Printable View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
What do you prefer, Minority Report? Proletariat made an excellent post. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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:
Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Did you watch the video?Quote:
Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!
Yes, so what about school shootings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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.
No, or maybe I started it but was distracted, don't remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Usually those people are provided with counseling. They usually aren't restricted from continued writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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:
Wait, so what do you do to people who "incite violence" or whatever you want to ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Depends on how serious you think they are, there are usually judges to decide that sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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: