[fluff]

Look. If you don't get why free speech is so important, then I won't be able to explain it to you.

Nice logic. Can you explain it to yourself out loud and I'll just eavesdrop.

 

[Tenchiro]

Nice logic. Can you explain it to yourself out loud and I'll just eavesdrop.

If you ban speech because you do not agree with it, then there is nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing to you.

That is what it is important that all speech remain free.

 

[sanjuro]

No, I am comparing the reasons for it to exist as some kind of inspired 'right'. So why not explain why you see the right to free speech as so sacrosanct, when nothing else appears to be so?

For one thing, the founding fathers felt it was so important, they made it the first Amendment.

I will give you an example of free speech. I think what you said is idiotic (very true), and I am going to have you arrested for offending me.

Seem kinda of silly? Well, your protection from prosecution is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

[fluff]

If you ban speech because you do not agree with it, then there is nothing stopping someone else from doing the same thing to you.

That is what it is important that all speech remain free.

We're not talking about 'banning speech' in toto. We are talking about whether certain types/uses of speech should be allowed or disallowed. Arguing that all speech must remain free so that all speech remains free is circular logic and not a persuasive argument. If it is true that all speech must remain free then there must be a better reason than that.

We ban other actions because we do not agree with them (on what is supposed to be a consensus basis). What makes speech different?

If 99% of people believe that a certain kind of speech is unacceptable (for example incitement to kill because of ethnic origin) why is it not acceptable to make such speech a crime?

 

[fluff]

For one thing, the founding fathers felt it was so important, they made it the first Amendment.

I will give you an example of free speech. I think what you said is idiotic (very true), and I am going to have you arrested for offending me.

Seem kinda of silly? Well, your protection from prosecution is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

It seems silly in this context. However if I were broadcasting nationally that it was the duty of every true American to kill all gay people it doesn't seem so stupid.

 

[fluff]

For one thing, the founding fathers felt it was so important, they made it the first Amendment.

I will give you an example of free speech. I think what you said is idiotic (very true), and I am going to have you arrested for offending me.

Seem kinda of silly? Well, your protection from prosecution is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

BTW, do you have slander laws in the US?
Aren't the amendments like add-ons? They thought it so important that they missed it first time around?

 

[sanjuro]

I'm not trying to be a smartass here but I do think that the issue is not really as clear cut as that. Consider the role played by RTLM in the Rwandan genocide.

Where free speech meets inflammatory rhetoric that exhorts people to take innocent lives, where should we draw the line?

Well, there is the well known precedent about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. While free speech is protected in America, speech which causes direct injury is not.

Expressing racist opinions is protected, expressing violence is not.

 

[fluff]

Well, there is the well known precedent about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. While free speech is protected in America, speech which causes direct injury is not.

Expressing racist opinions is protected, expressing violence is not.

So therefore not all speech is free, no?

Do you agree that expressing violence should not be protected or do you think that it should?

 

[sanjuro]

BTW, do you have slander laws in the US?
Aren't the amendments like add-ons? They thought it so important that they missed it first time around?

That is one way to think of the Bill of Rights (dialing 911, to report an idiot to the free speech police).

I am expressing my opinion about your statement and of your intelligence level. Slander is only when I am speaking a blatant lie, which saying you are not an idiot would be.

 

[fluff]

That is one way to think of the Bill of Rights (dialing 911, to report an idiot to the free speech police).

I am expressing my opinion about your statement and of your intelligence level. Slander is only when I am speaking a blatant lie, which saying you are not an idiot would be.

You're very free with your opinions today.

So, to recap, we have freedom of speech except where lying or advocating violence is involved? Do you think that is an acceptable compromise? (Regardless of my idiocy.)

 

[Tenchiro]

We're not talking about 'banning speech' in toto. We are talking about whether certain types/uses of speech should be allowed or disallowed.

umm...

Arguing that all speech must remain free so that all speech remains free is circular logic and not a persuasive argument. If it is true that all speech must remain free then there must be a better reason than that.

If you take away a someones right to speak their mind, simply because you do not agree with thier viewpoint. There will be nothing to stop someone else from doing the same thing to you.

If you come across something you don't agree with you are free to change the channel, close the website, leave, etc. You don't have the right in this country not to be offended.

We ban other actions because we do not agree with them (on what is supposed to be a consensus basis). What makes speech different?

Words are not actions, and in and of themselves can do no harm to anyone. You know, the whole "sticks and stones" argument.

If 99% of people believe that a certain kind of speech is unacceptable (for example incitement to kill because of ethnic origin) why is it not acceptable to make such speech a crime?

Making threats against individuals or groups is already illegal.

 

[sanjuro]

You're very free with your opinions today.

So, to recap, we have freedom of speech except where lying or advocating violence is involved? Do you think that is an acceptable compromise? (Regardless of my idiocy.)

Frankly, American laws are constantly changing. For example the founding fathers had not considered the time of the "Information Age", where data is more important than hard goods. Our laws are reinterpreted to reflect changing times, particularily with the First Amendment.

Why don't you look up First Amendent intepretations to get your own answer?

 

[fluff]

umm...

If you take away a someones right to speak their mind, simply because you do not agree with thier viewpoint. There will be nothing to stop someone else from doing the same thing to you.

You said that already. It wasn't persuasive before.

If you come across something you don't agree with you are free to change the channel, close the website, leave, etc. You don't have the right in this country not to be offended.

Whether I am offended or not is not the point. I can turn off the TV, but by so doing I cannot stop the stop the broadcast and the possibility of other impressionable people being persuaded by it.

Words are not actions, and in and of themselves can do no harm to anyone. You know, the whole "sticks and stones" argument.

If words cannot harm why are threats illegal?

Making threats against individuals or groups is already illegal.

Do you agree that it should be so?

And I was talking about exhorting others to take action against a group, not a direct threat.

 

[fluff]

Frankly, American laws are constantly changing. For example the founding fathers had not considered the time of the "Information Age", where data is more important than hard goods. Our laws are reinterpreted to reflect changing times, particularily with the First Amendment.

Why don't you look up First Amendent intepretations to get your own answer?

My answer to what? Your opinion of the laws of free speech? Are they really contained within the first amendment interpretations?

 

[Tenchiro]

Whether I am offended or not is not the point. I can turn off the TV, but by so doing I cannot stop the stop the broadcast and the possibility of other impressionable people being persuaded by it.

People can make up their own minds.

Do you agree that it should be so? And I was talking about exhorting others to take action against a group, not a direct threat.

Conspiring against other people is also illegal already. Maybe because jurisdiction for this would fall under the Judicial branch of the government instead of the legislative and is not directly protected by the first amendment.

I really don't the hows and the whys of that.