Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Printable View
Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Private property.Quote:
Then why can't I yell fire in crowded movie theater? America has already been stripped of its freedom as well.
Because it puts people in direct danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
We don't. The only kind of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment is libel (which allows your target to sue you for defamation) and speech that puts people in danger, such as calls for a violent of overthrow the government. One oddball law is that you can't directly threaten to kill the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
that's it.
Yeah, you have.
For example, one of the most famed defenses of free speech was written by a US supreme court judge during ww1 in a case against a couple of commies. He was the dissenting opinion, and the two commies were punished for speaking out against the draft.
But then again, free speech can be stopped by forces other than the government. Censorship is done and has been done by several other agents. Like "lists of naughty words" and other such guidelines US media has lived under(and ours as well, of course).
That law was repealed back in 1920.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Read my posta again and pay special attention to the conjugation ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
(did I use conjugate correctly btw? Just learned the word! :p)
Edit: and a man like Breivik wouldn't even be allowed to vote in the US ~;)
The naughty word list only applies to a few public and basic cable channels. Anything you want, naughty words, porn, whatever can be found on premium channels, you just have to subscribe to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
"And yet you too have had your fair share of laws against free speech."Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I bolded the relevant part for you ~;)
Thanks, I needed that. Yes, you are of course correct, but we did nip the problem in the bud.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
On the whole, I'd say the western world is equal when it comes to freedom of speech. Americans may lament our laws against hate speech, while we euros may whine and moan about US prisoners losing their right to vote.
Cultural differences, I'd say.
Perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What if the movie theater is chill with it? I know a couple of laid back dudes....Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Yeah I am sure someone can come up with a convincing argument why hate speech does as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Point was that your claim was ridiculous. Every country has their limits and a rationale on why those limits exist. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can claim they have no free speech.
No, I think your strawman needs more straw.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Oh yes, when HoreTore makes the point it's "perhaps", when I make the point it's a strawman.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Continue defending an absurd statement. I feel very bad for all the Europeans who have to live under such tyranny which you have very clearly exposed.
Horetore actually puts together a coherent counterargument. Yours is akin to doubting God's omnipotence because he cannot create an immovable object.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
But the hate speech laws are horrible. I don't get it acin. Where are the convincing rationales you refer to?
All this felons movie theaters ancient history bad words bleeped out stuff is irrelevant.
I don't live in Europe and I don't have the judicial rulings from European countries on me. Besides, whats convincing for one person is not convincing for another. I have heard people complain about the fire in the movie theater rationale saying that simply shouting there is a fire doesn't put people in danger, individuals panicking and trampling others does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.
You're killing me. So the law doesn't effect you. So some people don't find it convincingly bad. So some people complain about the fire deal. SO WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?Quote:
When it comes to degrees of free speech it's easy to paint with broad strokes what countries are relatively free and what countries are not. Getting into specifics of "you can't say this therefore I am more free. I can't say this but it hurts people to say it so I am still freer despite despite being banned from saying such things." is not really a water proof argument.
I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.
What is your argument here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.Quote:
Are you really just objecting to bragging, and not arguing about whether imposing heavy fines on people for "denigrating religion" is terrible?
Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.
Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.Quote:
I wish our culture would accept bragging and start hating on people who self-deprecate instead.
You don't find it convincing? Well some people might. :mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Imagine being fined thousands of dollars for what you just said.Quote:
I am saying attempts to quantify freedom is a load of garbage. RVG made a dumb blanket statement of "hurr durr, we americans are freer than you euros". And all you are doing is defending it by saying "look at what a terrible law they have!". Because the US doesn't have it's fair share of dumb laws.
Yeah this is really what it's all about.Quote:
Bragging and other obnoxiousness breeds stagnation, humility breeds constructive discourse.
Our American culture seems to be perfectly fine with bragging about itself. It's obnoxious enough. Maybe you are sick of your negative nancy professors, but they are not the culture at large.
If someone brags just leave it. They exaggerate? So what. I'm glad many Americans brag, I wish the rest of them would not make a fuss about it. I don't get the mentality at all. If it's something you'd object to regardless of their tone then object to it. I mean, I can imagine objecting to rvg by saying "don't kid yourself, our laws are unquestionably better, but our social environment is far too toxic towards serious debate about this stuff, you won't get fined for saying it but you will get fired". But it's not inherently offensive to brag.
We shouldn't reflexively reward people who say that they suck and criticize people who claim quality. It's a form of radical leveling, egalitarianism gone wild.
We would be scratching away at dirt farms to this day if we were humble rather than agonistic. Bragging does the opposite of breed stagnation, it incites other people to make a counter argument. Humility and "well we each have our own fair share etc" is the true conversation killer.
It's not the most important virtue. Generally it's just a precondition for virtue--you need the realization of your own defects to correct them and so on. That's the problem with praising people for going about being humble about something specific. If they admit, say, that they are ignorant about X, it's bad that their ignorant and it's bad if they aren't going to learn about it (assuming X is something worthwhile).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Yeah that's bad. About as bad as being deported to Guantanamo Bay like GC suggested. About as bad as being an 85 year old grandma who has to be physically groped because her metal hip set off the detector.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
We got problems, they got problems. We both need to work on improving ourselves, not measuring what little carrots we still have.
You are arguing against a position I never made. I countered RVG's claim because I think it is a wrong statement not because I am trying to pretend everyone is equal. Merely that our typical standards of judgement are really dumb.Quote:
If someone brags just leave it. They exaggerate? So what. I'm glad many Americans brag, I wish the rest of them would not make a fuss about it. I don't get the mentality at all. If it's something you'd object to regardless of their tone then object to it. I mean, I can imagine objecting to rvg by saying "don't kid yourself, our laws are unquestionably better, but our social environment is far too toxic towards serious debate about this stuff, you won't get fined for saying it but you will get fired". But it's not inherently offensive to brag.
We shouldn't reflexively reward people who say that they suck and criticize people who claim quality. It's a form of radical leveling, egalitarianism gone wild.
We would be scratching away at dirt farms to this day if we were humble rather than agonistic. Bragging does the opposite of breed stagnation, it incites other people to make a counter argument. Humility and "well we each have our own fair share etc" is the true conversation killer.
You seem to have confused what bragging and confidence is. Confidence brings about counter arguments, bragging is just Football Jock chest thumping.
Remember: "America, love it or leave it!" Yeah, it's arrogance taken to its extreme where people will reject the American-ness of someone if they disagree with its policies.
I reject the "we each have our own fair share" argument and I will agree that that does kill many conversations. But I also reject rampant patriotism because that is just as toxic to the health of a country than egalitarian gone wild. History proves both cases.
Criticism rejected--people are starving to death in africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Criticism rejected--women are stoned to death in iran. Isn't this pointless?Quote:
About as bad as being an 85 year old grandma who has to be physically groped because her metal hip set off the detector.
No you aren't. He's right that the hate speech laws are terrible, and the exaggeration to "you have no free speech" is completely unremarkable. You're objection is to what you say it is here:Quote:
We got problems, they got problems. We both need to work on improving ourselves, not measuring what little carrots we still have.
You are arguing against a position I never made. I countered RVG's claim because I think it is a wrong statement not because I am trying to pretend everyone is equal. Merely that our typical standards of judgement are really dumb.
What on earth is wrong with football jock chest thumping? And that's not the definition of confidence anyway.Quote:
You seem to have confused what bragging and confidence is. Confidence brings about counter arguments, bragging is just Football Jock chest thumping.
Remember: "America, love it or leave it!" Yeah, it's arrogance taken to its extreme where people will reject the American-ness of someone if they disagree with its policies.
I reject the "we each have our own fair share" argument and I will agree that that does kill many conversations. But I also reject rampant patriotism because that is just as toxic to the health of a country than egalitarian gone wild. History proves both cases.
We vastly overrate humility (probably because of our religious background) and are far too averse to bragging in our culture. People will attack someone for saying the simple truth about themselves or for exaggerating. It leads directly to the hamfisted "log in your own eye" kind of thinking. Neither hypocrisy nor bragging are the sins they are made out to be.
Yeah, thanks for proving my point. Simply pulling out things that are bad about a country is a dumb way of making a point. Hence, why I opposed RVG's statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Did you even read what RVG said.Quote:
No you aren't. He's right that the hate speech laws are terrible, and the exaggeration to "you have no free speech" is completely unremarkable.
Referring to Breivik's statement about there being no free speech. Only when called on it did he say, "Well there are some stupid hate speech laws I don't like."Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Oh what a wonderful argument. Yep, that means Europe definitely is the monster that our massacring sociopath (Breivik) claims it is.
When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises.Quote:
What on earth is wrong with football jock chest thumping? And that's not the definition of confidence anyway.
And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.Quote:
We vastly overrate humility (probably because of our religious background) and are far too averse to bragging in our culture. People will attack someone for saying the simple truth about themselves or for exaggerating. It leads directly to the hamfisted "log in your own eye" kind of thinking. Neither hypocrisy nor bragging are the sins they are made out to be.
I meant literally, what's wrong with chest thumping by an athlete?Quote:
When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises.
Patriotism has often been a very positive force in history. Who is talking about extreme nationalism?Quote:
And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.
This is just your aversion biasing you. Europe's hate speech is very worth criticizing. An exaggeration is not worth mentioning, let alone equating with extreme nationalism and "dysfunctional everything".Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
"...no freedom of speech" --breivek
"at least he got that right"--rvg
*talk about Europe's hate speech laws*
Why would it be more complicated than that.
Oh. Well, nothing really if the athlete did something awesome. I don't really like that NFL touchdown celebration penalty because the creativity of the players makes me laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Idk, who is talking about extreme egalitarianism?Quote:
Patriotism has often been a very positive force in history. Who is talking about extreme nationalism?
Because how do you go from a vague statement about no free speech to discussing details until the discussion has already been mucked up such as Europeans that respond with their own vague counter statements "Have you ever been to Europe?".Quote:
This is just your aversion biasing you. Europe's hate speech is very worth criticizing. An exaggeration is not worth mentioning, let alone equating with extreme nationalism and "dysfunctional everything".
"...no freedom of speech" --breivek
"at least he got that right"--rvg
*talk about Europe's hate speech laws*
Why would it be more complicated than that.
The way a question or statement is presented is one of the biggest factors in how constructive a discussion about an important subject can be. I can go through the backroom and find examples, most of them probably Vuk's. Coming from a state of bragging only serves to hinder what could be.
Me, because I want to talk about why chest-thumping or bragging would be seen as so intolerable that it has to be attacked and hypocrisy has to be suggested. I think the Christian concept of humility and pride is backwards and that the conception is still too pervasive in our society. It should not be seen as sinful to claim superiority, even when the claim is exaggerated or silly. It should be seen as shameful to cheerfully claim inferiority or mediocrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
And this comes up in country debates all the time too. Liberals need to ditch their aversion to expressions of patriotism, and quit with the retarded "yeah, I'm going to sew a Canada tag on my backpack when I go to Europe" type stuff. Remember, patriotism is not nationalism. Pride is not arrogance. A realistic view of a flaw is supposed to be a spur for change not an ornament to show how enlightened and humble you are.
We Dutch have many good qualities, subtlety isn't one of them. That is good I say, the mood is much better here. Immigrants have gotten used to our bluntness. Scandinavian countries are still thought-police states that imprint to worship multiculture. Bit like us in the eighties. Same mistakes, especially Sweden is absolutely stubborn in it's wishfull thinking. But there is a difference, we got Geert Wilders who sometimes almost crosses the line of what's acceptable, Scandinavia got Breivik who went on a rampage
That's very significant actually. It basically amount to suppression of dissent, and it's a big problem. If you personally have no problem with it, that's okay. Doesn't mean that I can't have a problem with it or bring it up.Quote:
Did you even read what RVG said. Referring to Breivik's statement about there being no free speech. Only when called on it did he say, "Well there are some stupid hate speech laws I don't like."
This is your extrapolation, not mine. Let's stick to stuff that I actually typed, shall we?Quote:
Yep, that means Europe definitely is the monster that our massacring sociopath (Breivik) claims it is.
This isn't a football game. Nor are we talking about a rival or an enemy. It's pointing out to a friend that they have a problem, even if they don't know it yet. It's a two way street, and people here criticize America quite often. I do not have a problem with that, but in turn reserve a right to do the same. It's not done out of retaliation but rather out of genuine concern. Freedom of speech is easy to dismiss while you still have it, once it's gone, that's when you realize just how important it is.Quote:
When the country is treated as a football game with get dysfunctional policies, dysfunctional politicians, dysfunctional country. Root for your team R or D and don't give them an inch, otherwise we might have to use our system of governance properly and make compromises.
Extreme nationalism? This is absolutely ridiculous, you're just throwing around epithets with nothing to back them up.Quote:
And of course history proves you right. When countries experience extreme nationalism marvelous things happen. From the US empire being drained from two wars to the constructive decades of the early 20th century in Europe.
On the contrary, the Norwegian public sphere is highly pluralistic and Breivik is just part of the full spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sure but I kinda doubt you don't understand what I'm talking about, political correctness is what caused these deaths. In the most complicated way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Hardly. Apart from an obsession with the term "cultural marxist" and the violence, Breivik brought little new to the table. Even labour politicians have tried to boost popularity by playing on strings of the "Islam problem".
Bomb Voyage... Seriously though, how is this a problem? If you go and pretend to rob a bank, you'll get cops called on you. If you flat out tell a TSA worker that you have a bomb, why shouldn't they take you seriously? They're doing their job (and probably hating it), and here you come along and make their job more difficult. TSA has many problems, but holding people to their word isn't one of them. You wouldn't get smart with a cop, why be any different at the airport? A bad joke may delay a flight, and at that point if the authorities do nothing, the irate passengers just might take the matter into their own hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Oh please, just give me evidence of one person being sent to Gitmo for an airport joke. Just one.Quote:
Heck, if you're really unlucky you'll get sent to Gitmo. I hear they have so much freedom there that they're practically dying from it.
:creep:
Not if you're intending to visit LA: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01...t_deportation/Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Quick, gather round: here's a case of a SEP field in action people!
It's not about taking things personally. People may act on emotions, governments do not (with the exception of despotic regimes like North Korea). As for your life being ruined if you put a show at an airport: nobody is required to deal with you. The society at large owes you nothing. That does not jeopardize your freedom in any way. Suppose you end up on a no-fly list, there are other ways of getting to your destination. If you want to fly, don't do stupid things at the airport. If you insist on that course of action, that's okay, but nobody is obligated to accommodate you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
In that case ruly free speech would require people incapable of being offended or reacting negatively to anything that anyone said, then. And to have true free will would require omnipotence. And I suppose we couldn't have free speech without free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That's just not what free means. Although I agree that we should often be more worried about social restrictions than about legal ones, you can't really argue that social restrictions are inherently bad. You're placing too much value on "true freedom". Saying we don't have "truly free" something is not by itself a cause for concern.
I think this conversation is far too abstract and all we have to do is look at the specifics of what we're talking about here.
Avoiding the sentiments that come into play when we have the words "free" "truly free" "free speech" etc floating around in our heads, we are comparing someone getting fined thousands of dollars for "denigrating a religion" to someone causing a panic for no reason.
This thread has derailed hard.
If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Private property.Quote:
If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.
The difficulty associated with getting off the list is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. As for you ending up on it, I presume it was a mistake and has since been rectified. Sadly, mistakes occur under any system. As long as there are humans making decisions, mistakes will be made. It is inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nope, it's firmly on rails, you just don't like where it's heading. You simply cannot disregard genuine concerns. The great burden is a wreckball, the house you want to sell will not be bought, as nobody wants to buy it. Building an extra one won't help, people will still buy somewhere else. It's a maelstrom of destroying capital and all it leaves are ghettosQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nonsense. I haven't even read page 7 beyond the first three posts. Right-wing paranoid accusations fail again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It may be an interesting discussion, but perhaps it is better explored in its own thread? There are plenty of new things in the trial people might want to discuss, and this would be the place to do it...
