Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

[Guid]

According the Canadian law Criminal Code of Canada(Section 318 & 319) those opinions you are upset about not being able to express include the promotion of violence, murder and or genocide against members of minorities. Do you support such actions?

No, of course not. But I do believe that a person has the right to express their legitmate opinion in speech and text. When I say 'legitmate' here I mean a real opinion they hold, not neccessarily one that I even remotely approve of. I say 'legitmate' do to distinguish from something like 'yelling obscenities in public'.

But not to worry. Despite your attempt to paint your self and your position as somehow being the victim

When an unjust law is suprressing free speech most everyone is already a victim.

(rather than the perpetrator) or discrimination anyone who has looked at the issue will know you are not in danger of going to jail.

That's almost slanderous against me. I have in no way here promoted discrimination against any one of any race. You should retract that and apologize.

The law you are decrying clearly states that you may freely continue to speak hatefully about a minority and not per prosecuted if:
The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

Nice (not) that they allow a sort of psuedo-free speech - a fake - a facsade. But I demand the real thing: free speech. That law suppresses it. Now every opinion expressed is potentially up for government review and the speaker is potentially up for prison. That's not a free society - that's government censorship and persecution against those who speak freely. Next we will be asking for permission to speak at all (if we're not already jailed for speaking) - no thanks. Free speech only wll satisfy me.

Guid

 

[Guid]

I dunno. It still makes me uncomfortable that any government takes as its jurisdiction the thoughts and feelings of its citizens, whether public or private.

Everything you speak, every opinion you express, is potentially up for review by the government and for that opinion, you potentially face prison . That is not free speech.

 

[Verv]

Presuming they lose.

Totally true.

Watch the clips of GG Allin on the Jerry Springer show on YouTube -- the guy manages to sound smart because the audience is so dumb (only in a few parts, though).

The scary part about debating an extremist is often times it is their passion and they are better informed about the latest reports, etc.

You bring up a decent point but by and large advocating murder gets you nowhere.

 

[oldbetang]

A doctor should not have the choice to refuse to provide a valid, accepted, legal and necessary medical procedure, based upon nothing more than moral principals.

If Doctors have the choice to refuse, then you may as well give police officers the same right to decide which 911 calls they want to attend and which ones they will ignore based upon moral grounds.

Why stop there?

Give the right to with hold services on moral grounds to fire fighters and paramedics as well.

You are referring to potentially life threatening situations, which is really just a strawman here.

A doctor should have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency ,or non-lifesaving, procedure.

 

[TeddyKGB]

You are referring to potentially life threatening situations, which is really just a strawman here.

A strawman is a type of logical fallacy and not just an unlikely example. While life-threatening situations might be significantly rarer than other procedures, unlikely is not equivalent to impossible. Anyway, aren't life-saving procedures precisely the ones we ought to be most concerned about? You had better find a way to be sure before you go passing out get-out-of-doing-your-job-free cards.

A doctor should have the right to refuse to provide any non-emergency ,or non-lifesaving, procedure.

You invite chaos by privileging quasi-moral rebellion. A protection like that will have unintended consequences, I guarantee.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Nice (not) that they allow a sort of psuedo-free speech - a fake - a facsade. But I demand the real thing: free speech. That law suppresses it. Now every opinion expressed is potentially up for government review and the speaker is potentially up for prison. That's not a free society - that's government censorship and persecution against those who speak freely. Next we will be asking for permission to speak at all (if we're not already jailed for speaking) - no thanks. Free speech only wll satisfy me.

Guid

The law you are decrying clearly states that you may freely continue to speak hatefully about a minority and not per prosecuted if:
The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.
If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.
If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.
If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

Ref: Canadian law Criminal Code of Canada(Section 318 & 319)

Exactly what are you wanting to say that is not covered by the protection in the law?

 

[quatona]

You bring up a decent point but by and large advocating murder gets you nowhere.

Well, I´m from Germany. This country has seen weird but loudmouthed nutcases making huge careers that got millions of other people literally nowhere.
Thus, while I´d love to subscribe to your creed I think it´s not really supportable by observation and reality.

 

[The Nihilist]

Everything you speak, every opinion you express, is potentially up for review by the government and for that opinion, you potentially face prison . That is not free speech.

Yes, I agree with you

 

[Guid]

The law you are decrying clearly states that you may freely continue to speak hatefully about a minority and not per prosecuted if:

I may speak *if* !? IF !? If what !? - The government has given it's stamp of approval ?- Do you hear yourself ? Do you value your rights?

The hate speech was expressed during a private conversation.
If the person can establish that the statements made are true.

