|
While in transition, I would never like it if someone was in my face cursing or being rude as hell.
But, on the contrary, We need to support a person's freedom whatever the case of the situation.
Freedom of Speech is what people strive for and what people respect us for in the United States. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Limiting hate speech and violent speech IS limiting speech, but that is not wrong because the first
amendment, which supersedes the right to free speech, is the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Hate speech and violent speech might abridge a person's enjoyment of life, and make him or her feel
threatened, unsafe, maligned or insecure.
The second amendment cannot come before the first amendment.
You have the basic right to be happy. You can say anything you want as long as you do not abridge
other people's rights to feel safe. Hate speech would take away a select group's opportunity to
feel happy, secure, safe, and so on. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Want to know how to battle hatred and verbal violence? The truth. Because people will want to define
hatred. My positions that are more so conservative than liberated time and time again are considered
hate speech if I voice my opinion. Which isn't fair to me just because someone disagrees with me. I
have good reason to what I believe in these views.
But that is everyday talk that people are being insensitive to me and trying to play a victim to
oppress my view. An unfair and punk tactic. But when you face people like that, You kinda already
won.
But for those who incite violent behavior and mean harm, we needn't interpret this behavior. It is
blunt and could not be anymore obvious. You have to have reason to confide your point. 'I don't
believe homosexuality is right' is different from 'I hate the people separated from normal people
because they are homosexuals.'
I agree, Michael Savage is way crude. He plays on conservative values while being obnoxious and
taking advantage of Freedom of Speech. Many times he has no class when speaking, and he corrupts
what class he does have (only because he sides with some old fashioned values.) I like Sean Hannity,
he is more humble. But he does that lib-er-al translation junk which annoys me. Like he treats
viewers like a kid. But that has since been added when colmes stepped off. I miss that show.
EDIT:
WOOPS WRONG SIDE. I DO THIS TOO OFTEN. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Britain, or those in power, who have imposed this ban, seem to be in a bit of a dilemma. Their
speech has created quite of bit of hatred and maybe some desire to do violence. Their own action is
a violation, and itself is a form of a "hate speech" crime. How can they label these folks as hate
mongers without engendering hate themselves. Should these folks who are spreading hate about the
Michael Savages and Fred Phelps be banned from England, themselves? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe it is limiting free speech to do that.
As long as someone does it in their own domain and does not physically hurt someone, I am okay with
that. The problem comes when people get hurt.
Now, I am all for working out your problems in a constructive way, but let's be realistic: Not
everyone does that. So let people say what they want, as long as nobody is getting hurt. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Governments can easily define any dissenting opinion which criticizes the government as hate speech
and a threat to national security. Saying some speech can be banned opens the door for any speech
to be banned. It all comes down to who controls the definition and frankly the common person seldom
wields that control. Making constitutional protections to free speech is a wise protection of all
our liberties.
People in free societies should be able to say ANYTHING THEY WANT. And just the same you have every
right to voice your counter opinion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It most defiantly is. Free speech is the right to speak your mind and state your opinions without
limitations or the possibility of being prosecuted. If you opinions and thoughts happen to be
hateful and somewhat "violent" (even though speech shouldn't be described as violent in my eyes)
then who is anyone to take that right away from you? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You can ban words or language, that's just dumb (suince when is asini ine a bad word?...come on
really, what are you gona do arrest me for saying a bad word ahaha maybe ground me |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
You are so wrong i actually came out of retirement to disagree with you (don't get excited
(scared?), I'm going back) i hope you can understand the parentheses within the parentheses.
Anyway, limiting speech of any kind is, by definition, limiting free speech. It only takes a little
bit of common sense to understand this.
You can try to make the argument that people shouldn't have 100% free speech if you want, but don't
limit peoples free speech and pretend you're not. That just makes you a fascist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Who gets to define these terms? This is a slippery slope and it opens the door to more confining
speech laws in the future. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
While I acknowledge there is a grey area I abhor the idea of any government being directly involved
in defining acceptable public speech. It is in the nature of government that they will attempt to
increase and abuse such powers. Barring statements that cause immediate danger to health, such as
the old standby of shouting fire in a crowded theater, I think that limiting such speech must be a
social response rather than a legal one. Society might not be able to stop someone directly from
saying what they please but we need not provide forum, attention, or credence to hate speech. For
example on this site, there is no reason the moderators can’t remove comments or debates that they
find offensive. You mention Fred Phelps who among other things is famous for protesting funerals,
an interesting and effective social response to this was a number of bikers who took it upon
themselves to counter their protests and shield family members from Phelps crew. In a nearby city
the KKK applied to clean a section of highway in return for the sign saying as much, which is common
practice here in the states. They were denied this thing and so sued for the right. They won the
case in the state supreme court. In response a social organization lobbied for a section of highway
to be renamed the Rosa Parks memorial highway and offered to the KKK. The proposition was accepted
and enacted. For obvious reasons the KKK declined the proffered opportunity. Legally freedom of
speech applies even to people that many might find offensive. Socially we have many ways to censure
unacceptable speech. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, it is limiting Free Speech. I understand that some speech is hateful and wrong, ignorant and
stupid, but that isn't the point. The point is that, if I expect to have my rights to Free Speech,
then it would make me a hypocrite to demand limits on someone else's words(regardless of how stupid
they are). |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes it is limiting free speech, and yes the British government should do it. Complete freedom of
speech means being able to say what you want, when you want, to who you want. The British government
has limited this because people are using the freedom to infringe on other people's freedoms such as
privacy and protection. That justifies their actions (or at least, provides a theoretical
justification if such things were being said) but it doesn't change the fact that they are limiting
freedom of speech. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If facts are banned because someone labels them as "hateful", then it is an infringement on free
speech. For example:
Denying the holocaust is hate speech. It is not hate speech, however, to point out that the
Israeli military is targeting civilians to terrorize, is using illegal weapons against civilian
populations (e.g. Carpet bombs in Lebanon and white phosphorus in Gaza) or that the Israeli
military is using Palestinians as human shields.
Www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO5qhvbiQgM
Tying Palestinian civilians to the front of vehicles and forcing them to enter buildings ahead of
the Israeli Terrorist Force members is beyond inhuman.
Unfortunately, there are many who would like to see such factual speech be banned because it
disagrees with and disproves agendas and claims of liars.
Edit:
Quincel: " Also, is it targeting the civilians or the terrorist element, and if it is targeting
the civilians, is terror their aim?"
Targeting civilians has most definitely been the goal. Sonic booms over civilian populations in the
middle of the night (e.g. 2AM) are not directed at Hamas or the PLO. They were intended to cause
fear in children and also caused miscarriages. As well, cutting off water and destroying food crops
may have a slight effect on Hamas, but it is directed mainly at the civilian population.
Collective punishment, as it is called, was deemed a crime against humanity during the
Nuremburg trials, which makes me wonder why it is not called so now when Israel does it. Even
mention of the term collective punishment when discussing Gaza is called "anti-semitism". |
| |
 K9  09 May 2009 17:58
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