It isn't that much of a thought experiment that importing people who can't read or write is not good for the economy. Solid numbers, the great burden costs us 8.000.000.000 a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
I don't know how the issue is dealt with in Roman Law, you would need to ask a Frenchman.
In any case, Breivik clearly has a Guilty Mind, so I think the question is moot - the man is clearly sane and rational, declaring him otherwise actually sets a disturbing precedent about who is and is not sane.
...And that has what relevance to a discussion of free speech differences between the US and Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And needless to say, it's handled differently in Norwegian law, hence the need for a trial to determine it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Nothing and everything. It's simple, multiculture is a faillure. Lefties don't like that because things aren't supposed to be like that, and instead of allowing any doubt they unite in silence over very real problems and mentally block the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You are wrong get over it.
It was rvg who first talked about freedom [of speech] as an absolute; a formulation which you defended agains ACIN, and now you are slamming GC for exactly the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
---
I was reading a Norwegian commentary published two days ago titled The price of racism. Essentially, it is a story about a Filipino that was adopted to Norway and experienced a lot of racism, and, related or not, ended up killing himself.
This bit is fine, grave injustice was made. But the big problem is that the author naively keeps connecting the racism to fascism, and to the likes of ABB. With the demographic development that is going on in the capital, it seems inevitable that white people will experience trouble/get unwanted attention because of their ethnicity. This is precisely why ABB went on his rampage, the alienation of ethnical Norwegians in parts on the capital. The author is completely out of touch with the new reality - and not surprisingly, the author comes from nowhere near Oslo, but from a different part of the country.
This is the new reality for Oslo (from 2010):
Quote:
In some Oslo schools there will this autumn be very few pupils with an ethnically Norwegian backgorund, if any at all.
- We are likely to get 75 pupils for first grade, all of them multicultural, says principal of Mortensrud School, Leif Arne Eggen.
Far between Norwegian pupils
Similar conditions hold true for Tøyen School, says principal Tor Helgesen:
- Today, we only have one [ethnic Norwegian pupil for first grade] that we are certain of.
Rommen School in Groruddalen are also among the schools that expect only one Norwegian pupil for the first grade this autumn.
So, I am really provocated by the commentary, but not for the reasons that the author intended. The ignorance is staggering.
I did? Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rvgAt least he got this part right.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't see any mention of absolutes in there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If all it takes to go from "is" to "is not" is the absence of a single criterion that is not more vital to the definition of the concept than any other criterion, then the concept must necessarily have an absolute nature, as the absence of any other criterion would also yield the same result.
What if it is more vital, then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Uh, we have a trial too, unless he's, you know, claiming to be Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In a world where right and wrong is just the passing fancy of a plurality of people, I can't fault a guy like Breivik for doing what he did. It's alot more interesting than playing soccer; it think this is an objective statement.
Right or wrong, we each have an interest in stopping people from doing things like this, but we have to understand why they might.
It is the same thing. It's called "Dolo" in Portuguese, "Dolus" in Latin. It can be translated to intention. In a simplified manner, if the criminal had Dolus in his action, then he is guilty. Whereas if it was a negligent crime, then there is no Dolus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If that criterion was particularly vital to the definition, it would be a highly non-standard definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/...4z3pydgg1k.jpg
CCTV images from the bomb blast shown in court today (source, including video of the controlled detonation of a replica; slow-mo eye candy)
The bomb had an estimated effect equivalent to 400-700 kg TNT. In comparison, the Oklahoma bomb had an effect of somewhere around 2000 kg TNT (source in "pounds")
The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular. It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech. At the core of freedom of speech is simply a person's ability to express himself without getting detained by the state. The less he can say without getting detained, the less freedom of speech he has. "No freedom of speech" is virtually impossible with this definition - even in North Korea, you can at least talk about the weather and what you think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
If person A tells person B to kill person C, person A can invoke freedom of speech as his words did no direct harm; and logically, he should have a stronger case than one that wishes indviduals dead as part of a demonstration, as the latter can cause the target to feel unsafe and thus suffer (particularly if repeated often), whereas person A do not intend his words to reach person C, and most likely, they will not.
