Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

This thread was inspired by the case against Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. This is a more general topic though, focusing on all cases of the law intervening in freedom of speech.

This is an interesting question IMO something that is often debated? Out of interest, should we consider restricting this right when dealing with ethnic/religious groups?

I've tried to include a poll which I think covers the key possibilities. I've only included ethnic/religious groups in these possibilities since homophobia and the suchlike are much more hotly debated topics.
1. Freedom of speech should not be regulated - say what you like, regardless of how violent or obscene, how you like to who you like with no risk of any form of conviction.

2. Freedom of speech needs mild regulation against incitement of violence against ethnic/religious groups - say what you like as long as it doesn't encourage violence and/or physical actions to be taken against the group you are criticize. What is said should be taken in context of course - say it on stage as part of a stand up comedy routine then fine. At a political rally on the other hand, not fine

3. Freedom of speech needs moderate regulation to prevent major unfounded criticism against certain ethnic/religious groups - by major criticism, I mean saying things like "group x are evil" as well as inciting violence, for example "group x should be beaten up and killed where-ever you find them". What is said should be taken in context and exceptions should be made for facts. I think that this is about the level of regulation that exists in most of Western Europe. It certainly is in the UK at any rate.

4. Freedom of speech needs serious regulation to prevent ethnic/religious groups from criticising each other - this here is any sort of criticism - you wouldn't for example, be able to say that "group x are causing divisions in our society" or "group x are the root cause of crime". Milder statements should be taken in context and exceptions should be made for facts.

5. Freedom of speech is an obstruction to a civilised society - no facts and no opinions criticising any ethnic or religious groups should be allowed and nothing should be taken in context. Anything that any religious or ethnic group finds offensive should be punishable.

6. Gah! - self explanatory ~:)

I take the stance of number two, a little bit of regulation being a required evil. One is a little too open ended, allowing anybody to encourage people open to indoctrination into violence against others. Anything more than that however, is an attack upon our freedoms and totally un-necessary - any individual should be able to say whatever they like as long as it can't directly lead to physical harm. Of course, methods should be attempted to try and prevent "hate speech" from appearing, but these should involve education and government campaigns rather the involvement of the legal system.

So, what do you guys think ~:)

[Brenus]

I am in favour of very clear regulations: All speeches or books, pamphlets, leaflets or other kind of communications should be banned if they called to massive killing others due to their differences, or for fun: Err, except war situation of course.:idea2:

Or all authors should share the responsibilities of what they preached when some lunatic(s) just do what they were saying, e.g. Robert Brasillach in France was sentenced to death and executed February the 6th 1945 because during years he said to kill Jews was right in the Je suis Partout newspaper, and some just did it.:oops:

[Strike For The South]

Its not freedom if you restrict it.

[rory_20_uk]

Its not freedom if you restrict it.

But it can be anarchy if you don't

Should people be allowed to make claims that they state is backed by hard evidence when there isn't any - and then claim freedom of speech if challenged / sued?

I'm OK with freedom as long as it is clear that things are either one's point of view (the queen is evil / America is Satan) or whether you're purporting fact (a study clearly shows that all plastics cause brain damage) . The latter I would wish for the person to be culpable if they're basically making it up.

~:smoking:

[CrossLOPER]

I want to choose the "no restriction" option, but only because I prefer conditions to restrictions. Want to say that a group a,b or c is out to destroy/kill/screw up x, y or z? You must provide back up. Basically, if your racial slur to actual information if messed up, you position should be publicly called into question. I'm not saying deny the right to assemble because the a person is incapable of producing a high-school level platform, I just want to hear actual evidence.

[Lemur]

I voted #2, which is very close to what we have in the U.S.A. Direct incitement to violence shouldn't be legal, sorry. Not unless you're a drill sergeant.

Just to be crystal clear: Direct incitement of violence. As in, "In this book I explain why we should kill all of the red-headed people." That should carry a penalty. As opposed to, "In this book I explain why red-headed people are idiots who pee their beds." Which should be legal.

[Proletariat]

I voted number one because if you're too stupid or blind to see whether the darkened theater was on fire or not why were you watching a movie anyway!

:furious3:

[CrossLOPER]

I voted number one because if you're too stupid or blind to see whether the darkened theater was on fire or not why were you watching a movie anyway!

:furious3:
Panic spread quickly. When the threat of death comes, some people lose their heads.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No regulations on freedom of speech - however, there is nothing wrong with, for example, a libel lawsuit.

[CrossLOPER]

No regulations on freedom of speech - however, there is nothing wrong with, for example, a libel lawsuit.
That's similar to what I'm thinking.

[Furunculus]

Freedom of speech needs mild regulation against incitement of violence against groups

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I put number two, but I do believe that the "clear and present danger" standard must apply.

[Furunculus]

what is the clear and present danger business?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Incitement to violence is not enough. Such incitement must be occurring at a time when there exists a realistic likelihood of inciting that violence.

Yelling "FIRE!" while standing on a soapbox at an intersection is not a realistic incitement to panic.

Calling President Bush a murdering warmonger is not incitement, unless you then encourage an attack on him while he is present or an attack on other's and their property as a means of vengeance.

