When does freedom of speech become unacceptable?

[truman]

The right to say and do what you want extends only as far as doing no harm. If you use that 'right' to deny others the freedoms you value as your birthright, you automatically disqualify yourself morally from exercising it.

 

We're talking about freedom of speech..not being able to do what you want,just to say what you want..how does me saying something deny others any freedoms? Genuine question..

[charmer]

We're talking about freedom of speech..not being able to do what you want,just to say what you want..how does me saying something deny others any freedoms? Genuine question..

 

If I had your address and noticed you had posted something contraversial on here. Under complete freedom of speech I could post your address on this forum. People could read this and perhaps come and get you as they disagreed with your opinions on something.

 

I would be denying you the freedom to live your life without fear by exercising my freedom of speech.

[Michael_W]

No government on earth can legislate to outlaw opinions, only the public expression of them. And if the government is democratically elected and have made clear in their manifesto that they intend to pass such laws, then they do have the right to pass them, whether you think they have or not!

 

I think you underestimate the power of hateful, fearful speech on receptive minds.

 

It would be naive to think those virtues can exist in a vacuum. The context in which they can flourish is one in which it is made difficult to whip up feelings of fear and hatred of people perceived to be different. It's bad enough with the Daily Bloody Mail and the ilk fomenting zenophobia and visceral racism in its pages every day of the week; in a civilised society, there have to be brakes on that kind of vileness. If there were not laws prohibiting the expression of race hatred, don't you think the right wing press would have been printing it by now?

 

So you think the DM whips up more fear and hatred than the vile terrorist sympathising, hate speaking radical Islamists themselves, you have lost perspective if that's the case ...... typical lefty free speech curbing nonsense. The people who took to the streets wanting death and destruction to the western world, that they inhabit, have created that zenophobia you mention not the Daily Bloody Mail !

Edited February 6, 2015 by Michael_W

[Tommo68]

Freedom of speech is already unacceptable

Even the truth is not allowed at times

Questioning somethings is not permitted..at times.

People have lost their kobs for being honest and/or telling the truth.

 

Said it years ago.. what is needed is a site that you do not have to sign into where you can say what ever you want to. ask any question you like.

 

It will I'm sure and at least initially attract all kinds of nuts, lefties, the extreme right, pro and anti; religion, porn, gay marriage, ...anything and everything in fact.

Be thick skinned or don't go on because someone will offend you allow them too and you go on there enough.

 

But in between all that if enough people use it then it woul provide a much better barometer of public opinion on any given topic than any of the monitored, commercial so called social media sites.

 

And with no accounts there could be none of those sheep doing the following thing, no celebrities or wannabes.

.

[mjw47]

The stifling of freedom of speech has infected - of all places - Oxford University.

 

The Oxford Union, which is a private debating society, has received an open letter from the University of Oxford signed by Academics and students demanding that they rescind an invitation to Marine Le Pen to speak.

 

Ms Le Pen is leader of the Front National in France and personally I find her views and those of her organization to be abhorrent.

 

However, banning her the right to express those views, especially in a University where freedom of thought and expression should be encouraged seems ridiculous to me.

[aliceBB]

So you think the DM whips up more fear and hatred than the vile terrorist sympathising, hate speaking radical Islamists themselves, you have lost perspective if that's the case ......

Whoa, horsey. I said nothing of the sort. You have made that up. I would like very much to see radical Islamists silenced and deprived of a platform from which to spread their vileness and recruit gullible young men to their murderous cause. My point (which you seem determined to miss, although it is crystal clear), is that there have to be curbs on 'the right to free speech' when that right is abused in the way any extremist, life-denying individuals or groups abuse it.

 

typical lefty free speech curbing nonsense.

Actually...a belief in (other people's) freedom of expression is a characteristic of neither extreme left or extreme right - it's a liberal viewpoint.

 

the people who took to the streets wanting death and destruction to the western world, that they inhabit, have created that zenophobia you mention not the Daily Bloody Mail !

No. In their own ways they have both helped create a climate of fear and intolerance.

