Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Freedom Of Speech?

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by Anxiety69, May 15, 2010.

  1. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    Ok, I know there is already a debate about this, but it is in a thread called favorite anarchist philosiphers... so i thought i should ask this question in a new thread. I personally do not beleive in freedom of speech for nazis and fascists, mainly because recruting people towards hatered and being able to preach hatered to children and the weak minded is not ok in my book. anyways..

    Do you think you should have freedom of speech to say 'I HAVE A BOMB' on an airplane?

    Do you think you should have freedom of speech to say "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater?

    Do you think you should have freedom of speech to say "I am going to kill you" or "i am going to rape your children"?
     

  2. Protspecd

    ProtspecdExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    466

    0

    0

    Mar 3, 2010
     
    It is a tough question to be honest. It may seem easy to some but this is where morals come in and obviously morals are different for each person. I think freedom of speech should be tolerated up until the point to which it oppresses others (not choices). What I mean by 'not choices' is you can choose what you want to believe in and others are allowed to express themselves against that. But people who give hate speeches on things like skin colour, sexuality, mental/physical illnesses and conditions, should not be tolerated. Sure you have a right to say what ever you want, I can't stop you but being tolerated for what you have said is another thing. Of coarse I am just summing up my ideas so I may miss out on things and I may get misinterpreted or whatever.

    Sure you have freedom to say those things but they should not be tolerated as it is used to terrify people and to cause harm. Hopefully you get what I am saying..
     
  3. AtomicKhaos

    AtomicKhaosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    0

    0

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    if someone wants to put people's lives in danger or themselves in danger... they are going to have to accept the consequences of their actions.

    now for people who actually do something completely immorale (rape, child molestation, murder for race etc) you should fucking die.
     
  4. punkmar77

    punkmar77Administrator Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    5,425

    76

    618

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Absolutely not on all three counts, that is what these people don't understand ...hatespeech is equally not an acceptable form of free speech...never mind what the laws say, fuck the laws, it is a question of ethics. It is not right to cause people the danger of death by shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre just as it is not right to cause people the danger of death by declaring that all jews, wetbacks, and ni**ers should be wiped off the face of the earth to make way for the master race. Its not a free speech issue, it's a matter of life or death. If you don't understand this as a basic truth then there is nothing more I can say to illustrate it.
     
  5. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    Actually you said it very well and helped illuminate my point.
     
  6. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    What piss me off is that those peoples pretend to agree giving freedom of speech to the nazis because they are not a threat and because there is no imminent revolution...

    But who could have prediced the rise of hitler ? In germany everyone ignored the nazis because they thought it wasn't a threat, even after trying to make a Coup d'Etat they kept ignoring them, in russia everyone ignored the neo-nazis because they thought they would always stay a minority, in spain everyone ignored franco because they thought he wasn't a threat, in italy everyone ignored mussolini, etc....

    ... And look what happenned to those countries

    I know i repeat myself again, but all revolutionnaries in the history used censorship against their ennemies. So far nobody proved me wrong, so far nobody provided ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE where freedom of speech for the hateful peoples was tolerated in an anarchist revolution or in an anarchist insurrection.

    Remember what the spanish revolutionnaries said..... NO PASARAN !!! This doesn't mean tolerating and allowing your ennemies to spread their lies, their hate, and their propaganda on the public space.
     
  7. drumdestroyer15

    drumdestroyer15Active Member Forum Member


    30

    0

    0

    Sep 6, 2009
     
    i haven't read all the comment's but simply i believe ppl should be able do to whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others, the same goes for speech. . . . and thats where nazism comes in, if your speech supports hurting someone then fuck you!!!!!!!
     
  8. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    No offense, but I question the value of this exercise. I think most of the issue has already been explored. While I respect and support the desire to keep threads on point, after 10 pages or so I'm not sure there's much point.

    No. If it is expressed in such a way that the other person would take it seriously, three of those statements are direct threats, therefore criminal. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is not necessarily a threat, but the emotional impact is the same. It's treated about the same. I think this makes sense.

