Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Coito ergo sum]

Stormfront is still operational, and its founder freely donates to presidential candidates like Ron Paul.

So what?

I don't see them being forced to shut down their website.

So what? I'm not following you. Do you think I made the claim that Stormfront doesn't or shouldn't have the right to have a website?

You're defending holocaust deniers. Stormfront is full of them and nobody is denying them their right utter bullshit.

I never said anyone was denying them their right, not in the US anyway. However, in 17, or thereabouts, countries, people who "deny the holocaust" are subject to prosecution and have been prosecuted, like in Austria (in the videos I posted above, Hitchens addressed that he was prosecuted for the "potential" of uttering something on Austrian soil - he never said anything in Austria - they arrested him because he might possibly have uttered an illegal thing there ....). Listen to Hitchens' argument - it is dead bang a summation of my argument: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9058958603#

This thread is about the arrest of a preacher, in public, calling homosexuality is a sin. Are you defending the arrest? Are you defending the law that would allow or require that arrest? What's your position on that law.

"My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to [it] against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place anytime, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get inline and kiss my ass." -Hitchens...

Do you have to be protected from unsavory opinions? Do homosexuals need to be protected from opinions that they are going to hell after death?

Further, it is your OPINION that when a religious nut speaks up they mean to deny them basic human rights. You don't know what they "really" mean any more than they know what you "really" mean. In their view, I've heard them say, they are speaking up for morality and for their values.

LOL!! now you're defending the religious nuts mission in taking away gay rights!!!

No. Please tell me you are being deliberately obtuse. I am defending their right to say what they want to say. Whether they desire to take away rights is irrelevant.

I'm happy to defend the free speech rights of religious nuts and holocaust deniers. The ACLU defended, in court, the rights of the American Nazi Party and the North American Man boy Love Association (NAMBLA), so I think I'm in pretty good company. You, however, defend the power of the State to stifle free expression of political and religious opinions, which puts you in the company of another sort of person.

Whatever.

I don't get what you're pissed off about.

You think that people shouldn't have the right to hold and voice the opinion that homosexuals are committing sins? Really??? That is what you think? You would have no problem with a law whereby people are arrested for that?

[Martok]

You would have no problem with a law whereby people are arrested for that?

I wouldn't want those laws in the US.

OTOH, we all have to pick our fights. You can go ahead and defend the homophobic preacher, I'll defend the gay person.

[Coito ergo sum]

You would have no problem with a law whereby people are arrested for that?

I wouldn't want those laws in the US.

OTOH, we all have to pick our fights. You can go ahead and defend the homophobic preacher, I'll defend the gay person.

In this case, there is nothing to defend the gay person from. He wasn't being arrested. If he was arrested for telling the preacher that the preacher was a latent, self-loathing homosexual, bigot and should shut his festering gob, then I'd defend the homosexual. Or, if the preacher was interfering with the homosexual's frreedom of movement, or hitting him, or doing something else to him - I'd defend the homosexual. Here, though, the preacher was preaching, that's all, and there is, wherever one is, freedom of speech and freedom of religion (and in those places where those things are denied, it is a violation of human rights).

Why wouldn't you want those laws in the US anyway? You think the homosexual should be defended in England, but not here in the US?

[Martok]

Why wouldn't you want those laws in the US anyway?

It goes against our constitution. Why do you want them here?

You think the homosexual should be defended in England, but not here in the US?

No, gays should be defended everywhere. Why do you think gays shouldn't have any rights?

[Trolldor]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

But they're still free to have the ideas, and convince others that their ideas are better.

No they're not. You've legislated against it from happening. You've made it a criminal act, and therefore they are advocating criminal actions and can thus be tried.

Of cause they're free to have the ideas, I can do it right now.

Unless you express your idea for murdering someone, then you can be arrested. Arrested for having an idea.

[RuleBritannia]

How is it not? You're stopping someone from expressing themselves because you disagree with the idea.

But they're still free to have the ideas, and convince others that their ideas are better.

No they're not. You've legislated against it from happening. You've made it a criminal act, and therefore they are advocating criminal actions and can thus be tried.

Of cause they're free to have the ideas, I can do it right now.

Unless you express your idea for murdering someone, then you can be arrested. Arrested for having an idea.

No, you're not arrested for having the idea, you're arrested for expressing it.

[Trolldor]

lol. Your evasion is hilarious at best, but weak.

[RuleBritannia]

lol. Your evasion is hilarious at best, but weak.

The only hilarious thing here is that you can't differentiate between ideas and actions.

[Trolldor]

Or your inability to understand the useless idiocy of separating the two.

"Universal suffrage, good idea. We won't let you practice it though."

[RuleBritannia]

That's stupid, ideas an actions are obviously distinct.

If I have the idea to murder someone, but take no action on it, I'm not arrested for murder am I? No. Because the idea is distinct from the action.

If ideas and actions were not distinct, then this sentence would be factually impossible:

"Universal suffrage, good idea. We won't let you practice it though."

Because clearly, the idea (universal suffrage, good idea) and the action (we won't let you practice it though) are contracting each other, and therefore cannot be the same thing.

[Hermit]

Or your inability to understand the useless idiocy of separating the two.

Coito has the same problem. What is it with these libertarians?

[Trolldor]

That's stupid, ideas an actions are obviously distinct.

If I have the idea to murder someone, but take no action on it, I'm not arrested for murder am I? No. Because the idea is distinct from the action.

If ideas and actions were not distinct, then this sentence would be factually impossible:

"Universal suffrage, good idea. We won't let you practice it though."

Because clearly, the idea (universal suffrage, good idea) and the action (we won't let you practice it though) are contracting each other, and therefore cannot be the same thing.

Actually, you can be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, you can have an elaborate 'idea' and be arrested without ever having acted. Secondly, you completely missed the point. What is the value of being able to express the want for universal suffrage if we can not practice it? The idea and the action are directly linked. You can not legislate against an idea, then say "oh, but they're allowed to express themselves" because they can say it. Nonsense. If you agree that any action should be legislated against, you agree that ideas are dangerous to the point of making them illegal.

[RuleBritannia]

Or your inability to understand the useless idiocy of separating the two.

Coito has the same problem. What is it with these libertarians?

Me, a libertarian?

[JimC]

Okay, so if the theater is not on fire it's not okay to yell "Fire". That's a first step. You accept that speech SHOULD be limited. After that it's only a matter of where we draw the line.

I'm not talking about what's "o.k." - the thread is about people being arrested. We're talking about what's legal, not what's "o.k."

But, yes, it should not be illegal to say "fire!" in a theater. It should be illegal to intentionally cause a panic.

But, nevertheless, I do have a line - defamation, fraud and conspiracy to commit capital crimes. The "falsely claiming fire in a crowded theater causing injury due to panic" would fall under the fraud heading (false statement, knowingly false when made, upon which someone justifiably relied, and which is the direct and proximate cause of injury and damages).

There is no line between hateful and non-hateful speech. IMHO, "I hate Muslims" and "I hate White People" and "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" and "Religious people are deluded" and "gay people are sinful" are all legal. Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

I agree, certainly as far as legal measures are concerned, as long as the speech does not actively encourage others to violence. That does not prevent very forceful counter-demonstrations to homophobic crap...

[Coito ergo sum]

Why wouldn't you want those laws in the US anyway?

It goes against our constitution. Why do you want them here?

You're the one who appears to be defending the prosecution of the preacher.

It also goes against the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." Article 11.

You think the homosexual should be defended in England, but not here in the US?

No, gays should be defended everywhere. Why do you think gays shouldn't have any rights?

I never said they shouldn't have any rights. They don't, however, have the right not to be offended by a preacher claiming they are sinning and going to hell. Are you claiming that they do have that right?

Are you missing the distinction here that:
(a) an individual's right to express the opinion that gay people are sinners and going to hell; and,
(b) that homosexuals have no rights
Are two completely different things?

Can you see how one can be in favor of (a) and against (b) at the same time?