[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;33692712]What's wrong with saying "kill every person from Pakistan," from a purely practical standpoint? I mean, it's not like you're actually killing them, or using your authority to dictate others to kill them. The former is homocide, and the latter is an order, and that falls under whatever laws that apply to people giving orders to kill innocents and such.
I don't see why, from a legal standpoint, encouraging people to hurt others [b]shouldn't[/b] be allowed. Your just saying it doesn't make them do it. One could even argue that the orders example given above should be exempt of blame, but again, it's not the words doing it - more the legal repercussions soldiers face for not following what those words say.
Words are wind. They have no substance whatsoever. Words can not physically compel people to do things; people choose to do those things. And because words have no power or substance to them, there is subsequently no reason to have any restrictions on them. Since words can not affect things, they should be allowed to be used however one wishes. If their wish is to proclaim that we should herd up all the Jews, toss them into large communal showers, and dump shitloads of cyanide gas into those showers, then why should we stop them? Their words aren't herding up the Jews, or tossing them into communal showers, or dumping shitloads of cyanide gas into those showers.
Blame the people who take words to actions, not those who speak the words or the words themselves.[/QUOTE]
So we shouldn't be able to prosecute a dictator, officer or whatever that issued an order to kill/execute innocent people? What about people that suddenly buy a lot of fertilizer? We might be able to see that they've thought about killing people, but by your logic we can't prosecute them because they haven't done anything yet? What about people who encourage people to do terrorism? I'm not saying that because one random person says "I hate x people so much that I could kill them" we should put them in prison, but we can't have people that want other people dead, and even encourages the act of killing them, going around in public fearing no prosecution.
For practical reasons, I think the freedom to make hate speech should be limited to certain environments. Environments where rebuttals can be made. By denying people the right to say certain things, we're just establishing a hegemony over morality in a really damaging way.
[editline]14th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33717835]So we shouldn't be able to prosecute a dictator, officer or whatever that issued an order to kill/execute innocent people? What about people that suddenly buy a lot of fertilizer? We might be able to see that they've thought about killing people, but by your logic we can't prosecute them because they haven't done anything yet? What about people who encourage people to do terrorism? I'm not saying that because one random person says "I hate x people so much that I could kill them" we should put them in prison, but we can't have people that want other people dead, and even encourages the act of killing them, going around in public fearing no prosecution.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure authoritative orders are entirely in the same vein as incitement. If I was merely addressing a mob through discourse, it's a genuine difference if I'm in a position of authority and have the power to discipline them, like in the case of a dictator. Orders are filled with indirect commissive speech acts which I'd say goes further than the right to free speech.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33717835]So we shouldn't be able to prosecute a dictator, officer or whatever that issued an order to kill/execute innocent people?[/QUOTE]
[quote=Gmod4ever]The former is homocide, and the latter [b]is an order, and that falls under whatever laws that apply to people giving orders to kill innocents and such.[/b][/quote]
Thanks for reading what I said.
The words themselves shouldn't be illegal, and you shouldn't nail them for the words themselves. However, it was also an order, which holds legal repercussions for soldiers and officers who refuse them, forcing them into an action ("forcing" on a practical level, because an alternative of execution/court martial/prison isn't much of a choice).
Basically, due to the legal repercussions of orders, the offender is forcing others to put those words to actions, implicitly making the offender indirectly responsible for the action. And as I've said previously, nail people who put words to actions, for the actions. And because the offender has now indirectly put those words to action, and that action is illegal, then nail them for that illegal action.
Limited free speech just isn't. It's either free speech, where you can say whatever the fuck you want without fear of legal trouble, or it isn't free speech, where you can say things that get you fined/jailed. There's no 'limited' free speech.
And I'm for free speech. I may not like what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it! I don't want to hear the likes of Westboro any more than the next Facepuncher, but they have the right to make themselves look like asshats, just the same as I have the right to call them asshats, and there's nothing the government can do about it either way.
well if you call inciting racial hatred not being allowed to practice free speech, you are just a bigoted fuckwit trying to find an excuse.
[QUOTE=kingjerome;34129556]well if you call inciting racial hatred not being allowed to practice free speech, you are just a bigoted fuckwit trying to find an excuse.[/QUOTE]
racial hatred is still allowed. We cannot discriminate against who gets to speak freely.
[QUOTE=kingjerome;34129556]well if you call inciting racial hatred not being allowed to practice free speech, you are just a bigoted fuckwit trying to find an excuse.[/QUOTE]
"If you don't want to limit our freedom, you're a bigot!"
The KKK or the Westboro baptist church's punishment should be public humiliation rather than finned or jailed.
So yes, absolutely pro free speech.
