Freedom of speech in the U.S.

What's "without a case" mean? Do you mean in a legal sense?

Palantas

Even if what one says may cause more harm than good? For instance, shouting fire in a crowded theatre or screaming Jihad on an airplane.Vandalvideo

This is an interesting question. I'll venture a couple guesses on why these examples are different from hate speech:

1. Neither of these communicate an opinion. They are not complex ideas like hate speech. They're simple statements which deceive people into believing they are in danger, and then rely on their reaction to create actual danger.
2. Both of these create an immediate reaction in other people based one's basic instincts (survival). Hate speech must be interpreted by another person emotionally and intellectually, at which point that person is responsible for their actions.

What do you think the difference is?

Yes..SolidSnake35

Let me make sure I have this straight: If someone calls the police because their feelings are hurt, and their case is determined to be without merit, then they are insane. However, if someone calls the police because their feelings are hurt, and their "attacker" is convicted, then they are not insane (at least not due to this).

In the example I gave, the case was prosecuted, successfully.

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

You know, you assuming that God would do all the forbidding is pretty disrespectful and "distressing" to me. I'm calling the cops.

SolidSnake35

I wonder why sane British people don't. Says a lot.

Edit in bold. So even with your proposed edit, your statement is still false by your own definitions.

I don't see the problem.SolidSnake35

The problem is that A.) Even a quick look at Wikipedia will show that you don't know what you're talking about, and B.) As a result, you make comments that are illogical, and C.) When this is pointed out, you're left writing non-arguments like this:

I don't see the problem. The case went through... the guy wasn't insane. There must've been some basis to prosecute the attacker.SolidSnake35

The guy wasn't insane because his case was supported by the courts, and his case was supported by the courts because he's not insane. Awesome. What I'm getting from you is that the law is justified because it exists. (And don't ask why; there must be "some basis" when it's used.) If you weren't going to actually write any arguments or explain anything, you could have just left it at "I support hate speech legislation" and saved some typing.

Yeah its dumb. You should be free to say whatever you want, to anybody. USA did something right

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't see the problem.Palantas

The problem is that A.) Even a quick look at Wikipedia will show that you don't know what you're talking about, and B.) As a result, you make comments that are illogical, and C.) When this is pointed out, you're left writing non-arguments like this:

I don't see the problem. The case went through... the guy wasn't insane. There must've been some basis to prosecute the attacker.SolidSnake35

The guy wasn't insane because his case was supported by the courts, and his case was supported by the courts because he's not insane. Awesome. What I'm getting from you is that the law is justified because it exists. (And don't ask why; there must be "some basis" when it's used.) If you weren't going to actually write any arguments or explain anything, you could have just left it at "I support hate speech legislation" and saved some typing.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

For the US, yes.

We've always had thicker skin, I don't see why that should change.

BMD004

So its ok for a group to stand by a love ones grave and for another group to shout 'ah ah ah they deserved it, in a volume that over rides the priest trying to eulogy?

Could possibly be charged with disturbing the peace.

I don't think you got my point.SolidSnake35

It is impossible to get your point, because you don't know what you're talking about and therefore write illogical posts. You made a statement that was quickly shown to be incorrect. When confronted with this, you generated an illogical argument.

I live here. We don't have problems. America, I reckon, has greater problems with its pathetic billboard advertising as shown in this thread.SolidSnake35

Is it easy to reckon things when your standards of evidence are whatever you make up on the spot?

[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 thingVandalvideo

The integrity of the legal system relies heavily on it's repetitive nature to correct itself and come to new and appropriates decisions based on the entirety of it's rulings, but those decisions are always determined by the mood and out look of the people that are determining them. I absolutely agree that this is not based on morality but on something else entirely.

