Freedom of Speech

[suggs]

I think that Freedom of Speech is ok in ANY way as long as it remains completely verbal. I hate people that burn the american flag and try to pass it off as FOS. To me, burning our country's flag in a disrepsectful manner is treason, and should be treated as such.

Nah, i think it shows a healthy level of independance and the abilitity to think for ones self.
Love it when people burn the flag.

[suggs]

And sex with children?
Well, in the 15th century (and most of the so-called "Middle Ages") 14 year old boys were definitely considered men, and girls were getting married at the age of 12, and having sex with their husbands.

To me, that intuitively seems a bit gross and wrong -and yet, it was considered perfectly normal behaviour for hundreds of years.

And before some muppet jumps in and says "Oh, so we should return to the Middle Ages, should we?!", no, of course not.

I merely mention it to show that our current laws are just that -laws, that can be changed if society wants.
Maybe the age of consent should be lowered in ALL cases -after all, if they can, and want to, then why not?
The consensual part is obviously key, and there may be concerns about a 40 year old bloke with a fourteen year old boy -does the 14 year old really know what he is doing?

Still, it can't be dismissed with a "Please...", Juan -its rather more complex than that.

[danvoy9787]

I think that Freedom of Speech is ok in ANY way as long as it remains completely verbal. I hate people that burn the american flag and try to pass it off as FOS. To me, burning our country's flag in a disrepsectful manner is treason, and should be treated as such.

It's totally way more disrespecfulls than, for example, putting the flag on a fucking thong.

Yeah treason dude. Totally.

This is so fucking disrespectful...this person needs to be shot immediately! I hate this kind of treasonous shit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-FvgmAbiCA

Word!
Let's outlaw the very thing the nation was build upon! Let's be a bunch of utter dicks by telling people what they can and can't do which doesn't harm anyone.

This is the most awesome fucking patriotic video clip EVER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48kCjqbZRz0

dude that video was some AWESOME shit!

[danvoy9787]

I think that Freedom of Speech is ok in ANY way as long as it remains completely verbal. I hate people that burn the american flag and try to pass it off as FOS. To me, burning our country's flag in a disrepsectful manner is treason, and should be treated as such.

Nah, i think it shows a healthy level of independance and the abilitity to think for ones self.
Love it when people burn the flag.

No. You burn the flag, you show that you are againts what that flag stands for, and if you do that, either get the hell out, or be tried for treason!

[suggs]

So Washington et. al were guilty of treason as well?

[Juan_Bottom]

NAMBLA isn't talking about 12-17 year olds. Just pre-pubescent. But I get your point. If we went back to the days when 40 was considered elderly, those laws probably would change.

And I hope that I never made a HOMO-PHOBE-ish post before, have I? Because again, I'm not.

And I don't see how burning the flag is a treason-ish crime? Provided of course that the flag isn't a historicaly significant one, like from a famous battle or something(and yes, I know that the flag in general terms is significant too).

[suggs]

Then I apologise Juan.
Seems like I made some unfounded accusations.
Sorry mate.

[Curmudgeonx]

The actual answer is:

Anyone should be free to say whatever they want, with two caveats: 1) I am free to not listen to what they say (i.e. governmental restrictions on commercial speech) and 2) That the speaker understands the repercussions of what/when they say (i.e. fire in a movie theater).

If NAMBLA, Joys of Satan, etc. want to stand on a streetcorner and spout off, they should have the liberty to do so. I should have the liberty to shout back, walk away, or ignore them.

[suggs]

WORD.

The only complication, though its a big one, is the "incitement to hatred" stuff.
Intuitively, I think that Racist/Fascist?nationalist parties should have the right to free speech. As you say, we can ignore them, or argue back.

But when you have a powerful demagogue (its hard to resist Godwin's Law!), then it gets more tricky. Fundamentalist preachers infecting young impressionable minds with hate filled xenophobia also springs to mind.
Then, I want them out of my country.

But we're a democracy so....
I dunno what the answer is.

[Juan_Bottom]

WORD.

The only complication, though its a big one, is the "incitement to hatred" stuff.
Intuitively, I think that Racist/Fascist?nationalist parties should have the right to free speech. As you say, we can ignore them, or argue back.

But when you have a powerful demagogue (its hard to resist Godwin's Law!), then it gets more tricky. Fundamentalist preachers infecting young impressionable minds with hate filled xenophobia also springs to mind.
Then, I want them out of my country.

But we're a democracy so....
I dunno what the answer is.

I hear ya. It is even a tougher deciosion to decide what is freedom of speech..... i.e. burning the flag.

In America Freedom of Speech was founded on truth of speech. So do we all agree that you can say what you will so long as it is true?

[jonesthecurl]

So Washington et. al were guilty of treason as well?

I'm not coing in on either side here for the moment, but, um, yes they were. That's why they were rebels and fighting a war?

[jonesthecurl]

WORD.

The only complication, though its a big one, is the "incitement to hatred" stuff.
Intuitively, I think that Racist/Fascist?nationalist parties should have the right to free speech. As you say, we can ignore them, or argue back.

But when you have a powerful demagogue (its hard to resist Godwin's Law!), then it gets more tricky. Fundamentalist preachers infecting young impressionable minds with hate filled xenophobia also springs to mind.
Then, I want them out of my country.

But we're a democracy so....
I dunno what the answer is.

I hear ya. It is even a tougher deciosion to decide what is freedom of speech..... i.e. burning the flag.

In America Freedom of Speech was founded on truth of speech. So do we all agree that you can say what you will so long as it is true?

Absolutely not. Truth is ot the issue - there are people posting on CC who believe the most appalling crap (we'll all agree to that, though we'll disagree about who believes crap). Who says what's true?

[jonesthecurl]

WORD.

The only complication, though its a big one, is the "incitement to hatred" stuff.
Intuitively, I think that Racist/Fascist?nationalist parties should have the right to free speech. As you say, we can ignore them, or argue back.

But when you have a powerful demagogue (its hard to resist Godwin's Law!), then it gets more tricky. Fundamentalist preachers infecting young impressionable minds with hate filled xenophobia also springs to mind.
Then, I want them out of my country.

But we're a democracy so....
I dunno what the answer is.

An amusing anecdote: in my home town back in the UK many years ago (Basildon, Essex) there was an Anti-Nazi-League rally. Obviously, many National Front and British Movement members and supporters arrived, attempting to disrupt it.
A young friend of mine, seeing a bunch of tattoed gits with cropped hair walking past, bravely began whistling "The Red Flag".
I thought this would lead to major ructions, but instead, all that happened was that one of them looked back, winked, and began whistling "Duetchland Deutchland, uber alles".

[Curmudgeonx]

Flag burning controversies are, to quote my over the pond brothers, bollocks.

If your government cannot take criticism, then I don't want that government.

Freedom of association, open discourse, and inviolate ownership of property are the basic civil liberties of all humans. Without those liberties, you are not free.

[InkL0sed]

Flag burning controversies are, to quote my over the pond brothers, bollocks.

If your government cannot take criticism, then I don't want that government.

Freedom of association, open discourse, and inviolate ownership of property are the basic civil liberties of all humans. Without those liberties, you are not free.

Agreed completely.

As a side-note, how many of you are aware that William Lloyd Garrison burned the Constitution, calling it a compact with the devil?

[danvoy9787]

The actual answer is:

Anyone should be free to say whatever they want, with two caveats: 1) I am free to not listen to what they say (i.e. governmental restrictions on commercial speech) and 2) That the speaker understands the repercussions of what/when they say (i.e. fire in a movie theater).

If NAMBLA, Joys of Satan, etc. want to stand on a streetcorner and spout off, they should have the liberty to do so. I should have the liberty to shout back, walk away, or ignore them.

Well put. I also believe maybe there should be a certain amount of respect paid to children. I dont think it would be fair for NAMBLA to be shouting there beliefs and having a 8 year old walking by. Of course, im sure they would be supervised, but i still do not think it would be fair to the child.