I disagree with limited free speech because it goes agains what America was formed for. Plus just think about the mass exodus/suicide of the Republican party members if it was limited.
Let's limit free speech!
You should be free to say anything and criticize anything, even free speech.
There is so much stupid in this thread...
I spent weeks just going over the topic of free speech v limited speech. I can't take it any more. Hear about it in Government class ALL the time...
Basically, you have freedom of speech as long as you don't cause a [i] clear and present danger [/i]
We have laws against hate speech in Sweden and I think it works pretty well. Not sure what side I'm on though.
I think it's hard to define free speech. Is our free speech not limited when it is forcefully removed? Like all the SOPA-posts on 9Gag (Sorry for bringing this topic up) were removed. I understand the re-posted ones, but what about the ones that weren't? If those are removed, I'd say that your free speech is limited? I'd say that free speech on the internet is already limited by rules and other factors. This is a good thing though. I wouldn't mind a limitation harassing speech like racism and homophobia.
We should have more sense of free speech, rather than the free speech of religious justification.
[QUOTE=RSN;34320868]I think it's hard to define free speech. Is our free speech not limited when it is forcefully removed? Like all the SOPA-posts on 9Gag (Sorry for bringing this topic up) were removed. I understand the re-posted ones, but what about the ones that weren't? If those are removed, I'd say that your free speech is limited? I'd say that free speech on the internet is already limited by rules and other factors. This is a good thing though. I wouldn't mind a limitation harassing speech like racism and homophobia.[/QUOTE]
removing memes is different. That 9gag owns their website, and therefore has a right to put up or take down what they want. Free Speech on the internet means no one can shut down your website based on what it says.
Our freedom of speech is limited as it is.
The Westboro Baptist church can picket funerals and scream god hates fags to passerbys, but if you say fuck on radio or television you have to pay a $350k fine.
I understand that we have basically have it in public but it's bullshit that you'd have to pay over 7 times the average salary of a US citizen for using it on the air.
As long as it doesn't directly hurt someone then it should be okay.
Hate speech is a bit of a blurry boundary... it's cutting it very close to fighting words.
If you are part of a white pride parade and are essentially berating minorities from a short distance, that is really trying to incite violence.
That's about up to where free speech should be allowed, everything else is fair game.
[QUOTE=mjbrooks194;34330156]Our freedom of speech is limited as it is.
The Westboro Baptist church can picket funerals and scream god hates fags to passerbys, but if you say fuck on radio or television you have to pay a $350k fine.
I understand that we have basically have it in public but it's bullshit that you'd have to pay over 7 times the average salary of a US citizen for using it on the air.[/QUOTE]
Though that only applies to OTA television. That's why cable channels like USA or Fox can say "fuck" all they like.
free everything
There's nothing wrong with limiting speech (in my opinion of course), so as long as the legislation or whatever that defines what is contradictory with public speech is specified in a manner in which cannot be abused, such as prosecuting someone speaking out against a government.
Speech is already limited in many jurisdictions - you cannot produce defamatory statements (i.e. those statements which are presented as fact and are untrue in attempt to discredit / damage something), you cannot produce fighting words but I also think it should be extended to hate speech.
The hard part is of course trying to frame what is and isn't allowed. I can not comprehend why it is okay for an organisation such as WBC to go around spreading the messages of hate that they do.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
My views of course will never be compatible in the United States, but are so in many other countries. England and Australia are good examples of where hate speech is limited.
Who says you need to like what everyone says ? I know I don't. You have the freedom and right to criticize and say what ever you want about anything and anyone, Whether it be the KKK speaking out against blacks or the westboros talking about gays. And while not everyone agrees with what these people have to say, I know I and many others would gladly stand up and fight for their right to say it no matter how much we disagree with them.
Now I'm just assuming this is being based on the American Right to free speech. now think and remember this was basically from a political view. the Founding Fathers were unhappy that they could Vocalize there Political Views without the fear of major punishment if they said the wrong thing about the wrong person. So the Idea of Free Speech was mostly Political and did sorta have a subliminal limitation that they just though people would have some damn common sense and just not some some shit. like the fact if u say, well anywhere " If only i could get my hands around Obama's Throat." kidding or not, you have a good chance of getting a great deal of trouble. so I'm all for free speech, but still think we should just "shut" some people up.
There is no such thing as 'limited' free speech. Either you have free speech, or you do not have free speech, and honestly I'd rather have free speech over not free speech.
I always considered "Limited Free Speech" to be an oxymoron.
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful thing but it can be a tool used to inspire hatred and conflict
In my opinion, Speech should be open season until it comes to the point of harassment or a racial hate crime.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.