 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> What Free Speech? There Ain't No Such Animal.
> >
> > There is, still.
> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
> impunity.
The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
(Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
there.)
> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
> sectarian things or incite others to hate?
Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
matter how hideous you think those opinions are.
It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.
When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
speech. That's totalitarianism.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 11:43 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
>> impunity.
>
> The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
> example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
> burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
> (Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
> there.)
>
Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
whites, even though they believed it?
America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) The implication being
that outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.
>> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
>> sectarian things or incite others to hate?
>
> Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
> opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
> matter how hideous you think those opinions are.
>
I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
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?
Have you changed your mind?
> It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
> people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
> behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.
>
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.
> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>
That is a different kettle of fish. Political Correctness is another
tool used by politicians (whether elected or not) to force their own
opinions on the public. Again, in my opinion.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 11:15 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 6:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>>> well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking
>>> (soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the
>>> term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just
>>> boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.
>>
>> Careful, with an attitude like that you could get extradited to the US.
>> Oops! I forgot. You already did. :-P
>
> LOL ... no kidding, and through no fault of my own ;-)
>
I know and again, I am sorry.
>>
>> It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick
>> rather than do a proper job on their security.
>> First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the
>> war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?
>
> Yep ... afraid that while I was away much has changed. Kind of like a
> train wreck in slow motion, but I have to keep the faith and hope that
> cooler heads will eventually prevail.
>
One can only hope.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.
> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,
influenced by (often changing) cultural and political trends, and can be
abused for political reasons (eg. to silence dissenters). Almost invariably
such laws are not applied consistently and equally, but some people are in
practice more protected than others.
> It also has Free Speech Zones
Which is an oxymoron, really.
Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
impunity.
> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
> crime is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.
> 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?
> Have you changed your mind?
This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
whatever reason he wants.
If you want a guest to leave your house, you have all the right in
the world to do that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 1:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.
>
> Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
> world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
> impunity.
>
I won't argue any more because I know when I am banging my head off a
brick wall.
>
> You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.
>
No, incitement is an anticipatory offence.
>
> This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> whatever reason he wants.
>
Unanimously supported action?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> > person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> > whatever reason he wants.
> >
> Unanimously supported action?
So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
or not.
Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
No thanks.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 3:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
>>> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
>>> whatever reason he wants.
>>>
>
>> Unanimously supported action?
>
> So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
> or not.
>
> Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
> they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
> atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
>
> Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
> one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
> opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
> a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
> No thanks.
>
I have no problems with what you have said above. In fact I agree with
your sentiments.
What I do have a problem with is: [Insert your preferred
group/individual here] is not like us and lets go and kill them.
Free Speech would allow that.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 6:54, Warp wrote:
> The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,
FWIW, I think the way hate crimes work is that it's an extra punishment on
top of the crime you already committed. If you beat someone up, that's
assault. If you call them racist names, that's free speech. If you beat
someone up while calling them racist names, that's probably assault and a
hate crime.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
> Free Speech would allow that.
Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.
I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a country's
army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my country's
army to attack back. Even tho they'll likely end up killing people who had
no say in the manner in their own country.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
