Free speech / hate speech

Alceste said:

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?

Click to expand...

[youtube][youtube]PxsGyljd6B0[/youtube]
Bill Hicks - Religion - YouTube[youtube]

[youtube][youtube]PDWOP_McMHA[/youtube]
Doug Stanhope - **** the Jews - YouTube[youtube]

Two videos that are more popular than the videos that led to this debate.

The fact that these actions among a minority of Muslims right around the time of 9/11 against an embassy that was attacked several times before should be blamed upon a rather unknown video is what I find disgusting.

These individuals are murderers. That's the fact. Why so many people are focusing on a rather largely unknown film as the blame for the murder of innocent lives during a politically charged time in a politically charged climate is what I find disgusting.

Especially given the number of people who have far more viewed videos dismissing religion in general or specific religions that some little known group is deemed the cause of these murders and that the makers of these videos in nations upholding so called notions of freedom of thought should be the scapegoats of violent actions I find disgusting.

I could throw in relevant concepts of abrogation of freedoms by these same nations in which the decriers live but I think it would be lost among most. There are large constituents of religious extremism in the Middle East and the fact that the last big blowup, the cartoons, was actually perpetuated by imams inflaming violence in those regions that led to deaths of predominantly other Muslims tells me that this issue is one of politics rather than some so called extreme extension and irresponsible freedom of speech.

As far as fines? Where's the limit. George Carlin could have been fined into bankruptcy regarding his expression of religion. Just because he didn't explicitly state Islam but referred to Islam in every general mention of religion would you support have fining him into bankruptcy? Did you ever enjoy his commentary on religion?

Also in this case, the people being offended live in a society where individualism is suppressed and where every book/publication/movie/video has been thoroughly censored. Therefore, it's hard for them to imagine a situation where an individual can publish or create something that is completely separated from and independent of any government or state. To them, it's one and the same--any video that offends them must be the work of the government from where that work originated, somehow making any employees of said state liable for the offense suffered, punishable by ... death?

Because of these confounding factors, guilt is far more difficult to place on the video maker for the injuries and deaths that resulted.

gnomon said:

[
As far as fines? Where's the limit. George Carlin could have been fined into bankruptcy regarding his expression of religion. Just because he didn't explicitly state Islam but referred to Islam in every general mention of religion would you support have fining him into bankruptcy? Did you ever enjoy his commentary on religion?

Click to expand...

Humor is the first thing to go. Some mindsets demand humorless societies. You laugh- they'll make you pay.

NIX said:

Humor is the first thing to go. Some mindsets demand humorless societies. You laugh- they'll make you pay.

Click to expand...

It wasn't necessarily the humor aspect I was going for.

When the cartoons came out, some of them created by Sunni Imams looking to incite violence, the notion that any depiction of the prophet was sacrosanct was widely spread among Western media. Never mind that it was false.

NIX said:

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')

Click to expand...

NIX said:

Humor is the first thing to go. Some mindsets demand humorless societies. You laugh- they'll make you pay.

Click to expand...

Is it really so difficult for you to distinguish between hate speech and opinion? You don't see any difference between Chaplin's The Great Dictator and Hitler's Mein Kampf?

A big problem is that government cannot so easily distinguish between hate speech & opinion. Politics will drive what can & can't be said.
I'd prefer to give them less authority to punish people for expressing beliefs. If fundies want to say that we heathens are going to Hell, then
I'd rather endure the insult than see anyone fined or jailed over it. When in doubt, er on the side of liberty.

Revoltingest said:

A big problem is that government cannot so easily distinguish between hate speech & opinion. Politics will drive what can & can't be said.
I'd prefer to give them less authority to punish people for expressing beliefs. If fundies want to say that we heathens are going to Hell, then
I'd rather endure the insult than see anyone fined or jailed over it. When in doubt, er on the side of liberty.

Click to expand...

In countries with hate speech laws, legislators simply write the law. Courts enforce it. It's not "the government dictating what you can or can't say". Our law imposes fines for hate speech in some circumstances and the very remote possibility of jail time for disseminating hate propaganda explicitly calling for the extermination of any identifiable group. I can also get fined for littering, or parking illegally. I don't see what the big deal is. I'd rather tread on cigarette butts than get handed pamphlets calling for homosexuals, Jews, natives, abortion doctors, quadriplegics, etc. to be murdered.

People should be allowd to say whatever they like - that is the true definition of free speech and liberty.

the law today has been hijacked by the latest round of ideology - supposed egalitarianism which only serves the real god - Money.

Political correctness is as much a form of thought control as any other system.

goatus17 said:

People should be allowd to say whatever they like - that is the true definition of free speech and liberty.

the law today has been hijacked by the latest round of ideology - supposed egalitarianism which only serves the real god - Money.

