Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Husar]

If it kills.

Where's the force?

I'd fire you on the spot anyway, regardless of what you say.

Well, that's fine, I assume you want to keep love 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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.