Free speech cannot be an excuse for hate

[Tornado]

Why can't kids use the f-word at their teacher or others? Why can't Hip Hop be produced unedited? Why is it illegal to be naked in public? Why does the U.S. government have the right to classify information and keep it secret from the people?

Free speech doesn't give a person the right to be lewd. It doesn't give them the right to be disorderly. It doesn't give them the right to be obscene and it doesn't give them the right to incite violence. You can say things like: I hate the Queen. You do have the right and you don't even have to explain why. But if you state that the Queen is a sl-t ~ well that's just plain slander, and slander is illegal, sir. Are you trying to say slander should become... legal?

I would have prefered this issue as a lawsuit, to be settled in a court ~ but that's just more to my personal style.

Slander:

1. (Law) Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

Libel:

1. (Law) The publication of something false which damages a person's reputation.
2. any damaging or unflattering representation or statement.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libel

Choose your weapon folks! Neither of these laws specify that the plaintiff (person who suffered), has to be living. They only require that the form of slander or libel was made public (eg: not in secret).

The Ninth Scribe

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie and get away with it.

 

[KAding]

Hmm no it's not. Try facing reality. It's not a book of fairytales. Also, I think u should know by now not to take verses out of context. You have to look at what's before and after it. And even those have conditions.

I think the context is one of enormous disrespect for anything but "people of the book", and even that seems on shaky grounds at times in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran has no respect for polytheists(and in extension I suppose atheists), continuously equating them with wrong-doers. For gods sake, you are condemning us to hell where our skins get burned off again and again, over and over, forever! Do you honestly don't see the disrespect and insult in that? That we are so evil that we deserve eternal hellfire?

 

[KAding]

Greetings,

But why? I apologise if I am making you repeat yourself, but I simply don't understand it. Why should hatred, ridicule and insults be tolerated? What possible benefit could come of them, that could not be achieved in more acceptable ways?

Regards

The problem is in defining what is "insulting" and "ridicule" and what is not. Who defines that? The majority? The insulted minorities? Is it insulting to say Jesus was not God? Is it insulting to say Muhammed was not a messenger of God? Is it insulting to say God does not exist? Is it insulting to say you apostate from Islam? Is it insulting to eat pork? Who answers these questions? The Qu'ran and the Sunnah? Mao's Red Book? Do we hold referendum's on it? How can we define these limits without trampling on rights of others. Insults are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie and get away with it.

Well, there's an aweful lot of that going on. But, I have to ask. You've seen this cartoon? Would you define it as slander?

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie and get away with it.

Well, there's an aweful lot of that going on. But, I have to ask. How would you define this? I mean, I'm adding this fact to light, which also includes just words:

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries. Many countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the prosecution of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article 6 titled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity, though this does not have the status of law.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

The Ninth Scribe

 

[KAding]

But, I have to ask. You've seen this cartoon? Would you define it as slander?

The Ninth Scribe

Which cartoon, there were several. No, I would not consider them slander. They were a valid political criticism of violence committed by Islamic radicals, where Islam and political violence and explicitly linked by the perpetrators.

 

[Tornado]

Well, there's an aweful lot of that going on. But, I have to ask. Would you define this as slander?

The Ninth Scribe

Looking at the definition, I guess I would but it would depend on the situation and severity.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Looking at the definition, I guess I would but it would depend on the situation and severity.

All I'm saying is that there really is a line. The Jews enforced it by preventing us from saying two words together and the Muslims are demanding the same respect. If it's good for the goose, it's also good for the gander.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Which cartoon, there were several. No, I would not consider them slander. They were a valid political criticism of violence committed by Islamic radicals, where Islam and political violence and explicitly linked by the perpetrators.

Yes, but they only serve to encourage the same behavior they're complaining about. What good is that?

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Tornado]

All I'm saying is that there really is a line. The Jews enforced it by preventing us from saying two words together and the Muslims are demanding the same respect. If it's good for the goose, it's also good for the gander.

The Ninth Scribe

Like I've said, I believe in total freedom of speech, so they shouldn't be an exception either.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Yes, but they only serve to encourage the same behavior they're complaining about. What good is that?

The Ninth Scribe

The reaction to the cartoons proved the cartoons right. This makes the artist's point twice over, once in the cartoon itself, and once in the reaction to the cartoon.

So again, who is more horrible, the man who sticks his tongue out or the man who chops it off?

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

So again, who is more horrible, the man who sticks his tongue out or the man who chops it off?

Any kindergarten teacher can answer that... they BOTH get sent to the Principle's office! But why would grown men behave like children? That's what I'd like to know! I can understand an eight year old doing this. I could even understand a 16 year old doing this. But I'm not inclined to let a bunch of grown men (supposedly) behave like juvenile delinquents! I'll be seeing them after class, and as for the rest of you. Take note of the reality and don't throw gas on an open flame. You could get yourselves burned.

There, I'm done saying my peace on this subject. Just what I needed to wake up to... a planet full of teenagers... in full twit. Where's the **** asparin!?

The Ninth Scribe