Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[Gokul43201]

Why do you think that this holocaust law is one of the worst things that happened to a free society which is still living in peace and equal human rights ?

I thought I spelled this out in my post.

It makes it less of a "free" society.

As for "equal human rights", everyone in China shares "equal human rights" too. If everyone has no rights, they all still have equal rights.

Vanesch keeps saying this and i asked him for a few examples as to why this law is so harmful. I am still waiting...

Mussolini had to wait over two decades before he learned why his fascist agenda was harmful to Italy, and he was doing a wee bit more than suppressing your right to expressing a specific opinion on a single issue.

Also, you say "most people are nut jobs". I say : that is NOT your call to make.

It's an opinion, and in the country I'm living in, we're still free to have these things and express them publicly, no matter how offensive they are to others. That's one of the reasons why I chose this country.

Besides, the rioting in Italy is an illustration of stupid behaviour of a minority of people.

It's what I called an example. A cow is an example of a mammal. Cows do not make up the majority of mammals.

What about the 59.9 million others ?

Most of them supported (explicitly or implicitly) the rise to power of Mussolini.

Admittedly, I was being inaccurate by calling most people "nutjobs". I actually think most people are better described as deluded. But by railing against my opinion, you've helped me make my point.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I didn't watch the links. But I think that as long as he's expressing his opinion, he should be *a priori* allowed to do so. There's however a difference between expressing one's opinion, and organizing a campaign or a call for doing illegal things. Public calls for violence are NOT the expression of an opinion, but are part of ORGANIZING an illegal act.
I'll try to illustrate the difference between two bordercases:
- saying that it is your opinion that the law should be changed such that (say), homosexuality should be persecuted and executed is your (stupid) right.
- calling to harm homosexuals is not an expression of your opinion, but is part of ORGANIZING a violent and illegal act, and is forbidden.

But even in the former case, you still remain responsible for what you say. If some people think they have suffered unfair damage because of your words, they can still sue you.
No. It is *organizing* illegal action.
Yes.
In as much as he wasn't part of ORGANIZING illegal action (and a public call for violence is ORGANIZING an illegal act, and not an expression of an opinion), then he's a priori not responsible for the acts of deranged minds who got inspired by it in an indirect way. But if some potential victims think they are suffering damage from his expression of opinion, then they can still sue him.

"Freedom of the right to express your opinion" doesn't make you un-responsible for what you do ; I only understand by that "freedom" that you are a priori not put in jail for what you said in a systematic way. But you are still responsible for that, and it is up to a judge to find out, if somebody feels he suffered objective damage by your words, whether you are indeed responsible for that damage.
Your expression here is exactly an example of the kind of statement of opinion I think you should be entitled to make. There's a difference between your statement (it is your opinion), and a statement in which you call for all PF visitors to go that man's house and stab him with whatever sharp object you might get your hands on, which would cross the line ; in the latter case, you are trying to ORGANIZE a murder. In the former case, you express your opinion. If that man's opinion is that homosexuals are punished by his favorite deity, then he's entitled to say so, IMO. But if he calls for violence against them, he's trying to organize criminal action, and hence should be punished for that.

So no matter how hatefull or pointless something someone says is they should be able to do so without restriction, even if it could lead to people killing the target of there hateful rhetoric, for example if I as the KKK leader march down the road saying black people are chimpanzees they should be deported or thrown into prison, Americas purity is sacrosanct mexicans Jews, n*****s and all other races should have no place in the US, etc, etc, this is not likely to encourage hate crimes?

Since they are up 85% in the US against homosexuals do you think these preachers are having no impact, would it not make more sense to just say you can't discriminate on the basis of race, colour, sexuality, creed or age say than actually by keeping absolute freedom of speech increase the level of hate crime, and I'm sure all this anti homophobic stuff is a large source of the rise in hate crime; to justify your liberty, you agree with no responsibility?

The reason the law was brought in first against sexual discrimination then the rest is because under no circumstances are they ever of positive influence to anyone and they are considered morally repugnent. There is little point then in advocating people spewing pointless inanity at the expense of a more peaceful society IMO. And of course it's my opinion, I'm not talking science here

 

[russ_watters]

So no matter how hatefull or pointless something someone says is they should be able to do so without restriction, even if it could lead to people killing the target of there hateful rhetoric, for example if I as the KKK leader march down the road saying black people are chimpanzees they should be deported or thrown into prison, Americas purity is sacrosanct mexicans Jews, n*****s and all other races should have no place in the US, etc, etc, this is not likely to encourage hate crimes?

The legal precedent is quite clear on this. The KKK cannot be outlawed and its members cannot be prevented from lawfully demonstrating for their beliefs. That means that the government is required to provide them with police protection for their demonstrations. Only if the police believe they cannot reasonably handle the risk of a riot can a a permit application be turned down.