"If" again. I may speak if the government approves .. uh huh .. continue ..

If, "in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." This would give clergypersons immunity from conviction for a hate-based sermon, for example.

"If* again! If I can convince the gov't authorities that my opinions is made in good faith - I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.

If the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believed them to be true. This would give additional protection for the clergy.

"If" yet again. I may speak if if if if if if if if .. yeah .. tha't s a free and open society .. not.

If he described material that might generate feelings of hatred for an identifiable group "for the purpose of removal" of that hatred.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ... *might * *generate* *feelings* I can tell how solidly they are protecting free speach here. Wishy washy goobldee-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from fascists, in my opinion. Might as well just let the gov't do all the propagxxxx speaking.

Ref: Canadian law Criminal Code of Canada(Section 318 & 319)

Wow, so official. Should be struck down for the cr*p it is.

Exactly what are you wanting to say that is not covered by the protection in the law?

What ever I want.

Guid

 

[Guid]

Well, I´m from Germany. This country has seen weird but loudmouthed nutcases making huge careers that got millions of other people literally nowhere.
Thus, while I´d love to subscribe to your creed I think it´s not really supportable by observation and reality.

The Nazis only got away with what they did because they restricted free speech. Had the press been free, the Nazis would have been exposed far earlier and stopped by the German people themselves. But there was no free speech under the Nazis, was there? The Germans should never have given the Nazis the power to restrict the press. But foolishly, they did.

Guid

 

[BigBadWlf]

[/size][/font]

I may speak *if* !? IF !? If what !? - The government has given it's stamp of approval ?- Do you hear yourself ? Do you value your rights?



"If" again. I may speak if the government approves .. uh huh .. continue ..



"If* again! If I can convince the gov't authorities that my opinions is made in good faith - I'd laugh if it weren't so sad.



"If" yet again. I may speak if if if if if if if if .. yeah .. tha't s a free and open society .. not.



IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF ... *might * *generate* *feelings* I can tell how solidly they are protecting free speach here. Wishy washy goobldee-[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from fascists, in my opinion. Might as well just let the gov't do all the propagxxxx speaking.



Wow, so official. Should be struck down for the cr*p it is.



What ever I want.

Guid

That violence against minorities is a good thing?

That bombing the homes of minorities should be burned?

That minority churches should be bombed?

That killing the children of minorities is a good thing?

What exactly are you not free to say?

 

[BigBadWlf]

The Nazis only got away with what they did because they restricted free speech. Had the press been free, the Nazis would have been exposed far earlier and stopped by the German people themselves. But there was no free speech under the Nazis, was there? The Germans should never have given the Nazis the power to restrict the press. But foolishly, they did.

Guid

And that is why slavery was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

And that is why segregation was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

And that is why Jim Crow was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

And that is why bans on interracial marriage were allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

And that is why taking Native American children away from families and forced into foster care in white homes was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

And that is why Japanese Americans were interred in concentration camps in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

 

[Guid]

And that is why slavery was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Freedom of speech ended slavery in the USA which was a hold over from pre-USA times.

And that is why segregation was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Segregation - instituted by reactionaries - was also ended because of freedom of speech.

And that is why Jim Crow was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Freedom of speech also ended those reactionary laws.

And that is why bans on interracial marriage were allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Once again freedom of speech challenged and ended abusive laws designed by reactionaries who deny the rights to people on account of race.

And that is why taking Native American children away from families and forced into foster care in white homes was allowed in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Once again, racism, racists and their odd laws and practices against native Americans were challenged and brought down by the freedom to speak freely.

And that is why Japanese Americans were interred in concentration camps in the United States because of restrictions on free speech

Japanese Americans were interred very soon after war-time CENSORSHIP came in. It wasn't ended until freedom of speech was re-established.

Every one busted. Just admit it: freedom of speech is a good thing.

Guid

 

[quatona]

The Nazis only got away with what they did because they restricted free speech.

And they got the power to do that while free speech was not restricted.

The Germans should never have given the Nazis the power to restrict the press. But foolishly, they did.

Yes, that´s what I was talking about.
Giving vocal minority nutcases free speech can result in those minority nutcases being in power.
That´s the observation upon which one can easily make an arguement for restricting the right to advocate that which we don´t want to allow people to do.

 

[quatona]

Just admit it: freedom of speech is a good thing.

I am willing to admit that freedom of speech is a good thing - when it is a good thing. (And I don´t even have to admit it, it was my position all along).
I am, however, not willing to ignore the cases where it isn´t just so I can conveniently remove the qualifier "when it is a good thing" and establish "freedom of speech" as an end in itself.