[Harleyman]

There is no such thing as 'a basic human freedom' - it's a construct. It does not exist out of context. And in all human contexts, one person's freedom stops when it is used to deny someone else theirs.

 

I have some sympathy for that argument, but pragmatically, in today's world, you are wrong. If every listener to hate speech/ISIS recruitment videos/BNP anti-Muslim rants were as intelligent, well-educated and free-thinking as you and I, there would not be a problem. But the fact remains that allowing the free dissemination of some kinds of extremist, life-denying propaganda leads more or less directly to the deaths of others.

 

And the USA is the last country I'd look to as a standard bearer for basic human freedoms - what tosh. Any country which executes people has forfeited the right to claim that its citizens have 'basic human freedoms' (one of which is the right to life). Plus, it is still pretty difficult to live in the US and campaign openly for communism, even though that is not denying anyone's right to life. So, hardly a beacon of free speech. I was referring to this country.

 

I see the law that allows execution in some States as not being unreasonable.

After all a killer has already deprived a person or persons of their right to life. It could almost be called biblical, an eye for an eye.

That said a 90 year sentence in prison without the possibility of parole could be an infinitely worse sentence for some but then the already overburdened tax payer has yet another worthless mouth to feed, clothe and shelter

 

Why would it be difficult to preach the glories of Communism in America? True there was a time in the 1950s when McArthyism was allowed to hijack the First Amendment but that's all ancient history and long gone

 

If you wanted to preach your politics you might be heckled or jeered by some onlookers but you're not being denied the right to speak and the jeerers and hecklers are only exercising their rights to express their disagreement with you in their own particular way. The police would only intervene if the meeting turned physical

 

 

Going back in history let's assume that Phil Blunkett, staunch member of the Klan attends one of their meetings and during the meeting spouts all kinds of hatred against Jews, gays, Communists, Catholics and black people. He's not breaking the law under the First Amendment and however obnoxious his words are he has the right to do so.

Now Blunkett decides to go a step further. He burns a cross on the front lawn of a black person's home. This time he has broken the law. He has committed an act of hatred coupled with vandalism and can be arrested and charged accordingly.

 

Words vs Acts. That has to be clearly defined when it comes to freedom of speech

[mjw47]

I see the law that allows execution in some States as not being unreasonable.

After all a killer has already deprived a person or persons of their right to life. It could almost be called biblical, an eye for an eye.

That said a 90 year sentence in prison without the possibility of parole could be an infinitely worse sentence for some but then the already overburdened tax payer has yet another worthless mouth to feed, clothe and shelter

 

Why would it be difficult to preach the glories of Communism in America? True there was a time in the 1950s when McArthyism was allowed to hijack the First Amendment but that's all ancient history and long gone

 

If you wanted to preach your politics you might be heckled or jeered by some onlookers but you're not being denied the right to speak and the jeerers and hecklers are only exercising their rights to express their disagreement with you in their own particular way. The police would only intervene if the meeting turned physical

 

 

Going back in history let's assume that Phil Blunkett, staunch member of the Klan attends one of their meetings and during the meeting spouts all kinds of hatred against Jews, gays, Communists, Catholics and black people. He's not breaking the law under the First Amendment and however obnoxious his words are he has the right to do so.

Now Blunkett decides to go a step further. He burns a cross on the front lawn of a black person's home. This time he has broken the law. He has committed an act of hatred coupled with vandalism and can be arrested and charged accordingly.

 

Words vs Acts. That has to be clearly defined when it comes to freedom of speech

 

I agree, saying what you want ( short of incitement to commit crime ) should be allowed without prosecution, let the xenophobic, homophobic, racist morons condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

 

The death penalty on the other hand has always seemed a ludicrous response to me.

 

" To murder someone and take their life is the worst crime that can be committed, and so to prove that point, we're going to take your life ".

 

Consider the number of people who have been proven innocent after being given life sentences for murder.

