Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Not generally. You are allowed to have the idea. And, you are free to express how good it would be. You can talk about murder, joke about murder, discuss murder, advocate that murder be legal, all sorts of things. You can't conspire to commit it, though. There's a huge difference there.

If I say, "I'm going to murder you!" - I have not committed a crime, and I would not be arrested.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

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

Once again, I am very far from being a libertarian.

It's also not a an "inability to understand" the useless idiocy of separating the two. I, for one, and it appears RuleBritannia for another, understand how idiotic is that you folks can't separate ideas from actions. It's like when Christians make that same mistake when they say that he who looks at a woman with lust has committed the same offense as if he's actually committed adultery. They fail to see the distinction between thinking about an action, expressing the desirability of an action, and actually doing that thing.

[Coito ergo sum]

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,

Of course, and to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder the prosecution has to prove at least one "overt ACT" in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mere agreement or expression is NOT sufficient. Why? Because it's not a crime to talk about. An "overt act" is "An open, manifest act from which criminality may be implied. An outward act done in pursuance and manifestation of an intent or design."

you can have an elaborate 'idea' and be arrested without ever having acted.

Without an overt act, there is no criminal conspiracy.

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 right to express an opinion is not dependent on whether you can do what you say you'd like to do. It's illegal to smoke marijuana in my State. I can, however, talk all about how I'd like to buy marijuana. I can go up to a police officer and tell him - "I seriously intend to buy some marijuana later." I can conspire with my friend - right in front of a cop - that we "plan to go downtown to Main Street and Campus Drive, and find a dealer who is usually hanging around down there. On the way we're going to rob a liquor store to get the money. And, when we get to Main and Campus we're going to buy drugs and get higher than a kite." There is no crime there. We've even "conspired" together about committing a crime and announced our intention to do so....but, we haven't committed an overt act in furtherance of that crime.

The idea and the action are directly linked.

Absolutely. Ideas and actions are directly linked, quite often. However, that doesn't mean there is no distinction between them.

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.

That's just false. Adultery, in some places, is illegal, but advocating the benefits of adultery is not. Marijuana use is illegal in some places, and the advocacy of its benefits is not. People are not prohibited from talking about it or thinking about it, just because the act is illegal. And, there is a fucking huge difference between making marijuana use illegal and making TALKING ABOUT marijuana use illegal. If you make talking about it illegal then people will get arrested for talking (including advocating changes in the law, saying it should be legal, saying they want to do it, etc.). There are millions of circumstances where people talk about marijuana use, talking about how great it is, talk about how much they want to do it, and even talk about how they have done it or will do it despite the law against it.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Anyone who opposes State action when the "good guys" is a libertarian. Didn't you know that?

[owtth]

If I say, "I'm going to murder you!" - I have not committed a crime, and I would not be arrested.

Hate to butt in but under English law, that can be a crime.

[Hermit]

I know, I know. Silly me. Obviously not everything that quacks like a duck is a duck.

I, for one, and it appears RuleBritannia for another, understand how idiotic is that you folks can't separate ideas from actions.

The various hate-law legislations are based on the recognition - to adapt Bulwer-Lytton's adage - that the word is mightier than the sword. Yes, I agree with many of your objections, chiefly the problem regarding who is going to determine the criteria by which an expression is deemed to be a crime? I also regard many aspects of the hate-crime laws as utterly idiotic, especially the ones protecting the sensitivities of theists from criticism of religion. In fact I cannot conceive of a more ill-designed class of laws in western democracies than hate-crime laws, except for the laws forbidding holocaust denial (which are not merely ill-designed, but more importantly ill conceived). We do have some common ground, Coito ergo sum, but disagreement as well. Where to go from here?

[Pappa]

If I say, "I'm going to murder you!" - I have not committed a crime, and I would not be arrested.

Hate to butt in but under English law, that can be a crime.

"Threat to Kill" - Offences Against the Person Act 1861

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under Section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate.

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.ph ... ts_to_kill

[Pappa]

The various hate-law legislations are based on the recognition - to adapt Bulwer-Lytton's adage - that the word is mightier than the sword. Yes, I agree with many of your objections, chiefly the problem regarding who is going to determine the criteria by which an expression is deemed to be a crime? I also regard many aspects of the hate-crime laws as utterly idiotic, especially the ones protecting the sensitivities of theists from criticism of religion. In fact I cannot conceive of a more ill-designed class of laws in western democracies than hate-crime laws, except for the laws forbidding holocaust denial (which are not merely ill-designed, but more importantly ill conceived). We do have some common ground, Coito ergo sum, but disagreement as well. Where to go from here?

In England and Wales... harassment laws are defined in terms of the victim feeling harassed. As for "who is going to determine the criteria", that is always the jury. All they have to do is reasonably suppose the victim felt harassed to the point at which it caused them some suffering/distress (or however the law is worded).

One of the problems with the laws as they stand is that the harasser need not 'intentionally' act to cause harassment to be guilty of a crime, but merely knowing that their actions are likely to cause harassment is enough. So abusing someone's religious beliefs, in the knowledge that it might cause them to feel harassed (even if you don't believe yourself that it constitutes harassment) could get you some serious penalties.

I do think we should have harassment laws, but the way they are currently defined here encourages their [mis-]use for merely causing offence.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I say, "I'm going to murder you!" - I have not committed a crime, and I would not be arrested.

Hate to butt in but under English law, that can be a crime.

Apparently, so is telling someone they're sinning and might go to hell.

That's why the thread is about freedom of speech taking another tumble.

[Coito ergo sum]

I know, I know. Silly me. Obviously not everything that quacks like a duck is a duck.

I, for one, and it appears RuleBritannia for another, understand how idiotic is that you folks can't separate ideas from actions.

The various hate-law legislations are based on the recognition - to adapt Bulwer-Lytton's adage - that the word is mightier than the sword. Yes, I agree with many of your objections, chiefly the problem regarding who is going to determine the criteria by which an expression is deemed to be a crime? I also regard many aspects of the hate-crime laws as utterly idiotic, especially the ones protecting the sensitivities of theists from criticism of religion. In fact I cannot conceive of a more ill-designed class of laws in western democracies than hate-crime laws, except for the laws forbidding holocaust denial (which are not merely ill-designed, but more importantly ill conceived). We do have some common ground, Coito ergo sum, but disagreement as well. Where to go from here?

Frankly, based on this post, I can't see where we have disagreement.

It sometimes seems to me that people will disagree with what another person says, even if they agree on the point, because there is some larger disagreement on general politics or philosophy. I suspect that might be the issue here. You seem to agree on this issue, but don't want to really agree with me because you want to make sure you disagree with me in general.

I mean - do you think a person should be arrested for saying that someone else is committing sins? That's what happened here. If you think arresting a person under those circumstances is a knock against free speech, then we are in FULL agreement. Why is it so hard to just say that we agree on that point?

[Hermit]

I know, I know. Silly me. Obviously not everything that quacks like a duck is a duck.

I, for one, and it appears RuleBritannia for another, understand how idiotic is that you folks can't separate ideas from actions.

The various hate-law legislations are based on the recognition - to adapt Bulwer-Lytton's adage - that the word is mightier than the sword. Yes, I agree with many of your objections, chiefly the problem regarding who is going to determine the criteria by which an expression is deemed to be a crime? I also regard many aspects of the hate-crime laws as utterly idiotic, especially the ones protecting the sensitivities of theists from criticism of religion. In fact I cannot conceive of a more ill-designed class of laws in western democracies than hate-crime laws, except for the laws forbidding holocaust denial (which are not merely ill-designed, but more importantly ill conceived). We do have some common ground, Coito ergo sum, but disagreement as well. Where to go from here?

Frankly, based on this post, I can't see where we have disagreement.

It sometimes seems to me that people will disagree with what another person says, even if they agree on the point, because there is some larger disagreement on general politics or philosophy. I suspect that might be the issue here. You seem to agree on this issue, but don't want to really agree with me because you want to make sure you disagree with me in general.

You pretty much got that right.

I was trying to summarise our common ground, but our fundamental difference is hinted at in the first sentence. Yes, ideas are different to actions in several ways, but I cannot see how the expression, advocacy and propagation of some of them ("in my opinion Jews must be exterminated" to pick a hypothetical example) are not even more in need of legislative sanctions (if that is even possible) than, say, killing a Jew because he is a Jew.


Pappa, thanks for the information regarding intent. You have obviously looked into the issue at length.

[Coito ergo sum]

I know, I know. Silly me. Obviously not everything that quacks like a duck is a duck.

I, for one, and it appears RuleBritannia for another, understand how idiotic is that you folks can't separate ideas from actions.

The various hate-law legislations are based on the recognition - to adapt Bulwer-Lytton's adage - that the word is mightier than the sword. Yes, I agree with many of your objections, chiefly the problem regarding who is going to determine the criteria by which an expression is deemed to be a crime? I also regard many aspects of the hate-crime laws as utterly idiotic, especially the ones protecting the sensitivities of theists from criticism of religion. In fact I cannot conceive of a more ill-designed class of laws in western democracies than hate-crime laws, except for the laws forbidding holocaust denial (which are not merely ill-designed, but more importantly ill conceived). We do have some common ground, Coito ergo sum, but disagreement as well. Where to go from here?

Frankly, based on this post, I can't see where we have disagreement.

It sometimes seems to me that people will disagree with what another person says, even if they agree on the point, because there is some larger disagreement on general politics or philosophy. I suspect that might be the issue here. You seem to agree on this issue, but don't want to really agree with me because you want to make sure you disagree with me in general.

You pretty much got that right.

That doesn't make much sense.

I disagree with Hitler on most everything, but if he said the sky was blue I wouldn't be afraid to agree with him. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty and dogmatism. Truth is truth, despite whether there is a greater capital-T "Truth" to be concerned about. I disagree with Obama, for example, on a lot of things, most of his economic policies, his health care legislation, cap and trade, cancelling the Constellation program, his increase of government "faith based initiatives," etc., but I applaud him greatly on his acknowledgement of non-believers and his position that this is not a "Christian nation."

I was trying to summarise our common ground, but our fundamental difference is hinted at in the first sentence. Yes, ideas are different to actions in several ways, but I cannot see how the expression, advocacy and propagation of some of them ("in my opinion Jews must be exterminated" to pick a hypothetical example) are not even more in need of legislative sanctions (if that is even possible) than, say, killing a Jew because he is a Jew.

Well, considering that the thread is about a preacher telling someone they are sinning, and not anything about killing, there is really no need to bring up extreme examples. I think we can all agree that just because we can make a law against, say, conspiracy to commit murder, it doesn't mean that ANY censorship of speech is somehow just as justified as any other.

Further, there is an argument that it is better that it is better that those with the opinion that X must be exterminated be given their voice because it allows us to better know who holds those views, and why they hold them, and then counter those ideas. To make it illegal to say X, Y or Z, does not eliminate the idea. You can't stop an idea because ideas are contained in people's heads. Plus, when you make expression of an idea illegal, you breathe life into it. You say "this is a dangerous idea" - too dangerous to be allowed to be heard. If an idea is worthless and false, it's generally not dangerous at all. Making it illegal give it the implicit imprimatur of power, of force, and people then conclude that "They" don't want "Us" to know the "Truth."