On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.

Mostly in practice, too.

> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortio
n?

Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free speech
 
doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.

> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
> whites, even though they believed it?

Any number of talk show hosts?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of
-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/

The KKK?

> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you have
 to 
be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.

> It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the tim
e,
> place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

Yep. And you know what? If you read it, you see that lots of people think
 
such a thing is an attack of free speech.

> The implication being that
> outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.

Its original purpose was to ensure that only the free expression occurred
, 
and not physical attacks.

> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a 
crime
> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.

Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?

Incitement to riot is not a question of speech. It's a question of 
conspiracy. If you're not likely to *actually* incite a riot, it's OK to 

try. Free speech is free until you actually try to commit a crime. Talkin
g 
about how to rob the bank is legal until you actually start gathering up 
the 
tools you discussed. Just like playing D&D is fine until you actually go 
out 
in the real world and start beheading dwarves.

 > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the ti
me
> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?

This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say th
at 
on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my house
" 
means you're violating the right to assembly.

> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech i
s a
> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.

I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as you
 
start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then it's not
 
free speech.

>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>
>
> That is a different kettle of fish.

Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message