The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Either way, it goes to show that your speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would require a nation full of people who were capable of not taking things personally, and that's something we don't have anyway.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

This thread has derailed hard.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This thread has derailed hard.

If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.

[Montmorency]

If we can't derail a thread, we don't have freedom of speech.

Private property.

[Fragony]

This thread has derailed hard.

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 ghettos

[HoreTore]

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 ghettos

Nonsense. I haven't even read page 7 beyond the first three posts. Right-wing paranoid accusations fail again.

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...

[Fragony]

Nonsense. I haven't even read page 7 beyond the first three posts. Right-wing paranoid accusations fail again.

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.

[Viking]

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.

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.

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.

---

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):

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.

[rvg]

It was rvg who first talked about freedom [of speech] as an absolute;

I did? Where?

[Viking]

Here:

...that there is no free speech here...

At least he got this part right.

[rvg]

Here:

I don't see any mention of absolutes in there...

[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.

[rvg]

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?