Says who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
And the ability to freely express an opinion that runs contrary to the establishment is pretty damn important. No regime, no matter how repressive will ever penalize anyone for agreeing with its policies. That spectrum of opinion is useless when assessing freedom of speech.Quote:
It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech. At the core of freedom of speech is simply a person's ability to express himself without getting detained by the state. The less he can say without getting detained, the less freedom of speech he has.
So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.Quote:
"No freedom of speech" is virtually impossible with this definition - even in North Korea, you can at least talk about the weather and what you think about it.
Thinking of the various reference works.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And all topics come in degrees - from calling the president a fool to openly calling for armed revolt against his government.Quote:
And the ability to freely express an opinion that runs contrary to the establishment is pretty damn important. No regime, no matter how repressive will ever penalize anyone for agreeing with its policies. That spectrum of opinion is useless when assessing freedom of speech.
Considering the endless amount of different topics one can talk about, and the endless amount of different opions you can have for each one of them, being able to say that you agree with the government would per definition add very little to the freedom of speech, but it is a start. The more oppressive regimes do generally not want the average citizen to voice his opinion at all.
Not at all, common usage tends to focus on the more extreme ends of whatever topic without this being specified. Firework is as much an explosion as a supernova is, but that does not make the two particulary equivalent. One talks about little and much freedom of speech.Quote:
So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.Quote:
...being able to say that you agree with the government would per definition add very little to the freedom of speech, but it is a start.
This is false. Despotic regimes put on rallies all the time, and at those rallies they expect to hear a confirmation of undying allegiance from the masses. Just look at Syria or Iran. Pro-government rallies are a big deal and very much encouraged.Quote:
The more oppressive regimes do generally not want the average citizen to voice his opinion at all.
If a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.Quote:
Not at all, common usage tends to focus on the more extreme ends of whatever topic without this being specified. Firework is as much an explosion as a supernova is, but that does not make the two particulary equivalent.
That's where you will find the most common definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.Quote:
No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.
And how much "speech" and how many opinions do they offer at such rallies? What I am having mind, is being able to praise the government without first having to go through censorship, without having to show up at a rally, et cetera. If the only place where you can show your opinon is at government held rallies a few times a year, then obviously you have severe limitiations. If you can write a commentary to a newspaper and have it published tomorrow if you like, then you are much freer.Quote:
This is false. Despotic regimes put on rallies all the time, and at those rallies they expect to hear a confirmation of undying allegiance from the masses. Just look at Syria or Iran. Pro-government rallies are a big deal and very much encouraged.
What oppressive governments know, is that you can use praising to manipulate the public opinion in a manner that is not favourable to the government.
And "the same effect" depends entirely on how you chose to look at it. Exactly because they are at very different parts of the spectrum of explosions, their natures are radically different in most aspects.Quote:
If a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.
Care to show one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.Quote:
Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.
The difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.Quote:
And how much "speech" and how many opinions do they offer at such rallies? What I am having mind, is being able to praise the government without first having to go through censorship, without having to show up at a rally, et cetera. If the only place where you can show your opinon is at government held rallies a few times a year, then obviously you have severe limitiations. If you can write a commentary to a newspaper and have it published tomorrow if you like, then you are much freer.
What oppressive governments know, is that you can use praising to manipulate the public opinion in a manner that is not favourable to the government.
If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.Quote:
And "the same effect" depends entirely on how you chose to look at it. Exactly because they are at very different parts of the spectrum of explosions, their natures are radically different in most aspects.
Since I am lazy, I am going to throw in Wikipedia (Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech); though since you are making a claim as much as I am, the burden of proof lies with you as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It isn't, you are bringing the attention whatever topic you want ("kudos to government for reducing the infant mortality rate from 998 to 992 per 1000"). Saying "the president has an ugly nose" is not likely to lead to anything at all, so by your thinking, it's no big deal if it becomes illegal to speak ill of the facial features of the president.Quote:
Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.
What you are saying goes against the core of free speech: to say "whatever" you like. If you were detained for praising the government, you lack one certain aspect of freedom of speech (note that it is not specified who is detaining you). It could be included in the constitution that "thou shalt not talk in a positive manner about the current government", for whatever reason; perhaps to inspire creative thinking.
