RE: The free speech thread
December 11, 2012 at 12:24 am
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2012 at 12:29 am by CapnAwesome.)
(December 11, 2012 at 12:15 am)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote:(December 11, 2012 at 12:07 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: The freedom of speech ends nowhere. Including incitement for violence against people, the only thing I separate that from is specific plans to murder someone, which has to include more than just speech anyway.
I agree, but then again it's a thin line.
It was a heavy topic for years in the Netherlands after two public people were murdered because they supposedly offended lots of people.
One was shot by a backward muslim, the other by a lunatic animal liberator. Free speech is unlimited, but one must act when mad people start threatning to kill people for their opinion. That's the paradox.
Talking about Theo Van Gogh and Pim Foytuyn? The ironic thing is that they both killed people for exercising their free speech. Criminalizing calls for violence does nothing though, it just makes the calls for violence go underground, and thus harder to catch.
(December 11, 2012 at 12:10 am)Annik Wrote:(December 11, 2012 at 12:07 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: On the related note, I don't see why the government funds art anyway. Children need medical care and the government is funding art? Knock that shit off.
Calm down, Jesse Helms.
I don't think Jesse Helms ever suggested funding children's medical care. I'm not against social programs, I think that we should prioritize though. If there are people dying because they can't get adequate health care, or the critical mass of non-treated mental illness amongst the homeless here how can any compassionate liberal seriously suggest funding art projects?