Freedom of speech

Post Reply New Topic

Red: Yerright of course, people should be more responsible with what they do and say, BUT people should not get thin skinned when someone says something that they disagree with. When someone puts forward a view on, say, religion or Hitler and says that maybe the Christians are jerks or the Holocaust was exaggerated, that is their opinion and they should fell free to express it if they wish. If someone gets cut because of it, then they can argue the opposite freely as well, without all this BS about 'it's a hate crime or hate speech so let's sue them'. The only ones getting any pleasure from that are lawyers and the parasites in government who make these pathetic laws in the first place. Matter of fact, in Australia during the 50s and 60s, if someone was called a wog or dago, it didn't necessarily mean they were being insulted; and some of these people actually got on quite well with the people who were calling them by these names. Nowadays, though, people just seem to get upset over the least little thing, and it's mainly the fault of these dirtbag politicians, pseudo-intellectuals and nutters that society is how it is. My point was that if I say something to someone, and they get offended, they don't need to carry on like the world has suddenly ended and they have been mortally wounded. Words can't kill on their own. But if peole can't control their actions, that's when we find ourselves up to our neck in crap. Everone has differing points of view and differing perspectives on things, and just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't mean they should allow the authorities to repress our rights as human beings to be able to voice those opinions.

Oh, and if you want to blame anyone for the n****r and wetback reference, Carlos Mencia is where I got that from.

Agreed. Where and how someone says something is important. If the wacko-fundies were merely saying that in their own church, or holding a rally in a park away from the funeral, it would be protected speech. But by interfering with an intensely emotional ceremony like a funeral, those protestors can only be considered as harassers.

Harassment and speech often overlap. You can't have one law granting absolute freedom of speech and another that recognizes that speech can be harassing without generating logical contradictions and large grey zones.

Harass: 1.to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.

And then there is fraud, disturbing the peace, slander, libel, and inciting to riot. All areas where freedom of speech was never intended to be absolute.

Burning a cross on a black family's yard, or painting swastikas on a synagogue is more than petty vandalism. The damage done to a community is not fixed with a fresh coat of paint or a few pieces of sod.

The purpose of such hate crimes is simple: to harass, intimidate and terrorize. Not just an individual or two, but an entire segment of the community. The perpetrators should be punished in proportion to all the people they victimized.

I believe in freedom of speech and expression. The just as relavent issue "in my opinion", is its inverse, tolerance. Also related to this is self image. For example, If I were to say to you "You are a piece of s**t", or "Your a b***h" it is really your decision whether to be offended by those statements. It is obvious that both of these expressions have no real meaning. Most people that I am aware of take offense because they are concerned with how others may view them, or are disillusioned by their socially conditioned sense of pride. We are the masters of our emotions. It is also a primal mode of dominance and submission. You remember the stereotypical jock who likes to bang heads into lockers and give wedgies as his/her peer group laughs and codjules"<--spelling, uncertain term" dont you? How would it be if they did not accent the jocks imagined power? Im certain I can write an extensive more articulant dissertion of this issue though I will sum it up with this. The only power others have over you is the power you delegate to them. Most everyone seems to want to be heard. Whether we choose to listen or respond and how we respond is up to us. Anger is sadness turned outward. An effective leader and speaker is also an effective follower and listener.

Well put. If you deny a bully the power to pick on you by ignoring them, sooner or later they will either go after you in a big way, or they will realise where their behaviour is getting them. Now if you are weak and unable to fight back, then you find some other way to turn the tables on these jerks. Think of how the nerds got the better of the Jocks in 'Revenge of the Nerds' and you get my point. Ignoring them tends to work better because they end up just talking to thin air. That said, the KKK with their cross burning were just a bunch of Christian prats who did all that stuff in the name of God, and they were too stupid to realise that the people they were attacking had the same beliefs and practiced the same faith. But all it was in the end was a crime, period; and they should have been punished the same as any other vandal or idiot that would commit such an act. Why should a white guy get any more punishment for murdering a black guy or a Jew when what they are actually doing is MURDERING MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE? I don't care whether someone is black, white or brindle; they should all be treated equally under the law, and all these semantics over hate crimes and hate speech is just a pathetic excuse to give some publicity to BS cause.

You have every right to express your opinion. You do not have the right to say whatever you want.

There do need to be some limits on free speech within the bounds of being responsible. Groups like the American Nazi Party, American Communist Party, New Black Panther Party, Christian Coalition and the American Family Association, various extreme feminist organizations, NAMBLA, KKK, groups like this should not be allowed to have political power because their intent is to take away someone else's rights and equality. People should not have a right to challenge other peoples' rights on the grounds of ignorance. This is not a communist or fascist statement, this is looking out for the good of all peoples and keeping it free and even.
Even if lets say a portion of Americans decided to try and vote out freedom, they are still only a portion, and people who value their rights and freedoms shouldn't have to pay the price for people who have forsaken it. If they don't like freedom, move to China or Cuba or something..... Although in all honesty it's only a matter of time before big business turns American into a caste-like police state (but I won't try to get into that discussion on this thread).

And even if those groups I mention hold no power now, the religious jesus nazi right wingers had no power back in the 80's when they initially rose with their nazi-esque ideas, it took them several generations and tons of propaganda to condition society to accept their extreme ideas.

Throw into that bunch the NRA.