 

[Lisa0315]

Freedom of Speech is sometimes abused, but yes, I do think it should be allowed in just about any situation. We have laws that prevent certain things being said, like threatening someone, soliciting a minor, etc. However, in most cases, even if we strongly disagree with what is being said, a person should have the right to say it.

Lisa

 

[BigBadWlf]

Freedom of speech ended slavery in the USA which was a hold over from pre-USA times.

You might want to actually learn something about history before making statements like that. Slavery ended as a result of the Civil War which was fought not about slavery but about the role of federal government verses the role of State governments.

Segregation - instituted by reactionaries - was also ended because of freedom of speech.

Again you have a poor grasp of history. Segregation ended because of Judicial action Ref: Brown vs. the Board of Education and the plaintiffs used the 14th amendment to the constitution to bring suit not the first

Freedom of speech also ended those reactionary laws.

Once again freedom of speech challenged and ended abusive laws designed by reactionaries who deny the rights to people on account of race.

Do you even know what Jim Crow laws were?
Jim Crow ended because of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965

Once again, racism, racists and their odd laws and practices against native Americans were challenged and brought down by the freedom to speak freely.

Again you lack knowledge of history. Again such discriminatory laws were ended because of judicial action Ref Loving Vs. the Common Wealth of Virginia. Richard and Mildred Loving won their case based on the 14th amendment to the constitution to bring suit not the 1st.

Japanese Americans were interred very soon after war-time CENSORSHIP came in. It wasn't ended until freedom of speech was re-established.

Sorry but the interment of Millions of Japanese American’s was front page news when it happened

Every one busted. Just admit it: freedom of speech is a good thing.


Guid

You just demonstrated a lack of knowledge of history, not something to be proud of

No one is saying free speech is bad. However free speech contains inherent limits, it always has and always will

 

[BigBadWlf]

Guid:

I noticed you didn’t answer this question. Why not exercise your free speech and answer it?

That violence against minorities is a good thing?

That bombing the homes of minorities should be burned?

That minority churches should be bombed?

That killing the children of minorities is a good thing?

What exactly are you not free to say?

 

[oldbetang]

You might want to actually learn something about history before making statements like that.

Again you have a poor grasp of history.

Again you lack knowledge of history.

Sorry but the interment of Millions of Japanese American’s was front page news when it happened

You just demonstrated a lack of knowledge of history, not something to be proud of

Ummm....far be it from me to question your superior knowledge of history but ,"the internment of Millions of Japanese Americans"??? WOW!

 

[Guid]

You might want to actually learn something about history before making statements like that. Slavery ended as a result of the Civil War which was fought not about slavery but about the role of federal government verses the role of State governments.

Way back when when it was still an issue the U.S. had free speech and slavery was openly opposed (by many) in the press etc. which help set the stage for the freeing of the slaves. Unfortunately, freedom had to fight a war. Freedom's not free they say, but costs blood.

Again you have a poor grasp of history. Segregation ended because of Judicial action Ref: Brown vs. the Board of Education and the plaintiffs used the 14th amendment to the constitution to bring suit not the first

Again, it's unikely it would have ended if the gov't had just not allowed any opposing views to be expressed in the press. Judges read papers.

Do you even know what Jim Crow laws were?
Jim Crow ended because of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965

I think I've known what they were a couple times (separate but equal bullsh*t) but tend to forget exactly what they are, except that they were exceptionally unjust and racist. I'm Canadian, not American, so I'm not reminded of them every day.

Again you lack knowledge of history. Again such discriminatory laws were ended because of judicial action Ref Loving Vs. the Common Wealth of Virginia. Richard and Mildred Loving won their case based on the 14th amendment to the constitution to bring suit not the 1st.

Again, judges read papers.

Sorry but the interment of Millions of Japanese American’s was front page news when it happened

But there was wide-spread censorship and any seriuos opposition to the government would probably have met with government action.

Go through history. Many times large groups of people have been interned in camps unjustly .. but you will also find this rarely or never happens when there is free speech .. always when there is censorship.

You just demonstrated a lack of knowledge of history, not something to be proud of

Phewy - I probably know more history than you. But history isn't the issue, free speech is.

No one is saying free speech is bad. However free speech contains inherent limits, it always has and always will

Yes, you seem to be imply free speech is bad. What do mean inherent limits? I hope you're not talking about yelling Fire! in a theatre.

And I hope you understand that when you put free speech up for gov't review and the speaker for possible prison it is no longer free speech .. you understand that? Free speech is just that .. free.

Guid