Freedom of speech, should there be limits?

[Legs]

So you suddenly can't find it yaya. You know why you can't find it, because it's not there, tadaaa It doesn't exist

You really are a very silly liar.

Fine but that was not what was in there, guy just liked a picture

There are no more than 10 minutes that is roughly how long the interview is. And it isn't there.

That wasn't in the link though.
I saw no holocaust denial whatsoever, just a description of the raid.
I can absolutily guaranty that video isn't the video that Greyblades posted

I watched the video he posted. It wasn't there.
Yes I saw the video. Maybe there is a longer version like Hussie suggested, would make sense, but that's not what I saw.
Would you like quotes from moderators and admin in the topic pointing out that your claims were entirely false too?

[Fragony]

Been already been pretty clear that there were two video's, one I saw, the other I didn't. I only responded to the one posted in the thead here. And you can do whatever you like. The other one was posted a few months ago supposedly, have no knowledge of what was in there.

First video is pretty clear, he was arrested after liking a picture on a facebook page.

[Legs]

Been already been pretty clear that there were two video's, one I saw, the other I didn't. I only responded to the one posted in the thead here. And you can do whatever you like. The other one was posted a few months ago supposedly, have no knowledge of what was in there.

You really are pathetic in your attempts to maintain youtr falsehoods..
Why do you choose to lie so foolishly?
One "video" existed only in your mind

this is too easy.
One moderator....
That video about the people who had their houses raided came too close to advocating the works of a Holocaust denier for comfort so I decided to delete it from this thread

again in response to your denials.....
In the video in question there was a speaker who was advocating that listeners read the works of a known Holocaust denier

An Admin on your 10 minute claim.....Oh, we are talking about that nazi group video with the German whose house got raided? The one from last months that I forgot about and didn't watch because it's 1 hour and 21 minutes long?
Same admin dealing with your denials....
The video I mentioned was posted by Greyblades...

Another admin dealing with your denials...
Yeah, about 10 minutes into the Greyblades video, turns out the guy was lying anyway. He originally said he "liked" a picture, in a group he was randomly invited in. Around 10 minutes in, turns out he was the one who actually posted the picture. It is around 40 minute mark, he is saying about a "historian" who is a holocaust denier.

[Fragony]

Well you are right than I guess, don't know wby I didn't see the rest, maybe a break that lasted too long after the interview

I am pretty sure Greyblades thought the same thing I did, we both made the same misrake (did we? 10:40 sounds about fine) we were both baffled by the commentary apparently, although I can only speak for myself, but I am not just going to stop here.

Beginning with your claim that I want to have peope who's views I don't like to be prosecuted. Where's that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Now Brenus will say that you don't have enough wits to understand such lofty matters.

Possible, but unlikely. Neither of us thinks the other stupid, merely benignly misguided.

[Legs]

Well you are right than I guess, don't know wby I didn't see the rest, maybe a break that lasted too long after the interview

.

Thats a very late edit. so lets deal with the additions .
So....

I am pretty sure Greyblades thought the same thing I did, we both made the same misrake (did we? 10:40 sounds about fine) we were both baffled by the commentary apparently, although I can only speak for myself, but I am not just going to stop here.

No, Greyblades had watched the video. After all he had posted it.
He simply didn't know who the "historian" was and didn't know the symbols the neo nazis use to get round the partial ban on nazi flags.

Beginning with your claim that I want to have peope who's views I don't like to be prosecuted. Where's that

Thats your Bat'ty rubbish, you want one bunch of hate preachers prosecuted but don't want the others prosecuted.
The only reason seems to be that you like one bunch and don't like the others
Take Gellar for example. By her own criteria she should be prosecuted as a hate preacher.
Britain banned her as such, just like it did with Spencer, but you believe these hate mongers shouldn't be curtailed don't you

[Fragony]

Greyblades seemed to be just as confused as I was about the content and the comments about it so I assume we made the same mistake. Just like me he appeared to know nothing about what was said after the interview. I still don'tknow either and I don't really understand what happened

So where do I say that I want to prosecute people for their opinion, said the exact opposite

[Legs]

Greyblades seemed to be just as confused as I was about the content and the comments about it so I assume we made the same mistake. Just like me he appeared to know nothing about what was said after the interview. I still don'tknow either and I don't really understand what happened.

No , just no.
Greyblades didn't understand the content of the video he was talking about, you didn't watch the video you were talking about.
That is two very different things.

So where do I say that I want to prosecute people for their opinion, said the exact opposite

No, you stated where you drew your arbitary legal line over speech that carries the same results.

[Fragony]

Not sure about the video, I expect Greyblades to be either, seems like we both thought it ended at at 10 minutes or so, I suspect he did at least.

As for the rest, a very big lol, I was perfectly clear that I draw the line at calling for violence, how that somehow became that I want prosecute people with a different opinion is beyond my understanding but I have always been bad at leftist logic, if they say something that makes sense it's the calm in a F5 hurricane

[Legs]

Not sure about the video, I expect Greyblades to be either, seems like we both thought it ended at at 10 minutes or so, I suspect he did at least.

No , you make no sense , if Greybladfes thought it was 10 minutes long he wouldn't be mentioning things that didn't arise until 30 minutes into the interview.
The only person who has this 10 minute thing is yourself and your imaginary video.

As for the rest, a very big lol, I was perfectly clear that I draw the line at calling for violence, how that somehow became that I want prosecute people with a different opinion is beyond my understanding but I have always been bad at leftist logic, if they say something that makes sense it's the calm in a F5 hurricane

You make no sense at all yet again.
You have two groups that inspire violence with their speech, you want one banned and the other allowed.
if you ban something you prosecute people who break that ban, what part of this really simple process is too hard for you to comprehend?

And what on earth is "leftist logic" do you mean anything that isn't extreme far right nonsense like you subscribe to?

[Gilrandir]

Possible, but unlikely. Neither of us thinks the other stupid, merely benignly misguided.

Lucky you are.

[Fragony]

No , you make no sense , if Greybladfes thought it was 10 minutes long he wouldn't be mentioning things that didn't arise until 30 minutes into the interview.
The only person who has this 10 minute thing is yourself and your imaginary video.


You make no sense at all yet again.
You have two groups that inspire violence with their speech, you want one banned and the other allowed.
if you ban something you prosecute people who break that ban, what part of this really simple process is too hard for you to comprehend?

And what on earth is "leftist logic" do you mean anything that isn't extreme far right nonsense like you subscribe to?

It's pretty simple, the question in the thread is how far freedom of speech should go and I said I draw the line at calling for violence. It's not that complicated.

And leftist logic is just that, leftist logic. Something that only makes sense to lefties

[Legs]

It's pretty simple, the question in the thread is how far freedom of speech should go and I said I draw the line at calling for violence. It's not that complicated.

Yes it is simple, since you ran away from that claim as soon as someone mentioned that you were just talking semantics. You settled on they are assholes as your measure fioor prohibiting speech. So that makes your statement false doesn't it.
Bit of a habit you have isn't it.

And leftist logic is just that, leftist logic. Something that only makes sense to lefties

Now since it appears that you are unable to make sense and habitually resort to falsehoods to try and maintain your nonsense I can only assume that you mean anyone who makes sense and doesn't resort to lies is somehow a leftist.
Which is a very unique definition of leftist you seem to have invented, and is in fact a very complimentary term .
So thank you for calling me a "leftist"

[Fragony]

Yes I called both assholes, that doesn't mean I want to have someone prosecuted because he's an asshole. Again, and again and again, I draw the line at calling for violence. Is it so incredibly hard.

[rory_20_uk]

There has to be limits on free speech. Where they are is much more difficult.

Is calling for violence also when countries push for overthrowing eeeeeevil dictators abroad? Or is it only bad violence that we are all against.?

[Fragony]

That's up to international relationships, I see nothing ambigious there

[Legs]

Yes I called both assholes, that doesn't mean I want to have someone prosecuted because he's an asshole. Again, and again and again, I draw the line at calling for violence. Is it so incredibly hard.

As was pointed out that is only a matter of semantics, as was also pointed out the results can be the same. That is where you are tying yourself in knots, trying to maintain your original position after it has been shown to be not making sense.

[rory_20_uk]

What when they are not international? Denouncing those seen as "terrorists" for example who are in the country?

Announcing the names of spooks in e.g. North Korea on the internet?

[Legs]

There has to be limits on free speech. Where they are is much more difficult.

yes, a very very difficult question, but some people think there are simple answers.

[Husar]

yes, a very very difficult question, but some people think there are simple answers.

You should only jail Hitlers and Stalins.
So, in the following cases, throw into jail indefinitely:

- Someone says: "This guy is like Hitler/Stalin!"
- Someone says: "This guy is a nazi/communist!"

That way you have a clearly defined border and nothing can go wrong.

And I agree with rory that calling for dictators to be overthrown is a call for violence as well. The other problem though is that dictators usually call for a lot of violence themselves but don't jail themselves for it.

[Fragony]

As was pointed out that is only a matter of semantics, as was also pointed out the results can be the same. That is where you are tying yourself in knots, trying to maintain your original position after it has been shown to be not making sense.

Of course the results can be the same, that's a different discussion

[Legs]

You should only jail Hitlers and Stalins.
So, in the following cases, throw into jail indefinitely:

- Someone says: "This guy is like Hitler/Stalin!"
- Someone says: "This guy is a nazi/communist!"

That way you have a clearly defined border and nothing can go wrong.

And I agree with rory that calling for dictators to be overthrown is a call for violence as well. The other problem though is that dictators usually call for a lot of violence themselves but don't jail themselves for it.

Good stuff

[Fragony]

As was pointed out that is only a matter of semantics, as was also pointed out the results can be the same. That is where you are tying yourself in knots, trying to maintain your original position after it has been shown to be not making sense.

Yes it's a matter of semantics. It's about how much the government should be allowed to restrict, not about what words can actually do

[Legs]

Yes it's a matter of semantics. It's about how much the government should be allowed to restrict, not about what words can actually do

No, just no. You seem completely cluelss yet again.
The laws which cover speech are all about what they can actually do, whether its slander incitement or sedition its all about what can be the outcome of the words.
How on earth can you not understand something so simple?

[Fragony]

Question was how far should it go, I answered the question. That simple. It's my opinion that the line should be drawn at calling for violence. That you don't agree with that doesn't make me clueless, I fully understand that words can be dangerous. It's that odd thing called 'disagreement', it can be found on discussion-forums. Bewildering, I understand

[Furunculus]

People should be free to express political beliefs.

But there should be limits to free speech - eg swearing, crude talk etc.

We should we free to say absolutely anything that is not an incitement to violence.
Incitement to "X" hatred is a subjective nonsense that is open to state abuse.
Hate incidents, in allowing a third party to declare offence, is a pernicious nonsense that suppreses free speech.

[Fragony]

We should we free to say absolutely anything that is not an incitement to violence.
Incitement to "X" hatred is a subjective nonsense that is open to state abuse.

Shut up and kiss me. 100% agree. Say whatever you want no matter how bad or outright disgusting what you say really is.

Of course incitement to hatred can have consequences though, but for these consequences there are already consequences.

[Legs]

Question was how far should it go, I answered the question. That simple. It's my opinion that the line should be drawn at calling for violence. That you don't agree with that doesn't make me clueless, I fully understand that words can be dangerous. It's that odd thing called 'disagreement', it can be found on discussion-forums. Bewildering, I understand

You miss the point entirely.
Take your two examples, one you say should be allowed and one not allowed.
Both can have the same meaning, the same result and most importantly considering the law, the exact same intention.
How are you drawing your legal line between what can in effect be two identical statements of criminal intent?

[Fragony]

You miss the point entirely.
Take your two examples, one you say should be allowed and one not allowed.
Both can have the same meaning, the same result and most importantly considering the law, the exact same intention.
How are you drawing your legal line between what can in effect be two identical statements of criminal intent?

There is simply a difference between having a dangerous opinion and caling for violence. That the results can be the same doesn't matter, it's about how far the government can go. Let's say I come to power, and find your take on things dangerous, than what? If you said I wish president Fragony was dead, would you find it reasonable if I had you prosecuted for it? It changes if you say kill president Fragony

[Legs]

There is simply a difference between having a dangerous opinion and caling for violence.

Not at all. They can be exactly the same thing.

That the results can be the same doesn't matter,

That makes no sense.

it's about how far the government can go.

Yes.

Let's say I come to power, and find your take on things dangerous, than what? If you said I wish president Fragony was dead, would you find it reasonable if I had you prosecuted for it? It changes if you say kill president Fragony

That is what you still can't grasp, I could say either and be totally guilty or totally innocent, its all about intent.