.

This type of acceptance needs to go.

That is the fault of the people of your country which is where the government gathers its power from. Most government missteps stem from a people too timid to keep their government in line.

 

[Scaff]

My hatred of Islam (if it's OK to use such a strong word) comes more from the way Muslims think they're allowed to change the world into exactly what they want it to be, including bringing Sharia into industrialized countries - that's no ordinary law, it's an insult towards the human rights in the civilized world.

And exactly how many Muslims want strict Sharia imposed?

Do the others bring hate and uncivilization into the Western world right here on the 21st century?

Just how many Muslim's have you ever sat down and had a conversation with?

I've worked throughout the Middle East and my father lived and worked in the gulf for 15 years. The views you are attributing to an entire religion are about as widespread as radical views are within Christianity.

Would you see it as valid if I used the words and teachings of David Koresh, Jim Jones, The LRA and Westboro as examples of how every Christian thought and as examples of what they want? It would (rightly) be seen as absurd, yet that's exactly what you are doing.

Sit down and have a read of exactly what Leviticus says Jews and Christians should be doing in the name of religion and gain some understanding of the gap between what is written and what the majority of followers actually do.

Of course it works the other way as well, but if you can believe it, I think the Western countries shouldn't go and affect the rest of the world in a similar way. Multiculturality in the world is OK as long as people don't try to change others' views.

Odd because by advocating only allowing your approved views to be heard that's exactly what you are doing. You are quite happy to trample all over the views and rights of others as long as your own are left alone.

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

That is the fault of the people of your country which is where the government gathers its power from. Most government missteps stem from a people too timid to keep their government in line.

Its also pretty much nonsense.

This route has been gone down before in the 'Racism doesn't exists any more' thread in which it was argued that no one but white Christians gets charged with Hate crimes, oddly enough the real figures actually tie up very closely with racial/religious splits in the UK (Actually white Christians are slightly less likely in regard to the % population split). Various racially motivated groups in the UK like to make out that 'INSERT RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS TARGET' get away with 'murder/saying what they want/all our houses/all our women' (delete as applicable), however the reality is quite a bit different.

 

[Famine]

My hatred of Islam (if it's OK to use such a strong word) comes more from the way Muslims think they're allowed to change the world into exactly what they want it to be

Presumably that doesn't include thinking you're allowed to change the world into exactly what you want to be by limiting the freedom of speech?

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

This story seems to fit in with this conversation:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-approves-20-fine-for-swearing-in-public?lite

 

[Zenith]

This story seems to fit in with this conversation:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-approves-20-fine-for-swearing-in-public?lite

Ridiculous. I can't think of any way to justify that as anything but an affront to the First Amendment.

 

[Caz]

I love my state...




Mmmhhhmmm

I wonder if now the police can pull you over for playing music with obscene language.

 

[Famine]

John Spartan you have been fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute

'Nuff said.

 

[Caz]

^^^ thought the same thing when this started in the local news a few weeks ago.