In other words, there must exist a "Clear and Present Danger" in the effort to incite. Hot air should not be restricted.

[Lemur]

Excellent point, Seamus, and 100% agreement on this end.

[Furunculus]

Incitement to violence is not enough. Such incitement must be occurring at a time when there exists a realistic likelihood of inciting that violence.

Yelling "FIRE!" while standing on a soapbox at an intersection is not a realistic incitement to panic.

Calling President Bush a murdering warmonger is not incitement, unless you then encourage an attack on him while he is present or an attack on other's and their property as a means of vengeance.

In other words, there must exist a "Clear and Present Danger" in the effort to incite. Hot air should not be restricted.

very much agreed, thank you.

[CountArach]

Why should someone choose what random series of grunts and noises comes from my mouth?

[FactionHeir]

The options described by Omanes seem to be more about political correctness than FoS IMO?

[Husar]

I voted #2, which is very close to what we have in the U.S.A. Direct incitement to violence shouldn't be legal, sorry. Not unless you're a drill sergeant.

Just to be crystal clear: Direct incitement of violence. As in, "In this book I explain why we should kill all of the red-headed people." That should carry a penalty. As opposed to, "In this book I explain why red-headed people are idiots who pee their beds." Which should be legal.

Same. :2thumbsup:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

For some reason this always seems appropriate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPF-GmHT3h8).

/is there a centralized place where I can find out which watchlists I'm on?

[LittleGrizzly]

That sketch is hysterical!!

[Somebody Else]

*** ****** ****** ** ******* ** *** ******** *** ******. *** ** *** **** *******? * ** *** *******! *** ****** **. ***'** ***, ***'** *** ***!

[Fragony]

Mildly regulated, I draw the line at calling for violence.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Voted #2, for much the same reasons as Lemur states. Although sometimes the line between direct/indirect calls to violence is open to interpretation, and best judged using discretion. The fact that it's hard to make clear laws in this respect could potentially lead to problems though, and the slippery slope may come into play...

[Adrian II]

Just to be crystal clear: Direct incitement of violence. As in, "In this book I explain why we should kill all of the red-headed people." That should carry a penalty. Does that mean all books, articles and speeches pleading for the death penalty for murderers are outlawed as well?

Define 'violence'. Does it include calls for discimination, such as "In this book I explain why we should deny red-headed people medical care"?

I hate any sort of restrictions in the so-called interest of society, which is often really only the majority. So for the time being I'm with Proletariat. No pasaran! :knight:

[Subotan]

If someone decides ""You can say X, but not Y", then your speech ceases to be free. Besides, shutting that guy up doesn't gives us a chance to debate him and explain why he's a pillock, and only fuels Islamophobia. Also, if we really want to see ourselves as the good guys against countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia (The governments, not the people of course), then we need to establish a moral high ground and stick to it. Instances such as this, Gitmo and various other incidents erode the moral authority democracy has.

[Lemur]

Does that mean all books, articles and speeches pleading for the death penalty for murderers are outlawed as well?
I thought Seamus expanded on this quite well.


Incitement to violence is not enough. Such incitement must be occurring at a time when there exists a realistic likelihood of inciting that violence.

Yelling "FIRE!" while standing on a soapbox at an intersection is not a realistic incitement to panic.

Calling President Bush a murdering warmonger is not incitement, unless you then encourage an attack on him while he is present or an attack on other's and their property as a means of vengeance.

In other words, there must exist a "Clear and Present Danger" in the effort to incite. Hot air should not be restricted.

[Husar]

Does that mean all books, articles and speeches pleading for the death penalty for murderers are outlawed as well?
Well, they should be. :mellow:


Define 'violence'. Does it include calls for discimination, such as "In this book I explain why we should deny red-headed people medical care"?
Well, obviously you explain it so there is no problem and your ideas should be introduced.
discrimination is not violence anyway, it can become that but then it is violence as well. :dizzy2:


I hate any sort of restrictions in the so-called interest of society, which is often really only the majority. So for the time being I'm with Proletariat. No pasaran! :knight:
I thought at first she had drunk too much but now after reading the post several times over the course of two days it's slowly dimming in my slow brain what she might be aiming at but it still doesn't make any sense at all in relation to the topic unless she means the theater burned because someone called for the theater to burn but maybe I'm too dumb so why am I reading fora anyway? :dizzy2:

[Adrian II]

I thought Seamus expanded on this quite well.With all due respect I don't think he did.
Yelling "FIRE!" while standing on a soapbox at an intersection is not a realistic incitement to panic.Yelling 'Kill him!' on the doorstep of a prison where a convict is about to be executed is incitement to violence. Should it be outlawed?

Maybe Seamus intended to single out incitement to a particular kind of violence, for instance unlawful violence. Even then, there is a lot of room for interpretation, as I tried to demonstrate when mentioning discimination. Discrimination may be unlawful, but is it a form of violence? If we agree that violence has a wider meaning than plain physical violence, the terrain becomes very muddy indeed.

[Husar]

Yelling 'Kill him!' on the doorstep of a prison where a convict is about to be executed is incitement to violence. Should it be outlawed?

