The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And needless to say, it's handled differently in Norwegian law, hence the need for a trial to determine it.

Uh, we have a trial too, unless he's, you know, claiming to be Jesus.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Jolt]

The concept is present in Anglo-Saxon Law in exactly the same way, we call it Mens Rea, the the "Guilty mind".

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.

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.

[Viking]

What if it is more vital, then what?

If that criterion was particularly vital to the definition, it would be a highly non-standard definition.

[rvg]

If that criterion was particularly vital to the definition, it would be a highly non-standard definition.

How so?

[Viking]

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")

How so?

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.


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.

[rvg]

The average definition of free speech does not include hatred or wishing other people's death in particular.

Says who?

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.

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.

"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.

So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.

[Viking]

Says who?

Thinking of the various reference works.

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.

And all topics come in degrees - from calling the president a fool to openly calling for armed revolt against his government.

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.

So according to your definition, freedom of speech exists everywhere. I'd say there's a problem with your definition.

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.

[rvg]

Thinking of the various reference works.

And?

...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.

No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.

The more oppressive regimes do generally not want the average citizen to voice his opinion at all.

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.

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.

If a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.

[Viking]

And?

That's where you will find the most common definitions.

No, it doesn't add a thing to freedom of speech.

Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.

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.

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 a fireworks produces the same effect as a supernova, then yes, they are equivalent.

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.

[rvg]

That's where you will find the most common definitions.

Care to show one?

Of course it does, you are just taking it for granted.

Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.

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.

The difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.

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.

If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.

[Viking]

Care to show one?

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.

Nah. If all you can do is express adoration for the status quo, it's the equivalent of not saying anything.

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.

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 difference being that the favorable opinion will likely go through, while the dissenting opinion will land the author in a heap of trouble.

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.

If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.

The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of.

[rvg]

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.

So it says...
"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.

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").

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.

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.

By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.

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.

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.

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.

There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. That did not impede freedom of speech.

The fireworks you can get your hands on will not do that, which happens to be the firworks that I am thinking of.

Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.

[Viking]

So it says...
"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.

This is what you intially responded to

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.

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.

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.

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.

By my thinking? Not at all. But please elaborate how, I'd be curious to hear.

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.

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.

That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.

There was no internet back when the Bill of Rights was passed. I did not impede freedom of speech.

Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.

Then perhaps you're defining as fireworks something that shouldn't be defined as such.

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.

[rvg]

This is what you intially responded to 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.

And that includes hate 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.

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.

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.

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.

That is completely irrelevant, freedom of speech is a principle.

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.

Which is not relevant to sub-topic you are replying to.

It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.

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.

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If either one of the destroys a star system, they are functionally the same.

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-

[Viking]

And that includes hate speech.

No more than any other form of speech.

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.

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.

Freedom to agree is meaningless

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 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.

The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.

It's very relevant: after all, you brought up the lack of Internet in North Korea as an argument.

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.

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.

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.

[rvg]

No more than any other form of speech.

The point is that there's no free speech if hateful opinions are not allowed.

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.

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.

The principle is freedom of speech, of which being allowed voice your agreement is a tiny, and largely irrelevant, subset.

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.

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.

Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.

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.

This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

Unless your opinion is that there is a fire in this here movie theater.

[Viking]

The point is that there's no free speech if hateful opinions are not allowed.

The speech is not completely free. See last reply.

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.

Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.

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.

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.

Pick up any North Korean newspaper. I bet you'll find a whole bunch of articles praising the latest Kim.

Written not by your average North Korean citizen.

This is utterly false. On American soil I can hold and publicly express any opinion I want.

You wish. Here is a list.

[rvg]

Not at all, I have already provided how it can be useful.

Doesn't make it useful.

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.

So remaining silent is your substitute for free speech? Great.

Written not by your average North Korean citizen.

But cheerfully supported by each and every one of them.

You wish. Here is a list.

Not a single one of these exceptions involves opinions.

[rvg]

Unless your opinion is that there is a fire in this here movie theater.

You can hold and state that opinion as much as you like.

[HoreTore]

Can you publicly state that [insert name of random celeb here] had sex with prostitutes dressed as nazi guards in America?

[rvg]

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.