41% of Americans want to abolish free speech

Frederick Foresight said:
I don't have to be a cook to tell you the food is not quite right. I won't pretend to know where the line should be drawn; I only know there should be one. Remember Justice Potter Stewart who said he would distinguish art from porn when he saw it? I think most of us have a pretty good idea when a line is being crossed. With that in mind, the important thing is to get an open dialogue going and to reach some meaningful agreement. Checks and balances.
More...

Well, if you were somehow able to draw that line in a way that could not be moved, I'd be open to hearing more about your solution. But you can't, and so what we have currently is the best option until a new ones is found.
 
Tsing Tao said:
That's stupid. That's like saying anyone talking about drugs is the gateway to using drugs, or saying you wish you had your neighbor's car is akin to saying you will steal it. Saying you are against something or someone doesn't mean you are willing to cause harm to that something. Don't make up stuff to fit your narrative.
More...
You are minimizing the impact of hate speech on lives and actions. Besides, there is a difference between private discourse and public exhortation. Context, please.
 
Last edited:
Tsing Tao said:
If you stand in front of my house and threaten to kill me, the cops will be notified as well. It's just that the President has better cops. Freedom of Speech does not cover the right to promise harm delivered upon another.
More...
Ok, what about when someone defames someone else? Where is my freedom of speech, vs their reputation harm?

See what I am getting at is that freedom of speech is a pseudo-freedom. I am not saying it should or should not be one way or another, I am saying it is miscategorized definition, hence all the debate about it. There is no such thing as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That freedom is only in relation to higher or lower laws. So Jesus in a jar of urine harms no one since Jesus is dead, and therefore "freedom of speech" trancends other laws. Same for picture of Alah etc. On the other hand if I stick a picture of you in a jar of urnie, I may be causing a living person harm. If I dig up a corpse and shoot it, do I get charged with murder? If someone rapes a dead woman, do they get charged the same as if she were alive?

The law is contextual.
 
Last edited:
Tsing Tao said:
Well, if you were somehow able to draw that line in a way that could not be moved, I'd be open to hearing more about your solution. But you can't, and so what we have currently is the best option until a new ones is found.
More...
Yeah, I don't think the world is waiting for me to decide. I'm just saying, as you keep ignoring, that a line needs to be drawn. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? We live in a land of laws. This would just be another one.
 
Tsing Tao said:
We do? We arrest people for speaking their mind every day?

You folks are supposed to be liberals, for crying out loud. You are supposed to support tolerance and the person's right to speak their mind. It's republicans that I would expect would be behind telling people they don't have a right to say this or that.
More...
No, we have limits on free speech every day. And yet it's not "abolished", which word is the whole problem with this thread.
 
nitro said:
Ok, what about when someone defames someone else? Where is my freedom of speech, vs their reputation harm?

See what I am getting at is that freedom of speech is a pseudo-freedom. I am not saying it should or should not be one way or another, I am saying it is miscategorized definition, hence all the debate about it. There is no such thing as FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That freedom is only in relation to higher or lower laws. So Jesus in a jar of urine harms no one since Jesus is dead, and therefore "freedom of speech" trancends other laws. Same for picture of Alah etc. On the other hand if I stick a picture of you in a jar of urnie, I may be causing a living person harm. If I dig up a corpse and shoot it, do I get charged with murder? If someone rapes a dead woman, do they get charged the same as if she were alive?

The law is contextual.
More...
The whole reason that "hate speech" has been debated recently in the media is due to the draw Muhammad event in Garland, Texas and whether or not an event such as that should become illegal.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
Yeah, I don't think the world is waiting for me to decide. I'm just saying, as you keep ignoring, that a line needs to be drawn. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? We live in a land of laws. This would just be another one.
More...

So you have no solution. It's like Futurecurrents with his gun argument - just as useless. He says all guns should be banned, but has no idea how to go about that. You want hate speech to be banned, yet you can't think of a way to do it in a manner that wouldn't be a moving goal post, subject to abuse or corruption.

Let us know when you guys come up with this imaginary utopia in real life. It might be a nice place to move to one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top