Freedom Of Speech?

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..

 

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.

 

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!!!!!!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nobody suggested otherwise.

 

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.

 

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.