Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[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.

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

7/7?

Also, from what I know, Tim told enough people for it to be stopped, but those people did nothing. (One man, I think, objected rather strongly to the whole thing. His wife knew too.)

[charlou]

Mind you, I don't have a hardline view on suppression of hate speech and verbal abuse ... I certainly agree with school environments dealing with verbal bullying along with physical bullying. Never did agree with the 'sticks and stones' adage. What's important there is how such bullying is dealt with. Simply punishing achieves little ... there has to be a rational, holistic approach to remedy and prevent.

[Hermit]

Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish! We must kill them now!

Just my opinion, of course, and I invoke the right to freedom of expression to voice it. The aim of my speeches expressing those opinions, to which I claim to have an inalienable right, is to become chancellor first, then engineer the enabling law, after which I can put my opinion into action. Should I fail, the neo-nazis will pick up the baton. Oh, I so love free speech when it works to my advantage.

[Trolldor]

The only place I hold absent of restrictions is the internet, and even then not completely.

What seperates an idea from an opinion?

Is saying "All Jews should die" the same as "I will kill all Jews?" Are both protected under free speech?

[charlou]

Our own 'play nice' guideline limits speech in a 'it's not what you say, but how you say it' way ...

[Pappa]

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.

Even worse... the stigma of holocaust denial holds back real historical research. Historians knew, and said quietly to each other that various holocaust "facts" were pure myth - such as the Nazis making lampshades from human skin, etc., but none of them were willing to say so in public or print for fear of being branded a denier. Something which would destroy their career as a serious and respected historian in an instant. Worse, when people have realised that on some specific points, some holocaust deniers have been right (about there not being gas chambers at a specific camp, for example) it bolsters the validity of their other claims.

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

[RuleBritannia]

Both freedom of speech and expression are important to protect, they are the cornerstones of our Western society. Hearing all the ideas, the good and bad, is only way to find what's best. There are obvious limits, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or inciting violence aginst others, yet you can make no laws about what is acceptable and what is not, any such law would be both arbitrary and subjective. Each case must be tried seperatly.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

There is also denial and then there's denial.

The term "holocaust denial" is a catch-all term that includes those very very few persons who deny that ANY atrocity against the Jews was commited by the Nazis, and it also includes those who argue about historical details thereof, suggesting that certain aspects of what is traditionally or commonly held notions about the events of the 30s and 40s with respect to the Jews are not accurate.

In my view, I can't see why anyone would support a law that outlaws anyone saying "I deny that there ever was a Nazi holocaust against the Jews, and not a single Jew died in World War II." People can deny World War 2 ever happened if they want, and I can't imagine one good reason why that would not be lawful in a free society. People come up with cock-a-mamie ideas all the time.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Yes, it happens all the time, too.

Movie: The Ringer, starring Johnny Knoxville: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0267891/

Television: South Park, Special Olympics: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154424

Comedians: Frank Boyle - did a routine making fun of Down's syndrome children- Sarah Silverman joked about Palin's TriG child.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mind you, I don't have a hardline view on suppression of hate speech and verbal abuse ... I certainly agree with school environments dealing with verbal bullying along with physical bullying. Never did agree with the 'sticks and stones' adage. What's important there is how such bullying is dealt with. Simply punishing achieves little ... there has to be a rational, holistic approach to remedy and prevent.

I agree. There wouldn't be free speech in a school when it comes to maintaining order and discipline. Teachers don't need to allow kids to say whatever they want, whenever they want, in school, just as an employer doesn't have to allow employees and customers to say whatever they want whenever they want in the workplace, etc. These aren't public forums.

[Coito ergo sum]

Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish! We must kill them now!

Just my opinion, of course, and I invoke the right to freedom of expression to voice it.

And, that is your right, everything up to the "we must kill them now" which, depending on the context, might be the subornation of or conspiracy to commit murder.