'I hate blacks' is protected.
'Blacks should be killed' is not.

The only place where the distinction is at all unclear is with symbolic speech (ie, cross burning) because you have to interpret it to figure out which one is implied.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the US then, protecting the rights of mindless biggots is pretty obviously not what freedom of speech was about. But then since it took so long to abolish slavery give black people the same rights under the law as white people, in the worlds first so called liberal democracy, what can you expect? I think you could get that passed through congress easy enough, few people want to see racial intolerance, thus it serves no purpose for them to spread there message. Same with anti gay, what you are in fact defending leads to more hate crimes, if you consider it from an ethical point of view do you think this makes much sense?

 

[Anttech]

Making the denial of a historical fact, and slandering and hurling abuse at another part of your community isn't related. So I would suggest that its outwith the scope of this thread.

Forcing a fact by the means of a Law is silly, its similar to making denying Gravity exists a law. These laws are past as political tools more often than not. Nazism still exists in Europe, with or without some stupid law forcing you to believe in a fact. Anti-Semitic thought is as stupid as a law restricting ones freedom to voice. The Caveat is when one crosses the line between encouraging Hate, and violence, and intellectual critic. THAT shouldn't be tolerated, not freedom to criticizes or attempt to criticizes. If one was to use a revisionism stance on the Holocaust as a means to perform Anti-semantic acts of violence then I would suggest that would and should be illegal, because you cross the line at that point.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Making the denial of a historical fact, and slandering and hurling abuse at another part of your community isn't related. So I would suggest that its outwith the scope of this thread.

Forcing a fact by the means of a Law is silly, its similar to making denying Gravity exists a law. These laws are past as political tools more often than not. Nazism still exists in Europe, with or without some stupid law forcing you to believe in a fact. Anti-Semitic thought is as stupid as a law restricting ones freedom to voice. The Caveat is when one crosses the line between encouraging Hate, and violence, and intellectual critic.

Probably technically in as is it ok to mock ideas or idealogies, is the title of the thread and since it's about freedom of speech I guess it's ok.

I think the problem is you don't have to call for direct action against someone to foster hatred, so if I say all muslims are worthless and should be deported back to abo jabo land or wherever they come from, they lazy and criminal and they blow people up. That is allowed in America, even though obviously by using such rhetoric you are encouraging violence in morons anyway. Before the law came in this is exactly the sort of rhetoric the BNP used, now it's illegal and IMO rightly so.

It's like the Mosque in Birmingham where a Cleric was spreading lies and misinformation about the kufer, as he called us, that we should introduce sharia and that homosexuals are scum and less than human etc(noticing a pattern here) Obviously this is going to cause descrimination, when a respected Imam is calling for Islamics to to bring about a Sharia system for muslims, but in America that's fine, even if someone does decide to blow you up, you can't stop people from saying what they want as long as they're not actively violent or encourage hatred directly, anything is fair game. But of course these people are swayed by this into terror anyway, even if there never is any direct mention of violence, they become fertile for the radical islamists to convert them to there cause.

 

[Anttech]

BTW If anyone does ever deny the holocaust suggest to them to visit Auschwitz, a harrowing monument to the evil's of Mankind.

I think the problem is you don't have to call for direct action against someone to foster hatred, so if I say all muslims are worthless and should be deported back to abo jabo land or wherever they come from, they lazy and criminal and they blow people up. That is allowed in America, even though obviously by using such rhetoric you are encouraging violence in morons anyway.

It's like the Mosque in Birmingham where a Cleric was spreading lies and misinformation about the kufer, as he called us, that we should introduce sharia and that homosexuals are scum and less than human etc, obviously this is going to cause descrimination, when a respected Imam is calling for Islamics to to bring about a Sharia system for muslims, but in America that's fine, even if someone does decide to blow you up, you can't stop people from saying what they want as long as they're not actively violent or encourage hatred directly, anything is fair game. But of course these people are swayed by this into terror anyway, even if there never is any direct mention of violence, they become fertile for the radical islamists to convert them to there cause.

I agree with you. But are you sure that you are allowed to publically incite hatred towards another group in America? Isnt it like Slander, you can't just print anything you want... Hmmm or can you?

 

[russ_watters]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the US then, protecting the rights of mindless biggots is pretty obviously not what freedom of speech was about.

Wow. Did you seriously just say that? Freedom of speech should exist for everyone except people you don't like/don't agree with? You sure that fits with the concept of freedom...?

You cannot appoint yourself arbiter of what is allowable and what is objectionable. Quite a lot of it (as others have already pointed out) is a matter of opinion.

I think you could get that passed through congress easy enough, few people want to see racial intolerance, thus it serves no purpose for them to spread there message.

Such laws get passed all the time by legislators who haven't read the Constitution and they get shot down by the Supreme Court just as fast.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow. Did you seriously just say that? Freedom of speech should exist for everyone except people you don't like/don't agree with? You sure that fits with the concept of freedom...?

You cannot appoint yourself arbiter of what is allowable and what is objectionable. Quite a lot of it (as others have already pointed out) is a matter of opinion. Such laws get passed all the time by legislators who haven't read the Constitution and they get shot down by the Supreme Court just as fast.

No I said and have kept saying that if a court of law decides their actions are ethically wrong then that is fine by me, not morally wrong not what I decide, ethically. If they don't like it they take it to a higher power. Ironically you have this system you just don't realize it and ours is more obvious. And with Bush in power you have no free speech anyway. He likes to pass laws that countermand the diplomatic or democratic process, and no doubt you have no problem with them?

 

[whatta]

No I said and have kept saying that if a court of law decides their actions are ethically wrong then that is fine by me, not morally wrong not what I decide, ethically.

and the difference is ...? courts are made of people, and laws are made by people. like you.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

and the difference is ...? courts are made of people, and laws are made by people. like you.

So you'd rather have increasing hate crime than have a system, whereby you could stop something that will never have any positive benfits? This is a theme with the US because you have a constituion(a pretty dumb idea anyway, laws are made to be broken) Although it works rather well mostly it's just that people seem to have difficulty with the 127 commandments,so they defend every law no matter how pointlessly inane in a modern context as if it was the revelation of God himself, such as the right to stockpile an arsenal, must be defended until you are dead, for to change it no matter how outdated most of it's ideas are and no matter how pointless giving people the right to stockpile weapons in the event they need to overthrow the governement, this is fine.

The right to free speech is a right that comes with responsibility if it doesn't then you need to make sure that people who have no idea of the concept do not poison the very reason for its foundation. I personally think the best way of going is to make sure those few things that everyone thinks are morally wrong are made subject to the courts, but as I can see, apparently your happy with people being stabbed or shot because of the influence of hatemongers, whether they pulled the trigger, or told someone to do it, or just said God hates f*** they have at least a part responsibility, I'd gag them and throw them all in jail personally where they can experience the evil of homosexuality first hand. And where their mindless idiocy doesn't poison the minds of any but there cell mates, and let's face it I suspect none of them would give a damn anyway.

 

[vanesch]

So no matter how hatefull or pointless something someone says is they should be able to do so without restriction, even if it could lead to people killing the target of there hateful rhetoric, for example if I as the KKK leader march down the road saying black people are chimpanzees they should be deported or thrown into prison, Americas purity is sacrosanct mexicans Jews, n*****s and all other races should have no place in the US, etc, etc, this is not likely to encourage hate crimes?

Under the caveats I posed (namely, expressing your opinion, and not *organizing* a crime), yes, one should be able to say all that. Maybe the moon also encourages hate crimes. In as much as there is no DIRECT CALL TO VIOLATE THE LAW, one should be able to say so. It would then illustrate what kind of person you are. And honestly, if this encourages someone to act, then that actor wasn't far from the borderline either. Anything might have "encouraged" him, such as the full moon, or a phrase in the bible or coran or whatever.

Since they are up 85% in the US against homosexuals do you think these preachers are having no impact, would it not make more sense to just say you can't discriminate on the basis of race, colour, sexuality, creed or age say than actually by keeping absolute freedom of speech increase the level of hate crime, and I'm sure all this anti homophobic stuff is a large source of the rise in hate crime; to justify your liberty, you agree with no responsibility?

Hey, if 85% in the US is against homosexuals (or replace it by any other target group) then there should be no difficulty *outlawing homosexual (or other target group) behavior in the constitution* ! What good is it to enforce 85% of the people to NOT say what they really think ?? *that* is democracy. Public opinion is like the market: nobody, in the long term, is stronger, and any attempt to counter it with rules will ultimately lead to disaster. That said, I have difficulties believing that 85% of the US population is "against homosexuals"...

The reason the law was brought in first against sexual discrimination then the rest is because under no circumstances are they ever of positive influence to anyone and they are considered morally repugnent.

But that is a matter of opinion too, and might change. It is entirely conceivable that certain people consider homosexual behavior (to stay with this specific example: I have personally nothing against them) itself morally repugnant, of bad influence to the youth, insulting their preferred deity etc...

So if it is accepted that, because SOMETHING IS CONSIDERED MORALLY REPUGNANT (by whom?), that we don't have the right to TALK ABOUT IT, then, given a majority of 85%, it might turn out one day that it is considered morally repugnant to talk about homosexuality in public ! And make a law over it.

It is because we live in a time where kind of "discrimination" is considered morally repugnant that we think we ought to forbid talking about it. But there may be times and places where people think otherwise, and where OTHER ideas are considered morally repugnant, such as insulting a specific deity or philosophy, or leader. It might be considered morally repugnant to criticize the president of the US...

