Europe restricts free speech
-
Sounds like Howard Stern.
More a wannabe.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
The right-wing never ceases to amaze me. Criminalizing speech only drives it underground. When will conservatives learn that social problems are not solvable by throwing more laws and regulations at them? And why is the Holocaust considered the only genocide? What about 10s of millions slaughtered by communist regimes in Russia and China? What about Cambodia and Rwanda?
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
When will conservatives learn that social problems are not solvable by throwing more laws and regulations at them?
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Criminalizing speech only drives it underground
just wait until it's illegal to question global whatever.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
just wait until it's illegal to question global whatever.
Like, umm, warming? :laugh:
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
-
It's worse then what you think. Tobacco companies aren't free to deny that smoking is bad for your health. Imagine that!
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
Actually they can. Since scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that it causes cancer, however, would ensure lawsuits for damages that would guarantee their demise.
-
Joy, and it plays right into the hands of the Islamist critics who falsely stated that holocaust denial was illegal in Europe, and therefore drawing cocks on pictures of Old Mo was hypocritical. Just wait for the blasphemy legislation that's sure to follow. Oh, and holocaust schmolocaust, it never happened.
-
Most countries have blasphemy laws on their statute books, however in the UK these laws are Christian based and are rarely used in these modern times, but as nations become more ethnically diverse, perhaps an update of these ancient laws are overdue.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Most countries have blasphemy laws on their statute books, however in the UK these laws are Christian based and are rarely used in these modern times, but as nations become more ethnically diverse, perhaps an update of these ancient laws are overdue.
Sounds like it's already evolving into a form of secular blasphemy.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
just wait until it's illegal to question global whatever.
Like, umm, warming? :laugh:
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
dnh wrote:
Like, umm, warming?
ya, that thing where summers are hotter in places and winters colder and we're all out of wooly large animals.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Most countries have blasphemy laws on their statute books, however in the UK these laws are Christian based and are rarely used in these modern times, but as nations become more ethnically diverse, perhaps an update of these ancient laws are overdue.
i.e scrapping them as an anachronism, given that abrahamic faiths all mutually blaspheme each other, and blasphemy is a necessary part of free speech. I do hope you are not suggesting criminalising criticism of Islam.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Most countries have blasphemy laws on their statute books, however in the UK these laws are Christian based and are rarely used in these modern times, but as nations become more ethnically diverse, perhaps an update of these ancient laws are overdue.
Sounds like it's already evolving into a form of secular blasphemy.
-
Let's extend this a little bit, if you don't mind. I am a French Canadian as you may know by looking at my profile. A couple years ago, we had a radio station guy who really had bad speech. He was really taking down people in flames, although the persons were not doing that. Their arguments: if you don't like what we say, sue us." That radio station had enough money to pay lawyers so the lawsuits were long and difficult for a person to defend itself. And, while the lawsuit was on, the radio guy was continuing to slander the person. What do you think about that? Is it fair use of free speech? Imagine, the guy even once suggested that disabled people should be put to death in a gas chamber. Fortunately, the CRTC (Canadian Broadcastin authority) was so overwhelmed with complaints that they decided to withdraw the broadcasting license to the radio station.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
That radio station had enough money to pay lawyers so the lawsuits were long and difficult for a person to defend itself. And, while the lawsuit was on, the radio guy was continuing to slander the person.
A specific person, a specific group of people, or a general categorization of people? Lying about someone intentionally (i.e. you know what you're saying is false) specifically to hurt them somehow is considered slander in the US. But note that it's not the same as free speech - i.e. free, unrestricted expression of thought without regard for the status quo. Slander is intentionally lying for the purpose of hurting or defaming someone. Slander is considered a civil offense (as opposed to a criminal offense) in the US.
Le Centriste wrote:
What do you think about that? Is it fair use of free speech? Imagine, the guy even once suggested that disabled people should be put to death in a gas chamber.
I'm not sure I could pass judgment until I understood what this guy said, and to whom it was directed (a person, a group, or a category). The "disabled people should be put to death in a gas chamber" quote is certainly the product of something between a sick individual and a shock-jock out for ratings. The notion is repulsive and nonsensical. His boss should be able to fire him for saying it if they wanted to. People should be able to picket his office or wherever else and call for his removal, criticize his speech, and criticize his character for the fact that he said it. But he, in my notion of free speech, has committed no crime whatsoever. He's just a jackass. I look at this issue the same way that I look at the death penalty. It's not that I wouldn't want to knock the guy's block off and send him to prison for the rest of his life for saying such horrible things. It's not that I wouldn't viscerally want some horrid serial killer put to death. It's that I don't trust government, in and of itself, to wield these powers against its citizens in general. Government shouldn't be able to label thoughts and discourse crimes. Government shouldn't be able to plan and execute the death of one of its citizens. Government isn't trustworthy enough for those tasks. No matter how bad the speech, no matter how repulsive the idea, it should be countered with good speech from the citizenry, not with edicts from on-high. One of the side-benefits of this in
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
When will conservatives learn that social problems are not solvable by throwing more laws and regulations at them?
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
:)
-
i.e scrapping them as an anachronism, given that abrahamic faiths all mutually blaspheme each other, and blasphemy is a necessary part of free speech. I do hope you are not suggesting criminalising criticism of Islam.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
That radio station had enough money to pay lawyers so the lawsuits were long and difficult for a person to defend itself. And, while the lawsuit was on, the radio guy was continuing to slander the person.
