Freedom of speech in the U.S.

I said there are consequences when you put people in danger or potential danger. And you have to be held accountable. Again....victims are a separate issue. Which I've addressed. It's not that you don't have the freedom to yell fire....go outside alone and do so. Nothing will happen. It's the danger you put other people in that causes the consequences.LJS9502_basic

What's the difference between me putting people in danger that way, versus writing a lengthy treatise on the inferiority of Russians which inspires somebody to commit murder?

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So you are okay with not being able to speak your mind because someone might act erroneously against what you said? You've been here awhile....have you ever noticed posts where an individual misreads what another has stated and an argument ensues? When you leave the government the right to interpret words that didn't actually cause a call to arms as it were......you restrict your own freedom. There is a difference between saying x group is disgusting and I hate them....and saying look...he's an x attack him.LJS9502_basic

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I said there are consequences when you put people in danger or potential danger. And you have to be held accountable. Again....victims are a separate issue. Which I've addressed. It's not that you don't have the freedom to yell fire....go outside alone and do so. Nothing will happen. It's the danger you put other people in that causes the consequences.Palantas

What's the difference between me putting people in danger that way, versus writing a lengthy treatise on the inferiority of Russians which inspires somebody to commit murder?

I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.SolidSnake35

Like how I don't care about gay marriage rights because I'm not gay What's "should want to exercise" mean? "Should" in what sense?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] There's a difference but both are wrong. I don't see it as a loss of freedom if I can't say I hate x people. I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.tenaka2

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.Palantas

Like how I don't care about gay marriage rights because I'm not gay What's "should want to exercise" mean? "Should" in what sense?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Again...the consequences are due to the harm or potential harm of others. Thus it's not the speech itself per se but the fact that it has an actual victim.:|m0zart

Indeed. At least that's the theory. It doesn't always work out that way, but it does much of the time. This is basically the reasoning SCOTUS had when it knocked down Federal restrictions on child pornography that did not involve real children.

When it comes to that sort of thing, i.e. child porn, I really have a hard time being rational about it due to the extreme hatred I have. Yet I had to agree with the reasoning of the Court in that finding, despite the fact that they could reverse themselves later on (and may already have).

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.SolidSnake35

Like how I don't care about gay marriage rights because I'm not gay What's "should want to exercise" mean? "Should" in what sense?

Merely saying negative things does not mean you encourage murder against a specific group.LJS9502_basic

I agree.

But it could. When it's the law....it can be used for such. And people have been known to interpret what they want to interpret. That is why law is best that doesn't have gray areas.LJS9502_basic

Somebody earlier in the thread was praising this law specifically because it is vauge. "It gives courts the ability to apply common sense," or something like that.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But it is a loss of freedom. You can't say it. And what if it's interpreted as criminal if you merely were upset one day and said something mildly derogatory and got reported? Does it really deserve jail time?LJS9502_basic

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

That isn't a valid comparison. Thats like saying that ifa slight decrease in the maximum speed limit is made law, the next thing is us all moving backward. Yon can take anything to an illogical extreme.

The law in the UK is very specific, its to stop people from being persecuted, it only applies to public demonstration and I understand (could be wrong) that one of the main reasons it was introduced was to stop islamic extremist clerics that were active in the U.K.

Are islamic radical priests allowed to have open hate rallys in the U.S.? More to the point does it happen?

But the law would stop the WBC from being active and getting all this attention. From an outsiders perspective it doesn't look like the US allows free speech, it looks like the US is happy with the actions of the WBC. (i know this isnt the case)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Again...the consequences are due to the harm or potential harm of others. Thus it's not the speech itself per se but the fact that it has an actual victim.:|LJS9502_basic

The law in the UK is very specific, its to stop people from being persecuted, it only applies to public demonstration and I understand (could be wrong) that one of the main reasons it was introduced was to stop islamic extremist clerics that were active in the U.K.

tenaka2

Is it? The text excerpts I've seen don't mention persecution. I'm not sure how an extremist minority persecutes anyone anyway.

Speaking of text excerpts...

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Public Order Act of 1994

This is "very specific"? I'm not a jurist, so perhaps it is; just doesn't seem very specific to me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

tenaka2

That isn't a valid comparison. Thats like saying that ifa slight decrease in the maximum speed limit is made law, the next thing is us all moving backward. Yon can take anything to an illogical extreme.

The law in the UK is very specific, its to stop people from being persecuted, it only applies to public demonstration and I understand (could be wrong) that one of the main reasons it was introduced was to stop islamic extremist clerics that were active in the U.K.

Are islamic radical priests allowed to have open hate rallys in the U.S.? More to the point does it happen?

But the law would stop the WBC from being active and getting all this attention. From an outsiders perspective it doesn't look like the US allows free speech, it looks like the US is happy with the actions of the WBC. (i know this isnt the case)

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] There's a difference but both are wrong. I don't see it as a loss of freedom if I can't say I hate x people. I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.tenaka2

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

hate speech laws are ridiculous. they're more dangerous than simply allowing all forms of speech, because the door is open for people to call things offensive when they just don't like them.

why should anyone have their time wasted defending themselves in arguing over the enterpretation of a subjective law, what if you had to defend yourself when in your view you were trying to make a legitimate point about something but someone had a problem with you?

I suggest everyone watch this lecture by Christopher Hitchens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Hg-Y7MugU

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] And because certain forms of speech have an actual victim, restrictions are made on speech by the government. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]I'm only concerned about freedoms I should want to exercise.Palantas

Like how I don't care about gay marriage rights because I'm not gay What's "should want to exercise" mean? "Should" in what sense?

Maybe he would rather live in an authoritarian society where no rights exist and everyone is told what to do?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

BMD004

Asa Republican-voting country boy* I feel that I should have the "freedom" to walk down the street and not see two boys holding hands. I'm being persecuted!

*Sarcasm

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But it is a loss of freedom. You can't say it. And what if it's interpreted as criminal if you merely were upset one day and said something mildly derogatory and got reported? Does it really deserve jail time?BMD004

I can see that it would be a loss of freedom, however it could also be argued that a person should have the freedom of walking down a street without being told god hates you and your going to hell (using the WBC example).

Of a family should be able to go to a funeral without a group shouting that God hates cancer victims as a family mourns. That is also a loss of freedom.

woah there, people DO have the freedom to not be insulted by the WBC. they take a different sidewalk route, they ignore them. the WBC cannot MAKE anyone listen to them, especially when they are required to hold their protests 1000 feet from funerals (so there is no captive audience like people attending the service).

it makes me sick to see hateful words too, but we need to understand that allowing that kind of extreme expression is actually protecting ourselves.