This is where the legal system itself becomes questionable as it has little basis to generate authority outside of governing bodies and spheres of influence that generate the laws. Morality and ethical treatment of the people is and should be the aim for any legal system. If not all legal systems should be abolished immediately. A legal system that is not ethical or moral in nature will inevitably promote tyrannical and authoritarian rule over the people. It will have no purpose other than perfecting it's own arbitrary system of rules, within their own personal philosophies, and force a population of people to abide by them or be punished.

A British guy called me a "wanker" on Xbox Live. How do I report him to the authorities?

Oleg_Huzwog

For realz... I get 12 year old British kids in my matches who insult me from like every category that law says they can't insult me from...

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

A British guy called me a "wanker" on Xbox Live. How do I report him to the authorities?

Buttons1990

For realz... I get 12 year old British kids in my matches who insult me from like every category that law says they can't insult me from...

No, you can't report him to the authorities. That would be crying wolf. See, you can determine when an accusation is crying wolf, because it will be. And sane accusations are sane because they're sane. Got it? I've recently received a lesson in circular reasoning in this thread, and I'm trying to pass it on.

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

A British guy called me a "wanker" on Xbox Live. How do I report him to the authorities?

Palantas

For realz... I get 12 year old British kids in my matches who insult me from like every category that law says they can't insult me from...

No, you can't report him to the authorities. That would be crying wolf. See, you can determine when an accusation is crying wolf, because it will be. And sane accusations are sane because they're sane. Got it? I've recently received a lesson in circular reasoning in this thread, and I'm trying to pass it on.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

For realz... I get 12 year old British kids in my matches who insult me from like every category that law says they can't insult me from...

surrealnumber5

No, you can't report him to the authorities. That would be crying wolf. See, you can determine when an accusation is crying wolf, because it will be. And sane accusations are sane because they're sane. Got it? I've recently received a lesson in circular reasoning in this thread, and I'm trying to pass it on.

Ad Hominem anyone?

The points made the the above post are valid however we all know the poster has poor fashion sense, so we had better ignore the post.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I don't think you got my point.Palantas

It is impossible to get your point, because you don't know what you're talking about and therefore write illogical posts. You made a statement that was quickly shown to be incorrect. When confronted with this, you generated an illogical argument.

I live here. We don't have problems. America, I reckon, has greater problems with its pathetic billboard advertising as shown in this thread.SolidSnake35

Is it easy to reckon things when your standards of evidence are whatever you make up on the spot?

[QUOTE="Buttons1990"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

A British guy called me a "wanker" on Xbox Live. How do I report him to the authorities?

Palantas

For realz... I get 12 year old British kids in my matches who insult me from like every category that law says they can't insult me from...

No, you can't report him to the authorities. That would be crying wolf. See, you can determine when an accusation is crying wolf, because it will be. And sane accusations are sane because they're sane. Got it? I've recently received a lesson in circular reasoning in this thread, and I'm trying to pass it on.

And you still fail to realise that I was giving illogical arguments as a result of not really caring. But it appears you enjoy pursuing points I've lost interest in... as when you persisted in claiming that I was making you cry. And I don't invent the state of the country I live in. I live here. That's evidence I did not make up.SolidSnake35

Ah, so you've reached the "I don't care about the argument" point. So this somehow justifies all the factual and logical errors you've made? And whatever makes you think it's better that you live in the country about which you continue to misspeak? Let's see here...

1. You state that cetain types of complaints are not filed.
2. You are shown otherwise.
3. Then you state that the complaints made are justified...because they're justified.
4. I'll further point out that unfustifiedcomplaints are made as well.

Tell me, how do your statements that A.) You live in the place discussed, and B.) You don't care about the argument, rectify any of the errors you've made? You care enough to tell me you don't care...but not to write any sound arguments. Way to go.

Sometimes things are blatantly obvious. And I like to assume a little common sense.. so I don't expect to have to justify to you what is and isn't common sense. You should look elsewhere for that.SolidSnake35

I thought you didn't care anymore. Once again, you don't care enough to write an actual argument or back up any claims, but you'll write some incredibly vague post about "common sense." Why is that?

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

One step towards dictatorship.

