Freedom of speech in the U.S.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Respect towards a police officer should be a legal issue. They ARE the law, to use a somewhat corny and American-sounding phrase.Palantas

What, like I should have to stand at attention and call him "officer," "trooper," or "sergeant"? Why should the law require me to say anything to the police besides, "Am I free to go?"

And you just won't stop insulting my country. I am so offended; I am going to cry tears into my martini tonight. Who is your MP? I need to write them and tell them they need to encourage more tolerance and less hate speech in your area.

That law is wrong in my opinion.

I'd stop but you appear to be enjoying your freedom to labour the same example.SolidSnake35

You seem to be enjoying your freedom to not answer questions. Oh, and insult peoples' national origin; you're actually giving me more examples.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'd stop but you appear to be enjoying your freedom to labour the same example.Palantas

You seem to be enjoying your freedom to not answer questions. Oh, and insult peoples' national origin; you're actually giving me more examples.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'd stop but you appear to be enjoying your freedom to labour the same example.SolidSnake35

You seem to be enjoying your freedom to not answer questions. Oh, and insult peoples' national origin; you're actually giving me more examples.

I see you edited your insulting message. If you didn't censor yourself so quick, you might be in jail right now.BMD004

[QUOTE="BMD004"]I see you edited your insulting message. If you didn't censor yourself so quick, you might be in jail right now.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="BMD004"]Inciting violence means a call to violence... not saying something that might cause somebody else to get mad and do something violent. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="BMD004"]I see you edited your insulting message. If you didn't censor yourself so quick, you might be in jail right now.BMD004

Yes the law is wrong you should be free to say which you want even it is dumb and baseless.

I don't disagree with the reasoning behind the law, but it does create a slippery slope.

Yes the law is wrong you should be free to say which you want even it is dumb and baseless.

Communist_Soul

Maybe those questions were lost in your laboured example. And I don't think I've insulted anyone.SolidSnake35

The question are easy to identify. They end in "?". I'm sorry; I think you've insulted me and all Americans. So has at least one other person. Or were those both yours? Anyway, A+ work: Defend a law that makes it illegal to insult peoples' national origin, while insulting peoples' national origin. Do you think that makes sense?*

More questions: Why is religion protected in this?* It's a choice, just like my preference for tight polo shirts. And have you been appalled at OT's frequent religious-argument threads for stirring up religious hatred?* And if not, why not?*

*Ed. note: Question.

Or challenging someone to a fight.Vandalvideo

Is challenging someone to a fight illegal?

just like my preference for tight polo shirts. Palantas

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Or challenging someone to a fight.Palantas

Is challenging someone to a fight illegal?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Maybe those questions were lost in your laboured example. And I don't think I've insulted anyone.Palantas

The question are easy to identify. They end in "?". I'm sorry; I think you've insulted me and all Americans. So has at least one other person. Or were those both yours? Anyway, A+ work: Defend a law that makes it illegal to insult peoples' national origin, while insulting peoples' national origin. Do you think that makes sense?*

More questions: Why is religion protected in this?* It's a choice, just like my preference for tight polo shirts. And have you been appalled at OT's frequent religious-argument threads for stirring up religious hatred?* And if not, why not?*

*Ed. note: Question.

[QUOTE="I"]

Is challenging someone to a fight illegal?

Vandalvideo

I was too lazy to come up with an example of the fighting words doctrine.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking you a question: Is challenging someone to a fight illegal. And the only legitimate argument for banning tight polo shirst is that they make fat people depressed.

OTs threads aren't likely to cause violence.SolidSnake35

Why not?* Somebody could get pissed at all of this bickering and go do something crazy. I thought that was your concern. Why is an exchange of opinions over the Internet not likely to cause violence, as opposed to an exchange anywhere else?* Which forums of communication should come under this scrutiny and which should not?*

*Ed. note: Question.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking you a question: Is challenging someone to a fight illegal. And the only legitimate argument for banning tight polo shirst is that they make fat people depressed.Palantas

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]

[QUOTE="I"]

Is challenging someone to a fight illegal?

Palantas

I was too lazy to come up with an example of the fighting words doctrine.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking you a question: Is challenging someone to a fight illegal. And the only legitimate argument for banning tight polo shirst is that they make fat people depressed.

Vandalvideo

K, got it. And seems like it'd be easier to ban small people rather than small shirts.

K, got it. And seems like it'd be easier to ban small people rather than small shirts.Palantas

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]OTs threads aren't likely to cause violence.Palantas

Why not?* Somebody could get pissed at all of this bickering and go do something crazy. I thought that was your concern. Why is an exchange of opinions over the Internet not likely to cause violence, as opposed to an exchange anywhere else?* Which forums of communication should come under this scrutiny and which should not?*

*Ed. note: Question.

