Dr Fredrick Toben's arrest should alarm us all

Post Reply New Topic

DentArthurDent, slowmutant:

I agree with you two that sometimes freedom of speech goes too far and is abused to spread offensive and hateful vitriol. The fact is freedom of speech never meant being able to say whatever you want without consequence. Frankly, it is just for a man to be pulled out of his country because something he's done would violate a law in some other country had he been there at the time. It is painfully obvious that denying the Holocaust is not only cruelly offensive to the survivors and the families of the victims but also just stupid; it should be punished as much for its stupidity as for its offensiveness (along the lines of the Darwin Awards).

That's why I am proposing Free Enough Speech and mandating you two be the first to be subject to this law. You see, through observation, I have found that a sizable majority for a sizable amount of the time can be contented speaking only within the boundaries of a bland, quotidian kind of speech. You will remain free enough to talk about movies, celebrities, sporting events, the acquisition of material goods, and even talking points the news media has presented you to discuss amongst yourselves. As long as you stay within these boundaries and do not stir things up too much, you'll be just fine. Now let me tell you what you will not be free enough to say:

• To question the collective aspirations of the elite political class of society
• To deny the Holocaust
• To deny absolute equality of human beings in all ways
• To offend others' sensibilities (political, religious, or even just quirky)
• To offend my sensibilities
• To express a dislike of anything chocolate
• To engage in hatespeech
• To engage in doublespeak

Now, I have already found both of you in violation of this new legislation, for hatespeech against free-speech advocates. I am trying to have both of you extradited to the sovereign Realm of NeantHumainia where you will both be sentenced to 20 years hard labor in the gulags. If you speak against this or find it unfair, that is hypocritical and shall double your penalty.

As I generally agree with freedom of speech you can paste your facetious comments and be free to do so.

edit- BTW for you absolute freedom of speechers out there why not attack a real target like the Patriot Act

Because I lack the political power to actually do that.

In terms of what has been said previously, I distrust the ability to determine between a threat and comment of a different sort. Therefore, I am less whole-heartedly in support of the prior comment by Orwell attacking such a form of speech. I see preventing such speech as an abridgment of free speech though, and see this as undermining any notion of absolute rights.

Hmmm...you just made me go back and read the article again, and slower. I thought he was being extradited back to his own country, not being snatched from his home country and prosecuted acording to the laws of another. Yikes! Now I see it differently. How can they get away with that?

I'm not always so sure myself. I don't think people should have the right to threaten others, but where should the line be drawn? If someone is of the opinion that a certain, race, gender, or sexual orientation should be disposed of; I guess they are entitled to their opinion but do they have the right to broadcast it? When is it considered a threat? Is advocating violence a threat?

I suppose they are saying that because it was published on the internet it therefore violated rules in Germany. Laws on internet publications are really hard, I mean say child pornography is legal in the country from where the material was originally posted, does the government in a different country have any jurisdiction over the OP when the material is viewed illegally in their country, and should they be able to extradite the offending poster on this basis.

In other words is it the same as bringing hard copies of the material into the country.

* I am using child porn as an example because it is obviously wrong

I'm not sure I disagree with you here. My stance is that violent acts should be punished. But just talk? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."

But I ask you once again how about talk that incites violent acts. As an extreme example 'crystal night' during the Third Reich


Is it ok for kids to taunt someone with an intellectually or physical disability in school. Telling them its wrong wont stop it and quite often leads to the suicide of the tormented. Is banning this an unacceptable attack on the right to free speech, after all its only 'sticks and stones ........'

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 12 Oct 2008, 12:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Very good example. I would have to say no. We have laws to prosecute the viewer. I would think that is all we could do.

And the issue is where speech suggesting violent action becomes an act of violence in and of itself. That being said, I had a friend who got in trouble for threatening somebody. He didn't intend what he said as a threat, but it nearly ruined his life, and well, I can't say I am not influenced by something so close to me like that.

Hunt down the perpetrators and prosecute them. Not only that, but I think we can substantially say there is a real difference between free speech and plotting, which is why ordering assassinations can be considered wrong.

I did not see it myself, but my husband was telling me about watching a McCain speech on TV recently where he was bashing Obama and someone in the crowd shouted 'kill him'. Do you think that is ok? I'm not crazy about the guy, but I'm glad the shouts were not about me.

The issue I see with that, is that there is no reason to assume that something on the internet must obey the laws of every country with internet access. Now, perhaps an internet law does not perfectly exist, however, I think that even with child pornography, it would be best/necessary to have a pre-existing international agreement with the nation of origin of the poster. That being said, I think the crime of child pornography is the means of acquisition, if there were some means of creating virtual children, then I might not see as much of an issue with it(the issue then really would just be viewers slipping into actual pedophilia).

I would think that is likely ok, because the guy just sounds like a loudmouth hothead. It is something that would cause discomfort perhaps, but imposing anything other than a relatively small fine for something like that seems excessive. Then again, I think there ought to be more legal ways to kill people, like, I think duels should be legal.

Ahhh...like choose your weapon, and twenty paces, and all that jazz?

Thanks. I needed the laugh before I hit the hay. You guys make me think too much.