I support Freedom of Speech with the exception of Genocide denial, which should be punished.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- To what Degree do you support Freedom of Speech?
Poll
Do you support Freedom of Speech?
| Yes(Say whatever the Fuck you want) | 73% | 73% - 45 | ||||
| Depends(Say what ya want as long as you dont offend) | 22% | 22% - 14 | ||||
| Restricted(Only for a Few it should be allowed) | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| No(I dont Support Freedom of Speech) | 3% | 3% - 2 | ||||
| Total: 61 | ||||||
Why?sergeriver wrote:
I support Freedom of Speech with the exception of Genocide denial, which should be punished.
Because is disrespectful with the victims, because it doesn't help to avoid the same shit happening again, because kids should learn about what happened. I hate when people say the Holocaust didn't happen or that it wasn't such a big deal, and the same with the Armenian Genocide or any other.SenorToenails wrote:
Why?sergeriver wrote:
I support Freedom of Speech with the exception of Genocide denial, which should be punished.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-04-16 04:54:59)
PureFodder wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
I agree.FEOS wrote:
As to the poll: The only limit on one's right to free speech is when their speech infringes on someone else's right(s). Until then, they are free to say whatever they want...and deal with the consequences.
True, I agree with those reasons, but I think they are for why it should be taught in history classes. Not for why free speech should be restricted.sergeriver wrote:
Because is disrespectful with the victims, because it doesn't help to avoid the same shit happening again, because kids should learn about what happened. I hate when people say the Holocaust didn't happen or that it wasn't such a big deal, and the same with the Armenian Genocide or any other.
I put genocide denial on the same lines as hate speech. You should be able to say it, but it's reprehensible.
The thing is, while I agree with the concept, you can't rely on a teacher for this. There's a need to punish this kind of speech because, in this case, it's better to restrict the speech than letting these episodes to happen again. Remember, it all started with words.SenorToenails wrote:
True, I agree with those reasons, but I think they are for why it should be taught in history classes. Not for why free speech should be restricted.sergeriver wrote:
Because is disrespectful with the victims, because it doesn't help to avoid the same shit happening again, because kids should learn about what happened. I hate when people say the Holocaust didn't happen or that it wasn't such a big deal, and the same with the Armenian Genocide or any other.
I put genocide denial on the same lines as hate speech. You should be able to say it, but it's reprehensible.
Same as.CameronPoe wrote:
Full freedom of speech but consequences for libel and incitement.
Hrm. I understand where you are coming from, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.sergeriver wrote:
The thing is, while I agree with the concept, you can't rely on a teacher for this. There's a need to punish this kind of speech because, in this case, it's better to restrict the speech than letting these episodes to happen again. Remember, it all started with words.
Oh, indeed. It also happens to me, but I wouldn't take the risk on this one. Humans are ignorant.SenorToenails wrote:
Hrm. I understand where you are coming from, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.sergeriver wrote:
The thing is, while I agree with the concept, you can't rely on a teacher for this. There's a need to punish this kind of speech because, in this case, it's better to restrict the speech than letting these episodes to happen again. Remember, it all started with words.
Free Speech unless it breaks laws regarding hate, violence, and sexual exploitation.
Canada has, for example, laws regarding the promotion of hate and how you can be charged for it. Same goes for violence... and as for sexual exploitation, I don't want some pedophile being legally allowed to stand near a school ground and shout all the things they want to do to the children. Fuck that!
Canada has, for example, laws regarding the promotion of hate and how you can be charged for it. Same goes for violence... and as for sexual exploitation, I don't want some pedophile being legally allowed to stand near a school ground and shout all the things they want to do to the children. Fuck that!
Last edited by ReTox (2008-04-16 07:40:21)
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
Who the hell voted no?
He's not allowed to answer.FallenMorgan wrote:
Who the hell voted no?
The thought police will come after him.sergeriver wrote:
He's not allowed to answer.FallenMorgan wrote:
Who the hell voted no?
Suffering from small penis syndrome? Dont need to say "fuck" that much, even though I guess you were trying to make a point.chittydog wrote:
In between Yes & Depends. People should be able to say or express themselves however they want unless it's untrue and delibrately said to damage someone, ie. libel or slander. Btw, Morgan, slander doesn't mean you say to someone they're ugly because you think they are. That's free speech, even if it's unnecessary or cruel. Slander and libel are when you say things that aren't true with the express intent of hurting someone (or a legal entity). It's more like accusing your boss of having child pr0n because you don't like him. Even though he may be able to prove himself innocent, the stigma will stick and his life is ruined.
ummm... Commie, I'm assuming you meant to quote Morgan, right?...
The question also comes about as what defines "hate speech." Who determines what it is and isn't. Personally, as long as you do not advocate violence against them, vent your spleen all you want to.pierro wrote:
Doesn't banning hate speech send a message to groups that are hated that they are to 'weak' to survive without help from the government? Doesn't it send the message that they should be 'treated differently' from others that do not have this sort of protection? How is that a good thing?
Of course, I do not approve of "hate crime" laws. I want to know why it is that if a straight guy beats up a gay guy, why is is more serious than if the same straight guy beat up another straight guy.
Hate speech shouldn't be banned, but inciting riots should remain illegal. By the same token, genocide denial is repugnant, but it shouldn't be banned.
I'd love to get these Nazis to shut up with laws that would, for example, make it illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust or any major genocide, such as the Armenian genocide, and also be illegal to promote the genocide of any group.Turquoise wrote:
Hate speech shouldn't be banned, but inciting riots should remain illegal. By the same token, genocide denial is repugnant, but it shouldn't be banned.
You can't make it illegal to be stupid. You also can't make it illegal to look stupid in public.FallenMorgan wrote:
I'd love to get these Nazis to shut up with laws that would, for example, make it illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust or any major genocide, such as the Armenian genocide, and also be illegal to promote the genocide of any group.Turquoise wrote:
Hate speech shouldn't be banned, but inciting riots should remain illegal. By the same token, genocide denial is repugnant, but it shouldn't be banned.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Exactly, the act of restricting their free speech would in itself be ironically Nazi-esque. There will always be idiots unfortunately.FEOS wrote:
You can't make it illegal to be stupid. You also can't make it illegal to look stupid in public.FallenMorgan wrote:
I'd love to get these Nazis to shut up with laws that would, for example, make it illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust or any major genocide, such as the Armenian genocide, and also be illegal to promote the genocide of any group.Turquoise wrote:
Hate speech shouldn't be banned, but inciting riots should remain illegal. By the same token, genocide denial is repugnant, but it shouldn't be banned.
Braddock finally says something I can agree with!Braddock wrote:
Exactly, the act of restricting their free speech would in itself be ironically Nazi-esque. There will always be idiots unfortunately.FEOS wrote:
You can't make it illegal to be stupid. You also can't make it illegal to look stupid in public.FallenMorgan wrote:
I'd love to get these Nazis to shut up with laws that would, for example, make it illegal to publicly deny the Holocaust or any major genocide, such as the Armenian genocide, and also be illegal to promote the genocide of any group.
Yes, 99% though.
I support Freedom of Speech so long as that one's words doesn't incite violence or lead directly to violence against another person.
Examples:
1. One cannot get into a black person's face and calling them the golden word, as it's obviously going to end up in murder.
2. One cannot hold a rally and then convince people to start a coup or something (crowds of people are idiots and would do something like that if worked up enough. Though, if the times were bad enough, then this actually would be ok to overthrow a shitty government.)
I support Freedom of Speech so long as that one's words doesn't incite violence or lead directly to violence against another person.
Examples:
1. One cannot get into a black person's face and calling them the golden word, as it's obviously going to end up in murder.
2. One cannot hold a rally and then convince people to start a coup or something (crowds of people are idiots and would do something like that if worked up enough. Though, if the times were bad enough, then this actually would be ok to overthrow a shitty government.)
Last edited by too_money2007 (2008-04-17 08:35:29)
I'm between 'yes' and 'depends.' When you are using your freedom of speech to provoke fights, you are in the wrong.
Who uses freedom of speech to provoke fights?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm between 'yes' and 'depends.' When you are using your freedom of speech to provoke fights, you are in the wrong.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- To what Degree do you support Freedom of Speech?