Europe restricts free speech
-
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.
-
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 milkDavid Wulff wrote:
fear of punishment
How about reprisal? Our government should intervene to protect free speech, not legislate to take more of it away.
-
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
Le Centriste wrote:
All of them.
Ok. Attacks against a specific person, clearly named, who had not put themselves in the public eye might be considered slander if the attacks were knowingly false, and designed to harm that person, their property, and/or their reputation. Attacks against a larger group of people, a category of people, or a very well known public figure would not be considered slander. The one gotcha is that a really egregious attack against a public figure could be slander, but it'd have to be really bad. For example, South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay. Scientology couldn't sue them for slander because the attacks weren't knowingly false and weren't directed at a specific person. Tom Cruise couldn't sue because he's chosen to be a famous public figure, and has thus opened himself barbs, jokes, public speculation, etc... If South Park had said that an otherwise unknown person was a pedophile because they were angry at him and wanted to hurt him, that would probably be considered slander. Entertainment and art are given a very long leash in this regard.
Le Centriste wrote:
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.
Like all other interesting discussion in life, it's complicated :). Hurt feelings and offense are unavoidable with free speech. Wielding knowingly false statements as weapons against someone else is wrong, however. The interpretation of free speech laws in the US is best seen as footholds placed as high as possible on the slippery slope of thought-control. There are a few situations where it's necessary for a functional society, but it's an absolute last resort.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Le Centriste wrote:
All of them.
Ok. Attacks against a specific person, clearly named, who had not put themselves in the public eye might be considered slander if the attacks were knowingly false, and designed to harm that person, their property, and/or their reputation. Attacks against a larger group of people, a category of people, or a very well known public figure would not be considered slander. The one gotcha is that a really egregious attack against a public figure could be slander, but it'd have to be really bad. For example, South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay. Scientology couldn't sue them for slander because the attacks weren't knowingly false and weren't directed at a specific person. Tom Cruise couldn't sue because he's chosen to be a famous public figure, and has thus opened himself barbs, jokes, public speculation, etc... If South Park had said that an otherwise unknown person was a pedophile because they were angry at him and wanted to hurt him, that would probably be considered slander. Entertainment and art are given a very long leash in this regard.
Le Centriste wrote:
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.
Like all other interesting discussion in life, it's complicated :). Hurt feelings and offense are unavoidable with free speech. Wielding knowingly false statements as weapons against someone else is wrong, however. The interpretation of free speech laws in the US is best seen as footholds placed as high as possible on the slippery slope of thought-control. There are a few situations where it's necessary for a functional society, but it's an absolute last resort.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
South Park had an episode last year that mocked Scientology and said Tom Cruise was gay
:laugh: Well...Technically, he just sat in the closet the whole episode. They never called him anything.
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Just wait for the blasphemy legislation that's sure to follow.
The Pope noted concern over the increasing secularization of Europe and its tendency to criminalize opposing viewpoints such as this. Once they decide that opposing abortion or gay marriage constitutes a bigoted or sexist hate crime...poof. The Catholic Church is gone.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The Catholic Church is gone.
What will they do with all their riches?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
What will they do with all their riches?
The EU will syphon it all into the indoctrination programs.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
What would you say if someone came to you and said "9/11 never happened"?
I would say they're goofy and point to all the evidence. I most certainly would NOT jail them for it. Would you?
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I most certainly would NOT jail them for it.
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people? It's not about constricting free speech. It's about constricting lies and deception. Although, I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
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.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Oh, and holocaust schmolocaust, it never happened.
Sarcasm, I reckon. :~
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
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
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative?
Don't forget that the EU isn't one monolithic element. Each member country selects and sends their representatives there. Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I most certainly would NOT jail them for it.
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people? It's not about constricting free speech. It's about constricting lies and deception. Although, I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people?
Meh! A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
To me that was one of the glaring flaws that makes the whole thing wrong. When the government limits speech the government has too much control.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Are you suggesting that the EU is conservative?
Don't forget that the EU isn't one monolithic element. Each member country selects and sends their representatives there. Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Conservative governments send conservatives, liberal governments send liberals, and socialist governments send socialists.
By US standards are there any conservative EU governments?
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Each member country selects and sends their representatives there.
I had the scenes from Star Wars pop in my head. The one of the imperial senate with all the floating balconies with various aliens sitting around arguing. :-D
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What if they succeed in convincing a large number of people?
Meh! A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I am a bit perplexed as to why Lenin/Stalin's, Franco's and Mussolini's atrocities weren't added to the list.
To me that was one of the glaring flaws that makes the whole thing wrong. When the government limits speech the government has too much control.
"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Mike Mullikin wrote:
A fool can be convinced of anything. The government can never control stupidity. Now if speech incites violence then it becomes illegal.
The problem is that many young kids fall into the hands of predatory nazi "evangelists". I can see why they want to restrict free speech in this way, because there is hard to stop these assholes anyway. One could argue that the parents of these children should make sure they don't befriend themselves with nazis. If it was only that easy. These nazi scumbags are pretty clever when it comes to convincing the young. I think the free speech ban is wrong way to go though. There ought be other means of getting to the nazi bastards. Restricting free speech is exactly what the enemy wants to do!
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!