The aim of my speeches expressing those opinions, to which I claim to have an inalienable right, is to become chancellor first, then engineer the enabling law, after which I can put my opinion into action. Should I fail, the neo-nazis will pick up the baton. Oh, I so love free speech when it works to my advantage.

All lawful speech. You can claim to have whatever rights you want (people claim lots of weird things to be their rights), people can have delusions or ambitions of grandeur all the time, like becoming "chancellor" (a position that does not exist in any western country I'm aware of).

[Coito ergo sum]

Our own 'play nice' guideline limits speech in a 'it's not what you say, but how you say it' way ...

This forum can prohibit speech on its dime all it wants. You could have no forum. A highly restricted forum. Or, whatever. It's your forum. It's rationalia.com's forum, as much as my living room is my forum.

[Coito ergo sum]

Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society of America) has written about it in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

That is a must read, unless Shermer's opinions have been deemed hateful. Then they should be illegal.

[Hermit]

Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish! We must kill them now!

Just my opinion, of course, and I invoke the right to freedom of expression to voice it.

And, that is your right, everything up to the "we must kill them now" which, depending on the context, might be the subornation of or conspiracy to commit murder.

The aim of my speeches expressing those opinions, to which I claim to have an inalienable right, is to become chancellor first, then engineer the enabling law, after which I can put my opinion into action. Should I fail, the neo-nazis will pick up the baton. Oh, I so love free speech when it works to my advantage.

All lawful speech. You can claim to have whatever rights you want (people claim lots of weird things to be their rights), people can have delusions or ambitions of grandeur all the time, like becoming "chancellor" (a position that does not exist in any western country I'm aware of).

You're obviously not too well read in history. The day Hitler was appointed chancellor of the coalition government of the NSDAP-DNVP-Centre Party (30 January 1933) is generally regarded as the date on which he became the leader of Germany. The Enabling Act, passed seven weeks later, marked the start of his dictatorship.

Also, I don't see any significant difference between saying "If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish!" and "We must kill them now!"

[Coito ergo sum]

Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish! We must kill them now!

Just my opinion, of course, and I invoke the right to freedom of expression to voice it.

And, that is your right, everything up to the "we must kill them now" which, depending on the context, might be the subornation of or conspiracy to commit murder.

The aim of my speeches expressing those opinions, to which I claim to have an inalienable right, is to become chancellor first, then engineer the enabling law, after which I can put my opinion into action. Should I fail, the neo-nazis will pick up the baton. Oh, I so love free speech when it works to my advantage.

All lawful speech. You can claim to have whatever rights you want (people claim lots of weird things to be their rights), people can have delusions or ambitions of grandeur all the time, like becoming "chancellor" (a position that does not exist in any western country I'm aware of).

You're obviously not too well read in history. The day Hitler was appointed chancellor of the coalition government of the NSDAP-DNVP-Centre Party (30 January 1933) is generally regarded as the date on which he became the leader of Germany. The Enabling Act, passed on 23 March 1933, marked the start of his dictatorship.

I'm fully aware of that. I never disputed that. That doesn't mean it is illegal to say "I want to be chanellor of this country, and engineer an enabling act to install myself as supreme leader" or words to that effect.

Also, I don't see any significant difference between saying "If we don't kill communists and jews - the carriers of the twin scourges of civilisation as we know it - our superior aryan race will perish!" and "We must kill them now!"

Well, there is a significant difference. One is a call to immediate action "now", the other is a speculation.

Anyone that says that, or publishes, should not be free from police investigation, though. Free speech doesn't mean that cops can't investigate you based on what you say. If I say, "I think it would be a good idea if there were no mosques" in the country, and a mosque blows up near my house, I would expect to have the police visit me. If I say, "if we don't kill the communists, we will be in bad shape" and a communist is killed in my town, I'd expect the police to check and see if I have an alibi, or if I may have been involved.

Once again, when it comes to this kind of speech, the best thing is for other folks to oppose it with argument or ridicule, or both.