Don't you see that the arbitrariness of the argument to forbid speech about things you don't like at the moment, can be used at any other moment to forbid speech about things where it is (now) considered important to talk about it ?

There is little point then in advocating people spewing pointless inanity at the expense of a more peaceful society IMO. And of course it's my opinion, I'm not talking science here

The problem is that the judgment of what is spewing pointless inanity is entirely arbitrary, and can one day be used to instore a form of totalitarianism.

 

[whatta]

...stop something that will never have any positive benfits

I have never seen a person doing a thing without hope for positive benefit. Apply that to whatever f**-haters do; you might not see any positive benefits, but they do. Which brings us back to question, why your opinion is decisive in this matter.

The right to <whatever> is a right that comes with responsibility

I hear this statement almost daily, but the thing is that responsibility is always there, even if there is no right. Every step you take assumes certain response of other people/environment/nature/etc, and so you shouldn't ask why your nose is broken if you picket gay funerals with some christian nonsense. You do not need new laws here, really.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Under the caveats I posed (namely, expressing your opinion, and not *organizing* a crime), yes, one should be able to say all that. Maybe the moon also encourages hate crimes. In as much as there is no DIRECT CALL TO VIOLATE THE LAW, one should be able to say so. It would then illustrate what kind of person you are. And honestly, if this encourages someone to act, then that actor wasn't far from the borderline either. Anything might have "encouraged" him, such as the full moon, or a phrase in the bible or coran or whatever.
Hey, if 85% in the US is against homosexuals (or replace it by any other target group) then there should be no difficulty *outlawing homosexual (or other target group) behavior in the constitution* ! What good is it to enforce 85% of the people to NOT say what they really think ?? *that* is democracy. Public opinion is like the market: nobody, in the long term, is stronger, and any attempt to counter it with rules will ultimately lead to disaster. That said, I have difficulties believing that 85% of the US population is "against homosexuals"...
But that is a matter of opinion too, and might change. It is entirely conceivable that certain people consider homosexual behavior (to stay with this specific example: I have personally nothing against them) itself morally repugnant, of bad influence to the youth, insulting their preferred deity etc...

So if it is accepted that, because SOMETHING IS CONSIDERED MORALLY REPUGNANT (by whom?), that we don't have the right to TALK ABOUT IT, then, given a majority of 85%, it might turn out one day that it is considered morally repugnant to talk about homosexuality in public ! And make a law over it.

It is because we live in a time where kind of "discrimination" is considered morally repugnant that we think we ought to forbid talking about it. But there may be times and places where people think otherwise, and where OTHER ideas are considered morally repugnant, such as insulting a specific deity or philosophy, or leader. It might be considered morally repugnant to criticize the president of the US...

Don't you see that the arbitrariness of the argument to forbid speech about things you don't like at the moment, can be used at any other moment to forbid speech about things where it is (now) considered important to talk about it ?

The problem is that the judgment of what is spewing pointless inanity is entirely arbitrary, and can one day be used to instore a form of totalitarianism.

Yes obviously, our laws mean we now live under a 1984 style government, a slippery slope fallacy if ever I heard one. As I said I "will defend the right to free speech no matter how much crime it fosters" it's kind of amusing really, that somehow a equates to b even though that is not what happens so since it does in imaginary situation world we'd rather stick with flawed b. It's like having a conversation about social welfare, put the name flower welfare on it and it's fine but don't ever use the S word because that's just commy talk

When will persecution of minorities ever become a positive?

I have never seen a person doing a thing without hope for positive benefit. Apply that to whatever f**-haters do; you might not see any positive benefits, but they do. Which brings us back to question, why your opinion is decisive in this matter.

This doesn't make any sense, something which is always considered wrong and never has any positive effect is ok because the f** haters think it is?

I hear this statement almost daily, but the thing is that responsibility is always there, even if there is no right. Every step you take assumes certain response of other people/environment/nature/etc, and so you shouldn't ask why your nose is broken if you picket gay funerals with some christian nonsense. You do not need new laws here, really.

No it isn't or morons like this wouldn't be allowed to poison the minds of people. Next I supose we should support the right of people to class women as inferior, and of course black women are nothing short of apes. And gay people are diseased and sinfull, so in essense the worse kind of person or should I say animal is a black lesbian. You'd support the right to march against all minority groups spewing hatred essentially no matter how much crime it caused?

 

[marlon]

I thought I spelled this out in my post.

It makes it less of a "free" society.

Why ? What you say is very vague. Please give me some examples where this law restricts the freedom of speach. I live in a country where this law is valid and i really do not feel that i ain't free.

As for "equal human rights", everyone in China shares "equal human rights" too. If everyone has no rights, they all still have equal rights.

