Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So the only thing different is where we draw the line. Fine, I'll use my pencil, you use yours.

No. Your line is vague and ambiguous. Mine is clear and unmistakeable.

Your line is a fat wide swath of grey, and leaves what speech is legal and illegal up to the vicissitudes of the daily popularity contest. Mine leaves all political, religious, ideological, philsophical and other opinions free. Yours criminalizes some political and religious, ideological and philosophical opinions.

There is a big difference between our two lines.

Only in your mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

I dunno. Kinda bored now.

I've had this argument before. We can't even decide what "speech" means, so how can we decide whether or not it should be limited? I would glad take out nasty bastards like NAMBLA. I HAVE sent neo-Nazis to the emergency room. (In fact, the ER in the hospital where they were holding a "celebration of the Wansee Conference".)

The ACLU defended the free speech rights of both NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party, and won.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

I dunno. Kinda bored now.

I've had this argument before. We can't even decide what "speech" means, so how can we decide whether or not it should be limited? I would glad take out nasty bastards like NAMBLA. I HAVE sent neo-Nazis to the emergency room. (In fact, the ER in the hospital where they were holding a "celebration of the Wansee Conference".)

The ACLU defended the free speech rights of both NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party, and won.

And you think that's a good thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

I dunno. Kinda bored now.

I've had this argument before. We can't even decide what "speech" means, so how can we decide whether or not it should be limited? I would glad take out nasty bastards like NAMBLA. I HAVE sent neo-Nazis to the emergency room. (In fact, the ER in the hospital where they were holding a "celebration of the Wansee Conference".)

The ACLU defended the free speech rights of both NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party, and won.

And you think that's a good thing.

Absolutely, don't you? Or, do you just judge what is legally permissible speech and what is not by your own opinion as to what is a legally permissible opinion? If you think it's hateful, then you support arresting the fuckers? If you don't think it's hateful, then you dont?

Is this hate speech to be prohibited? http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =2&t=11795

[charlou]

Then there's holocaust denial..prison-able in a fair few countries...

Double ludicrousness ... both the denial and the law against it.


Let the idiots speak their minds ... then we know who they are and where they stand, and we can point and laugh, criticise, correct and ethically condemn as appropriate.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Then there's holocaust denial..prison-able in a fair few countries...

Double ludicrousness ... both the denial and the law against it.


Let the idiots speak their minds ... then we know who they are and where they stand, and we can point and laugh, criticise, correct and ethically condemn as appropriate.

So where would you draw the line? Are we free enough to make fun of crippled children?

[charlou]

This is what happens when we don't know what they're up to:

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you think they would have spoken freely about their plans if they had "true free speech"?

[Trolldor]

The thing about free speech is, when it comes to plots, idiots will always shout their designs to the heavens, all else will keep it to themselves whether they've the right to say it or not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The thing about free speech is, when it comes to plots, idiots will always shout their designs to the heavens, all else will keep it to themselves whether they've the right to say it or not.

Oh? Including Tim McVeigh and the guys who did 7/7?

[charlou]

Then there's holocaust denial..prison-able in a fair few countries...

Double ludicrousness ... both the denial and the law against it.


Let the idiots speak their minds ... then we know who they are and where they stand, and we can point and laugh, criticise, correct and ethically condemn as appropriate.

So where would you draw the line? Are we free enough to make fun of crippled children?

Are you talking about black humour or actual derision of crippled children? We are free enough to argue why either are or are not a good thing to do.

An adult who literally confronts a crippled child with derisory comments and laughter? I'd say they need psychological help.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you talking about black humour or actual derision of crippled children?

Who decides?

[charlou]

This is what happens when we don't know what they're up to:

Do you think they would have spoken freely about their plans if they had "true free speech"?

Maybe not, but at least no-one would be preventing them from doing so.


The more we know about what the disgruntled, ideologists and psychopaths are thinking, the better we can try to deal with it with calculated rationality, unhindered by kneejerk responses.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you think they would have spoken freely about their plans if they had "true free speech"?

Maybe not, but at least no-one would be preventing them from doing so.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

[charlou]

Do you think they would have spoken freely about their plans if they had "true free speech"?

Maybe not, but at least no-one would be preventing them from doing so.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Read my edit?