A specific person, a specific group of people, or a general categorization of people? Lying about someone intentionally (i.e. you know what you're saying is false) specifically to hurt them somehow is considered slander in the US. But note that it's not the same as free speech - i.e. free, unrestricted expression of thought without regard for the status quo. Slander is intentionally lying for the purpose of hurting or defaming someone. Slander is considered a civil offense (as opposed to a criminal offense) in the US.
Le Centriste wrote:
What do you think about that? Is it fair use of free speech? Imagine, the guy even once suggested that disabled people should be put to death in a gas chamber.
I'm not sure I could pass judgment until I understood what this guy said, and to whom it was directed (a person, a group, or a category). The "disabled people should be put to death in a gas chamber" quote is certainly the product of something between a sick individual and a shock-jock out for ratings. The notion is repulsive and nonsensical. His boss should be able to fire him for saying it if they wanted to. People should be able to picket his office or wherever else and call for his removal, criticize his speech, and criticize his character for the fact that he said it. But he, in my notion of free speech, has committed no crime whatsoever. He's just a jackass. I look at this issue the same way that I look at the death penalty. It's not that I wouldn't want to knock the guy's block off and send him to prison for the rest of his life for saying such horrible things. It's not that I wouldn't viscerally want some horrid serial killer put to death. It's that I don't trust government, in and of itself, to wield these powers against its citizens in general. Government shouldn't be able to label thoughts and discourse crimes. Government shouldn't be able to plan and execute the death of one of its citizens. Government isn't trustworthy enough for those tasks. No matter how bad the speech, no matter how repulsive the idea, it should be countered with good speech from the citizenry, not with edicts from on-high. One of the side-benefits of this in
Russell Morris wrote:
A specific person, a specific group of people, or a general categorization of people?
All of them.
Russell Morris wrote:
Lying about someone intentionally (i.e. you know what you're saying is false) specifically to hurt them somehow is considered slander in the US. But note that it's not the same as free speech - i.e. free, unrestricted expression of thought without regard for the status quo. Slander is intentionally lying for the purpose of hurting or defaming someone. Slander is considered a civil offense (as opposed to a criminal offense) in the US.
That was the point I am trying to make here. Somebody said it is an unavoidable consequence of free speech. Although it is, it should not be allowed to happen.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Actually they can. Since scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the fact that it causes cancer, however, would ensure lawsuits for damages that would guarantee their demise.
Actually, in my country is law that forces them to put text (in translation) "Warning of Department of Health: smoking causes cancer." or similar on their ads.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
-
David Wulff wrote:
Sounds to me like an excuse to justify their jobs.
Sounds to me like you're avoiding expressing an opinion.
The question was, 'what were my thoughts on the EU making hate speech a crime'. I expressed the opinion that I didn't know they had, many similar laws were already on the books in member countries. I suspect all they have done differently is bought them to all of the members.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
David Wulff wrote:
To be honest I thought the things covered by that bill were already crimes, at least here.
Do you agree that they should be crimes?
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
IMO yes, so long as they are sensibly enforced. We already have legal provisions for open speech that are not affected by those laws, so as long as they are only used for extreme cases and always (as I suspect they would be) in a public court then they may well act as a safeguard against intentionally inciteful speech/actions. Free speech should be thought of more as free thought and discussion -- it is not the act of speaking that is important, it is the fact that you can do so and have open debate about it without fear of punishment. That is still possible so long as you are prepared to stand up and answer any questions. There are no re-education camps being built here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
IMO yes, so long as they are sensibly enforced. We already have legal provisions for open speech that are not affected by those laws, so as long as they are only used for extreme cases and always (as I suspect they would be) in a public court then they may well act as a safeguard against intentionally inciteful speech/actions. Free speech should be thought of more as free thought and discussion -- it is not the act of speaking that is important, it is the fact that you can do so and have open debate about it without fear of punishment. That is still possible so long as you are prepared to stand up and answer any questions. There are no re-education camps being built here.
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
And who defines 'common decency', you? the MCB? Would a statement along the lines of 'Mohammed was a murderous paedophile and epileptic conman, who's supposed revelations were nothing but a mish mash of Arab tribal superstition and his own misunderstanding of Christian and Jewish theology' fall under your definition of 'common decency'? Its certainly offensive, and backed by plenty of evidence. Not far off the description of Islam in the catholic encyclopaedia either.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
within the bounds of common decency
My idea of common decency? Yours? A militant Islamists? A homophobic Christian bible salesmans? A lesbian feminists?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
All laws from time to time need to be updated to reflect the here and now. In terms of blasphemy statutes, what would you like to see included or excluded, and why.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In terms of blasphemy statutes, what would you like to see included or excluded, and why.
To my knowledge, we don't have such statutes in the United States because we were founded on the principle of freedom of religion. The mere adherence to one religion over another could be viewed by blasphemy to many. In fact, I'm pretty sure that a blasphemy law would be considered a fundamentally unconstitional restriction of speech and religion and I believe there should be none on the books. However, secularists seem to be pushing to restrict speech they find unpalatable. For example, Barack Obama recently called Don Imus's comments "verbal violence", which opens the possibility of legal restriction.