No, clearly you have no clue as to how things in China work. Besides, the societies i named (like most western european countries) provide their inhabitants with a certain amount of basic wealth. This is not like in China and it were those differences i wanted to point out.

Mussolini had to wait over two decades before he learned why his fascist agenda was harmful to Italy, and he was doing a wee bit more than suppressing your right to expressing a specific opinion on a single issue.

Mussolini ? Why are you talking about him ? Clearly you are dodging here. I mean, i asked to name some harmful stuff the holocaust ban created in our societies. This is your answer ? I am still waiting for those specfifc examples.

It's an opinion, and in the country I'm living in, we're still free to have these things and express them publicly, no matter how offensive they are to others. That's one of the reasons why I chose this country.

Well, and i disagree with your opinion which is purely based upon prejudice and which is insulting.

It's what I called an example. A cow is an example of a mammal. Cows do not make up the majority of mammals.

Yes, but it is an example that does not make any sense. That is what i wanted to say.

Most of them supported (explicitly or implicitly) the rise to power of Mussolini.

Man, we were talking about soccer riots. Why do you bring in Mussolini ? Strawman...

Admittedly, I was being inaccurate by calling most people "nutjobs". I actually think most people are better described as deluded.

Whatever...But i disagree with your opinion that YOU can assess the mental quality of others. Hey, maybe we are all deluded, so what's the problem ?

But by railing against my opinion, you've helped me make my point.

I am asking you to clarify your point and i am explaining why i disagree. I would say that is a pretty basic approach, no ?


marlon

 

[marlon]

But I GAVE you some examples:
-McCarthy-ism
-that near-law about colonization in France

Huh ? These "near-laws" (which do not even exist ) have NOTHING to do with the ban on holocaust. Nor were ther "triggered" by its existence. Again, what harmful things did the ban do specifically ?

As Gokul said, I put a very very high value to "being able to express my opinion" because it is, historically, a VERY VERY RARE GOOD.

I completely agree.

I think it is one of the most precious things one can have, and that OPENING THE DOOR TO RESTRICTING THAT, even for the best of reasons (such, I'm sure, were those that inspired the people that were emotionally shocked by the horrors of WWII) is a very bad thing,

But there is NO restriction. Look at Belgium, you can say ANYTHING you want here AND we have the ban ! Look at reality and stop speculating in fear of "what may happen if ...".

There are two reasons why I think that being able to express one's opinion is so valuable. The first reason is that I think that it is a fundamental human need to be able to express what he/she thinks. It is a kind of torture to being convinced of something, and not having the right of saying so, under the thread of being punished by society, simply for saying so. The second reason is more pragmatical, and is this: I think that being able to freely express one's opinion is the very first protection against totalitarianism.

Agreed

Totalitarianism always STARTS by punishing those that do not agree publicly with the credo of the moment. So as long as one can hold on to that absolute freedom of being able to say PUBLICLY THAT ONE DOES NOT AGREE (no matter how stupid and horrible those statements may sound at a certain moment), one has a guarantee against totalitarianism.

TRUE, but i am sorry to say that this is all irrelevant. I already explained how the holocaust ban fits perfectly into a free society LIKE WE KNOW !

So it might be ironically sad, that a law, initially inspired by people who wanted to counter a specific form of totalitarianism which was Nazism, destroyed, in doing so, in fact the ultimate protection against totalitarianism in general, by creating a precedent which justified a totalitarian regime to put people in jail for expressing publicly their ideas.

You are speculating again because this is NOT what happens in reality. Look at the facts !

Besides i already told you that the ban is "not just a law against ..."

marlon

 

[whatta]

This doesn't make any sense, something which is always considered wrong [by Schrodinger's Dog] and never has any positive effect [for Schrodinger's Dog] is ok because the f** haters think it is?

I think we have just reached the point where our further conversation is pointless :(

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I think we have just reached the point where our further conversation is pointless :(

I never said me, are you not getting it, I said by the courts ie not me, by a jury of peers, by the legal system, by the European courts if necessary, by the rule of law, Jesus H Corbett. What have I got to do with that? Apart from my democratic right to vote? Did I make the law, do I enforce it? Am I the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, no society is and parliament who passes laws based on the ethical consideration. Good gravy that's what they have think tanks for. To weight the social moral and ethical concerns of society and to consider the repurcussions of passing laws. Honestly I had no say in this law, I just happen to agree with it.

 

[whatta]

I never said me

I know you didn't. I am unsubscribing now.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I know you didn't. I am unsubscribing now.

Good, you obviously completely disagree and there's no further dialogue going to happen. So you might as well, since you can't articulate why you believe what you do? Why bother?

