The free speech thread

[Darth]

Given the recent threads on porn, left wing censorship, wikileaks, and nazis, I decided to make this thread. Where do you stand? Some areas where people often make exceptions (and some recent/current issues) are included in the spoiler lists, you don't have to go through the whole list btw (Tib there is one for you in the lies section):

Hatred and Violent groups

---

Incitement of hatred
Incitement of violence
Hate speech
Holocaust denial
Nazi parades (also KKK n such)
Forming a nazi party
Televised nazi propaganda
At the time when kids are just getting back from school
And clearly aimed specifically at kids
Saw you're switzerland in WWII (you're surrounded by nazi controlled territory at this point, and you've been bordering it the whole time), do you ban nazi propaganda?
Threats of violence

---

Lies, damn lies, and the media

---

Blatant lies and statements that were not intended to be factual statements.
Fox news, any sanctions? (and can it call itself fair and balanced?) (same goes for msnbc for I guess)
Pretending to be an army vet
Lies in business dealings (so fraud)
-Blackmail (in the case of otherwise legal stuff, not "give me money or I'll tell the cops where you buried the body", so for instance: I see you doing something embarrassing but legal with the neighbour through a window as I pass on the sidewalk. I can tell whoever I want including your partner, I can receive funds for telling the news (particularly if you're famous enough or the story is interesting enough), but I can't ask you for funds for not doing it) Or if I own a billboard near your restaurant, I can put whatever I want up, but it might harm your business... can I ask you for funds (not you coming to me with the offer), and in return I will not put up controversial/nausea inducing stuff? I cannot say these words?: "I saw you doing x, I talked with publication Y, they are offering me 20,000 after I gave them vague details, how much is my silence worth to you?"
-Slander/defamation/libel (I can never remember which is which)
-Slander of a competing business (this one's for tib)

---

Porno

---

Porn
Hard core porn
Porn of young looking adults
Drawn children...

---

Religion

---

Blasphemy
Flag burning
Koran burning
Televised koran burning

---

Citizens united and foreigners

---

Copyrighted material
Corporate speech
Political speech
A real wealthy bastard/group of em paying for ads
Foreigners and political speech

---

Wikileaks

---

Releasing information you've come across that may threaten national security
Releasing information you've come across that, if released, will endanger somebody.

---

Misc:

---

Free speech zones
Yelling fire in a crowded area

---

On a related topic, tax-funded speech:

---

-advertisements
-art grants
-professors
-organisations that receive funds
Speech made by individuals who work for the government, but made in their private time...

---

So, where do you stand? Should we have free speech, or should it have limits? Any of the things in the list causing you to say "woah stue, hold on there"? Where do you draw a line?

[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?