Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PowerWizard]

It is very naive to think that freedom of speech is boundless. There are limitations to free speech in all countries of the world. As Locke said there is no freedom without laws.
The poll is somewhat flawed, because
1. it suggests that these are the gradual restrictions of free speech, which is not true. For example hate speech (the 2nd option in the poll, for which many members voted) is stricter than other limitations (not included in the poll, like defense against libel) and was only introduced in the 20th century.
2. these aren't all the cases of restriction. F.e. defense against libel or copyright infringement leads to the limitation of free speech, or the freedom of press (part of free speech) can be also restricted to ensure another right, the right to information.

I had a thread about this TWC with all the options in the poll, but unfortunately TWC is down, so I can't link. Maybe later.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I thought it would be a little flawed, but here I'm only really thinking about discussion relating to religious/ethnic/sexual/whatever else minorities as opposed to libel and lawsuits and the suchlike. A more accurate title, on thought, would have been "How should political correctness affect our freedom of speech?" - sorry. A mod can adjust if they want to

[PowerWizard]

I see your point then. I don't think political correctness should affect freedom of speech at all. After all, political correctness is not a legal term, and free speech can be only restricted by laws. Regarding hate speech: I think free speech should only be restricted, if a speech not only discriminates a certain group of people (based on their race, ethnicity, religious or political views etc.) but also incites actual violence against this group (f.e. "kill them" or "attack them").

I live in a country where there are a lot of gypsies living. 70-80% of the crimes are commmitted by these people. Since the introduction of hate speech rules, you can't say this in public, because it is "discriminating", unless of course you'd like to face lawsuits. This is insane. I mean you can't state a fact, that is proven by criminology, a social science. I think this is far-fetched and unneccessary.

[Whacker]

100% in agreement with Seamus's earlier post explaining the "immediate and present danger", so voted 2 which seems to be closest to that stance. I don't remember who said this in a post some time ago (maybe Goofwad?) but the gist was that "having an opinion, no matter how misguided, should never be illegal".

[PowerWizard]

having an opinion, no matter how misguided, should never be illegal

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

[Kralizec]

So you think the latter should be illegal to say?

Well, it would not be taken seriously. I just wanted to demonstrate the difference between arguing that something should be punished and arguing that people ought to do something about it themselves.

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.

It's a silly example, to be honest. I do feel that you should be able to say that, for example, homosexuality should be illegal and punishable. I don't think it should be permissable for an imam to say that individual muslims ought to pick up the stones themselves and pelt gay people in broad daylight. Do you think the latter should be legal?

1. it suggests that these are the gradual restrictions of free speech, which is not true. For example hate speech (the 2nd option in the poll, for which many members voted) is stricter than other limitations (not included in the poll, like defense against libel) and was only introduced in the 20th century.
2. these aren't all the cases of restriction. F.e. defense against libel or copyright infringement leads to the limitation of free speech, or the freedom of press (part of free speech) can be also restricted to ensure another right, the right to information.

#2 does not cover "hate speech". It says "mild regulation against incitement of violence against groups"
I think the poll options might be slightly flawed myself, but not for the reason you mentioned. But that's more because I'm cynical. There ought to be an option that says "criticising a religion should be punishable if it turns out followers of said religion manage to personally take offense from it". Because that's what the case against Wilders is really about.

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

Libel is where you deliberately make false and malicious statements affecting an individual, or a group of identifyable individuals (and not something as broad and vague as a religious community).
Fearmongering: is this even a crime in itself?
Flag desecration isn't illegal in the USA or in Holland and shouldn't be- of course if you tear down the flags in front of a government office it's something different.

Perjury and copyright enfringement (wich you mentioned earlier) do, strictly speaking, limit what you can say. The first is a specific crime to ensure people tell the truth when under oath in a judicial procedure and the second is about commercial abuse of stuff other people created. This discussion is about what you can and cannot say about religions.

[PowerWizard]

This discussion is about what you can and cannot say about religions.

Well the OP said that

This thread was inspired by the case against Gert Wilders in the Netherlands. This is a more general topic though, focusing on all cases of the law intervening in freedom of speech.

so I thought I might share my views on this general topic.

But anyway, regarding the Wilders case, I don't think he ever said something or expressed something in that specific video that should be regulated by law. The video is obviously biased, but all politically motivated propaganda materials are biased. So what?

[Strike For The South]

This is not true because
1. Free speech isn't just about having an opinion.
2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

One of the best acts of protest you can do.

[Kralizec]

I live in a country where there are a lot of gypsies living. 70-80% of the crimes are commmitted by these people. Since the introduction of hate speech rules, you can't say this in public, because it is "discriminating", unless of course you'd like to face lawsuits. This is insane. I mean you can't state a fact, that is proven by criminology, a social science. I think this is far-fetched and unneccessary.

Where do you live?

[Proletariat]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

If murdering the Irish is already illegal, why the hell would we need a law saying that you're not allowed to state 'kill the Irish'. You're going to jail no matter what for murder if you actually do it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My first post I thought was obvious tongue in cheek, but I'm with Adrian and MRD. No limits on free speech at all.

[Kralizec]

Being an acessory to a crime is punishable. People who hire others to kill are punished. I don't see why people who use their position of moral authority to compel others to violence should not be prosecuted

[Husar]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

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.

[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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If some Imam tells his followers to commit murder and they listen and obey, then charge all of his followers with murder and execute them. If that sounds like a gross oversimplification it's because it needs to be. All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

If murdering the Irish is already illegal, why the hell would we need a law saying that you're not allowed to state 'kill the Irish'. You're going to jail no matter what for murder if you actually do it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My first post I thought was obvious tongue in cheek, but I'm with Adrian and MRD. No limits on free speech at all.

I am using Prole's excellent post as my response to Fenring.

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.

How foolish are his followers that they keep stoning people even though they are caught and punished? This seems rather unlikely.

[PowerWizard]

Where do you live?

Hungary.