 

[russ_watters]

I never said me, are you not getting it, I said by the courts ie not me, by a jury of peers, by the legal system, by the European courts if necessary, by the rule of law, Jesus H Corbett. What have I got to do with that? Apart from my democratic right to vote? Did I make the law, do I enforce it? Am I the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong, no society is and parliament who passes laws based on the ethical consideration. Good gravy that's what they have think tanks for. To weight the social moral and ethical concerns of society and to consider the repurcussions of passing laws. Honestly I had no say in this law, I just happen to agree with it.

What you are missing is that the courts are made up of individual people with individual points of view, biases, prejudices, etc., so it works exactly the same as if it were you. Heck, if you had the aspirations, motivations, and intelligence to, you could be on the Supreme Court too!

Either way, what you are saying is that there needs to be a body designated to judge propriety. Moreover even if you are right, that isn't the courts, its the legislature because it is the legislature's job to make laws. The court's only job is to judge if they are Constitutional. So if the power exists to regulate morality of speech, it is the legislature that exercises it. The courts can only rule that 'yes, this law regulates the morality of speech' and is therefore constitutional.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What you are missing is that the courts are made up of individual people with individual points of view, biases, prejudices, etc., so it works exactly the same as if it were you. Heck, if you had the aspirations, motivations, and intelligence to, you could be on the Supreme Court too!

Either way, what you are saying is that there needs to be a body designated to judge propriety. Moreover even if you are right, that isn't the courts, its the legislature because it is the legislature's job to make laws. The court's only job is to judge if they are Constitutional. So if the power exists to regulate morality of speech, it is the legislature that exercises it. The courts can only rule that 'yes, this law regulates the morality of speech' and is therefore constitutional.

Pretty much, and there is in every country anyway, it's called the government, I have no problem with a government making laws that protect people from violence, if I did I'd probably be voting for the BNP, or some other facist group like the conservatives .

 

[russ_watters]

But wait, the problem is much bigger than that. There is far too much unregulated speech going on for the legislature to be able to handle monitoring it. Agencies need to be created to monitor and censor all media for appropriate content. The FCC already exists, so we could just expand its powers for wireless media, but we'll also need an agency to monitor all print media, you know, to approve books and magazines before they are published.

S-D, what you are suggesting is precisely what freedom of speech exists to protect us against.

 

[russ_watters]

Pretty much, and there is in every country anyway, it's called the government, I have no problem with a government making laws that protect people from violence, if I did I'd probably be voting for the BNP, or some other facist group like the conservatives .

Wow, ok, well, I guess there we have it - you don't believe in the concept of freedom of speech. That's a rarity these days in the west, but ok. Ironically, though, freedom of speech exists to protect your right to say things that are so far from the mainstream.

 

[vanesch]

Yes obviously, our laws mean we now live under a 1984 style government, a slippery slope fallacy if ever I heard one.

Not yet, completely. But we are on our way, with all that legalize banning the non-politically-correct-of-the-day. A French satirical magazine (Charlie Hebdo) is right now in court for having reproduced the Danish caricatures, because it "has insulted the good honor of muslims"... (which brings us back to the OP).

EDIT: if I had it my way, I would rather impose laws which OBLIGE every citizen to ridicule at least one ritual-imposing religion per week, to avoid the "poisoning of the minds" with such ideas, which have been the single most important source of suffering (together with greed) throughout history

As I said I "will defend the right to free speech no matter how much crime it fosters"

All depends on HOW it "fosters crime". If it *directly* fosters crime, by calling to illegal action, then, as I said, this is not "the free expression of one's opinion", but rather the "organization of illegal action" and should be punished. However, if vaguely, it illustrates similar motives as those who commit crime, then the only way in which it "fosters crime" is that those who committed the crime saw that their kind of thinking was shared by others. If that's just what they needed, then I think anything else could have convinced them to act.

When will persecution of minorities ever become a positive?

When they become a nuisance.

No it isn't or morons like this wouldn't be allowed to poison the minds of people.

"Poison the minds of people", heyhey ! Who said 1984 ?
Inquisition talk ?

Next I supose we should support the right of people to class women as inferior, and of course black women are nothing short of apes. And gay people are diseased and sinfull, so in essense the worse kind of person or should I say animal is a black lesbian. You'd support the right to march against all minority groups spewing hatred essentially no matter how much crime it caused?

But we are ALL APES, primates, mammals

Ok, should we be allowed to say bad things about "muslim self-sacrificing defenders against the western imperialism", "organizers for successful people with money of parties with very very young boys and girls to have fun with ", "defenders of the word of god" ... or is saying negative things about these people "hate talk", which "fosters crime against minority groups" ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow, ok, well, I guess there we have it - you don't believe in the concept of freedom of speech. That's a rarity these days in the west, but ok. Ironically, though, freedom of speech exists to protect your right to say things that are so far from the mainstream.

No I believe in it as much as any European does, and how is it rare, if the entire EU is under this law? If you ask me it's pretty common?

You simply fail to grasp that promoting violence in any form by it directly or indirectly against minorites cannot - and most likely hopefully - will not ever be acceptable, for the record that's why America exists, but instead of fostering a nation that accepts all creeds colours and sexualities, it seems more ruled by loud mouth bigots who foster so much biterness and hatred for their fellow human beings and so little regard for the tennants of freedom of speech that even the most hateful crap is allowed? Is this logically consistant, or are you like most Americans guilty of taking and Idol and placing it up so high that even reason cannot touch it? What's the population of the EU? What's the population of the US, how does that make it unusual? I don't here people marching against breeches of their civil liberties, or maybe if they are they're just the minority biggots who lost out?

In essence the philosophy is discrimination against x minority are never acceptable morally, but in order to sustain it we must have some rules. Remember this only applies to certain groups and they are rarely expanded on so you slippery slope fallacy is not relevant.

 

[vanesch]

Huh ? These "near-laws" (which do not even exist ) have NOTHING to do with the ban on holocaust. Nor were ther "triggered" by its existence. Again, what harmful things did the ban do specifically ?

These situations were of a similar kind: legal action (or the intention to have) against people who expressed certain ideas.

But there is NO restriction. Look at Belgium, you can say ANYTHING you want here AND we have the ban ! Look at reality and stop speculating in fear of "what may happen if ...".

Well, the law itself is of this kind: "what may happen if we allow people to say something about the holocaust". It is all about "what if"s.

TRUE, but i am sorry to say that this is all irrelevant. I already explained how the holocaust ban fits perfectly into a free society LIKE WE KNOW !

As personally, I have no special desire to say anything about the holocaust as it is not a subject that interests me in any particular way, the specific contents of this law doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the CLASS of laws it belongs to: to put legal interdiction upon expressing my opinion. But I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which I got convinced, say, that the holocaust was just some kind of american/british propaganda for whatever political reason I could think of (in the same way as there are conspiration theories about the moon landing, aliens visiting us, and what other strange ideas). The idea that I could go to jail JUST FOR SAYING WHAT I THINK in that case, makes me sick, because I can also imagine VERY SIMILAR and real situations in which I could be convinced of something, and having the powers that are forbidding me to say exactly what I think. I *do* have some politically-not-correct ideas which I do think make sense (and no, they are not of the hate-speech kind), and the very idea that one day, I might go to jail for that, is repugnant.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not yet, completely. But we are on our way, with all that legalize banning the non-politically-correct-of-the-day. A French satirical magazine (Charlie Hebdo) is right now in court for having reproduced the Danish caricatures, because it "has insulted the good honor of muslims"... (which brings us back to the OP).

Well since the law says you shouldn't foster hate towards or against a religion, or incite violence and that's precisely what these cartoons did tough **** I never had any sympathy for the Danish Cartoonists anyway, childish people with no consideration for religious beliefs, just like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex, Idolotry is akin to this to a Muslim.

EDIT: if I had it my way, I would rather impose laws which OBLIGE every citizen to ridicule at least one ritual-imposing religion per week, to avoid the "poisoning of the minds" with such ideas, which have been the single most important source of suffering (together with greed) throughout history

That's just silly

All depends on HOW it "fosters crime". If it *directly* fosters crime, by calling to illegal action, then, as I said, this is not "the free expression of one's opinion", but rather the "organization of illegal action" and should be punished. However, if vaguely, it illustrates similar motives as those who commit crime, then the only way in which it "fosters crime" is that those who committed the crime saw that their kind of thinking was shared by others. If that's just what they needed, then I think anything else could have convinced them to act.

Come on we both know if your exposed to communities and social environments were such hate is common place your more likely to be hatefull and more likely to be prompted towards violence, an 80% rise in hate crime is a consequence of this religious war.

When they become a nuisance.

Define that?

"Poison the minds of people", heyhey ! Who said 1984 ?
Inquisition talk ?

True though, it does.

But we are ALL APES, primates, mammals

Yeah but we distinguish apes into few teirs above us so that's not true, we are on a technicality of self righteous superiority basically not apes? No I don't understand why either.

Ok, should we be allowed to say bad things about "muslim self-sacrificing defenders against the western imperialism", "organizers for successful people with money of parties with very very young boys and girls to have fun with ", "defenders of the word of god" ... or is saying negative things about these people "hate talk", which "fosters crime against minority groups" ?

Yes, you are over here? What's your point? Did I not explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable. Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case? I don't see your point here?

When you get people smashing up the homes of suspected paedophiles then you have a problem, but if the media choses to sensationalise the issue so much people are driven into a frenzy that's when the law steps in. Brasseye did an absolutely brilliant send up of sensationalising peadophillia, luckilly the papers took heed.

 

[whatta]

like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex

...with himself. Oh yeah, that was Jesus f***ing Christ, man, and I loved it!

I have unsubscribed but this thread is popping up in "New Posts" all the time, and I just had to.

Did I npt explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable.

Well so your point is that majority should vote to shut whoever they don't like up. Ok. Fine. Nice opinion of yours which I (and apparently few other people here) do not agree with. What's to discuss, again?

Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case?

Well he's kind of saying that what is right for one, is wrong for other one, and vice versa. Such a concept of values relativity appears to be something new to you, because you seem to believe there is one and only Right and Wrong approved by God, government, "vast majority" and you, and all the people who think otherwise have to be exterminated. Well. Good for you, I guess. As I sais, nice opinion.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I see so your against democracy now are you, since the people hold the power to vote in governments based on the sort of ideologies they present?

The rule of the majority is wrong? Is that what you mean?

around 493 million people seem to be fine with it? There certainly isn't rioting in the street. I say it passes the majority test...

All the other people have to be exterminated, no that's exactly what I meant

 

[vanesch]

Well since the law says you shouldn't foster hate towards or against a religion, or incite violence and that's precisely what these cartoons did tough **** I never had any sympathy for the Danish Cartoonists anyway, childish people with no consideration for religious beliefs, just like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex, Idolotry is akin to this to a Muslim.

And, as I said, I think one should IMPOSE every adherent to an organized religion to publicly ridicule it at least once a week. And consider that this very statement brings me on the borderline of going to court for that, while I'm seriously convinced it cannot do anything but good! Laughter and ridicule are the best weapon against any form of mind control (which, I'm convinced, is the essential purpose of any ritual-imposing religion), and nevertheless it is what is borderline ILLEGAL now (while I would like to see it enforced!). This is just an illustration of the harm that do all these forbidden-to-say-what's-not-politically-correct laws.

Come on we both know if your exposed to communities and social environments were such hate is common place your more likely to be hatefull and more likely to be prompted towards violence, an 80% rise in hate crime is a consequence of this religious war.

If "such hate is common place" then it is democratically part of society, and if you think that such laws will stop people telling in their backyard during private gatherings what they REALLY think, then these laws just make you "close your eyes".

Define that?

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Yes, you are over here? What's your point? Did I npt explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable. Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case? I don't see your point here?

But IF the majority of people have the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, then what a few lunatics say in public will not "poison their minds" will it ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

 

[russ_watters]

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Heh. Well said.

 

[russ_watters]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

We have gay pride parades here...

Ironic though, that you keep bringing up our treatment of blacks (uh, 250 years ago, we were British too, btw...), when your ideas on government are about that far out of date.

 

[marlon]

These situations were of a similar kind: legal action (or the intention to have) against people who expressed certain ideas.

Again, these examples do NOT show the bad effect of the holocaust ban onto our society. Sorry but this is just meaningless. I am still waiting for these effects onto OUR society.

Well, the law itself is of this kind: "what may happen if we allow people to say something about the holocaust". It is all about "what if"s.

No it is not. In the law, there are no "may's" etc etc. Look at our country. Look at how it works as a society that embrases this law. This is clear proof and qualifies as a specific example.

What bothers me is the CLASS of laws it belongs to: to put legal interdiction upon expressing my opinion.

I understand that but this law does not belong to that specific class. This is what you fail to see. This law prevents people from using the holocaust denial for , let's say, political advantage. The reason to do that is very clear, ie history. This is exactly what "learing from history" means because, as we all knoa, that history book on the shelf always keeps repeating itself !

The law expresses the fact that denying historical facts (ie lying) for political gain is NOT allowed in this society. This is the way it operates and the law constitues one of the "rules of the game".

Just like on PF, you cannot say ANYTHING you want because of such guidelines. It is just the same thing. The majority of our society has decided that denying holocaust for some reason (like political ideology) is not allowed. This has nothing to do with restricting one's freedom of speach. IT IS A LAW ! If you disagree that much, i suggest you go live in Iran where there is no such law.

But I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which I got convinced, say, that the holocaust was just some kind of american/british propaganda for whatever political reason I could think of (in the same way as there are conspiration theories about the moon landing, aliens visiting us, and what other strange ideas). The idea that I could go to jail JUST FOR SAYING WHAT I THINK in that case, makes me sick, because I can also imagine VERY SIMILAR and real situations in which I could be convinced of something, and having the powers that are forbidding me to say exactly what I think. I *do* have some politically-not-correct ideas which I do think make sense (and no, they are not of the hate-speech kind), and the very idea that one day, I might go to jail for that, is repugnant.

You can tell any political non correct idea. Our society does not prohibit you from saying that. You only need to take responsibility for what you are saying and you need to respect the majority vote. Those are also rules of democracy. Your "absolute freedom of speach" is an illusion because you refuse to take responsability for what you are saying and you disregard a majority vote.

marlon