I'm done with this thread now.SolidSnake35

Thank god. I'm so distressed at the continual insults to my country.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

in australia, you can get a $240 fine for swearing

Firebird-5

it's not the federal government, it's the state governments who decide they want a higher share of the GST revenue. So they increase mining royalties, or install speeding cameras that earn upwards of $7 million

Stupid laws. These cameras, if they were here, would infringe on my freedom of driving fast. That should be an amendment. Stupid traffic cops. Go stop some real law breakers.

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]uhhhh...... yeah. thats kinda the point of freedom of speech. in order for freedom of speech to exist, you cant simply censor ideas which you personally find unacceptable. I hate homophobes (as anyone on this forum knows), but if they want to post a billboard that says "gays are servants of satan" than they have a right to do so. but I also have a right to post a billboard right next to it which says "satan > Fred Phelps." do you see how that works? in a free society, both bad ideas and good ideas are allowed to express themselves. both popular and unpopular ideas need equal protection. and people who are unable to understand this are far more abrasive to a free and civilized society than any "white nationalist" or homophobe.SolidSnake35

oh noes, your children will be traumatized.

1) what kids actually pay attention to billboards anyway? even more importantly, how many young kids are going to even be able to understand the political messages being portrayed and what they entail?

2) arent they already going to be exposed to such advertising on the Internet anyway?

3) are you suggesting that we keep every form of public speech at a pg level?

"if something isnt ok for kids to see, than no one can see it."

is that a reasonable expectation?

4) these signs already exist

and I dont think our country is really suffering becuase of it

5) this whole idea that speech and expression cause "emotional distress" and thus should be heavily censored undermines the very concept of "freedom of speech." at least be honest enough to come out and say "I am against freedom of speech." becuase that is the truth. you are basically saying

"I am for freedom of speech...... except when it violates anything on this large list of rules."

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]OTs threads aren't likely to cause violence.SolidSnake35

Why not?* Somebody could get pissed at all of this bickering and go do something crazy. I thought that was your concern. Why is an exchange of opinions over the Internet not likely to cause violence, as opposed to an exchange anywhere else?* Which forums of communication should come under this scrutiny and which should not?*

*Ed. note: Question.

arbitor365

I've heard Jedi are not protected by this law. Is it true?

Is that the same bill as this one?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/e/st050629/pm/50629s01.htm

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'm done with this thread now.Palantas

Thank god. I'm so distressed at the continual insults to my country.

He didn't understand what you were doing. It appears that I am the only one to catch that.

*on topic*

That law appears to try and protect everyone and in the process, halts free speech. I may not agree with the KKK, Neo-Nazis or Westboro Baptist Church, but I, along with others, defend or have defended their right to say it, even if it is hateful. Society can take care of them, even if the government can't (or won't and I agree, they shouldn't). When you have people like the Patriot Guard to stand guard in front of them to block a bereaved family from seeing such garbage on such a somber day, you can see free speech in action.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

In the U.K. the following rules apply.

Hate speech laws in theUnited Kingdomare found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

Do you think this law is wrong?

tenaka2

Where do you draw the line? If someone states where the U.S. president will be at a particular time and gives vantage point and calibre is that freedom of speech?

Hate speech laws in theUnited Kingdomare found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden.Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

Do you think this law is wrong?

tenaka2

Nope, this law is absolutely fine. Those saying it isn't are foolish. If you want to live in a society you have to sacrifice certain freedoms. Nobody is entirely free, that goes for US citizens as well. Preventing hate speeches to me is a moral responsibility and I think its good a thing.

Nope, this law is absolutely fine. Those saying it isn't are foolish. If you want to live in a society you have to sacrifice certain freedoms. Nobody is entirely free, that goes for US citizens as well. Preventing hate speeches to me is a moral responsibility and I think its good a thing.

Asim90

What's truly foolish is thinking a government is actually capable of regulating what people can or can't say.

Nope, this law is absolutely fine. Those saying it isn't are foolish. If you want to live in a society you have to sacrifice certain freedoms. Nobody is entirely free, that goes for US citizens as well. Preventing hate speeches to me is a moral responsibility and I think its good a thingAsim90

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

Nope, this law is absolutely fine. Those saying it isn't are foolish. If you want to live in a society you have to sacrifice certain freedoms. Nobody is entirely free, that goes for US citizens as well. Preventing hate speeches to me is a moral responsibility and I think its good a thing.

airshocker

What's truly foolish is thinking a government is actually capable of regulating what people can or can't say.

It doesn't matter. You can successfully sue for being offended. Yay the right to not be offended.