I think you're confusing morality with the caprice nature of man. One may claim morality to generate authority behind their own, or a groups interests, that does not make them moral or ethical. The judicial system is as likely to be influenced by the quality of sleep, meal, or day a judge or juror last had.UniverseIX

The integrity of the legal system relies heavily on it's repetitive nature to correct itself and come to new and appropriates decisions based on the entirety of it's rulings, but those decisions are always determined by the mood and out look of the people that are determining them. I absolutely agree that this is not based on morality but on something else entirely.

This is where the legal system itself becomes questionable as it has little basis to generate authority outside of governing bodies and spheres of influence that generate the laws. Morality and ethical treatment of the people is and should be the aim for any legal system. If not all legal systems should be abolished immediately. A legal system that is not ethical or moral in nature will inevitably promote tyrannical and authoritarian rule over the people. It will have no purpose other than perfecting it's own arbitrary system of rules, within their own personal philosophies, and force a population of people to abide by them or be punished.

I have no reason to justify my throwaway comments to you. When a person doesn't care, they don't spend a long time structuring their response. It is clear that you care very much. Refer to your own posts for evidence of that.. and compare them to mine while you're at it. For sure, you would get the gold star for effort.SolidSnake35

Yet, you're still here, responding at about the same length I am. Perhaps I don't care that much, and can simply put together a logical argument with a minimum of effort, whereas you cannot.

Also I still fail to see your point. These examples you are showing me... they're just examples of human stupidity. And I really don't think America is exempt from people making a mockery of the law. I'm sure we're all familiar with the American tradition of suing the pants off anyone and everyone for anything and everything. Do those instances prove that the American legal system is a farce? By your logic, they should.SolidSnake35

Ah, you're still confused, I see. Is this a result of not caring, or...what? I'm simply responding to statements you have made in this thread. I have not commented on the American legal system, and I don't know what in the hell made you think I did. Is that your "common sense" at work: Invent unspoken arguments on the part of your adversary? Gold star for effort. I'm gonna go get some drinks. When I get back, if you're still posting false statements, non-explanations, and red herrings, I'll be happy to re-outline the case for you.

I am fine with it. It is sufficiently vague as to allow the courts enough room to apply commonsense.

The UK has the right idea.

I am fine with it. It is sufficiently vague as to allow the courts enough room to apply commonsense.

SUD123456

.. If this is law within the UK, why is there a large anti immigrant movement... One that is increasingly hostile towards Islam.. At least from what I heard.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]

It is impossible to get your point, because you don't know what you're talking about and therefore write illogical posts. You made a statement that was quickly shown to be incorrect. When confronted with this, you generated an illogical argument.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I live here. We don't have problems. America, I reckon, has greater problems with its pathetic billboard advertising as shown in this thread.SolidSnake35

Is it easy to reckon things when your standards of evidence are whatever you make up on the spot?

As I stated earlier, no one else got what Palantas was doing. He was using UK law and your flawed arguments to argue the point that the law is messed up. No one else got it save for me. :roll: He was using it against you.

As I stated earlier, no one else got what Palantas was doing. He was using UK law and your flawed arguments to argue the point that the law is messed up. No one else got it save for me. :roll: He was using it against you.WhiteKnight77

Some would argue that any so-called 'Freedom' that is either conditional and /or provisional is really not 'Freedom' at all...67gt500

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"].. If this is law within the UK, why is there a large anti immigrant movement... One that is increasingly hostile towards Islam.. At least from what I heard.SolidSnake35

Oh you guys and your examples. Anyways, it looks like the police were getting involved, doesn't it?SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Oh you guys and your examples. Anyways, it looks like the police were getting involved, doesn't it?BMD004

The law works. His examples prove nothing.SolidSnake35

What do you mean the law "works"? By what metric? My examples are rebuttals to the following statements:

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

You know, you assuming that God would do all the forbidding is pretty disrespectful and "distressing" to me. I'm calling the cops.