    Before someone charges this is incompatible with what I've said earlier, and it isn't, I will explain;
    Promoting neo-nazism may be perceived as threatening by certain people but it may not actually specifically constitute a threat. It's the same rule; I can say "I'd like to kill you." but not "I'm going to kill you." It's the same if someone said "We should get rid of all the jews." as opposed to "We're going to get rid of all the jews." All these statements are abhorrent, but not all are criminal. Even free speech technically has limits, however, they should be kept to a minimum if we want a free and democratic society.
     
  9. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    you are a chicken shit if you allow anyone to say "We should get rid of all the jews." Fuck that. If that's free speech i want no part of it. Spreading around ideas like that mean you are hoping someone will act on it. You may as well be a nzai sympathizer if u are going to allow that shit.
     
  10. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Admin Team Experienced member


    4,294

    41

    23

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 32 years old
    Canada Canada
    Again you are talking in law terms, you sound like a capitalist lawyer

    If yelling "fire!" in a movie theater is emotional impact, then racism is also emotional impact, yelling "fuck the jews fuck niggers hail hitler sieg heil white power" in a black community is also emotional impact, homophobia is also emotional impact, same for sexism and all kind of hate. Like you say it's treated about the same !!

    you can't defend your point of view, you keep being more and more contradictory

    And again you are talking in law terms. Basically if we follow everything you say, the current laws are perfect because it only limit freedom of speech if you say death threats

    it's not as black as white you think... things like "sieg heil hail hitler" are direct apology of nazism and therefore IT IS A THREAT. Your rule is shit, just like the rest of your ideas.

    hahahahaha you are finally admitting that free speech has limit, it's funny because you argued during 20 pages that limiting free spoeech would be fascism and authoritarism. you said that you can't break someone's freedom of speech without breaking everyone's freedom of speech, blah blah blah
     
  11. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    If you give Nazis free speech, then the only thing they would use that for is to promote more racial offences and verbally abuse minorities in public, which would certainly lead to conflicts and fights. Should they be given that right, then of course since they are racists, they would use that right to provoke others, not defend themselves.
     
  12. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    I don't see why his is so difficult for people to comprehend. I am NOT defending hate speech. I am NOT suggesting we passively listen to hate speech. What I am saying is that without free speech a free and democratic society is absolutely impossible. I'm also saying that we shouldn't use force/violence against people simply for speaking or writing who aren't directly threatening to harm anyone.
     
  13. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    Unbelievable. You dont get it that people spreading that message are not spreading it to hear themselves talk but hoping to get others to act on it? That is a direct threat in my opinion.
     
  14. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    So, you're ready to prosecute people for their hopes. How do you envision a free and democratic society that prosecutes people for their feelings or opinions? You're going to have to build a lot more prisons.

    There is a difference. No intent is expressed. What we define as criminal is when someone expresses both the desire to do someone harm, and the intent to act on that desire.
     
  15. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    if their hope is to kill or spread words which they hope will lead to killing people then yes.

    Prosecute? it's not like i plan on putting any one on trial.

    Bologna. They would not be welcome in an anarcho society in the first place.

    WE??? That does not speak to or represent myself.
     
  16. Lunadimae

    LunadimaeExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    229

    0

    1

    Mar 1, 2010
     
    I think I got your point, but as long as their "hopes" include racism then we should not tolerate them. Instead of building prisons, we could try to show them the "error" of their ways. The intent that is expressed when a racist blogger for example posts is to spread his message and opinions to his readers, and since he is racist then he would be spreading racist messages to his readers, and those readers will spread messages to others and thus creating a chain reaction which will lead to those racists that were influenced by the blogger to not tolerate any other race which definitely means numerous conflicts.
     
  17. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Nobody suggested otherwise.
     
  18. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    Yes there was, in the circumstances of postwar Germany, which are not the circumstances of present-day America or Canada.

    No, I’m not saying that.

