Pastor Latzel and the limits of freedom of speech

[Shadow Wolf]

The first one of course. I have the same freedom of speech as priests, in my own country.
Unlimited freedom of speech.

Italy doesn't give people unlimited freedom of speech. Such as, you do have defamation laws which means speech in some regards is restricted.

 

[Estro Felino]

Italy doesn't give people unlimited freedom of speech. Such as, you do have defamation laws which means speech in some regards is restricted.

Only if I speak of a specific person.
I can say things like that in Italy straight men are almost extinct...they are more endangered than the Marsican bear...or that is the gayest nation in Europe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if I speak of a specific person.
I can say things like that in Italy straight men are almost extinct...they are more endangered than the Marsican bear...or that we are the gayest nation in Europe.

So you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

 

[Estro Felino]

So you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

That is not a manifestation of the freedom of thought.
That is a wilful way to harm people.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is not a manifestation of the freedom of thought.
That is a wilful way to harm people.

So speech can harm. Thus all speech is not free speech and what we are playing are different versions of free speech versus harm.

 

[Estro Felino]

So speech can harm. Thus all speech is not free speech and what we are playing are different versions of free speech versus harm.

If I say "I think that most Italian males are gay or bisexual...who won't come out of the closet...and pretend to be straight", am I harming someone?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I say "I think that most Italian males are gay or bisexual...who won't come out of the closet...and pretend to be straight", am I harming someone?

No, so therefore all other cases of this kind are exactly the same?!!

 

[Estro Felino]

No, so therefore all other cases of this kind are exactly the same?!!

Of course not.
But I need to understand why Latzel's speech is different.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course not.
But I need to understand why Latzel's speech is different.

Okay, I will walk you through it.
Look at your own sentence and analyze it and take in the context of the rest of your posts. You are in effect say the following. I need to understand how different people can understand differently than me, because to me free speech can't be understood differently than I do.

As long as you in effect do that, I can understand it differently and you can't understand how I can do that. That has a name - cognitive relativism. We understand differently what it means to understand.

 

[Estro Felino]

Okay, I will walk you through it.
Look at your own sentence and analyze it and take in the context of the rest of your posts. You are in effect say the following. I need to understand how different people can understand differently than me, because to me free speech can't be understood differently than I do.

As long as you in effect do that, I can understand it differently and you can't understand how I can do that. That has a name - cognitive relativism. We understand differently what it means to understand.

You are perfectly right. From the psychological and anthropological points of view, you are right and I am wrong.
But juridically...I have to point out that nothing can be relative and subjective.
The theoretical case need to be specific and objective, that is universally recognizable as wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are perfectly right. From the psychological and anthropological points of view, you are right and I am wrong.
But juridically...I have to point out that nothing can be relative and subjective.
The theoretical case need to be specific and objective, that is universally recognizable as wrong.

That is not possible and in practice justice is a case of might makes right. Sorry. If you want to make an as just as possible society you need sociology and psychology. Not just justice.
But here is the joke, you don't need those 2 if might is right works for you and your tribe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perfectly legal. When there is a fire.

So you think someone should still be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

 

[Estro Felino]

That is not possible and in practice justice is a case of might makes right. Sorry. If you want to make an as just as possible society you need sociology and psychology. Not just justice.
But here is the joke, you don't need those 2 if might is right works for you and your tribe.

I don't know the Scandinavian juridical school in detail, but it surely is different than our Napoleonic tradition, because I became interested in certain specific cases in Sweden.
As I said, in my country we blindly obey to the Napoleonic tradition, and in particular to the Montesquian principle according to which the judge must not and cannot use his discretional power to rule about a specific factual case. The judge is obliged to be the mouth of the Law. Which means, he applies the law only and whenever a factual case is described in a code of laws. So he simply applies that law, without using non-juridical sciences such as sociology. And above all without using his personal and individualistic sensitivity.
This is our tradition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perfectly legal. When there is a fire.

So you think someone should still be arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire?

Yes, everybody else should be killed, arrested or otherwise removed from reality, because I am the only sane human. And if you doubt that then it is evidence that you are all the negative words that you can put on everybody else, because they are also all true of you.
I learned that one from you and other posters, but I am the only one who can use it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know the Scandinavian juridical school in detail, but it surely is different than our Napoleonic tradition, because I became interested in certain specific cases in Sweden.
As I said, in my country we blindly obey to the Napoleonic tradition, and in particular to the Montesquian principle according to which the judge must not and cannot use his discretional power to rule about a specific factual case. The judge is obliged to be the mouth of the Law. Which means, he applies the law only and whenever a factual case is described in a code of laws. So he simply applies that law, without using non-juridical sciences such as sociology. And above all without using his personal and individualistic sensitivity.
This is our tradition.

Well, I don't know the actual judiciary tradition but I can give you an example from a Danish case.
A father who were totally psychologically and psychically abusive were killed by one of his sons. The son in effect served no time, because the judge found that it was understandable what he did and thus only warranted a suspended judgment. If you break the law again with a given set of years in a similar manner, you will then serve time for this murder, otherwise not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, everybody else should be killed, arrested or otherwise removed from reality, because I am the only sane human. And if you doubt that then it is evidence that you are all the negative words that you can put on everybody else, because they are also all true of you.
I learned that one from you and other posters, but I am the only one who can use it.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a dumb analogy to use.

 

[Stevicus]

So you can yell fire in a crowded theatre?

If there's no fire, and if someone does so with the intent of causing harm and panic, then it would be a clear and present danger.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a dumb analogy to use.

Yeah, I see it differently nonetheless.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I don't know the actual judiciary tradition but I can give you an example from a Danish case.
A father who were totally psychologically and psychically abusive were killed by one of his sons. The son in effect served no time, because the judge found that it was understandable what he did and thus only warranted a suspended judgment. If you break the law again with a given set of years in a similar manner, you will then serve time for this murder, otherwise not.

Interesting...but I guess a freedom of speech case would have been more fitting.
For instance, do you know Rasmus Paludan?

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, I don't know the actual judiciary tradition but I can give you an example from a Danish case.
A father who were totally psychologically and psychically abusive were killed by one of his sons. The son in effect served no time, because the judge found that it was understandable what he did and thus only warranted a suspended judgment. If you break the law again with a given set of years in a similar manner, you will then serve time for this murder, otherwise not.

By the way...we too have attenuating circumstances that also take the child's age into account.