Should we restrict freedom of speech?

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 ~:)

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:

Its not freedom if you restrict it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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:

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.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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

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

what is the clear and present danger business?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

very much agreed, thank you.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Same. :2thumbsup:

For some reason this always seems appropriate.

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

That sketch is hysterical!!

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

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

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

---

Well, they should be. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I thought Seamus expanded on this quite well.

---

With all due respect I don't think he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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?