How is a syringe violent?
Ok, some say it actually is when it doesn't work as intended etc but then I didn't know you thought that executions should be legal in the first place.
Otherwise we come back to prole's weird post, why do you argue on a hypothetical case that is based on a legal action you think should not be legal in the first place?

Also when you say everything should be allowed under freedom of speech, does that only concern the government or should my boss not be allowed to fire me when I call him a ***** ******* with a ***** in his ******** because of freedom of speech?

[Xiahou]

Maybe Seamus intended to single out incitement to a particular kind of violence, for instance unlawful violence. Even then, there is a lot of room for interpretation, as I tried to demonstrate when mentioning discimination. Discrimination may be unlawful, but is it a form of violence? If we agree that violence has a wider meaning than plain physical violence, the terrain becomes very muddy indeed.That's what makes me uncomfortable about the "incitement" exceptions to the freedom. It's basically saying speech that asks someone to do something illegal is itself illegal. What determines what is legal? The government. By outlawing certain behaviors it seems like it would be a short jump to outlaw advocacy of that behavior by allowing such exceptions. :shrug:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Also when you say everything should be allowed under freedom of speech, does that only concern the government or should my boss not be allowed to fire me when I call him a ***** ******* with a ***** in his ******** because of freedom of speech?
You have a right to say that but you have no right to that employment.

[Husar]

You have a right to say that but you have no right to that employment.

You also have a right to say that in society, but you don't have a right to walk free afterwards. :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

That's what makes me uncomfortable about the "incitement" exceptions to the freedom. It's basically saying speech that asks someone to do something illegal is itself illegal. What determines what is legal? The government. By outlawing certain behaviors it seems like it would be a short jump to outlaw advocacy of that behavior by allowing such exceptions. :shrug:

Freedom of expression is freedom from government prosecution because of your opinion not the right to say what you want. The government is supposed to protect all it's citizins, a government that allows calls for violence against a certain group isn't doing it's job.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You also have a right to say that in society, but you don't have a right to walk free afterwards. :dizzy2:
The boss could fire you for any reason he wants (or should be able, in my opinion). You do have the right to walk free afterward.

[Adrian II]

How is a syringe violent?If it kills.
[..] I didn't know you thought that executions should be legal in the first place.I implied that they are legal. Not that they should be legal.
Also when you say everything should be allowed under freedom of speech, does that only concern the government or should my boss not be allowed to fire me when I call him a ***** ******* with a ***** in his ******** because of freedom of speech?I'd fire you on the spot anyway, regardless of what you say. :mellow:

[Husar]

If it kills.
Where's the force? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violent)


I'd fire you on the spot anyway, regardless of what you say. :mellow:
Well, that's fine, I assume you want to keep love (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2129851&postcount=64) and work seperate.

[Kralizec]

I voted #2.

I agree with Seamus that the "incitement" should involve a tangible risk. Obnoxious tantrums in a bar shouldn't be prosecuted anymore than an attempt to kill someone by throwing pieces of paper at him would be.

It's understandable that insulting individual people is prosecuted sometimes, but I don't think that criticism of a group, no matter how tasteless it is delivered, should ever be a crime. I should be able to say that liberalism, communism, christianity, national socialism and whatnot are vile ideologies without worrying about jailtime.


Does that mean all books, articles and speeches pleading for the death penalty for murderers are outlawed as well?

There's a difference. If I say that all car thieves should be executed after being caught even once, I'm just voicing an opinion about law and punishment. If I say that it's permissable to kill a car thief if you catch him breaking into your car, I'm encouraging self-help/lynching :juggle2:

[Major Robert Dump]

No limits. The anti-incitement laws are understandable, but also a legal can of worms that can and will be abused by wanna-be victims and district attorneys with an axe to grind. Incitement issues can be covered in civil court.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

There's a difference. If I say that all car thieves should be executed after being caught even once, I'm just voicing an opinion about law and punishment. If I say that it's permissable to kill a car thief if you catch him breaking into your car, I'm encouraging self-help/lynching
The former is merely representative violence - theoretically, the law is executing the theif on your behalf. Violence is still being committed and you are advocating it. And whether the car theif is executed by a court or a citizen, they are still equally dead.

Your reasoning would excuse calls for genocide that say "it should be illegal to be, say, Irish. The punishment, which should be carried out by the state, is death."

[Kralizec]

Depriving someone of their liberty is a form of violence. Saying that a certain act is worthy of jailtime is pretty normal. Saying that every citizen is entitled to personally lock thieves in their own basement would be odd.

The state has a monopoly on violence. So yes, proposing a law that makes being Irish punishable by death would be fine by me (though I wouldn´t vote for you) but broadcasting an appeal to the general populace to start murdering Irish people in your neighbourhoud Rwanda-style would not be.

[Fragony]

No limits. The anti-incitement laws are understandable, but also a legal can of worms that can and will be abused by wanna-be victims and district attorneys with an axe to grind. Incitement issues can be covered in civil court.

I really don't want to live in a country where freedom of speech has become a goal of it's own where nutjobs can make calls for violence against the victim of choice. If not we can just cease being what we are. You have to draw a line somewhere and I think calling for violence goes way beyond the freedom of speech because you create the conditions that can limit freedom of others, calls for violence, no way.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's really two different boats, the incitement and the free speech thing.

