[demonrail666]

I suppose I should've titled the thread 'SHOULD Free speech be Unconditional?'

[MellySingsDoom]

Well, real free speech would includes the likes of "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds", "The Beslan massacre was a masterpiece" and "It is pefectly right for hostages to be beheaded". Free speech is fine in theory, but impossible in practise. There will always be limits to "free" speech, and so it will always be conditional.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by MellySingsDoom

Well, real free speech would includes the likes of "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds", "The Beslan massacre was a masterpiece" and "It is pefectly right for hostages to be beheaded". Free speech is fine in theory, but impossible in practise. There will always be limits to "free" speech, and so it will always be conditional.

The argument there of course is that saying it's ok to be-head someone is very different to actually be-heading them.

[MellySingsDoom]

...and in a perfect world, people would argue against that position in a clear-headed fashion. In reality, anyone who said that in this country would be prosecuted for incitement to murder. If such incitement laws weren't in place, the general consensus would be that such laws should be enacted. I feel that one of the greatest restrictions to true free speech is the will of "society", where it be moral or otherwise.

[ALIEN ANAL]

yeh, its perfectly fine for people to say "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds" but they shouldnt be allowed to do the act

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I suppose I should've titled the thread 'SHOULD Free speech be Unconditional?'

There is a certain amount of fascism that can be beneficial to humanity.

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by ALIEN ANAL

yeh, its perfectly fine for people to say "It is perfectly reasonable to fuck 4-year olds" but they shouldnt be allowed to do the act

That's one of my points, Anal - it's NOT fine for people to say this, according to general consensus. Otherwise if people were fine with this, why complain about the act itself? I'm certainly violently against the above statement I quoted, and yes, it means that I have my own limits to free speech too.

[demonrail666]

What if someone jokingly shouts "fire" in a crowded hall and causes hundreds of people of die during the stampede to get out?

[MellySingsDoom]

Exactly, Mr Demon Guy. Good thread, by the way.

EDIT - Nice Gudrun Ensslin portrait.

[noumenal]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

There is a certain amount of fascism that can be beneficial to humanity.

I agree, but I prefer totalitarianism.

[Hip Priest]

Yes, free speech is unconditional, otherwise it's not free speech. There's a world of difference between tolerating an opinion and endorsing it.

If you don't know how people feel, how can you adequately respond to them? How can you adequately expect to persuade them thay they are wrong? How can you adequately expect to have any kind of truly meaningful discourse with them? And how can you possibly expect to see the bigots for what they really are? How will you stop them building up support? A number of scattered bigots is certainly preferable to a group of organised, empowered underground bigots.

[!@#$%!]

i'm for free speech but speech must with freedom comes responsibility. words are powerful, the ellicit emotions in people, they can influence thought and behavior. want an example? bush making false connections between saddam and al-qaeda. want a demonstration? look:

only morons dare to dismiss of the power of words.

[jonathan]

All cultures restrict free speech by their nature. I don't think people restricting their speech socially is wrong; it ought to be encouraged, quite frankly.

With that said, I don't think the government should take any intiative.

[Hip Priest]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i'm for free speech but speech must with freedom comes responsibility. words are powerful, the ellicit emotions in people, they can influence thought and behavior. want an example? bush making false connections between saddam and al-qaeda. want a demonstration? look:

only morons dare to dismiss of the power of words.

Quite so. With all rights come responsibilities.

Words that repulse the vast majority will empower and motivate a select few to commit immoral, horrifying acts. But we must to be a position where we can hear fringe views because society, if it is to be a mutually beneficial construct, needs to be able to deal with things.

[!@#$%!]

slander and libel are limitations of free speech. so are in the united states "fighting words". obscenity is also constitutionally not protected. there are also laws agains sedition.

im not saying that the law should be the standard by which free speech is measured, but the law points towards certain practical limitations of an ideal principle.

--
edit: sexual harassment is another obvious limitation. imagine if a woman had to hear "hey baby, i want to fuck you in the ass and slice your throat while you cry" every day at work. free speech? i don't think so... [sorry for the unpleasant example, i was just trying to make my point crystal clear]

[ricechex]

IMO, free speech is only wrong on the basis of society's acceptance. Either they accept it as being within bounds or reject it, as was the case with Don Imus. You could argue whether it was or not, but the heat was on his employers, and so it was ultimately rejected by society. I wish people would reject the likes of Anne Coulter and Glenn Beck too. But there is an audience for just about anything, so i think the system does work in a way by policing itself.

[Hip Priest]

In order to be free we must all be slaves to the law. That's the first thing we were taught in law class.

Libel laws can rest perfectly easily within a system of free speech. 'Free speech', I think, is best seen as the right to speak honest opinion rather than the right to spout than bigotry, anger or misinformed nonsense. It also allows for the right of reply. That would be the inherent idea of rights with responsibilities.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

In order to be free we must all be slaves to the law. That's the first thing we were taught in law class.

Libel laws can rest perfectly easily within a system of free speech. 'Free speech', I think, is best seen as the right to speak honest opinion rather than the right to spout than bigotry, anger or misinformed nonsense. It also allows for the right of reply. That would be the inherent idea of rights with responsibilities.

oh yeah you have a pretty reasonable view of it. i wasn't refuting your arguments, i was addressing a general simplistic view of free speech that was carelessly spouted in other posts.

[!@#$%!]

ps- found this

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Public incitement of hatred (s. 319[1]). Every one who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [a crime].

– s. 319[1], Criminal Code of Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

[MellySingsDoom]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

In order to be free we must all be slaves to the law. That's the first thing we were taught in law class.

Libel laws can rest perfectly easily within a system of free speech. 'Free speech', I think, is best seen as the right to speak honest opinion rather than the right to spout than bigotry, anger or misinformed nonsense. It also allows for the right of reply. That would be the inherent idea of rights with responsibilities.

Surely truly free speech would INCLUDE the right to spout bigotry, misinformation etc.?