Freedom of speech

Post Reply New Topic

People that support outlawing "hate speech" should have a look at just what governments deem "hate speech" is. In Sweden, there have been several "hate speech" trials where the defendants have done nothing more than described homosexuality as destructive to society. The other day, a church here launched a campaign for family values where the motto was "father, mother, child", and in their hubris, the gay lobby immediately attacked the campaign and tried to get it stopped. For once, the legal system didn't answer their call though and raised no charges, but these groups have performed quite a bit of vandalism against this church.

Either you have absolute freedom of speech involving politics and religion, or you might as well not have any at all, since there's no stopping governments and strong lobby groups from dismantling it all if you open up this opportunity to them.

Yes, and people that believe that government should in any way limit obscene speech should look around the world and see the mild stuff (even some educational materials) that some governments have labeled obscene. That should convince them that no laws on obscenity should ever be passed - that audio and video depictions of any type of behavior (which is a form of speech) can be broadcast to people of all ages.

Such absolutism makes no sense. And isn't Sweden the land of Absolute?

"Without the freedom to say 'f**k' then how can one say 'f**k the government'?"

-Lenny Bruce

This is what the current regime are doing here in the UK. When I read about what they're imposing on us I have a hard time getting my head around how any person who wishes to be free can willingly accept it. However, I do know that most people have no choice, as the consequences for many who speak out against it are completely disproportionate: at the minimum you're going to lose your job. The Labour regime uses the same tactics as oppressors have throughout history. Whether the Nazis of Germany, or the Stalinist regime of Russia, they all used fear to force submission, just like Brown and Blair.

The people responsible for this are the enemy. I want to be free to express my views where and when I want; I don't wish to live in a country where we fear the pre-dawn knock-on-the-door from the regimes henchmen.

Political correctness is just inverted bigotry, it often makes "racist" cases out of anything, rather it's racially motivated or not (take illegal immigration for example). The only significant difference between a liberal and a conservative is that liberals are biased against majorities, whereas conservatives are biased against minorities.
There needs to be a medium guideline built upon non-bias practical knowledge that illegalizes ALL hate speech in political outlets. Ignorance should not be a right, because that is the fastest way for a society to become irresponsible and crumble like the roman empire. We're all living here together, rather people like it or not. We have to compromise, and division only makes us weaker.
Political correctness thrives on the assumptions that only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist, or only straight people can be xenophoebic towards sexual orientation. It paints today's white straight males to be the scourge of humanity, when in fact many of us today are innocent of the evil done in the past (or even the present) by white straight males. Political correctness poisons diversity relations. It is bias.
However, those redneck republicans are equally as intolerant as the minorities, those are the types who would enslave all over again if they had the opportunity more than likely.
We need social guidelines, a socialist democracy, our nation is our house, it pays to have a few house rules so that we can co-exist. Ignorance will only make us weaker. And (someone mentioned this) giving people the power to vote out democracy is not such a good idea, let me explain why. Lets say one minority group of people decide to push for a fascist state, while tens of millions don't want to give up their freedom. But, the fascist happen to hijack a political party, and thereby succeed in stripping the unwilling of their rights. This is very similar to what Bush and the Jesus nazi republicans have done. And if you've noticed, they stole the election.
Political Correctness had the right goal on paper, but in reality it was a tool designed by communistic forces within our government to divide the people (the left uses pc, the right uses fanatical christianity), we do need to sit down and compromise and come up with a non-bias, 50/50 system of equal consideration. And there are ways to do this.
There also needs to be checks and balances to stop the government from becoming too powerful, to limit the power of big corporations.

It should be a party for the people, by the people, but it should take notice that
1. Freedom is not free, freedom comes with responsibility to uphold freedom, to defend freedom, even from our own government. Authority must always be questioned.
2. And (this mainly goes out to the bleeding hearts) sometimes we might have to make aggressive decisions, not because we wish to have to, but because we don't make the world the way it is, and the world is not sunshine and lolly pops. We have to deal with the cards where they lay in order to make the best possible outcome for everyone. A minimal amount of suffering, but some times suffering is unavoidable, sometimes war is necessary (as horrible as it is).

But things like war should be a last resort, or a self defense reaction.

How would you define hate speech in the above context, snake321?

actually the best thing to do would be to let it all fly and decriminalize any kind of hate speech. it's easier to identify an idiot if he can just say what he means.

Things like race and gender and sexual orientation, these things should be treated like non-factors. Not as political tools. This isn't to say that a minority can't take pride in their heritage, all I am saying is the same rules should apply to everyone. People need to have enough control over their emotions to recognize what is racist and what is not racist, for example having an anti-illegal immigration stance is not being racist. That entire issue is not about race, it is about overpopulation, distribution of resources, and living wages and conditions for our citizens, and filtering organized crime and criminals out of our nation. Legal immigration is fine, that is not an issue, so long as it is managed properly. But it has nothing to do with race.
Also people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, they shouldn't be treated like leaders, they should be seen for what they are, racist hypocrites who do not represent their people, but rather they represent their pockets. The kids who hung the nueses in the Jeena 6 fiasco, they should have been punished.

All this 'hate' legislation is just a load of BS anyway. Crime is crime, and an insult is an insult. Just because I call someone a n****r or a wetback doesn't make it any more of an insult because some ignoramous in power decides that either person will get offended. If they do, then they can do one of 2 things, they can insult me back, which I couldn't really care about, or they could take the weak way out and sue. Voltaire said it best when he said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'; and I add this old gem 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.

Justice must be pursued.

The_Chosen_One wrote -

'All this 'hate' legislation is just a load of BS anyway. Crime is crime, and an insult is an insult. Just because I call someone a n****r or a wetback doesn't make it any more of an insult because some ignoramous in power decides that either person will get offended. If they do, then they can do one of 2 things, they can insult me back, which I couldn't really care about, or they could take the weak way out and sue. Voltaire said it best when he said 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'; and I add this old gem 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never harm me.'

Oh dude, you call me a n****r [boong - I am 1/32 Koori] or wetback [I know thats the nickname for Kiwi's in some Melbourne circles] - well I'll just give you a sturdy kicking.
Sticks and stones will break your bones BECAUSE names will never hurt you!

This is why you have RESPONSIBILITIES that come with FREEDOMS.
Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it sensibly and in the interests of the greater good of the community, it is not so you can vent petty prejudices or stir up trouble.

peace j

damned straight.


but also, those who abuse free speech should have some price to pay depending on context. take for example the recent case against westboro baptist church where they were ordered to pay out over their "god hates fags" protests at soldiers' funerals.

They should be punished because of harassment, not because of their stupid, idiotic views. There's a difference between free speech and decriminalized harassment.

yeah. and it's a matter of balancing that line.