SolidSnake35

I wonder why British people don't. Says a lot.

You were just flat out wrong on there. You adjusted your statment to say that "sane" British people don't, defining "sane" to mean that the case was successfully prosecuted. Of course, that's flat out wrong too, as evidenced by the cases I linked where complaints were made, then thrown out. Stop making things up.

As I stated earlier, no one else got what Palantas was doing. He was using UK law and your flawed arguments to argue the point that the law is messed up. No one else got it save for me. :roll: He was using it against you.

WhiteKnight77

I was commenting on the irony of a guy arguing (and I use that term loosely) for a law that criminalises insulting someone's national origin...while this same person insults someone's national origin.

Oh you guys and your examples.SolidSnake35

Documented examples are preferable to just making s*** up.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

As I stated earlier, no one else got what Palantas was doing. He was using UK law and your flawed arguments to argue the point that the law is messed up. No one else got it save for me. :roll: He was using it against you.

Palantas

I was commenting on the irony of a guy arguing (and I use that term loosely) for a law that criminalises insulting someone's national origin...while this same person insults someone's national origin.

The law is pretty ambiguous. It just means you can't go and outright insult a group without any form of rhetoric.

Westboro Baptist Church would've been locked up as sson as they sprouted if they were in the UK because of this.

The law is pretty ambiguous. It just means you can't go and outright insult a group without any form of rhetoric.

Westboro Baptist Church would've been locked up as sson as they sprouted if they were in the UK because of this.

BigBoss154

[QUOTE="67gt500"]Some would argue that any so-called 'Freedom' that is either conditional and /or provisional is really not 'Freedom' at all...SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]

What do you mean the law "works"? By what metric? My examples are rebuttals to the following statements:

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]

[QUOTE="ROFLCOPTER603"]

You know, you assuming that God would do all the forbidding is pretty disrespectful and "distressing" to me. I'm calling the cops.

Palantas

I wonder why British people don't. Says a lot.

You were just flat out wrong on there. You adjusted your statment to say that "sane" British people don't, defining "sane" to mean that the case was successfully prosecuted. Of course, that's flat out wrong too, as evidenced by the cases I linked where complaints were made, then thrown out. Stop making things up.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Psh. What laws do work then? American laws? We all know America is home to the zaniest folk. .SolidSnake35

It's there to enforce in excessive situations, not for every throwaway comment. Here's an analagy - look at employment contracts these days and they're thick documents, stuffed full of seemingly draconian regulations regarding what you can and cannot do. That doesn't mean a company will neccasarily enforce all of those things, however they're precautionary measures to prevent anyone taking advantage to excess.

I think like with many laws, a degree of common sense is involved as to when it should be enforced.

Ps. I don't know what you're actually arguing FOR. If it's only to show that I, personally, am wrong... that's not an achievement. I'm sorry if you thought it was.SolidSnake35

I guess that's as close as a concession as I'm going to get. And yes, I get it: You don't care. You've posted for pages and pages, were proven incorrect, and now you don't care. Sure, I believe that.

I'm not.. I'm just saying, for example, gun laws... find an example of some guy shooting someone in the head for no reason. Does it instantly prove the law is bad? i wouldn't say so.SolidSnake35

If someone were stupid enough to get on here and say that a gun law is never abused, then such an example would prove them incorrect.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Ps. I don't know what you're actually arguing FOR. If it's only to show that I, personally, am wrong... that's not an achievement. I'm sorry if you thought it was.Palantas

I guess that's as close as a concession as I'm going to get. And yes, I get it: You don't care. You've posted for pages and pages, were proven incorrect, and now you don't care. Sure, I believe that.

I'm not.. I'm just saying, for example, gun laws... find an example of some guy shooting someone in the head for no reason. Does it instantly prove the law is bad? i wouldn't say so.SolidSnake35

If someone were stupid enough to get on here and say that a gun law is never abused, then such an example would prove them incorrect.