Shots fired in Dallas of mohammed cartoons.

[FatAndFaithless]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-levi...07012.html

What separates Geller from the terrorists who attacked her venue is not hate but violence. In the United States the Supreme Court has, over recent decades, fully protected the expression of viewpoints that are offensive, bigoted and even provocative as long as they do not constitute a genuine threat. Funeral protestors, homophobes, flag burners, anti-Semites, and Geller do not, and should not, need government approval to hawk their hateful wares in the marketplace of ideas, nor do we need to buy it. I am far more concerned about terrorists, as well as religious, government, and academic institutions, limiting my right to free speech than I am about the purveyors of hate exercising theirs.

That's a good quote. Me likey.

[downbeatplumb]

Apparently the best drawings at that event were the two chalk outlines just outside.

[AFTT47]

---

Then where is the line drawn and who draws the line?  I served my country to defend (among other things) the right to free speech.  Even if they are dicks.  All one has to do is walk away, change the channel, turn the computer off, etc..

Exactly. I've written online on plenty of occasions that the best thanks I could get for my service would be for the other to exercise their rights vigorously, even in causes I oppose.

Hell, yeah! Of all the rights we have, I think freedom of speech is the most important. I'd rather there be an army Fred Phelp's spouting their bile than mess with free speech. We can deal with that as long as we have our own voice. If we're silenced though, I don't think any of our other rights and freedoms would matter much. We certainly wouldn't be in a position to keep them for long.

[IATIA]

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences to speech. Of course I'm talking about legal action, not vigilante action.

I agree that deciding whether or not someone "incited hatred or violence" is a judgement call. But then welcome to the club, that's morality for you. It doesn't mean it's a bad system.

IMHO, one cannot "incite" something that is not already present. Let us try some history. Back a few hundred years ago, though people were not happy with things as they were nothing was being done about it until a small group of 'rebels' incited the populace to rise up against the king of England and declare their independence.

ALL speech must remain FREE. No ands ifs or buts about it. One little transgression against this right and it is no longer a right and has nowhere to go but real bad. It is not a judgment call, it is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right.

[Hatshepsut]

I like freedom of speech but in reality we have it in the USA only because our government chooses to permit it right now. There's nothing inviolable about "rights," which are after all just things the government agrees to abide by. The government's agents have the guns and ultimately the say on what the rules for life will be. Those rules can change quickly in a political crisis. You can bet the minute top officials in the U.S. government begin worrying about the security of their hold on power, free speech will go out the window and people who say the wrong things will risk getting shot. I see a lot of air-headed naivety on this subject matter.

In the U.S. we've really been lucky to have a strong central government with unquestioned sway over most of a continent. While this alone doesn't guarantee "rights" will emerge (consider China which also owns half a continent), it is an important prerequisite. None of the unstable, conflict-torn African countries have meaningful rights regimens. Those small countries like Denmark that do grant rights also have security by being in alliances like NATO. I think we're correct to treasure our long-running constitutional tradition of respect for freedom of speech, but that we should realize that this rests on more than the force of ideal: only the platform of a stable government can provide an environment where rights flourish. Events like the Dallas shooting, if they become too common, could threaten that needed tranquility.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Apparently the best drawings at that event were the two chalk outlines just outside.

Oh lol.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences to speech. Of course I'm talking about legal action, not vigilante action.

I agree that deciding whether or not someone "incited hatred or violence" is a judgement call. But then welcome to the club, that's morality for you. It doesn't mean it's a bad system.

IMHO, one cannot "incite" something that is not already present.  Let us try some history.  Back a few hundred years ago, though people were not happy with things as they were nothing was being done about it until a small group of 'rebels' incited the populace to rise up against the king of England and declare their independence.

ALL speech must remain FREE.  No ands ifs or buts about it.  One little transgression against this right and it is no longer a right and has nowhere to go but real bad.  It is not a judgment call, it is a right.  It is not a privilege, it is a right.

The funny thing is that if a person says the words against the current government that the Founders said against the king of England he would quickly find himself locked up.  Only approved thoughts are allowed to be expressed in America.  When people veer off the approved path they are severely punished.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I like freedom of speech but in reality we have it in the USA only because our government chooses to permit it right now. There's nothing inviolable about "rights," which are after all just things the government agrees to abide by. The government's agents have the guns and ultimately the say on what the rules for life will be. Those rules can change quickly in a political crisis. You can bet the minute top officials in the U.S. government begin worrying about the security of their hold on power, free speech will go out the window and people who say the wrong things will risk getting shot.

Go to 2:30 for the segment pertinent to this discussion -- but the lead-up is funny as hell, too.

[FatAndFaithless]

I've been discussing this issue on reddit with a bunch of people, and for whatever reason people seem to be unable to understand the fact that defending someone's right to express a viewpoint is not in any way agreeing with their viewpoint.

[Minimalist]

A lot of people are fucking stupid.