On 17/03/2012 5:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>

I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly 
implies sometimes not, I think.

>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> 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.
>

Fair point. But why?

>> 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?
>

I stand corrected.

>> 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.
>
I accept that as you live there.

[Snip]

>
>> 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?
>

Does that include bullying?



> Just like playing D&D is fine
> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarves.
>

Not the same thing.

>  > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the time
>> 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
> that 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.
>

With this you miss my point. In 2000, Uncle Ken wrote “It is with regret 
that this message serves as official notice that Matt Giwer's 
authorization to connect to news.povray.org has been revoked. This is a 
unanimously supported action on the part of the News Server 
Administration and was not done without considerable deliberation on our 
part.”
I asked Warp if he agreed with that at the time and if he had changed 
his mind.

>> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech
>> is 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.
>

But I am not saying free speech is OK.

>>> 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?
>

Is that not a straw man?

I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not? 
Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want. 
The laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yours?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message