 

To the best of my knowledge only two countries have reintroduced the death penalty after it was abolished, South Africa during the apartheid years and Nazi Germany during the term of office of a well known Chancellor.

 

Not examples we should follow in my view.

[Harleyman]

I agree, saying what you want ( short of incitement to commit crime ) should be allowed without prosecution, let the xenophobic, homophobic, racist morons condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

 

The death penalty on the other hand has always seemed a ludicrous response to me.

 

" To murder someone and take their life is the worst crime that can be committed, and so to prove that point, we're going to take your life ".

 

Consider the number of people who have been proven innocent after being given life sentences for murder.

 

To the best of my knowledge only two countries have reintroduced the death penalty after it was abolished, South Africa during the apartheid years and Nazi Germany during the term of office of a well known Chancellor.

 

Not examples we should follow in my view.

 

When it comes to the death penalty I've always thought that there's two sides to it all.

 

Put yourself in the position as parents of a beloved daughter who while on her way home a bit late one night was suddenly kidnapped. Two weeks later her body was found dumped in some ditch. Coroners report states that she had been tortured extensively, raped repeatedly and then brutally murdered

Then comes the trial, the accused all spiffed up in a sharp looking suit and tie, hair neatly trimmed, his lawyer spouting the quite often used defensive statement how the accused himself had been subjected to abuse by his father blah1 blah! blah! As if that gave him some kind of excuse to do what he did.

 

Then he gets life instead of death. Prison is no picnic but as time goes by he gets to know his fellow inmates, makes friends with some of them. He gets better food than some homeless people outside, better medical treatment, better accommodation and is allowed recreational activities such as basketball, body building, TV and sometimes a few of these jokers are allowed interviews with the media for TV shows and they can sit there mouthing off how sorry they are and how they "found Jesus" while they have biceps bigger than Mr Universe and tattooes from neck down to arse

 

Yes they are being punished but it's not in the way that they should be punished.

 

As for the girl's parents they will never see their daughter progress in life, graduate from college, work in a career, get married, one day present them with grand kids. They'll just live out their lives in sorrow and "what if it never happened.

Maybe the parents have no wish to see their daughter's killer executed but I'm sure there are also many who would.

 

I know I would and if I knew that while he was being led to the execution chamber he experienced even a moment's abject terror then I would feel that the scale has been finally balanced.

 

But as I say it all depends on how you see it

[Lotusflower]

When it comes to the death penalty I've always thought that there's two sides to it all.

 

Put yourself in the position as parents of a beloved daughter who while on her way home a bit late one night was suddenly kidnapped. Two weeks later her body was found dumped in some ditch. Coroners report states that she had been tortured extensively, raped repeatedly and then brutally murdered

Then comes the trial, the accused all spiffed up in a sharp looking suit and tie, hair neatly trimmed, his lawyer spouting the quite often used defensive statement how the accused himself had been subjected to abuse by his father blah1 blah! blah! As if that gave him some kind of excuse to do what he did.

 

Then he gets life instead of death. Prison is no picnic but as time goes by he gets to know his fellow inmates, makes friends with some of them. He gets better food than some homeless people outside, better medical treatment, better accommodation and is allowed recreational activities such as basketball, body building, TV and sometimes a few of these jokers are allowed interviews with the media for TV shows and they can sit there mouthing off how sorry they are and how they "found Jesus" while they have biceps bigger than Mr Universe and tattooes from neck down to arse

 

Yes they are being punished but it's not in the way that they should be punished.

 

As for the girl's parents they will never see their daughter progress in life, graduate from college, work in a career, get married, one day present them with grand kids. They'll just live out their lives in sorrow and "what if it never happened.

Maybe the parents have no wish to see their daughter's killer executed but I'm sure there are also many who would.

 

I know I would and if I knew that while he was being led to the execution chamber he experienced even a moment's abject terror then I would feel that the scale has been finally balanced.

 

But as I say it all depends on how you see it

 

God is all loving and all forgiving!

 

http://www.coinweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ingodwetrust_note.jpg

 

Y'awl American boy...or...?