Man names Wi-Fi network “Daesh 21,” prosecuted under French anti-terror law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51311835]I think going "France has no freeze peach!!" after someone was prosecuted for naming their wifi after a terrorist organisation is pretty disingenuous considering this is the same country that has had 3 high profile terrorist attacks and a large number of smaller ones in the past 2 years. France [I]is[/I] under threat of more terrorist attacks, and I really can't blame the police there for investigating anything that might be a threat.[/QUOTE] Oh yea, thank god they took down that guys router or more ISIS terrorists would have just spanwed into existance. Seriously, what harm could a fucking router do that justifies jailing someone over it? Thats some hardcore nanny state shit If you cant name your router without getting arrested, then you dont have free speech. If youre arresting people for thoughts and words and using "terrorism" as a justification, then you dont have free speech.

[QUOTE=Grocel;51312571]I don't think you would get arrested for just naming your private Wi-Fi network though.[/QUOTE] The network name is technically a public broadcast, so if it was something that's actually illegal here I wouldn't preclude that possibility.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;51311834]Union of Nations and each their respective press legislation = U.S. press legislation Nope, try again. Also, your "safe haven for free thought" ballooned up the Trump blimp, don't compare our apples to your orange.[/QUOTE] Lol trump didnt spawn his campaign because he is able to say stupid nonsensical shit. Theres a lot of factors as to why his campaign is successful, but him not having to worry about being censored isnt really one of them.

[quote]French media reported Friday that an 18-year-old man from Dijon was convicted for "praising terrorism" and was given a suspended sentence of three months in prison because the SSID of his Wi-Fi network was "Daesh 21."[/quote] "I loved the Paris attacks" is an illegal sentence in France if I'm understanding this correctly.

What a fucking stretch.

[QUOTE=matt000024;51313466]"I loved the Paris attacks" is an illegal sentence in France if I'm understanding this correctly.[/QUOTE] [quote] I loved the Paris attacks [/quote] the man writes, as police start banging at his door before he even gets to type the rest of his comment, [quote] as they showed how France can unify at a time of great stress and fear to fight against a common enemy. [/quote] The man was never seen again.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;51311835]France [I]is[/I] under threat of more terrorist attacks, and I really can't blame the police there for investigating anything that might be a threat.[/QUOTE] [I]Investigating[/I] is one thing, [I]prosecuting and convicting[/I] is another entirely. I have no issue with police taking even seemingly frivolous things seriously until they're determined to be harmless. But in this case the police didn't determine it to be harmless, they referred the case for prosecution and the courts decided that a wi-fi network named 'Daesh 21' constitutes support for ISIS and should be punished. That's insane.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51312625]Lol trump didnt spawn his campaign because he is able to say stupid nonsensical shit. Theres a lot of factors as to why his campaign is successful, but him not having to worry about being censored isnt really one of them.[/QUOTE] You missed my point, freedom of speech has its limits, like any other expression of free will. Your freedom ends at yourself, you can't and shouldn't interfere with freedom of others, that is what the legal framework is for. (Total freedom is anarchy but I am drifting off) Because U.S. freedom of speech is so "strong", Trump can and has gotten away with saying some very untruthful and degrading shit throughout his campaign, if the one that is spoken of would have a better chance of winning a case because of this, he wouldn't keep getting away with it. That is what I try to hint at starpluck and others, just because the french law is more restrictive doesn't imply freedom of speech is dead, on the contrary, it protects the freedom of those that are spoken off. Resulting in both sides having a balance, but I don't blame them, terrorist attacks and all got the French clearly shaken up. I concede many factors led to the rise of Trump, but the degree of level of free speech is a fat one. The speech is only as good, as the speaker.

Reminds me of something that happened at my dad's work once, they were testing a plane's wifi and they had to give it a name, so the operator, who was of Arab origin, just used his own name. A few hours later the police showed up because they were told a wi-fi signal was called "Osama Plane" :v:

[QUOTE=Starpluck;51311733]Europe has one of the strangest anti-speech laws around. The U.S. appears to be is the only safe haven for [B]free thought.[/B][/QUOTE] Haha yeah right The land of the free where Guantanamo Bay exists The land of free thought where some guy on a forum [I]from another country[/I] saying random shit about Obama got its owner to be contacted by the government The land of the free where you the NSA is known to spy on you all the time The land of free thought where people try to vote laws to allow businessmen to discriminate people at will, depriving them of potentially crucial services What a fucking haven of free thought you got there.

[QUOTE=windows098;51312566]To add onto this. UK here, in college we have a lession every week about "supporting british values" and this week we "learned" that you should report people to the police who look at conspiricy theories as they could be terrorists. This is some 1984-tier shit.[/QUOTE] Hold on a second, what? If this isn't sarcasm then I'm going to need some more information because this is literally unbelievable to me. [editline] [/editline] It's been a while since I was in college so I don't know about any of this stuff. Preliminary google searches seem to imply that the course is a bit like citizenship was in school, but with a not so subtle emphasis on preventing people from becoming terrorists. According to Ofsted, 'British values' are: - Democracy - The rule of law - Individual liberty - Mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith That last one really cracks me up with how long it is trying to be inclusive.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;51311963]People who say the guy was in the wrong have obviously gone completely insane, recent terrorist attacks or not.[/QUOTE] You still have to ask wtf is going through this guy's head though. [I]"Oh gee! Time to name my wifi router! Let's name it after a terrorist organization that killed over 100 of my countrymen on this month last year!"[/I]

[QUOTE=Nerfmaster000;51317285]You still have to ask wtf is going through this guy's head though. [I]"Oh gee! Time to name my wifi router! Let's name it after a terrorist organization that killed over 100 of my countrymen on this month last year!"[/I][/QUOTE] Making jokes about tragic things is pretty common though, especially with little silly things like wifi names. This guy wasn't even making a joke in a public platform, wifi names don't count as public broadcasts as far as I know, and if they do, they shouldn't. Yes the SSID is broadcast in the immediate area, but it's not as though people intend for that to happen, it's just a side effect of wifi. People generally don't restrict their wifi signal, and unless it could be proven that his intention was to provide internet access to more than the people in his household, I'd make the argument that this joke was only intended for his housemates. Usually there's a public element to these off colour jokes, where I'd agree with your point. Someone who's career is in the public eye for example, can be expected to modify their behaviour appropriately. This is legit just someone taking a joke too seriously however, then police apprehending someone and that person being given [I]prison time[/I] for a joke.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51317258]Haha yeah right The land of the free where Guantanamo Bay exists The land of free thought where some guy on a forum [I]from another country[/I] saying random shit about Obama got its owner to be contacted by the government The land of the free where you the NSA is known to spy on you all the time The land of free thought where people try to vote laws to allow businessmen to discriminate people at will, depriving them of potentially crucial services What a fucking haven of free thought you got there.[/QUOTE] I know you're trying for the zinger to call us hypocritical, but none of the things you mentioned have much relevance to free thought within the US. Yeah, we have Guantanamo, and overzealous counterterrorism investigations, and the NSA has done some shit, and people vote for discriminatory laws. You won't find much disagreement if you say that those are bad things and the US has some serious civil liberties issues we need to work through. But at the very least you won't be [I]convicted of supporting terrorism[/I] due to a wi-fi router's name. Like, this is probably the worst thread to try to argue that the US is just as restrictive of free thought. Most of the time, Europeans are telling us that we're [I]too lenient[/I] about expression of free thought and allow what would be considered hate speech in France, Germany, or the UK. (fwiw I think Starpluck's post is kinda silly- Europe isn't one country and 'free thought' is an abstract concept, but your reply is equally nonsensical)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51317258]Haha yeah right The land of the free where Guantanamo Bay exists The land of free thought where some guy on a forum [I]from another country[/I] saying random shit about Obama got its owner to be contacted by the government The land of the free where you the NSA is known to spy on you all the time The land of free thought where people try to vote laws to allow businessmen to discriminate people at will, depriving them of potentially crucial services What a fucking haven of free thought you got there.[/QUOTE] You will not be prosecuted in the United States for naming your WiFi signal. That is a key difference between some European states like France. Threatening to kill the President of the United States is not a joke. The FBI has will take all threats against the president seriously. But the difference, they are not going to prosecute and convict him over a post he made threatening to kill Barack Obama. Investigating is one matter and prosecution is a different one. No one has been prosecuted for threatening to kill Obama. It is standard procure.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;51317152]You missed my point, freedom of speech has its limits, like any other expression of free will. Your freedom ends at yourself, you can't and shouldn't interfere with freedom of others, that is what the legal framework is for. (Total freedom is anarchy but I am drifting off) Because U.S. freedom of speech is so "strong", Trump can and has gotten away with saying some very untruthful and degrading shit throughout his campaign, if the one that is spoken of would have a better chance of winning a case because of this, he wouldn't keep getting away with it.[/quote] I don't know much about the laws of other countries, but I doubt that lying in public is against the law. Even if that were the case in the US, Trump would still be where he is. Trump isn't popular because he has the right to use the 1st amendment, he's popular because he's anti-establishment and thats what people are voting for this election. Him saying "Mexicans are Rapists" didn't get him to the front of the polls. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51317152] That is what I try to hint at starpluck and others, just because the french law is more restrictive doesn't imply freedom of speech is dead, on the contrary, it protects the freedom of those that are spoken off. Resulting in both sides having a balance, but I don't blame them, terrorist attacks and all got the French clearly shaken up. [/quote] No, France doesn't have freedom of speech. Lets do a quick test. Can you name your router something potentially offensive or off color without getting thrown in jail? If the answer is "No" then you don't have freedom of speech. Lets do another one, is your freedom of speech at all restricted? If the answer is "Yes" then you don't have freedom of speech. You can try and justify censorship and restriction of freedom of speech on protecting people with glass bones and "hurdurr terrorism", but it's literally unjustifiable. Bottom line is, you don't have freedom of speech. If you're ok with that then thats fine, but I think thats wrong on a human rights level. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51317152] I concede many factors led to the rise of Trump, but the degree of level of free speech is a fat one. The speech is only as good, as the speaker.[/QUOTE] Trump is a horrible public speaker and everyone knows that. His insane policies of building walls and undoing Obama's presidency is what got him where he is. Him spouting off nonsense and lies has only hurt his progress. [editline]6th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;51317258]Haha yeah right The land of the free where Guantanamo Bay exists The land of free thought where some guy on a forum [I]from another country[/I] saying random shit about Obama got its owner to be contacted by the government The land of the free where you the NSA is known to spy on you all the time The land of free thought where people try to vote laws to allow businessmen to discriminate people at will, depriving them of potentially crucial services What a fucking haven of free thought you got there.[/QUOTE] Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with freedom of speech or free thought, but good try! Furthermore, you cite all this but the US has never thrown a guy in jail without investigation for naming his wifi router something, but your country has. You can cite all the shit you want about the US but you can't change the fact your country does not have any semblance of freedom of speech.

The article from Le Bien Public says he renamed the SSID to "Rondoudou21" (Jigglypuff21).

[QUOTE=windows098;51312566]To add onto this. UK here, in college we have a lession every week about "supporting british values" and this week we "learned" that you should report people to the police who look at conspiricy theories as they could be terrorists. This is some 1984-tier shit.[/QUOTE] Where the hell do you study? "Citizen reminder, inaction is conspiracy. Report counter-behaviour to a Civil Protection team immediately."

Serious question, would I have to worry about the anti terror law in France if people hear me playing this song outloud? Aside from getting booked for having poor taste and creating public disturbance, is it possible that "praising terrorism" could be tacked on to that offence list? [video=youtube;oiDtO-TvVuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiDtO-TvVuw[/video] offending 'verse' 1:33 and periodically onward

