The free speech thread

[Darth]

[Dee Dee Ramone]

To me freedom of speech ends, when people start calling for violence against groups or individuals.


It's a thin line.

---

In the Netherlands holocaust denial is against the law. That's very weird, since I am allowed to deny a whole bunch of other genocides.

[TaraJo]

Generally, it's easy to bash the United States on our backwards politics. However, one area where we're much more progressive than Europe or the rest of the industrialized world is our strong belief in freedom of speech. In fact, it's a large part of why I think the internet has grown so easily and rapidly in the US: we have fewer laws restricting it here.

Personally, your rights end where my nose begins. You can do or say whatever you want as long as you don't interfere with what I want to do and say. Yes, that means that if what you say is stupid you can call me on it just like I can call you on it if you're being stupid. Freedom of speech also includes freedom to protest.

[CapnAwesome]

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. Saying that so and so should die, or deserves to die is how our country was founded. Criminalizing calls for violence criminalizes calls for revolution and a change in government if need be. There should be no limit on speech. If you are too stupid to realize that there isn't a fire in the theater, that is your problem.

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.

[Annik]

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.

[Shell B]

Yes, freedom of speech to me is a problem when it explicitly and demonstrably threatens the safety of others.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

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.

[CapnAwesome]

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.

---

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?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Talking about Theo Van Gogh and Pim Foytuyn? The ironic thing is that they both killed people for exercising their free speech.

That doesn't change my position. Death threats limit other people's freedom of speech and living. Like Salman Rushdie, feel the paradox?

Criminalizing calls for violence does nothing though, it just makes the calls for violence go underground, and thus harder to catch.

I agree. Better know who the wankers are.

[Shell B]

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. Saying that so and so should die, or deserves to die is how our country was founded. Criminalizing calls for violence criminalizes calls for revolution and a change in government if need be. There should be no limit on speech. If you are too stupid to realize that there isn't a fire in the theater, that is your problem.

Ah, but that's not what I was talking about in the slightest. Saying someone should die is not quite what I meant what I said: "explicitly and demonstrably threatens the safety of others." Planning to kill someone and inciting them to kill are more like it. At any rate, the law disagrees with you. Charles Manson never killed anyone. Do you know where he is?