[Curmudgeonx]

Children are more resilient that most people give them credit for. They literally bounce.

Remember when we were 7-10 years old and you would go out in the yard and basically just throw yourself on the ground?

Try that now, and we would break something.

The issue of whether a 8 year old child walking by a NAMBLA demonstration is not one of free speech, but proper parental supervision. Children are called children and not adults for a reason; hell the brain does not develop fully until 17 or 18 years old.

[jonesthecurl]

Children are more resilient that most people give them credit for. They literally bounce.

Remember when we were 7-10 years old and you would go out in the yard and basically just throw yourself on the ground?

Try that now, and we would break something.

The issue of whether a 8 year old child walking by a NAMBLA demonstration is not one of free speech, but proper parental supervision. Children are called children and not adults for a reason; hell the brain does not develop fully until 17 or 18 years old.

Or in many cases, at all - see various CC threads, or rather various CC posters.

[Curmudgeonx]

Interesting article in the New York Times today, here is a quote therefrom:“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Justice Holmes wrote.

“I think that we should be eternally vigilant,” he added, “against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us

[heavycola]

The actual answer is:

Anyone should be free to say whatever they want, with two caveats: 1) I am free to not listen to what they say (i.e. governmental restrictions on commercial speech) and 2) That the speaker understands the repercussions of what/when they say (i.e. fire in a movie theater).

If NAMBLA, Joys of Satan, etc. want to stand on a streetcorner and spout off, they should have the liberty to do so. I should have the liberty to shout back, walk away, or ignore them.

This is indeed the correct answer.
There was a bit of a debate in my office recently about whether or not we should allow the British National Party - a racist, far-right shower who have won local council seats in a few areas of the UK - to have their say in the magazine I work for. In the end they were quoted, and why shouldn't they be? The way to defeat these ideas - eg racism, or man-boy love - is to have them shot down in public forums, not to try and stifle them.

[suggs]

What about the incitement to racial hatred laws Cola? Whats your view on them?

[heavycola]

What about the incitement to racial hatred laws Cola? Whats your view on them?

It depends on the race being hated, obviously. Ahahaha.

I guess rhetoric can be a powerful thing. If Abu Hamza can get crowds of followers whipped up into murderous rage, that's a little different from a guy at speakers' corner on a soapbox saying we shouldl send the darkies home. If it's only offending people, then that shouldn't matter. But if it is actually a case of inciting hatred or violence - for which you require, i should think, a pliant audience and a very good orator - then that can't be allowed. Don't know enough about the law, maybe DM can illuminate, but if it's flexible enough to distinguish between the two then it has to be a good thing.
What's your take, ska frontman?

[Nobunaga]

... Why is Holocaust denial a crime so many places? Isn't this a blatant disregard for freedom of speech? Regardless of how hateful, ignorant and racist it might be.

...

[suggs]

... Why is Holocaust denial a crime so many places? Isn't this a blatant disregard for freedom of speech? Regardless of how hateful, ignorant and racist it might be.

...

It shouldn't be a crime. We had a row at our University union about David Irving coming to talk -the Xian Union got their knickers in a twist, in the end he wasnt allowed to come.
Horrendous denial of free speech.
All you need is a bit of reasoned argument, and indeed some film footage, and the holocaust deniers argument collapses.

[jonesthecurl]

... Why is Holocaust denial a crime so many places? Isn't this a blatant disregard for freedom of speech? Regardless of how hateful, ignorant and racist it might be.

...

It shouldn't be a crime. We had a row at our University union about David Irving coming to talk -the Xian Union got their knickers in a twist, in the end he wasnt allowed to come.
Horrendous denial of free speech.
All you need is a bit of reasoned argument, and indeed some film footage, and the holocaust deniers argument collapses.

Yes. Meet the buggers' stupid arguments head-on. Preventing them from putting their "case" only hands them ammunition. Mind you. I'd hand them ammunition if they were going to emulate Hitler's last act.

And no, that's not an example of Doodah's law - the question is already on the screen.