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51317935]I don't know much about the laws of other countries, but I doubt that lying in public is against the law. Even if that were the case in the US, Trump would still be where he is. Trump isn't popular because he has the right to use the 1st amendment, he's popular because he's anti-establishment and thats what people are voting for this election. Him saying "Mexicans are Rapists" didn't get him to the front of the polls. [/QUOTE] Under some circumstances relaying untruthful information can get you into jail, Freedom of speech isn't what got him into the position of republican frontrunner, but it kept him there, you know where he would be if he tried something like that here, in jail. I don't have to go into detail who he all insulted, hinted at to be assassinated and flat out lied about, do I? (Most of which is illegal around here) [QUOTE] No, France doesn't have freedom of speech. Lets do a quick test. Can you name your router something potentially offensive or off color without getting thrown in jail? If the answer is "No" then you don't have freedom of speech. Lets do another one, is your freedom of speech at all restricted? If the answer is "Yes" then you don't have freedom of speech. [/QUOTE] There are several things wrong here, let me break it down. First and foremost, freedom of speech is not some universal and all equally understood and in the same way interpreted concept, neither is it in a binary state, it is a scale, a level of freedom of speech. "Either you have it or you don't" is a very narrow observation not reflective of reality, it is as always more complex. Also, freedom of speech doesn't mean "free of accountability", Statements can and have repercussions, that is why your freedom ends somewhere. Total freedom is a purely theoretical concept, but I have explained that already above, which you tried to brush aside with a simple no and cherry-picked examples. Speaking of cherry-picked examples, One thing that should be truly a "heaven of free speech" are universities on US soil, lets see, some speakers are barred from speaking, some t-shirts are banned, Zero-tolerance policies can get students in trouble or thrown out of universities entirely, limited free speech zones are in place. Huh, would you look at that, according to your black and white definition of free speech, you don't have it. You could even get fired for stating your opinion publicly(like a blog or a social network) that your employer disagrees with, "Freedom of speech only protects you from the state" I can hear you think quietly, Well, in most states of Europe including France, you can't just be fired for expressing your opinion, which most the U.S. employees don't have the privilege of (depending on the state), would you look at that, there are areas where we can express us more freely, preposterous. Fact is, you can cherry-pick to your liking, there are differences everywhere. I agree that arresting someone based on a silly Wi-Fi name is over the line, but broad generalization and elitism on your part is misplaced and aimless. [QUOTE] You can try and justify censorship and restriction of freedom of speech on protecting people with glass bones and "hurdurr terrorism", but it's literally unjustifiable. Bottom line is, you don't have freedom of speech. If you're ok with that then thats fine, but I think thats wrong on a human rights level. [/QUOTE] Being protected from damaging and unreasonable speech that can damage reputation and credibility, can cost you your career and and social life is unreasonable? Also, nice try to ridicule those that care or have to care what happens to them in the public eye, as being glass boned, jeez. Also, hate speech and calls to violence are rightfully banned, what good could come of having that around, except for the justification of free speech itself. So ya, it is justifiable, the real bottom line is many EU nations place emphasis that people are protected from unjustifiable speech and hate/violence-inciting speech that has no real value in a civilized society. I am okay with the freedom of speech I have, in its current form, and so are most Europeans. Trying to force the US-kind of free speech as the only viable one is pretentious, shortsighted and hypocritical and it certainly won't get you any approval, get off your high horse. And human rights? Maybe the US should get on to get most of the conventions actually ratified. [QUOTE] Trump is a horrible public speaker and everyone knows that. His insane policies of building walls and undoing Obama's presidency is what got him where he is. Him spouting off nonsense and lies has only hurt his progress. [/QUOTE] [b]Oh no[/b], it is the other way around, his entire campaign is fueled by spouting lies, instilling fear and causing hate, grief and resentment and using that as his fuel to get votes. He got through the entire field of the other republican nominees. He is the republican frontrunner for the motherfucking President of the United States. He his mere inches away from having one of the largest military and economical complexes under his rule, with access to Nuclear launch codes, the power of executive orders and being one of the most influential figures in foreign politics. The only thing stopping him? An election in a two party system plagued by first-past-the-post, indirect representation and gerrymandering. In what universe does that not look like progress?? One of the stars Trump has been riding on is this lack of accountability, the lack of sensible legislation and missing protection of unjustifiable speech. You don't get to deny Trump away, he is, as I have said, the showings of many bad factors, including that of the state that freedom of speech is currently in. [QUOTE] Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with freedom of speech or free thought, but good try! Furthermore, you cite all this but the US has never thrown a guy in jail without investigation for naming his wifi router something, but your country has. You can cite all the shit you want about the US but you can't change the fact your country does not have any semblance of freedom of speech.[/QUOTE] The overabundance of free speech as served the US very well, with Trump in reach of the Oval office.

[QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414]Under some circumstances relaying untruthful information can get you into jail, Freedom of speech isn't what got him into the position of republican frontrunner, but it kept him there, you know where he would be if he tried something like that here, in jail. I don't have to go into detail who he all insulted, hinted at to be assassinated and flat out lied about, do I? (Most of which is illegal around here) There are several things wrong here, let me break it down. First and foremost, freedom of speech is not some universal and all equally understood and in the same way interpreted concept, neither is it in a binary state, it is a scale, a level of freedom of speech. "Either you have it or you don't" is a very narrow observation not reflective of reality, it is as always more complex.[/quote] After reviewing your semantics, allow me to revise; France's levels of Freedom of speech are pathetic. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Also, freedom of speech doesn't mean "free of accountability", Statements can and have repercussions, that is why your freedom ends somewhere. Total freedom is a purely theoretical concept, but I have explained that already above, which you tried to brush aside with a simple no and cherry-picked examples.[/quote] I am dutifully aware of how the 1st amendment works, thank you. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Speaking of cherry-picked examples, One thing that should be truly a "heaven of free speech" are universities on US soil, lets see, some speakers are barred from speaking, some t-shirts are banned, Zero-tolerance policies can get students in trouble or thrown out of universities entirely, limited free speech zones are in place.[/quote] None of your examples are caused by Government intervention or lawmaking. Universities, businesses, T-shirt manufactures, ect. are all private entities and can control freedom of speech [i]on their property[/i] and for [i]their employees[/i] as they choose. They have that right and I support that. No government entity in the US intervenes in the 1st amendment, thats where the distinction lies. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Huh, would you look at that, according to your black and white definition of free speech, you don't have it. You could even get fired for stating your opinion publicly(like a blog or a social network) that your employer disagrees with, "Freedom of speech only protects you from the state" I can hear you think quietly, Well, in most states of Europe including France, you can't just be fired for expressing your opinion, which most the U.S. employees don't have the privilege of (depending on the state), would you look at that, there are areas where we can express us more freely, preposterous. [/quote] When you are employed by a business, you represent that business. If you post on your facebook "I dislike minorities because they suck ass", you won't be prosecuted by the US Govt, but you may be fired by your employer because they don't want it publicly known they have a bigot in their ranks. They have that right and I support that right. I believe that an employer in France can't fire someone if they say "I don't agree with current immigration policies" on Facebook or in public, but I would be extremely surprised if they can't fire someone for outright racism or bigotry. Some citation on that would be nice. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Fact is, you can cherry-pick to your liking, there are differences everywhere. I agree that arresting someone based on a silly Wi-Fi name is over the line, but broad generalization and elitism on your part is misplaced and aimless. [/quote] Sorry for cherry picking something that is the topic of the thread and also completely true? lol. I apologize if my generalizations are far too broad for your liking, but they are true. A man was arrested and is now facing jail time for the name of his router, which as you said, is over the line. I apologize if I am an elitist, but freedom of speech is something very near and dear to my heart. I think it's absolutely ridiculous how many restrictions Europe has on their freedom of speech, or lack there of. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Being protected from damaging and unreasonable speech that can damage reputation and credibility, can cost you your career and and social life is unreasonable?[/quote] If a bigot decides to openly be a bigot, who are we to stop them, let alone give them fines or jail time. Its their choice and its their decision, restricting them isn't going to suddenly make them accepting and tolerant. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Also, nice try to ridicule those that care or have to care what happens to them in the public eye, as being glass boned, jeez.[/quote] You're delusional if you think that censorship is meant to [i]protect[/i] the people who are being bigots. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Also, hate speech and calls to violence are rightfully banned, what good could come of having that around, except for the justification of free speech itself. So ya, it is justifiable, the real bottom line is many EU nations place emphasis that people are protected from unjustifiable speech and hate/violence-inciting speech that has no real value in a civilized society. I am okay with the freedom of speech I have, in its current form, and so are most Europeans. Trying to force the US-kind of free speech as the only viable one is pretentious, shortsighted and hypocritical and it certainly won't get you any approval, get off your high horse.