The trial of Anders Behring Breivik

[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.

[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-

[Sigurd]

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-

hehe..
Not to detract from the main discussion, but doesn't this beg the question? since a supernova is a star and as such a part of a star system, is it then true for all star systems that they were "moved" by a supernova? Cause - effect chain regress leads to the first supernova and then --- what? BB?