Speaking of drawing the line, when does it become incitement? When the violence starts? When the violence is about to start? Does the likelihood of people being able to mobilize and be violent come into play, or is it irrelevant? What if people misunderstand your meaning and take things too far? Does language, dialect, culture and translation come into play? What about regional differences like the ones that exist in obscenity laws?

To me there is a huge difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater (nothing to do with freedom of expression, and what I think of as incitement tbh) and criticizing a someone or something in an aggressive manner (what a lot of other people see as incitement)

I think its preposterous that some free, progressive countries are prosecuting people for criticizing certain religions or races or cultures, and I think its equally preposterous that other governments go after people who say things like "the holocaust didnt happen." Opinions are opinions. So when I say I'm against incitement laws, I'm actually going by the typical, politically correct-pls-don't-hurt-anyones-feelings definition, not my definition, because I think my definition is the minority.

[Fragony]

My freedom ends where your freedom begins, best deal ever. Political correctness is kindly allowed to suck my proportions.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Depriving someone of their liberty is a form of violence. Saying that a certain act is worthy of jailtime is pretty normal. Saying that every citizen is entitled to personally lock thieves in their own basement would be odd.
So you think the latter should be illegal to say?


The state has a monopoly on violence. So yes, proposing a law that makes being Irish punishable by death would be fine by me (though I wouldn´t vote for you) but broadcasting an appeal to the general populace to start murdering Irish people in your neighbourhoud Rwanda-style would not be.
That distinction is ridiculous. The state is a representative of the people (in theory) and saying that the state should murder Irish people is equally as wrong and violence-inciting as saying the citizens should do it themselves - and the result will likely be the same. If people think murdering the Irish is silly they will ignore you. If they think it has merit, they will do it themselves or charge the state to do so.

[PowerWizard]

It is very naive to think that freedom of speech is boundless. There are limitations to free speech in all countries of the world. As Locke said there is no freedom without laws.
The poll is somewhat flawed, because
1. it suggests that these are the gradual restrictions of free speech, which is not true. For example hate speech (the 2nd option in the poll, for which many members voted) is stricter than other limitations (not included in the poll, like defense against libel) and was only introduced in the 20th century.
2. these aren't all the cases of restriction. F.e. defense against libel or copyright infringement leads to the limitation of free speech, or the freedom of press (part of free speech) can be also restricted to ensure another right, the right to information.

I had a thread about this TWC with all the options in the poll, but unfortunately TWC is down, so I can't link. Maybe later.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I thought it would be a little flawed, but here I'm only really thinking about discussion relating to religious/ethnic/sexual/whatever else minorities as opposed to libel and lawsuits and the suchlike. A more accurate title, on thought, would have been "How should political correctness affect our freedom of speech?" - sorry. A mod can adjust if they want to ~:(

[PowerWizard]

I see your point then. I don't think political correctness should affect freedom of speech at all. After all, political correctness is not a legal term, and free speech can be only restricted by laws. Regarding hate speech: I think free speech should only be restricted, if a speech not only discriminates a certain group of people (based on their race, ethnicity, religious or political views etc.) but also incites actual violence against this group (f.e. "kill them" or "attack them").

I live in a country where there are a lot of gypsies living. 70-80% of the crimes are commmitted by these people. Since the introduction of hate speech rules, you can't say this in public, because it is "discriminating", unless of course you'd like to face lawsuits. This is insane. I mean you can't state a fact, that is proven by criminology, a social science. I think this is far-fetched and unneccessary.

[Whacker]

100% in agreement with Seamus's earlier post explaining the "immediate and present danger", so voted 2 which seems to be closest to that stance. I don't remember who said this in a post some time ago (maybe Goofwad?) but the gist was that "having an opinion, no matter how misguided, should never be illegal".

[PowerWizard]

having an opinion, no matter how misguided, should never be illegal

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

[Kralizec]

So you think the latter should be illegal to say?

Well, it would not be taken seriously. I just wanted to demonstrate the difference between arguing that something should be punished and arguing that people ought to do something about it themselves.



That distinction is ridiculous. The state is a representative of the people (in theory) and saying that the state should murder Irish people is equally as wrong and violence-inciting as saying the citizens should do it themselves - and the result will likely be the same. If people think murdering the Irish is silly they will ignore you. If they think it has merit, they will do it themselves or charge the state to do so.

It's a silly example, to be honest. I do feel that you should be able to say that, for example, homosexuality should be illegal and punishable. I don't think it should be permissable for an imam to say that individual muslims ought to pick up the stones themselves and pelt gay people in broad daylight. Do you think the latter should be legal?


1. it suggests that these are the gradual restrictions of free speech, which is not true. For example hate speech (the 2nd option in the poll, for which many members voted) is stricter than other limitations (not included in the poll, like defense against libel) and was only introduced in the 20th century.
2. these aren't all the cases of restriction. F.e. defense against libel or copyright infringement leads to the limitation of free speech, or the freedom of press (part of free speech) can be also restricted to ensure another right, the right to information.

#2 does not cover "hate speech". It says "mild regulation against incitement of violence against groups"
I think the poll options might be slightly flawed myself, but not for the reason you mentioned. But that's more because I'm cynical. There ought to be an option that says "criticising a religion should be punishable if it turns out followers of said religion manage to personally take offense from it". Because that's what the case against Wilders is really about.


This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

Libel is where you deliberately make false and malicious statements affecting an individual, or a group of identifyable individuals (and not something as broad and vague as a religious community).
Fearmongering: is this even a crime in itself?
Flag desecration isn't illegal in the USA or in Holland and shouldn't be- of course if you tear down the flags in front of a government office it's something different.

Perjury and copyright enfringement (wich you mentioned earlier) do, strictly speaking, limit what you can say. The first is a specific crime to ensure people tell the truth when under oath in a judicial procedure and the second is about commercial abuse of stuff other people created. This discussion is about what you can and cannot say about religions.

[PowerWizard]

This discussion is about what you can and cannot say about religions.

Well the OP said that


This thread was inspired by the case against Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. This is a more general topic though, focusing on all cases of the law intervening in freedom of speech.

so I thought I might share my views on this general topic.

But anyway, regarding the Wilders case, I don't think he ever said something or expressed something in that specific video that should be regulated by law. The video is obviously biased, but all politically motivated propaganda materials are biased. So what?

[Strike For The South]

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

One of the best acts of protest you can do.

[Kralizec]

I live in a country where there are a lot of gypsies living. 70-80% of the crimes are commmitted by these people. Since the introduction of hate speech rules, you can't say this in public, because it is "discriminating", unless of course you'd like to face lawsuits. This is insane. I mean you can't state a fact, that is proven by criminology, a social science. I think this is far-fetched and unneccessary.

Where do you live?

[Proletariat]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

If murdering the Irish is already illegal, why the hell would we need a law saying that you're not allowed to state 'kill the Irish'. You're going to jail no matter what for murder if you actually do it.

:dizzy2:

My first post I thought was obvious tongue in cheek, but I'm with Adrian and MRD. No limits on free speech at all.

[Kralizec]

Being an acessory to a crime is punishable. People who hire others to kill are punished. I don't see why people who use their position of moral authority to compel others to violence should not be prosecuted :juggle2:

[Husar]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

And what about the Imam? Let him keep preaching to his new followers so they can murder more and more? What a great way to solve the problem...but hey, he's got freedom of speech. :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

NO.



The state has a monopoly on violence. So yes, proposing a law that makes being Irish punishable by death would be fine by me (though I wouldn´t vote for you) but broadcasting an appeal to the general populace to start murdering Irish people in your neighbourhoud Rwanda-style would not be.

That's a weird distinction. One's alright because the government says so? Good grief.

As for banning incitement to violence; the speech has to directly threaten serious violence, with a real and present danger of occurring.


And what about the Imam? Let him keep preaching to his new followers so they can murder more and more? What a great way to solve the problem...but hey, he's got freedom of speech

I wonder if you could get him under RICO.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

If murdering the Irish is already illegal, why the hell would we need a law saying that you're not allowed to state 'kill the Irish'. You're going to jail no matter what for murder if you actually do it.

:dizzy2:

My first post I thought was obvious tongue in cheek, but I'm with Adrian and MRD. No limits on free speech at all.

I am using Prole's excellent post as my response to Fenring.


And what about the Imam? Let him keep preaching to his new followers so they can murder more and more? What a great way to solve the problem...but hey, he's got freedom of speech.
How foolish are his followers that they keep stoning people even though they are caught and punished? This seems rather unlikely.

[PowerWizard]

Where do you live?

Hungary.

[CountArach]

2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.
Well there are many who would disagree with you. Libels are an interesting case, and I at least one far left commentator refuses to sue people for libel. Flag Desecration is something that I have absolutely no problems with. Perjury is interesting, but this is a case where an opinion is at stake, not an out-and-out lie with the intent of defrauding the court system.

[PowerWizard]

Well there are many who would disagree with you. Libels are an interesting case, and I at least one far left commentator refuses to sue people for libel. Flag Desecration is something that I have absolutely no problems with. Perjury is interesting, but this is a case where an opinion is at stake, not an out-and-out lie with the intent of defrauding the court system.

If you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they are not illegal in many countries.

And you're right about perjury but it appears in a form of opinion, how one recalls the events of the past.

[Husar]

How foolish are his followers that they keep stoning people even though they are caught and punished? This seems rather unlikely.

They're all martyrs, or at least they think they are after listening to that head honcho who is protected by freedom of speech. If you think it never happens, think again. Let me give you a hint: 9/11
Now Osama hasn't killed anyone yet as far as I know, he just laid out plans and gave instructions, according to the freedom of speach for anyone with anything attitude he should not be hunted as he is protected by freedom of speech. Same for the mafia boss who tells his henchman to go and kill Proletariat and ATPG, the boss files under freedom of speech and the police should watch the henchmen until after they cut your throats and only arrest them afterwards. :dizzy2:

Now that sounds great, doesn't it, it removes all need of police protection because there is no such thing as a threat anymore, it will all be dealt with afterwards. :dizzy2:
Sorry, but if someone sends me death threats I'd rather have the police take it seriously and do something about it rather than stand around and claim it's all fine until he has killed me, there are people who aren't right in their heads and the punishment after a deed does not scare them at all.

[CountArach]

If you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they are not illegal in many countries.
Just because it is illegal in many countries doesn't mean I can't disagree with the reasons for its illegality.

And you're right about perjury but it appears in a form of opinion, how one recalls the events of the past.
But it calls into question the very nature of the legal system and is nothing but lies - hence it isn't truly an opinion - it is just a falsehood.

[PowerWizard]

Just because it is illegal in many countries doesn't mean I can't disagree with the reasons for its illegality.

Of course.


But it calls into question the very nature of the legal system and is nothing but lies - hence it isn't truly an opinion - it is just a falsehood.

This is becoming off-topic-ish and theoretical, but I think a false opinion is an opinion too. Opinion and truth are different concepts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They're all martyrs, or at least they think they are after listening to that head honcho who is protected by freedom of speech. If you think it never happens, think again. Let me give you a hint: 9/11
Now Osama hasn't killed anyone yet as far as I know, he just laid out plans and gave instructions, according to the freedom of speach for anyone with anything attitude he should not be hunted as he is protected by freedom of speech. Same for the mafia boss who tells his henchman to go and kill Proletariat and ATPG, the boss files under freedom of speech and the police should watch the henchmen until after they cut your throats and only arrest them afterwards. :dizzy2:

Freedom of speech does not make you free of the consequences of your speech -- it only prohibits the government from taking action to prevent that speech or taking action against you SOLEY for speaking out. You still bear responsibility for the consequences resulting FROM your speech.

[Adrian II]

All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.Even though I agree, I have a slightly different take on the theater thingy, that old hobby-horse* of the censorship crowd.

The right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the very essence of freedom of speech. If we are not allowed to shout "fire" unless the theater owners (i.e. the authorities) approve of it, we are not free at all.

If someone falsely shouts "fire" (that is, if the malicious intent to cause harm is proven) he should be punished for causing panic. But only then. And only for causing panic. If some panicking punters crush their kids in their haste to save numer 1, it's their fault and not the fault of the one who shouted fire. I hate that sort of escapist thinking.

EDIT
* Alternately known as a 'cock horse', an unintended pun I thought Madam might appreciate. :bow:

[Kralizec]

Freedom of expression implies more than the absence of preventive censorship. Like...


You also have a right to say that in society, but you don't have a right to walk free afterwards. :dizzy2:

...would stil be a limit on this freedom.




That's a weird distinction. One's alright because the government says so? Good grief.

As for banning incitement to violence; the speech has to directly threaten serious violence, with a real and present danger of occurring.

:rolleyes: no, I don't think state sanctioned genocide is better than common murder. The point was that there's a qualitative difference between wanting to change the law and telling people to just break it.

As for the second part, I agree.

[Husar]

Freedom of speech does not make you free of the consequences of your speech -- it only prohibits the government from taking action to prevent that speech or taking action against you SOLEY for speaking out. You still bear responsibility for the consequences resulting FROM your speech.
That was not how I read her post but either way my point stands that it can easily result in unnecessary deaths.
I'm aware you cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths but when someone seriously threatens to kill another person I do not agree that the government should stand idly by and wait until the actual killing has been performed before they do something.


The right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the very essence of freedom of speech. If we are not allowed to shout "fire" unless the theater owners (i.e. the authorities) approve of it, we are not free at all.
Arresting someone for simply shouting fire goes beyond seriously threatening a group or individual, don't you think?


If someone falsely shouts "fire" (that is, if the malicious intent to cause harm is proven) he should be punished for causing panic. But only then. And only for causing panic. If some panicking punters crush their kids in their haste to save numer 1, it's their fault and not the fault of the one who shouted fire. I hate that sort of escapist thinking.
Heh, now you open a completely different can of worms.
I'm inclined to agree that running someone down is only the fault of the one doing it but I'm not sure whether panic per definition cannot mean that people sort of snap out completely and go 100% darwinistic if you know what I mean, like being under an influence that they are not responsible for.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That was not how I read her post but either way my point stands that it can easily result in unnecessary deaths.
I'm aware you cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths but when someone seriously threatens to kill another person I do not agree that the government should stand idly by and wait until the actual killing has been performed before they do something.
Your scenario is as follows:

1. Cleric preaches death on someone
2. Impressionable fools hear it, plan murder
3. Murder carried out

How will arresting the cleric after 1 affect 2 & 3? Until we can read minds (cue techie link from Lemur?) we can't prevent murder by snuffing out "troublemakers" before they commit a crime.


no, I don't think state sanctioned genocide is better than common murder. The point was that there's a qualitative difference between wanting to change the law and telling people to just break it.
There's a qualitative difference between advocating state-sanctioned genocide and advocating murder? What is it?

[Husar]

Your scenario is as follows:

1. Cleric preaches death on someone
2. Impressionable fools hear it, plan murder
3. Murder carried out

How will arresting the cleric after 1 affect 2 & 3? Until we can read minds (cue techie link from Lemur?) we can't prevent murder by snuffing out "troublemakers" before they commit a crime.

Well, that one would go under hardly preventable, so what about me calling the local radio show and saying I want to mrder the president of the USA and that I'm really serious about it. Would noone care? Freedom of speech or would they at least arrest me and search my home? Also should they do that or shouldn't they?

Also while the impressionable fools plan the murder in your example you can do two things:
1) you can arrest the preacher, doesn't have to be long, for calling for murder, that will show him it's not okay and prevent him from calling for more murders before the first one has been carried out.
It may also give you some time to investigate his organization without him doing any further harm.
If the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway, isn't he?

2) you can give a bodyguard or two to the person he wants murdered, at least for a certain amount of time, cannot protect them for life but you can at least try, if you got the info that the cleric was preaching this then there must be someone among his followers who doesn't seem to agree with him and thinks he is serious, that would at least make the effort somewhat worthwhile. The case needs an investigation and not just wait and see what happens.

Of course there has to be a believable threat, usually there is a judge to decide such things, just like whether police gets a search warrant etc. If the judges are with the executive in opressing the people then you got worse problems than some slippery slope in your freedom of speech. :sweatdrop:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, that one would go under hardly preventable, so what about me calling the local radio show and saying I want to mrder the president of the USA and that I'm really serious about it. Would noone care? Freedom of speech or would they at least arrest me and search my home? Also should they do that or shouldn't they?
It's hard to tell if someone's serious. I guess it would really depend on if they found out who you were and if you were reported to the Secret Service. Frankly, I don't think anything really needs to be done.

Repost ;) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPF-GmHT3h8)



1) you can arrest the preacher, doesn't have to be long, for calling for murder, that will show him it's not okay and prevent him from calling for more murders before the first one has been carried out.
It may also give you some time to investigate his organization without him doing any further harm.
If the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway, isn't he?

Who says he's part of an organization? And "if the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway" is precisely the kind of callous state-first destruction of rights that we want to avoid.


2) you can give a bodyguard or two to the person he wants murdered, at least for a certain amount of time, cannot protect them for life but you can at least try, if you got the info that the cleric was preaching this then there must be someone among his followers who doesn't seem to agree with him and thinks he is serious, that would at least make the effort somewhat worthwhile. The case needs an investigation and not just wait and see what happens.
That's not a violation of anyone's rights (unless the target refuses, I guess) so that's fine.

[Furunculus]

The economist on our current lack of spine re. freedom of speech:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13130069&source=features_box_main

[rvg]

There is no such thing as a "regulated" freedom of speech. Either there is a freedom of speech or there isn't one. "Regulated" freedom of speech == lack of freedom of speech.

[Furunculus]

I can accept where you are going with that idea, but i am happy to ban incitement to violence.

[Husar]

It's hard to tell if someone's serious. I guess it would really depend on if they found out who you were and if you were reported to the Secret Service. Frankly, I don't think anything really needs to be done.
So if they find out who i am, let's say I tell them over the radio, should they do something or should it go under freedom of speech until I have shot the president?
The way I understood prole they should do nothing and then put me on trial for murder after I shot the president. Maybe I misunderstood but I would like to find out.


Who says he's part of an organization?
I did, you can replace it with the people who like to listen to him or whatever if you wish.


And "if the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway" is precisely the kind of callous state-first destruction of rights that we want to avoid.
What I meant was if the guys who listened to him kill the victim then he is guilty, or isn't he? I wasn't trying to say lynch him on the spot if the person he wanted dead died of cancer. :sweatdrop:


That's not a violation of anyone's rights (unless the target refuses, I guess) so that's fine.
Yes it is, but it's not the do nothing until someone is dead that I thought I read earlier(not in your post but you seemed to support it) but like I said maybe I misunderstood that at least partly.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So if they find out who i am, let's say I tell them over the radio, should they do something or should it go under freedom of speech until I have shot the president?
The way I understood prole they should do nothing and then put me on trial for murder after I shot the president. Maybe I misunderstood but I would like to find out.
Yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, killing the president is rather difficult. Not to mention a rather uncommon thing to attempt.

Should we arrest the Whitest Kids U Know for their presidential sketch? What if they were actually serious, speaking to terrorist cells in America? I mean, what better place than plain site to hide a conspiracy?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is no such thing as a "regulated" freedom of speech. Either there is a freedom of speech or there isn't one. "Regulated" freedom of speech == lack of freedom of speech.

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.

[rvg]

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.

Self-regulation is absolutely fine. Governmental regulation is unacceptable.

[CountArach]

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.
As rvg said, the only thing stopping you in this case is your own adherence to societal norms. There is nothing that can stop you saying what you want - only your fear of what society will do to you. For example, using the 'n' word isn't considered acceptable and few people use it regularly, but there is nothing stopping you saying it. In this way society can prove just as, if not more, effective than the government regulating things.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Self-regulation is absolutely fine. Governmental regulation is unacceptable.

That's a kneejerk reaction. Is the societal regulation on free speech is saudi arabia absolutely fine? Is it unacceptable for the secret service to grab some guy at a rally who's screaming about how he's about to kill the president?

The point is, we don't have freedom of speech and never will. So you can't just say that governmental regulation is bad because it takes away free speech.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is it unacceptable for the secret service to grab some guy at a rally who's screaming about how he's about to kill the president?

It is not unacceptable for them to grab him, that does not violate his freedom to say what he is saying, or to hold him until the President has passed. He can continue screaming all he likes. It is unacceptable for them to arrest him unless they have evidence that he was actually planning to kill the President.

[CountArach]

It is not unacceptable for them to grab him, that does not violate his freedom to say what he is saying, or to hold him until the President has passed. He can continue screaming all he likes. It is unacceptable for them to arrest him unless they have evidence that he was actually planning to kill the President.
It's not often I say this, but EMFM is exactly right. No one is stopping him from saying this - they are just making sure he can't carry out the act itself. Further, once the present danger is passed then he can be allowed to go, and placed on a watch list or something.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's like saying you have the freedom to punch someone in the face because you won't get arrested until you've already done it.

[Proletariat]

According to what you said Sasaki, I thought that was true. Since society (government being a mere extension) can't stop you in time from punching someone in the face there's no way it's really illegal until you've done it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's like saying you have the freedom to punch someone in the face because you won't get arrested until you've already done it.

What do you prefer, Minority Report? Proletariat made an excellent post. :bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

According to what you said Sasaki, I thought that was true. Since society (government being a mere extension) can't stop you in time from punching someone in the face there's no way it's really illegal until you've done it.

I guess your definition of freedom is different than mine. If the government shot anyone who said the word peanuts you wouldn't be free to say the word peanuts in my book.

[Proletariat]

Of course I agree there. I just don't see eye to eye with you that society necessarily equals governmental self regulation. The first can only treat you with laughter or scorn when you rant against it, the other could kill or imprison you without total legal free speech.

Edit: tl:dr The government shouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone for saying anything ever, even if it's just the word peanut.

[Husar]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, killing the president is rather difficult. Not to mention a rather uncommon thing to attempt.
Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal. :dizzy2:


Should we arrest the Whitest Kids U Know for their presidential sketch? What if they were actually serious, speaking to terrorist cells in America? I mean, what better place than plain site to hide a conspiracy?
Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal.
You don't see the difference between saying "someone should kill the president" and attempting to do so? The secret service is right to stop someone attempting to shoot the president because it'll be pretty obvious - he or she will be drawing a firearm within range of the president.


Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!
Did you watch the video?

[Husar]

You don't see the difference between saying "someone should kill the president" and attempting to do so? The secret service is right to stop someone attempting to shoot the president because it'll be pretty obvious - he or she will be drawing a firearm within range of the president.
Yes, so what about school shootings?
Establish a secret service in every school so they can stop anyone who draws a firearm next to someone else or maybe check people who keep writing essays about murdering everybody else?
If security only counts for the president then I'd say he is more equal than everybody else.
The point is not to arrest everybody who opens her mouth, but those who have a serious intention, which, of course, is hard to prove, which again, is why it's not done often in countries where saying certain things is not exactly allowed.
What you do hear now and then though is that people are threatened and police can't do anything and then some day the person is found dead...I'd say that is a flawed system to we have to give everybody guns.


Did you watch the video?
No, or maybe I started it but was distracted, don't remember.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, so what about school shootings?
Establish a secret service in every school so they can stop anyone who draws a firearm next to someone else or maybe check people who keep writing essays about murdering everybody else?
Usually those people are provided with counseling. They usually aren't restricted from continued writing.


If security only counts for the president then I'd say he is more equal than everybody else.
The point is not to arrest everybody who opens her mouth, but those who have a serious intention, which, of course, is hard to prove, which again, is why it's not done often in countries where saying certain things is not exactly allowed.
What you do hear now and then though is that people are threatened and police can't do anything and then some day the person is found dead...I'd say that is a flawed system to we have to give everybody guns.
If it's not done often, why do it at all? I think we can afford a few deaths every once and a while in exchange for greater freedom; that's the reasoning for having cars despite the thousands killed every year.

[Husar]

Usually those people are provided with counseling. They usually aren't restricted from continued writing.

Yes, but it's a consequence that comes directly from what they say, I didn't say cut their hands off or glue their mouths shut, that's not exactly how I see the restrictions.

And for the rest you should know by now that I greatly favour trains over cars anyway, don't even try to convince me using cars. :whip:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, but it's a consequence that comes directly from what they say, I didn't say cut their hands off or glue their mouths shut, that's not exactly how I see the restrictions.
Wait, so what do you do to people who "incite violence" or whatever you want to ban?

[Husar]

Wait, so what do you do to people who "incite violence" or whatever you want to ban?

Depends on how serious you think they are, there are usually judges to decide that sort of thing.
I would start with keeping an eye on them and end somewhere else I haven't really thought of, but certainly not more than 2 years in prison, though for that there should be a biot more evidence you have to come up with after investigating them. Some kind of restraining order to let them know you are watching them should suffice in many cases. Like some piece of paper that says "please stop calling for the death of Mr. XYZ or we will be really angry." That way you can also see whether he is really serious about it because he will probably go on then and then I'd be a bit more harsh. Or she/he will kill the person right away, but then that doesn't really make a difference anymore anyway whether you have the limit on free speech or not. :shrug: