To what Degree do you support Freedom of Speech?

2008-04-15 19:48:32

#1

David.P: Banned; +649|6699

To what Degree do you support Freedom of Speech? If you vote state why.

I will not be censored by your Morality, Whatever religion or belief it may be. Nor your Special Interests, Corporate or Personal. Nor Anything for Any Reason. I support Free Speech to an unlimited degree, Even if it Offends me or someone else, I support Free Speech as a Means to show whats wrong in a society or group, I support Freedom of Speech because it is the Right of every person to say what they feel, And for them to use it as a means to live as they wish.

Freedom of Speech is one of the only few things that can stop Totalitarianism in its tracks.(Guns and the right to Individual Privacy being the other 2)

Freedom of Speech is Paramount for any Free Society.

2008-04-15 19:51:55

#2

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6830|North Carolina

Funeral protests (like what the WBC does) are where I draw the line. Other than that, flame on.

2008-04-15 20:04:38

#3

imortal: Member; +240|7090|Austin, TX

I, also, have a line that I draw in regards to freedom of speech. That line is where the speech places the life or health of a person or people in danger as a direct result. The prime example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. By extension, if a person is in a position of power or influence, that position has to be taken into account when interpreting their freedom of speech. If a influential figure gives a speech where he states that a certain person is "better off dead," that speech should not be protected, since that speech, in conjuction with his influences, places that person in danger from the followers of that person.

Also, for fear of straying into religious areas, I do not think speech is protected when the material is copyrighted by another person, or when delivering information that is demonstratably wrong.

2008-04-15 20:05:39

#4

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6386|Washington DC

Turquoise wrote:
Funeral protests (like what the WBC does) are where I draw the line. Other than that, flame on.

2008-04-15 20:06:27

#5

ThaReaper: Banned; +410|7064

HurricaИe wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Funeral protests (like what the WBC does) are where I draw the line. Other than that, flame on.

Yep, hate those fuckers.

2008-04-15 20:07:40

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6830|North Carolina

imortal wrote:
I, also, have a line that I draw in regards to freedom of speech. That line is where the speech places the life or health of a person or people in danger as a direct result. The prime example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. By extension, if a person is in a position of power or influence, that position has to be taken into account when interpreting their freedom of speech. If a influential figure gives a speech where he states that a certain person is "better off dead," that speech should not be protected, since that speech, in conjuction with his influences, places that person in danger from the followers of that person.

Also, for fear of straying into religious areas, I do not think speech is protected when the material is copyrighted by another person, or when delivering information that is demonstratably wrong.

For the most part, you've covered areas that the law has already defined as illegal. Good points though...

2008-04-15 20:08:26

#7

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6339|Glendale, CA

I don't support the right of Neo-Nazis or Fundies to preach genocide, but other than that, I'd prefer to say whatever the fuck I fucking want. What I hate is fucking bullshit like slander or libel - I'll say whatever the fuck I want about someone, and if they have a problem with it, they can say it to my face, instead of suing me for bullshit reasons.

2008-04-15 20:14:28

#8

chittydog: less busy; +586|7260|Kubra, Damn it!

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.

2008-04-15 20:30:06

#9

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6962|Long Island, New York

As with Turquoise, I draw the line at the WBC. Them, and people who condone genocide of an entire race.

Wonder what ignorant person would say THAT?

2008-04-15 20:39:10

#10

imortal: Member; +240|7090|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:
imortal wrote:
I, also, have a line that I draw in regards to freedom of speech. That line is where the speech places the life or health of a person or people in danger as a direct result. The prime example is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. By extension, if a person is in a position of power or influence, that position has to be taken into account when interpreting their freedom of speech. If a influential figure gives a speech where he states that a certain person is "better off dead," that speech should not be protected, since that speech, in conjuction with his influences, places that person in danger from the followers of that person.

Also, for fear of straying into religious areas, I do not think speech is protected when the material is copyrighted by another person, or when delivering information that is demonstratably wrong.
For the most part, you've covered areas that the law has already defined as illegal. Good points though...

I am not sure where the law stands of the freedom of speech for those in influncial positions, though. For the most part, I agree with many of the sentiments outlined by the Founding Fathers. "Your right to swing your arms in the air ends at my nose."

2008-04-15 20:46:45

#11

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7076|USA

To the point where what you say is not slanderous, AND does not does not infringe needlessly on the privacy of private citizens.

2008-04-15 21:08:16

#12

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6870|The Land of Scott Walker

1st option, we all have bias.

2008-04-15 21:20:57

#13

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6872|Chicago, IL

Turquoise wrote:
Funeral protests (like what the WBC does) are where I draw the line. Other than that, flame on.

2008-04-15 21:24:16

#14

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7191|UK

Turquoise wrote:
Funeral protests (like what the WBC does) are where I draw the line. Other than that, flame on.

Agreed.

2008-04-15 21:26:54

#15

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6916|Northern California

I was the loon that said "NO" first! WOOHOO!!!

REASON: I don't support the current freedom of speech which allows "the press" to gain "extra" advantage or access they don't deserve. WIthout a press pass, it is called "stalking."

Also, to spite the dumb poll!

2008-04-15 21:28:51

#16

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6805|MN

IRONCHEF wrote:
I was the loon that said "NO" first! WOOHOO!!!

REASON: I don't support the current freedom of speech which allows "the press" to gain "extra" advantage or access they don't deserve. WIthout a press pass, it is called "stalking."

Also, to spite the dumb poll!

I was just going to say that the guy/ gal that said no wouldn't even post because they felt it was wrong! Go figure.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-04-15 21:31:05

#17

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6872|Chicago, IL

IRONCHEF wrote:
I was the loon that said "NO" first! WOOHOO!!!

REASON: I don't support the current freedom of speech which allows "the press" to gain "extra" advantage or access they don't deserve. WIthout a press pass, it is called "stalking."

Also, to spite the dumb poll!

that too...

WBC and the idiotic paparazzi need to be censored, other than that, flame on, but prepare to receive an equally harsh flaming from someone else.

Last edited by S.Lythberg (2008-04-15 21:32:36)

2008-04-15 21:34:02

#18

Sgt._Eraser74: Upper Decker Expert; +54|6988

IRONCHEF wrote:
I was the loon that said "NO" first! WOOHOO!!!

REASON: I don't support the current freedom of speech which allows "the press" to gain "extra" advantage or access they don't deserve. WIthout a press pass, it is called "stalking."

Also, to spite the dumb poll!

The poll isn't dumb by any means. So go spite your existence on another site.

2008-04-15 22:15:27

#19

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7099|Canberra, AUS

If you are allowed to say anything you like, does that mean you should?

Freedom of speech does not negate common sense.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-04-16 02:57:22

#20

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6836|'Murka

Paparazzi do not speak...they stalk and put others in danger. Stalking is generally frowned upon and legally limited if one is not a star...so why the double-standard?

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.

“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

2008-04-16 03:12:39

#21

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6555|North Tonawanda, NY

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.

I agree.

2008-04-16 03:18:27

#22

PureFodder: Member; +225|6710

SenorToenails wrote:
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.
I agree.

2008-04-16 03:25:20

#23

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6980

Full freedom of speech but consequences for libel and incitement.

2008-04-16 03:34:35

#24

bakinacake: HA HA; +383|6411|Aus, Qld

I support free speech, but not totally, its not like you can go about saying whatever you want, and offending.

2008-04-16 03:44:47

#25

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6555|North Tonawanda, NY

bakinacake wrote:
I support free speech, but not totally, its not like you can go about saying whatever you want, and offending.

That is a slippery slope, since the definition of 'offensive' is so subjective.

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

BF2S Forums To what Degree do you support Freedom of Speech?

Poll

Turquoise wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

FEOS wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

FEOS wrote:

bakinacake wrote:

Board footer