[/quote] You don't see me in France waving a sign telling the French government that it's wrong. I'm on an internet forum having a debate about free speech dood, get over yourself. And hate speech is awful and disgusting but why should it be banned? Hate speech is a arbitrary distinction anyways; Me saying that I don't want refugees flooding my nation would be considered hate speech by many, and nobody should go to jail for voicing their opinion, no matter how stupid or foolish it is. Freedom of speech is important because it protects the minority opinion; if the US didn't have access to it, then it would have taken far longer to get rid of the Jim Crow laws and segregation in the south and implement voting rights for women and minorities. And inciting violence or panic is illegal in the US to begin with. If someone makes a threat, then they will face consequences for it, and thats where the US draws the line. They're not going to arrest someone for having a router named "ISIS US Embassy #1". Thats not to say they may not run an investigation on the individual, but he won't face an instant 3 month jail sentence for a joke. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] And human rights? Maybe the US should get on to get most of the conventions actually ratified. [/quote] We're not talking about US warcrimes or human rights violations but I appreciate you taking this discussion to a more petty level. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] [b]Oh no[/b], it is the other way around, his entire campaign is fueled by spouting lies, instilling fear and causing hate, grief and resentment and using that as his fuel to get votes.[/quote] You literally just said at the beginning of your post...[QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] Freedom of speech isn't what got him into the position of republican frontrunner,[/quote] but ok. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] He got through the entire field of the other republican nominees.[/quote] Because every other Republican candidate was complete and utter garbage. They stood for a system that republicans, even die hard tea-partiers, are absolutely sick of. I don't know if you noticed with this election, but people want to elect outsiders. Thats why Bernie nearly won and Trump beat everyone else out in the primaries. People are sick of the old and they're willing to electing foolish radicals if it means that things might actually change. Now before you start bashing me for being a Trump supporter, let me go ahead and say that I don't support any candidate currently in the election. Not Trump, not Clinton, and not Johnson. Just because I support Trumps right to say what he wants doesn't mean that I support Trump as a candidate for office. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] He is the republican frontrunner for the motherfucking President of the United States. He his mere inches away from having one of the largest military and economical complexes under his rule, with access to Nuclear launch codes, the power of executive orders and being one of the most influential figures in foreign politics. The only thing stopping him? An election in a two party system plagued by first-past-the-post, indirect representation and gerrymandering. In what universe does that not look like progress??[/quote] If you honestly think that the president has complete control of the US Govt, then you have no clue how the US Govt. functions. Executive orders aren't just a "skip the entire lawmaking procedure" tools, they can only be used to add on to current and in place laws. And he can't just launch a fucking nuke on Russia because he feels like it, thats not how any of this works. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] One of the stars Trump has been riding on is this lack of accountability, the lack of sensible legislation and missing protection of unjustifiable speech. You don't get to deny Trump away, he is, as I have said, the showings of many bad factors, including that of the state that freedom of speech is currently in.[/quote] The way this works in the US is is that the media, and anybody else, can deny and refute any bullshit he says. And it's been working. I don't know if you've ever been on a news website before, but usually the frontpage article is how Trump is a massive liar and is constantly wrong about most of the bullshit he spews. Even Fox News is getting on his case about this shit and most of his party has abandoned him. Clearly the Red parts of the US don't care. As I have previously stated, the 1st Amendment is not got Trump to where he is today. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51322414] The overabundance of free speech as served the US very well, with Trump in reach of the Oval office.[/QUOTE] You're right, it absolutely has. Suffrage for women, destruction of segregation, restoration of voting rights for minorities, implementation of gay rights and gay marriage, a million and one protests that weren't shut down because they weren't in line with the government, and the fact that I can't be prosecuted for anything that I say, so long as it's not threatening. The US does pretty fucking well with our extremely loose 1st Amendment. But no, clearly this is bad. The Govt. must be able to dictate what we can and can not say under the guys of tolerance, and it must arrest individuals under the guise of terrorism. About 12 years ago the US was the laughingstock of the world because it passed the patriot act and many other ridiculous laws under the guise of security and terrorism; but now that a man has been arrested for naming his router something off color under the guise of terrorism, people support it.

[QUOTE=windows098;51312566]To add onto this. UK here, in college we have a lession every week about "supporting british values" and this week we "learned" that you should report people to the police who look at conspiricy theories as they could be terrorists. This is some 1984-tier shit.[/QUOTE] Wait, what? This never happened at my college, the hell is going on?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51326074]-wall of words-[/QUOTE] Okay, with that we officially hit a roadblock, Before I get on with the resolution from all of this: The distinction I made with Trump is he got through the field of the other nominees, in more like a publicity stunt kind of way and didn't really have to rely on the extensive freedom of speech to do so. But later against Clinton for the majority of the campaign that became one of his primary tools. So there is no contradiction. But to get to a conclusion, at least for my side of the argument and hopefully yours too: The level of freedom of speech is greater in the US then in the majority of Europe. France freedom of speech took a nosedive but it is not as petty or dead to the degree as you claim it is. Generally speaking, the "American" way is to let nearly every form of expression count under the umbrella of free speech, which is fine and lets the listener decide which is valid, basically letting everyone for themselves decide what to listen to and which to sort out, letting the freedom to take care of itself. Europe on the other hand lays more weight on the inherit values of the speech itself, tipping the balance slightly in the other direction, because speech can be detrimental, induce fear and brood hate which has nearly no intellectual value and may only cause violence. You may view that as censorship, we as the necessary framework for freedom of speech itself to exist, which doesn't imply they we agree with everything and things are fine as they are. So it comes down to where we draw the boundaries: US places more responsibility of the inherit freedom on the individual listener, while the EU places more accountability and responsibility on the speaker, to produce more meaningful speech according to the respective society's morals and values. They are two different approaches to a very complex system. We can call the faults and differences of each respective approach out and compare them in the bigger picture. We basically disagree on a very basic level which is fine because atleast we aim in the direction of freedom itself. I think we can call it a truce, atleast I do, do you?

[QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505]Okay, with that we officially hit a roadblock, Before I get on with the resolution from all of this: The distinction I made with Trump is he got through the field of the other nominees, in more like a publicity stunt kind of way and didn't really have to rely on the extensive freedom of speech to do so. But later against Clinton for the majority of the campaign that became one of his primary tools. So there is no contradiction. [/quote] Bullshit. One of the first things he said as a candidate was "Mexicans are rapists". He's bee bullshitting a lying since he started his candidacy. But again, thats not what got him to where he is. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505] But to get to a conclusion, at least for my side of the argument and hopefully yours too: The level of freedom of speech is greater in the US then in the majority of Europe. France freedom of speech took a nosedive but it is not as petty or dead to the degree as you claim it is. Generally speaking, the "American" way is to let nearly every form of expression count under the umbrella of free speech, which is fine and lets the listener decide which is valid, basically letting everyone for themselves decide what to listen to and which to sort out, letting the freedom to take care of itself.[/quote] Yes, anything less isn't really freedom of speech. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505] Europe on the other hand lays more weight on the inherit values of the speech itself, tipping the balance slightly in the other direction, because speech can be detrimental, induce fear and brood hate which has nearly no intellectual value and may only cause violence.[/quote] Which is bullshit. If your nations are so easily swayed or affected by someone being racist, mean, or naming their router "DAESH", then you have greater problems than worrying about speech rights. Yes, racism and hate speech are not at all productive in any modern society, but they're evils that must be allowed. If you don't allow your country to have proper freedom of speech, then you're going to have people getting arrested for naming their router DAESH... [QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505] You may view that as censorship, we as the necessary framework for freedom of speech itself to exist, which doesn't imply they we agree with everything and things are fine as they are.[/quote] That [i]is[/i] censorship. Thats exactly what censorship [i]is[/i]. You're banning steak because infants can't chew it. [QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505] So it comes down to where we draw the boundaries: US places more responsibility of the inherit freedom on the individual listener, while the EU places more accountability and responsibility on the speaker, [b]to produce more meaningful speech according to the respective society's morals and values.[/b] [/quote] Yes, which said values are controlled by the government. One big one in question being "TALKING ABOUT TERRORISM IN A COMEDIC LIGHT IS NOT FUNNY. DO SO AND SPEND 90 DAYS IN JAIL WITHOUT A PROPER TRIAL" [QUOTE=Coolboy;51339505] They are two different approaches to a very complex system. We can call the faults and differences of each respective approach out and compare them in the bigger picture. We basically disagree on a very basic level which is fine because atleast we aim in the direction of freedom itself. I think we can call it a truce, atleast I do, do you?[/QUOTE] I disagree with you on almost everything we have discussed. I think you're full of an oppressive system and you somehow enjoy living in it. Whats worse, is your posting style is the absolute god damn worst. What this basic argument comes down to is a very dopey old quote; "Freedom isn't Free". If the cost of free speech in my country is that bigots can say "nigger" or the Westboro Baptist Church can picket a funeral, then so be it. If those terrible things mean that I'm not going to get arrested and tossed in jail without a fair trial for saying off color things on the internet in a joking manner, or for naming my router "CIA VAN #1337", then I'll deal with it.

I will take that as a no then since you seem to be stuck in that narrow state you call "only viable freedom of speech" I tried to highlight both systems strength and weaknesses and and clarify why I think the U.S. way falls behind, which summed up, doesn't offer (nearly) any protection on those are spoken of and places that responsibility on the listener, which would be a better system in theory but fails at the point in reality, that people can't and won't get informed and be educated enough on every single issue that may arise. You can't expect all people to be educated, you can't expect all of them to be neutral, even less with a educational system that is getting blasted by lacking funds, polarization and zero-tolerance BS but I am getting off track. It is already conceded that the current state of free speech of France in that particular area is a farce but is not reflective to the whole of EU as you claim below. But since "Yes, anything less isn't really freedom of speech." is falling back into the binary state of only the American way being the only way and, according to your viewpoint, all of Europe doesn't have, even though they have it in their respective equivalents of the constitution [b]and[/b] as signed and ratified human rights treaties. (Calling out that the US actually don't ratify treaties that actually affect freedom of speech after you brought up the talking point of human rights in the first place and afterwards calling it petty was also [i]interesting[/i]) Since your statement: "I think you're full of an oppressive system and you somehow enjoy living in it." implies that anything slightly less then the nearly absolute freedom of speech you advocate, is utter bullshit, if you wanna look to real lack of freedom of speech, go look to North Korea, go look to China. You think you are free to say everything all the time anywhere? Well look again, the US also has laws against various forms of [URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions]speech[/URL] The US has done shit themselves too, get off your high horse already. Just because we put more strength on the speech itself being of actual value, we are all living in comfort of censorship because it is convenient? That is a stretch if I ever seen one, yes are right, freedom isn't free, absolutes doesn't exist in the real world and not every case of speech in France end in jailing. It is a fault that is ought to be corrected but don't even try to force your way of freedom of speech as the only viable one, which it clearly isn't. You think the burden of free speech is to let any speech happen? Well, maybe it is the other way around, the burden of free speech being not letting every hate-inciting and violence-inducing from of expression count as free speech. To infact enable sensible discussion over loudest-and-wildest shouting matches. (Does the presidential campaign ring a bell?) Also, on the account of civil liberties, your freedom of speech doesn't mean jack shit if your other rights are getting eroded by the day on the account of "Terrorism" and other horse-shit reasons that was dismissed on the earlier page. You can call my posting style what you want, but your stubbornness that the world and even the country you live in doesn't see freedom of speech as black and white as you think it does, that is driving me nuts.