    This simply isn’t possible today, or in the foreseeable future.

    No it’s not. You know I assumed most of this is so simple and basic it doesn’t require explanation. The fact that language is emotive is not the relevant issue, what makes it criminal is expressing both the desire and intent to cause harm.

    I never denied it, I just assumed it was so simple and basic everyone already understood it.In fact I explained it, threatening to kill someone does not qualify as free speech.

    That’s exactly what you’ve been suggesting.

    You almost got it for a second.

    Again, “capitalist language” is like “Jewish physics.”

    Second, are you even capable of admitting that some of the things our governments do actually make sense? Are you so blind you can’t perceive that? It makes sense that rape and murder are prohibited, and they would be equally prohibited in an Anarchist society.

    Truth;
    It’s not my fault you can’t understand that joining the army is not a right.

    Should they? Or should they be allowed to? I’d say “No”, to the former, and “Unfortunately, yes.” to the latter.

    Ignoring someone is not fascist. If I forcibly restricted what you could say, that would be fascist. Also you keep ignoring or not understanding the answers and just repeating the same questions.

    No, it isn’t a public forum. It belongs to……whoever. You probably know. The town square is a public forum, the internet as a whole is public, individual websites are private.

    I never said it was.

    You’re deliberately misconstruing the issue. I believe that capital; factories, etc., should belong to the stakeholders, the employees, equally. However, the contents of my sock drawer are mine, and my home is mine.

    That is a choice based on whoever owns or runs this thing. They have the right to shut it down anytime or do whatever they want.

    I was making a point. There is no such thing as “capitalist language” just as there is no such thing as “Jewish physics.”

    That’s not remotely what I said.

    I would suggest Adolph Hitler’s probably not the person you want to take advice from. Especially on how to achieve a free and democratic society, I’d say he’s supremely unqualified for that.

    If they kill people or beat them up, committing actual crimes, they should pay for it. You want to punish people for things you think they might possibly do.

    Do you want a revolution? (In the vulgar, simplistic terms in which you understand it.) Or, do you want a free and democratic society? Which do you want more?

    I never suggested doing nothing.

    If they ACTUALLY commit crimes they would be immediately punished. You want to punish people for thinking about committing crimes.

    Dictatorships override all human rights, especially free speech. (You’re keeping great company.) They MUST be overthrown by force, first because there’s no other choice, and second, most importantly, because they have committed actual crimes against actual people.

    I don’t think you’re an Anarchist so I don’t see why you should care.
     
  19. NGNM85

    NGNM85Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    459

    0

    0

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    We're not talking about people who have any indicated intent. That's been said a million times.

    Ok.....fine. Is "punish" a more acceptable word?

    What do you do with people who are already in the society? How do you enforce, emphasis on "force", ideological purity?

    You know what I mean, in fact most of these statements lead me to believe you're being coy or willfully dense. That's counterproductive.
     
  20. Anxiety69

    Anxiety69Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    2,342

    5

    156

    Oct 18, 2009
     
    takes one to know one I guess. seriously though i was simply saying i don't feel i should be generalized in your use of the word WE, based on what you were inferring, because it does not represent how i feel about the matter.

    and for fuck sake you ignored my post about there is absolutely intent if someone says 'we should kill all the whatever" and i cant believe you deny it.
     

3 members have read this thread this month

  1. The Hat
  2. Red Menace
  3. punkmar77
Loading...
Similar Threads - Freedom SpeechForumDate
Freedom of speechGeneral political debatesMar 26, 2016
BCT #27 - Experience The Freedom Of Total Control - 1986 (U$A)Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsMay 27, 2015
Knives and Forks for Freedom - Environmentally Friendly Ep - 2013 (Canada)Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsNov 24, 2013
Anarcrust - Freedom Of Coalescence [APN]Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsJul 10, 2013
Iconoclast - 1995 - Who Does The Freedom And Equality Exist For (7'' Ep) [APN]Anarcho-Punk music albums downloadsJul 10, 2013