Political correctness is as much a form of though control as any other system.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about political correctness. We are talking about whether, for example, there should perhaps be some kind of reasonable consequence for disseminating work seriously arguing that Hitler had the right idea when it comes to the Jews. Is that sort of thing more or less socially harmful than, say, parking too far from the kerb?

It should be fine to say whatever you like about Hitler.

Perhaps Hitler was correct - who are you to say otherwise?

Biblical theology states the God put Hitler into power - are you really in a position to challenge God's mighty work?

goatus17 said:

It should be fine to say whatever you like about Hitler.

Perhaps Hitler was correct - who are you to say otherwise?

Biblical theology states the God put Hitler into power - are you really in a position to challenge God's mighty work?

Click to expand...

Lol, this is a joke, right?

I suggest you brush up on your Christian theology.

God selects the leaders of men - try reading up Romans, NT

goatus17 said:

I suggest you brush up on your Christian theology.

God selects the leaders of men - try reading up Romans, NT

Click to expand...

Why? Who cares? I live in a secular democracy. There's virtually no correlation at all between what the Bible says and what the laws of my country say, thank God. Doesn't it make more sense to look at laws if we are taking about laws?

BTW, what part of the Bible do you think supports your opinion on free speech? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?"

regardless of the Bible, we should be allowed to say whatever we please, with perhaps a restriction on blatant incitement.

Music said:

What matters is the context in which free speech is being used, not free speech itself. If free speech hurts people, we must consider people ... since real, breathing people are more important than an abstract concept. But the problem is, most people make a fetish out of free speech, so much so that they become prisoners of it.

Similar to the law. There is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit. Free speech advocates focus on the former to such a degree that upholding free speech becomes more important than 'not hurting' people.

Click to expand...

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness in that order.

If your Liberty takes my life, my life should trump your liberty.

You have to give everyone their life first, then their liberty and after everyone has life and liberty then we can pursue happiness after that. :yes:

goatus17 said:

God selects the leaders of men - try reading up Romans, NT

Click to expand...

Bush, Clinton, Bush & now Obama.....he certainly works in mysterious ways.

yes he does, because he also selected Hitler and Stalin to operate at the same time.

personally, I do not believe in this theology - but it is a fairly standard Christain view afaik.

goatus17 said:

yes he does, because he also selected Hitler and Stalin to operate at the same time.

personally, I do not believe in this theology - but it is a fairly standard Christain view afaik.

Click to expand...

So, you just threw out a red herring for the hell of it?

I should be able to say anything I like, but I should also take responsibility for my speech. No one can stop me from yelling fire in a crowded place,(unless there actually IS a fire) but I may pay the price for my freedom and verbal diarrhea.

Oh yeah, I can yell Lynch Him! But if a crowd actually does this, I need to go to jail for exercising my freedom to incite.

A good man died in Libya because of freedom of speech and now he should take responsibility for his distasteful and untrue movie. He might as well have pulled the trigger on the RPG himself.

What if I owned a tiger and while you where in my back yard I decide to open the cage and the beast chewed you up? Can I say I did nothing wrong? It is my cage, I should be able to operate the door whenever and however I like. I did not kill anyone, the tiger did.

Radical Islamics are a fact of life just like tigers. Any thinking person has to know what will happen if you release a tiger. To say otherwise is naive.

Yes, the world should not be like this, but a realist will acknowledge the world is far from perfect and accept that inflaming radicals will end badly for someone.

Does anyone believe that freedom of speech gives you the right to verbally abuse someone?

There should be limits on speech, not to stop you from saying it, just making you libel for your wreckless behavior.

Reverend Rick said:

I should be able to say anything I like, but I should also take responsibility for my speech. No one can stop me from yelling fire in a crowded place,(unless there actually IS a fire) but I may pay the price for my freedom and verbal diarrhea.

Oh yeah, I can yell Lynch Him! But if a crowd actually does this, I need to go to jail for exercising my freedom to incite.

A good man died in Libya because of freedom of speech and now he should take responsibility for his distasteful and untrue movie. He might as well have pulled the trigger on the RPG himself.

What if I owned a tiger and while you where in my back yard I decide to open the cage and the beast chewed you up? Can I say I did nothing wrong? It is my cage, I should be able to operate the door whenever and however I like. I did not kill anyone, the tiger did.

Radical Islamics are a fact of life just like tigers. Any thinking person has to know what will happen if you release a tiger. To say otherwise is naive.

Yes, the world should not be like this, but a realist will acknowledge the world is far from perfect and accept that inflaming radicals will end badly for someone.

Does anyone believe that freedom of speech gives you the right to verbally abuse someone?

There should be limits on speech, not to stop you from saying it, just making you libel for your wreckless behavior.

Click to expand...

I agree with all if this, but feel the need to point out that the killing in Libya is not considered by intelligence agencies to be a result of the film. It is thought to have been a planned attack by al Qaeda insurgents who used the chaos of the protest as cover.