The key is that in undemocratic countries, it is generally harder to voice your opinion, no matter what it is. For instance, the Internet is not available to the average person in North Korea.Quote:
The difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.
The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of.Quote:
If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.
So it says...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas via speech. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime."
Freedom to communicate an opinion lies in the very definition of freedom of speech. I rest my case.
Attention? Perhaps. Wrong kind of attention though. If you can't say that you're disliking something, then saying nothing is the next best thing you can do as opposed to praising it. And freedom to say nothing hardly qualifies as freedom of speech.Quote:
It isn't, you are bringing the attention whatever topic you want ("kudos to government for reducing the infant mortality rate from 998 to 992 per 1000").
By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.Quote:
Saying "the president has an ugly nose" is not likely to lead to anything at all, so by your thinking, it's no big deal if it becomes illegal to speak ill of the facial features of the president.
Can you provide just one example of this actually happening? Just one example of somebody genuinely praising the government and getting into trouble over that.Quote:
What you are saying goes against the core of free speech: to say "whatever" you like. If you were detained for praising the government, you lack one certain aspect of freedom of speech (note that it is not specified who is detaining you). It could be included in the constitution that "thou shalt not talk in a positive manner about the current government", for whatever reason; perhaps to inspire creative thinking.
There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. That did not impede freedom of speech.Quote:
The key is that in undemocratic countries, it is generally harder to voice your opinion, no matter what it is. For instance, the Internet is not available to the average person in North Korea.
Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.Quote:
The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of.
This is what you intially responded toQuote:
Originally Posted by rvg
which is is to say that hate speech is not mentioned in the definition. It is not to say that freedom of speech does not include hate speech; freedom of speech must include any opinion.Quote:
The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular. It is just one of many topics related to freedom of speech.
You are not using you imagination well enough. The negative aspects of the topic does not even have to be known by the general public; the exact aspects that your praising will bring to light. It is also a way of communicating with the government what you'd like them work more on. I could go on.Quote:
Attention? Perhaps. Wrong kind of attention though. If you can't say that you're disliking something, then saying nothing is the next best thing you can do as opposed to praising it.
Because you are assessing the value of the opinions as a method of deciding what is worth protecting with freedom of speech and what is not. This sets a dangerous precedent.Quote:
By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.
That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.Quote:
Can you provide just one example of this actually happening? Just one example of somebody genuinely praising the government and getting into trouble over that.
Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.Quote:
There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. I did not impede freedom of speech.
I see now that you wrote "either one", so I have no clue what you were trying to say. Fire work = small explosion, supernova = big explosion. The West = much freedom of speech, North Korea = very little freedom of speech.Quote:
Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.
And that includes hate speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
It does not alleviate the problem of you not being able to directly confront the government. If you aren't allowed to say something that is a polar opposite of the official views, then you lack freedom of speech.Quote:
You are not using you imagination well enough. The negative aspects of the topic does not even have to be known by the general public; the exact aspects that your praising will bring to light. It is also a way of communicating with the government what you'd like them work more on. I could go on.
Not the value of the opinion, but whether or not the opinion is a dissenting one. Freedom to agree is meaningless, freedom to dissent is what separates free societies from tyrannies.Quote:
Because you are assessing the value of the opinions as a method of deciding what is worth protecting with freedom of speech and what is not. This sets a dangerous precedent.
It is very relevant. You are basing your argument on a principle has not been impeded by anybody and likely never will be impeded. If the government is taking away your freedom to disagree, it is automatically pushing on your so called "freedom" to agree. Take any statement, it is either true or false, there is no in between. If the government is taking away your right to say that something is false, that automatically means that it expects you to say that it's true.Quote:
That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.
It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.Quote:
Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.
Except that it doesn't work like that. It works like this:Quote:
I see now that you wrote "either one", so I have no clue what you were trying to say. Fire work = small explosion, supernova = big explosion. The West = much freedom of speech, North Korea = very little freedom of speech.
