Hear %&$#@^* hear!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Free speech / hate speech
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
from wiki:
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
from wiki:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.[1]
Article 19 of UDHR:Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Why is that? What is the criteria that distinguishes between that which merits and that which does not? And what about the chant: "Lynch him!"?
So it's the target that matters and not the intended consequences?
I don't know what that sentence means.
The establishment does not like to be embarrassed, to say the least.
"The emperor has no clothes."
If I engage in speech with the intent of provoking violence what responsibility do or should I bare for the violent consequences. What about the chant: "Lynch him!"?
That is to advocate an illegal act.
Insulting a religious figure is not.....here anyway.
At the very least, you have to live with yourself and your depraved mind. Too bad sanity isn't as contagious as insanity is.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Man is so necessarily mad, that to not be mad, amounts to another form of madness - Pascal
Good point. What if, instead, I started chanting: "Filthy rapist!"?
That would depend upon whom you're talking about.
If it's a fictional character or dead person, then no legal problem.
But if the person is alive, you could be held liable for slander.
And if I chanted it with the reasonable expectation that it would provoke deadly violence?
Yerda
Veteran Member
You'd be a total prick.
I suppose you must weigh the costs & benefits of doing this.
You might have to pay damages for lible.
It's not a very illuminating hypothetical.
Alceste
Vagabond
I lean toward a liberal application of free speech, allowing for the expression of even the most popular opinions, but I do think it's fair, reasonable and socially worthwhile to draw the line at hate speech. Our laws (Canada) define hate speech as advocacy of genocide or the incitement of hatred toward of any identifiable group on the basis of age, ability, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
Break that law and you might get fined. Break it in a huge and outrageous way and you could potentially go to jail, although I'm not aware of this ever happening. Although I definitely prefer fines to jail time for non-violent offenses, I don't see the problem with such a law. The social benefit of civilized discourse outweighs the harm of ever-so-slightly curtailed freedom of speech.
Besides, we don't go to jail for smoking pot up here, so we're less hateful to begin with.
Break that law and you might get fined. Break it in a huge and outrageous way and you could potentially go to jail, although I'm not aware of this ever happening. Although I definitely prefer fines to jail time for non-violent offenses, I don't see the problem with such a law. The social benefit of civilized discourse outweighs the harm of ever-so-slightly curtailed freedom of speech.
Besides, we don't go to jail for smoking pot up here, so we're less hateful to begin with.
Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
One of the fundamental principles of American justice is individualism. This is why we constitutionally prohibit the corruption of blood.
If A directly tells B to kill/ injure C--> and C become killed/injured, responsibility falls on A. There is a direct causal relationship and therefore, guilt. This is why the ICJ found the radio announcers deliberately instructing Tutsi rebels to go seek out and kill every Hutu guilty.
If A spreads propaganda that insults religion of B --> and B goes out and kills and injures C as a result, it's hard to say A should go to jail for actions of B.
In the first example, the speech is instructional in nature. In the second, the speech is expressing an opinion, a point of view, a perspective. This is protected because the alternative is far more dangerous.
If A directly tells B to kill/ injure C--> and C become killed/injured, responsibility falls on A. There is a direct causal relationship and therefore, guilt. This is why the ICJ found the radio announcers deliberately instructing Tutsi rebels to go seek out and kill every Hutu guilty.
If A spreads propaganda that insults religion of B --> and B goes out and kills and injures C as a result, it's hard to say A should go to jail for actions of B.
In the first example, the speech is instructional in nature. In the second, the speech is expressing an opinion, a point of view, a perspective. This is protected because the alternative is far more dangerous.
Last edited:
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I'm so disgusted by the implications of the OP and the imbecility required to support it that I find it hard to compose an appropriate response.
The only thing that comes to my mind is that keeping in line with the logic I would have to support the notion that Rosa Parks would have been lynched for opposing the culturally dominant view of the society in which she lived.
Disgusting.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of not being offended. No matter how wrong that speech may be as conceived by the dominant culture at that time.
Now que in the imbecilic response to my post that I somehow consider the ridiculous anti-Islamic video as appropriate which will que in my appropriately scathing response to such imbecility.
The lengths so many have gone through to deflect blame from murderers in this now infamous case is so disgusting..............no more words can suffice.
edit: In other words. How many more posts must there be offering up apologetics for mass murder.
The only thing that comes to my mind is that keeping in line with the logic I would have to support the notion that Rosa Parks would have been lynched for opposing the culturally dominant view of the society in which she lived.
Disgusting.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of not being offended. No matter how wrong that speech may be as conceived by the dominant culture at that time.
Now que in the imbecilic response to my post that I somehow consider the ridiculous anti-Islamic video as appropriate which will que in my appropriately scathing response to such imbecility.
The lengths so many have gone through to deflect blame from murderers in this now infamous case is so disgusting..............no more words can suffice.
edit: In other words. How many more posts must there be offering up apologetics for mass murder.
Me Myself
Back to my username
This.
If the "speech" is explicitly inciting illegal behavior or violence, it can be censored and punished. This is what is fair on my view.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Spot on.
Alceste
Vagabond
Are you perhaps misunderstanding the question? Do you have an opinion on where to draw the line between freedom of expression and hate speech, or where to draw the line between hate speech and incitement? If it's too difficult to consider in an emotionally detached way in the context of rioting Muslims, why not think of a different example? How about, A writes that abortion doctors are evil mass murderers who must be stopped at any cost, B goes out and shoots a doctor. Does A bear any responsibility at all? If so, what would be a suitable remedy? What's wrong with a fine?
Unfortunately sometimes the child who throws the temper tantrums sets the standards. Everyone cowtows to them because they just don't want to be subjected to the fallout of the tantrum. The other family members often lose out as a result, and are forced to walk around on egg shells and wear kid gloves. It can curb, and change the whole tone and dynamic of a dwelling- a lifestyle- a family- a community. Always worrying about what the 'sensitive one' might do. (heaven forbid they might be 'incited')
Last edited: