Printable View
I make a nickel everytime an American here at the org cusses or gets offensive, and gets edited by a Moderator. You'd hardly notice it - it's on your phone bill under "FCC internet enhancement fee", and is usually less than a buck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Keeps me in beer & cigarettes; I made enough from DevDave to make a few car payments.
Don't tell the other Mods tho', K?
But I thought I opted out of that!
CR
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
...and here I thought human organ trafficking was illegal.
The government manages the Constitution and the law so they will be the ones who force someone to explain themselves and what they said to see if it did violate constitutional limits or the law. Mind you, this might also be a court process depending on the country and what was said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Free spech has limits, in your country and mine. Some legitimate, some insane, but only through a process of confrontation and debate will the middle ground be found.
Depends on what they said. But 99.9% of the time, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Yes and no. Free speech has limits. If you're going to push those limits then you have to be prepared to stand up for what you said. Also, since most governments detest true freedom of expression, Joe Citizen should always be prepared to fight for his rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This? http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...6929b5&k=55879Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Freedom of speech is being attacked everywhere, including :unitedstates: & :canada:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
*Edit - CR, do you know if the information in this article is true?
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
True. Anyone who has been to college knows this.
Enough talk. When does someone burn? :devil:
Do you support one constitutional limits based not on criminality (libel and incitement to murder, etc.) but on offensiveness?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Where do you stand on the HRC?Quote:
Free spech has limits, in your country and mine. Some legitimate, some insane, but only through a process of confrontation and debate will the middle ground be found.
Great :2thumbsup:Quote:
Depends on what they said. But 99.9% of the time, no.
I'm sorry, but I've seen people get fined for what the HRC finds to be offensive speech, and even if they don't get fined they had to spend money and time to defend themselves. Does not that threat make them less likely to engage in free speech?Quote:
It's not.
People should face no punishment or retribution from the government for practicing free speech. The only consequences should be from society - government should have nothing to do with punishment for offensive or hateful speech.Quote:
Yes and no. Free speech has limits. If you're going to push those limits then you have to be prepared to stand up for what you said. Also, since most governments detest true freedom of expression, Joe Citizen should always be prepared to fight for his rights.
No - Christian pastors, Catholic Magazines have had complaints put against them and fines levied:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08010207.html
But we don't help it by providing excuses for the government.Quote:
Freedom of speech is being attacked everywhere, including :unitedstates: & :canada:
[/QUOTE]Quote:
*Edit - CR, do you know if the information in this article is true?
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
Free speech zones? Sadly, they exist, and are an abomination.
CR
If I understand your question correctly, no. A legal limit on offensive material exists already as a prohibition based on age access to the material, for example, but should not be a constitutional matter other than what is already covered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Like testosterone; possibly a good idea gone horribly wrong. I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Possibly. The state and those who can influence the state has always used civil and criminal penalties to protect their own interests. It wouldn't stop me, but I know it stops some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Assuming that there is a seperation of powers between the courts and the state, which there should be, the system, as it exists now, should work. Legal penalties are fine as long as those penalties are imposed by a free court and the constitutional rights of the person accused are protected to the same degree as the person seeking redress through the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And we do? I don't anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I apologize dearly for bringing this up, but didn't the American public, for right or for wrong, voluntarily give up certain freedoms by electing a government that, as part of it's 9/11 response, place increased limits on personal freedoms? The Patriot Act and Free Speech zones, for example.
There are limits on their jurisdiction and authority , they are only an advisory body , they gather information and advise the tribunals if they think the tribunals should address the issue , the tribunals then address the issue and put it to a court .Quote:
I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.
You might know more than me. I though they could find a person guilty but then they shift it to the court for the penalty phase.
Then we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I think it might be better to take them and the tribunals imposing penalties, which operate outside the normal civil and criminal legal system, out of the picture completely. Let complainants file in a court of law, where legal rules hold sway, not in a commission or tribunal, and prove their case like in normal civil court. And don't make it a crime to be offensive or hateful.Quote:
Like testosterone; possibly a good idea gone horribly wrong. I have no problem with having an HRC, but there should be limits on their jurisdiction and authority. They should be an advisory body only. Leave the law to Parliament and the courts.
And that is wrong.Quote:
Possibly. The state and those who can influence the state has always used civil and criminal penalties to protect their own interests. It wouldn't stop me, but I know it stops some people.
I disagree - I do not think here should be any legal penalties for offensive or hateful speech.Quote:
Assuming that there is a seperation of powers between the courts and the state, which there should be, the system, as it exists now, should work. Legal penalties are fine as long as those penalties are imposed by a free court and the constitutional rights of the person accused are protected to the same degree as the person seeking redress through the courts.
Free speech zones are just scumbag politicians wanting protesters kept away.Quote:
And we do? I don't anyway.
I apologize dearly for bringing this up, but didn't the American public, for right or for wrong, voluntarily give up certain freedoms by electing a government that, as part of it's 9/11 response, place increased limits on personal freedoms? The Patriot Act and Free Speech zones, for example.
There are parts of the Patriot Act that should be repealed, but some of the criticism is hyped and overblown.
CR
See, there's more that unites us than divides us. :hippie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If there are limits to free speech, and I believe there are, the limits must be legal in nature, not just moral. Otherwise, the immoral amongst us (damn those immorons!) will run amuck. And as much as I appreciate amuckness, it can be taken to an extreme that should not be tolerated in a civilized society. Even a democratic civilized society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Democracy and freedom do not mean anarchy. There is nothing wrong with the rule of law as long as free and open debate about how the rule of law is applied is protected.
Yeah, but what are you going to do? It's been like that since Adam and Eve sewed the leaves on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Some feel otherwise, and they do have the right to say so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But those limits must be based on libel, slander, etc. There can be no limits on what one person, or even the vast majority of people, consider offensive or hateful speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Fight to make it right. What else?Quote:
Yeah, but what are you going to do? It's been like that since Adam and Eve sewed the leaves on.
CR
On a constitutional level, no. On a legal level, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As a staunch defender of free speech, I have no problem with society having standards that are enforceable by law.
To use an extereme example; magazines that depict child pornography. Obviously any civilized society would see this as beyond the scope of what should be considered freedom of expression.
But if we have one example, that means we're eventually going to have two. And three. Therefore, society, through the government or the courts, has to have a legal method to deal with these abberations of free expression and separate the wheat from the chaff. That means laws, and that means penalties as well.
S'what I do, baby. ~:smoking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Okay, I see what you're talking about and I agree. I should clarify my statement by saying offensive or hateful political speech, or speech regarding one's opinions. Courts must exist to rule on the difference, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Glad to hear it.Quote:
S'what I do, baby. ~:smoking:
~:smoking:
CR
Political speech? That's easy. Every man, woman child, cat, rat bat, and albino field mouse should be allowed to wear a "The King is a Fink" t-shirt without the slightest hint of government molestation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And 'Mr. X, or Group Y are also finks'.
How's about a "The HRC is composed of Finks"?
CR