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION
SELECT CASE [FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION]
CASE TRUE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = TRUE
CASE FALSE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FALSE
END SELECT
Pure and simple.
Supernova create star systems. Without supernova there wouldn't be the heavy elements that the earth and other inner planets are made of.Just a fun science fact for todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. -end jingle plays-Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
No more than any other form of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
You lack total freedom of speech, as you lack anywhere in ther world. The mere presence of other people is problematic for your freedom of speech, as the audience, be it your grandmother or the president, will in effect have an impact on how you should formulate yourself in order to get where you want to.Quote:
It does not alleviate the problem of you not being able to directly confront the government. If you aren't allowed to say something that is a polar opposite of the official views, then you lack freedom of speech.
That is a completely absurd statement to make. Freedom is being able to do what you want, and if you cannot do what you want, you lack [a] freedom.Quote:
Freedom to agree is meaningless
The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.Quote:
It is very relevant. You are basing your argument on a principle has not been impeded by anybody and likely never will be impeded. If the government is taking away your freedom to disagree, it is automatically pushing on your so called "freedom" to agree. Take any statement, it is either true or false, there is no in between. If the government is taking away your right to say that something is false, that automatically means that it expects you to say that it's true.
In dicatorship, there are strong restrictions to voice any opinion at all, that is the point. That's where North Korea is a prime example; whether you want to post bad things about the leader online or post something positive about him, you can't, because the government does simply not want the average citizen to express himself.Quote:
It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.
You are not free to express any opinion anywhere in the world, so then there would be no free speech in this world; in no country.Quote:
Except that it doesn't work like that. It works like this:
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION
SELECT CASE [FREE_TO_EXPRESS_ANY_OPINION]
CASE TRUE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = TRUE
CASE FALSE
FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH = FALSE
END SELECT
Pure and simple.
The point is that there's no free speech if hateful opinions are not allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Freedom to agree only matters if you have the freedom to disagree, and vice versa. If you aren't allowed to disagree with something, then your ability to agree with it is worthless.Quote:
That is a completely absurd statement to make. Freedom is being able to do what you want, and if you cannot do what you want, you lack [a] freedom.
It's logically impossible to prevent someone from agreeing with something and disagreeing with it at the same time. You can't [not agree] and [not disagree] with a statement all at once. It's an either/or proposition.Quote:
The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.
Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.Quote:
In dicatorship, there are strong restrictions to voice any opinion at all, that is the point. That's where North Korea is a prime example; whether you want to post bad things about the leader online or post something positive about him, you can't, because the government does simply not want the average citizen to express himself.
This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.Quote:
You are not free to express any opinion anywhere in the world, so then there would be no free speech in this world; in no country.
Unless your opinion is that there is a fire in this here movie theater.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
The speech is not completely free. See last reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.Quote:
Freedom to agree only matters if you have the freedom to disagree, and vice versa. If you aren't allowed to disagree with something, then your ability to agree with it is worthless.
I forgot to read the enitre block I was quoiting, here is a proper reply: that you are not allowed to voice your dissenting opinion, does not mean that you have to voice agreement. You can chose to remain silent.Quote:
It's logically impossible to prevent someone from agreeing with something and disagreeing with it at the same time. You can't [not agree] and [not disagree] with a statement all at once. It's an either/or proposition.
Written not by your average North Korean citizen.Quote:
Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.
You wish. Here is a list.Quote:
This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.
Doesn't make it useful.Quote:
Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.
So remaining silent is your substitute for free speech? Great.Quote:
I forgot to read the enitre block I was quoiting, here is a proper reply: that you are not allowed to voice your dissenting opinion, does not mean that you have to voice agreement. You can chose to remain silent.
But cheerfully supported by each and every one of them.Quote:
Written not by your average North Korean citizen.
Not a single one of these exceptions involves opinions.Quote:
You can hold and state that opinion as much as you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Can you publicly state that [insert name of random celeb here] had sex with prostitutes dressed as nazi guards in America?
You can state that you think that they screwed some Nazi hookers. That would be an opinion. If you flat out state that they screwed Nazi hookers while they didn't, that'll open you up for a libel lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore