Free speech? So long as its allowed

[specimen56]

In the UK there is movement to ban people from talking about other peoples religions in a non-positive light. The main arguement is that people who make up extremist groups such as the BNP (British National Party), and the guy who has just been let into the UK recently despite his racist opinions, etc (I feel like such an idiot- I've forgotten his name). I feel like we, the british puplic are starting to have to tip-toe around about what we can or cannot say.
I just want to kinow if anyone can clue me in some more about this if they kow more please.

[The-Bi99man]

Move to America. Here, if someone tried to take away your right to say bad things about other people's religions, you could sue, and you'd probably win or get a massive cash settlement.

[greenpixie]

I SAY WHAT I WANT!!!
I WORSHIP SATAN!!!
I HATE TONY BLAIR!!!
I HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!
I HATE YOU!!!
I HATE RELIGION!!!

[deathofself]

At 7/16/04 02:57 PM, greenpixie wrote: I SAY WHAT I WANT!!!
I WORSHIP SATAN!!!
I HATE TONY BLAIR!!!
I HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!
I HATE YOU!!!
I HATE RELIGION!!!

Mmmyep.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 06:52 AM, specimen56 wrote: In the UK there is movement to ban people from talking about other peoples religions in a non-positive light. The main arguement is that people who make up extremist groups such as the BNP (British National Party), and the guy who has just been let into the UK recently despite his racist opinions, etc (I feel like such an idiot- I've forgotten his name). I feel like we, the british puplic are starting to have to tip-toe around about what we can or cannot say.

What you mean to say, is that in the UK, there is a new bill that will stop people inciting hatred on epople of a different religion, because of their religion.

I won't tiptoe around what i'm gunna say. I have never done, and will never do. However, If i have something to say, then I also make my point clear. Consider these two phrases, the first said by me, the other said by a BNP member.

"There are a definate minority of muslims who are violent, disgusting people. They interpretate the Koran to make their violent means seem acceptable, and are a danger to the world. However, these people are in the minority, and the majority of Muslims, especially those living in this country, are a kind and decent sort. We must take steps to expel the minority of dangerous Muslims from our country, and to eradicate the dangerous misinterpretation of the Koran by extremist groups."
"There are lots of Muslims who are violent, disgusting people. The Koran itself is a violent, disgusting book. It spreads a message of filth and violence among its followers. Islam is a religion that spreads hate through violence and rape. We must expel these dangerous people from our country."

Now, the second is definately an incitement to racial hatred. Now, what he SHOULD be saying is what I'm saying. I make it clear that there are a MINORITY of muslims that are extremists, and the MAJORITY are a decent sort. However, the MINORTY are dangerous, and need to be stamped out. All through, a clear distance is maintainedbetween normal Muslims, people just like you and me, and the extremists. This means that I am NOT inciting racial hatred.

I diverge. My point is that they can say what they like. Just like I can say what I like, unless they feel like stirring up hate falsely against a group of innocent people because of their religion. If they do want to stir up hate falsely against a group of innocent people because of their religion, then they can shut the fuck up. It will make the world nicer to be in, and safer, without any more hate in it.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

The BNP is just a face for small minded biggots who want to blame all of societies problems on islam.

but they have a basic human right to say what the feel.

sadly.

[thekinman]

The problem with free speech has always been that people are free to be hateful. But a law prohibiting someone to talk disrespectfully about religion can be dangerous because of how easy it can be exaggerated and misinterpreted. I can say something like " I stopped being a catholic because I did not agree with the vatican on many issues" and some people can become offended and take that as me trash-talking their religion

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 04:03 PM, thekinman wrote: ut a law prohibiting someone to talk disrespectfully about religion can be dangerous because of how easy it can be exaggerated and misinterpreted.

The laws bans INCITING HATRED on any person because of their religion. You can be disrespectful til the cows come home.

[delteated]

At 7/16/04 04:07 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: The laws bans INCITING HATRED on any person because of their religion. You can be disrespectful til the cows come home.

That's all well and good, but where do you draw the line - if you are being disparaging then it can influence other people and if you are shouting loud enough it will seem like you are inciting hatred, even if you are merely "being disrespectful"

[specimen56]

At 7/16/04 03:51 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What you mean to say, is that in the UK, there is a new bill that will stop people inciting hatred on epople of a different religion, because of their religion.

Yes, thank you very much for clarifying my point

Now, what he SHOULD be saying is what I'm saying. I make it clear that there are a MINORITY of muslims that are extremists, and the MAJORITY are a decent sort. However, the MINORTY are dangerous, and need to be stamped out. All through, a clear distance is maintainedbetween normal Muslims, people just like you and me, and the extremists. This means that I am NOT inciting racial hatred.

Yes, I understand this completely. I am in no way advocating the BNP's veiws, in truth I wish they'd all go jump off a bridge. (an this is kinda my point... if we were to go into the slippery slope arguement, then I could say that it will lead to a lack of free speech for us all, however I despise that kind of arguement without something to back it up. Sorry for bringing up that arguement at all)

I diverge. My point is that they can say what they like. Just like I can say what I like, unless they feel like stirring up hate falsely against a group of innocent people because of their religion. If they do want to stir up hate falsely against a group of innocent people because of their religion, then they can shut the fuck up. It will make the world nicer to be in, and safer, without any more hate in it.

Hmm, hI see your point of veiw, but I'm quite a weird sort. I am one who believes that hate is not too bad a thing. We are all born with the capacity to hate, and I believe that, whilst it can be quite a dnagerous feeling, it is not a bad thing, and a world without hate would be a sad place indeed, in my mind at least. I can't for the life of me remeber who said "I don't argee with what you are saying, but I'd fight to my dying breath for you to say it". In a land which putss freedom and liberty so high, I do not believe that it is truely acceptabe to silence some, and allow others to speak.

[specimen56]

At 7/16/04 04:15 PM, delteated wrote: That's all well and good, but where do you draw the line - if you are being disparaging then it can influence other people and if you are shouting loud enough it will seem like you are inciting hatred, even if you are merely "being disrespectful"

I must agree with you- it is hard to draw the line between harm and disrespect. Alas in the UK J. S. Mill does not have that much sway, and so it is doubtful that the government will use his clear cut line between the two ideas.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 04:15 PM, delteated wrote: That's all well and good, but where do you draw the line - if you are being disparaging then it can influence other people and if you are shouting loud enough it will seem like you are inciting hatred, even if you are merely "being disrespectful"

The line is drawn by common sense. And remember, there are different levels of punishment. If someone is having a good old Hitler-Style Rant, expect 7 years [the maximum sentance]. If you're just saying some stuff, and it comes out in a derogitory manner, then expect a fine, maybe, or not even that, probably a caution.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/16/04 04:41 PM, specimen56 wrote: Hmm, hI see your point of veiw, but I'm quite a weird sort. I am one who believes that hate is not too bad a thing. We are all born with the capacity to hate, and I believe that, whilst it can be quite a dnagerous feeling, it is not a bad thing, and a world without hate would be a sad place indeed, in my mind at least. I can't for the life of me remeber who said "I don't argee with what you are saying, but I'd fight to my dying breath for you to say it". In a land which putss freedom and liberty so high, I do not believe that it is truely acceptabe to silence some, and allow others to speak.

Sure, we're all born with the capacity to hate, and to murder, and rape, and steal. We need protection from bad things like that, and to prevent (hopefully) people from doing that.

And of COURSE hate is a bad thing. Hate causes wars and death. Even hate of things that may be justified is bad. I hate it when I get angry, and get really mad. I HATE Nick Griffin. When he speaks, I feel angry inside, and I realise that this is a bad feeling. I may or may not be completely justified in hating Nick Griffin, but it is still a destructive, not constructive, use of my time and energy.

It was Voltaire, who said the quote, by the way. I feel it is quite necessary to make a difference here. The crime is NOT saying something. I'm free to say ANYTHING I LIKE. If I want to, I can go to my room, and shout all fucking day, about Muslims or Phones, or computers, or George Bush. You have the right to freedom of SPEECH. You in NO WAY have the right to hate. This includes me hating Nick Griffin. I have no right to do that, and I dont like it.

I know that last paragraph sounds pedantic, and it probably is, and I didn't type it very well, but it's staying. The point is is that hate is a bad thing, the less we have of it the better, and the less people can incite hatred the better.

[fli]

At 7/16/04 04:07 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 7/16/04 04:03 PM, thekinman wrote: ut a law prohibiting someone to talk disrespectfully about religion can be dangerous because of how easy it can be exaggerated and misinterpreted.

The laws bans INCITING HATRED on any person because of their religion. You can be disrespectful til the cows come home.

I see nothing wrong with this. Even in the US we have things that aren't protected speech slander and defamation, "causing panic" speech (example, yelling fire in a packed theater), "fighting words", Incitement of crime (like saying 'kill all cops'), Sedition (like saying 'Destroy the Great Satan!'), and obscenity.

Most of these are clear, some others aren't such as obscenity, which has been the biggest problem to the Justices.

However, there is an potentially dangerous open case out there that may brought up in the future. In Fordyce v. Frohnmayer, which was dismissed but is still open, maintains that any public display putting relgions in unflattering light may not be protected. Back in the 80s there was a contraversial exhibit called "Tongue of Fire" that depicted Jesus as a heroin addict.

[specimen56]

At 7/16/04 05:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Sure, we're all born with the capacity to hate, and to murder, and rape, and steal. We need protection from bad things like that, and to prevent (hopefully) people from doing that.

I agree with you on this point

And of COURSE hate is a bad thing. Hate causes wars and death. Even hate of things that may be justified is bad. I hate it when I get angry, and get really mad. I HATE Nick Griffin. When he speaks, I feel angry inside, and I realise that this is a bad feeling. I may or may not be completely justified in hating Nick Griffin, but it is still a destructive, not constructive, use of my time and energy.

May I state on how variable the terms good and bad are in an arguement- they are both very personal and subjective ideas- for instance you believe what Nick Griffin believes is bad, however he, quite obviously, does not. And whilst it may not be a constructive tuse of time and energy, we all have the innate capactiy to do this. If we are to deny ourselves the capacity to hate would that not mean that we would be left in a world where everyone is just complacent. And if we can deny ourselves one extreme emotion, then surely it would seem fit to reject others.

It was Voltaire, who said the quote, by the way.

Thank you

I feel it is quite necessary to make a difference here. The crime is NOT saying something. I'm free to say ANYTHING I LIKE. If I want to, I can go to my room, and shout all fucking day, about Muslims or Phones, or computers, or George Bush. You have the right to freedom of SPEECH. You in NO WAY have the right to hate.

How can you say you have no right to hate? That is your own opinion. The freedom of speech means that we have complete freedom to say whatever pops into our heads. And say it to whom we so desire. It is one thing to act out upon your opinions through physical violence, and quite another to just say them. Although we must be wary of people who would incite(sp) harm to others, I believe that we have no real right to silence them. (Is my anarchic/libitarian veiw point coming out yet?) All humans have the same basic natural rights, which are inalieable(sp) and cannot be taken away or curbed for any reason.

I know that last paragraph sounds pedantic, and it probably is, and I didn't type it very well, but it's staying. The point is is that hate is a bad thing, the less we have of it the better, and the less people can incite hatred the better.

Whether you believe this or not, I agree that less hatred would make the world a better place, however, I do not think we have the right to just tell people to be quiet because they are listening to themselves. All we have the right to do is try to educate them. This is only my opinion, however.

[NoHitHair]

At 7/17/04 06:48 AM, specimen56 wrote:

At 7/16/04 05:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

You in NO WAY have the right to hate.
How can you say you have no right to hate? That is your own opinion.

Because most Liberals want their cake and to eat it, too. Most Liberal organizations are more than willing to defend anything that corresponds with their views, while touting "tolerance" and "free speech", but when it comes down to it, they're big fans of censuring anything they don't like to hear.

LIke BCC said - none of us have the right to hate anymore. In fact, none of us have the right to do anything not considered "proper" by Liberal standards.

So, I figure since I live in the Portland, OR. area, one of the most Liberal cities in the U.S. (referred to by Bush Sr. as "little Beirut"), and they hold protests against the Iraq war, the WTO, gay defamation, etc. - shouldn't I be able to hold a White Pride Parade? I mean, in the spirit of free speech and tolerance, I would think that would be fine.

Unfortunately, I'd be stoned to death by those "tolerant" people.

[specimen56]

At 7/17/04 06:57 AM, NoHitHair wrote:

Because most Liberals want their cake and to eat it, too. Most Liberal organizations are more than willing to defend anything that corresponds with their views, while touting "tolerance" and "free speech", but when it comes down to it, they're big fans of censuring anything they don't like to hear.

Alas, I understand this. Maybe its because I'm so much of a dreamer and an idealist. You would think that there would be one group on Earth which has NO hypocracy at all.

LIke BCC said - none of us have the right to hate anymore. In fact, none of us have the right to do anything not considered "proper" by Liberal standards.

However, to this I do not agree, we do have the right to hate. No-one can take this away from us. Emotions are inalieable rights. And alothough people may not want to hear them, we still have the right to them.

So, I figure since I live in the Portland, OR. area, one of the most Liberal cities in the U.S. (referred to by Bush Sr. as "little Beirut"), and they hold protests against the Iraq war, the WTO, gay defamation, etc. - shouldn't I be able to hold a White Pride Parade? I mean, in the spirit of free speech and tolerance, I would think that would be fine.
Unfortunately, I'd be stoned to death by those "tolerant" people.

I personally believe you should be able to, if that is your wish- just don't expect me to be there, ok? I'm sure that you would be able to. It'd cause so much controversy that someone'll stand up and think.. maybe.
Heres another point- how come a Black person can say that they're proud to be balck without the racist conotations, and yet if a white person says the same, they'd be classed as a racist till the day they die. Hmmm....
And I see what you saying, but you must remeber, no matter what others think, I believe I have the right to hate who the hell I want, just as I have the right to love anyone I want.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 06:48 AM, specimen56 wrote: May I state on how variable the terms good and bad are in an arguement- they are both very personal and subjective ideas- for instance you believe what Nick Griffin believes is bad, however he, quite obviously, does not. And whilst it may not be a constructive tuse of time and energy, we all have the innate capactiy to do this. If we are to deny ourselves the capacity to hate would that not mean that we would be left in a world where everyone is just complacent. And if we can deny ourselves one extreme emotion, then surely it would seem fit to reject others.

Good and bad really shouldn't come into it. Hate should, and more importantly, inspiring OTHER PEOPLE to hate other people because of their religion, NOT their actions. For instance, inspiring other people to hate Al-Quaeda because they misinterpreted the Koran, and flew planes into ubilding etc. would not be a brilliantly productive use of your time, but at least you are inspiring hate against the action, not the religion.

How can you say you have no right to hate? That is your own opinion. The freedom of speech means that we have complete freedom to say whatever pops into our heads. And say it to whom we so desire. It is one thing to act out upon your opinions through physical violence, and quite another to just say them. Although we must be wary of people who would incite(sp) harm to others, I believe that we have no real right to silence them. (Is my anarchic/libitarian veiw point coming out yet?) All humans have the same basic natural rights, which are inalieable(sp) and cannot be taken away or curbed for any reason.

Of course it's my own opinion. I'm hardly going to express everyone else's am I? My personal opinion is that nobody has the right to hate anybody. This includes me. I suppose if i'm honest, I dont really mind people hating things. It's when they inspire other people to so that I have problems. That's when we get big problems. I know this is an extreme case, but Hitler inspired millions of Germans to hate Jews, and look where that got us all. If the BNP got into power and managed to get the english population hating all the Muslims in this country... We'd get very much close rto saying hello to WWIII.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 06:57 AM, NoHitHair wrote: Because most Liberals want their cake and to eat it, too.

Duh. Who wants to have their cake and look at it?

[specimen56]

At 7/17/04 09:21 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Good and bad really shouldn't come into it. Hate should, and more importantly, inspiring OTHER PEOPLE to hate other people because of their religion, NOT their actions. For instance, inspiring other people to hate Al-Quaeda because they misinterpreted the Koran, and flew planes into ubilding etc. would not be a brilliantly productive use of your time, but at least you are inspiring hate against the action, not the religion.

Hold on.. confused here. Now are you saying that inciting hatred CAN have good reprocussions. I understand this is not what you are trying to say, so could you please clarify this for me.

Of course it's my own opinion. I'm hardly going to express everyone else's am I? My personal opinion is that nobody has the right to hate anybody. This includes me. I suppose if i'm honest, I dont really mind people hating things. It's when they inspire other people to so that I have problems. That's when we get big problems. I know this is an extreme case, but Hitler inspired millions of Germans to hate Jews, and look where that got us all. If the BNP got into power and managed to get the english population hating all the Muslims in this country... We'd get very much close rto saying hello to WWIII.

What I mean by 'its your opinion' is that hate is your opinion on a subject. When you say 'You in NO WAY have the right to hate.', my resonce mis plainly this: you Do have all the right to hate in the world. I can in no way understand how you think otherwise, to be honest. Please clarify this point for me.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 10:13 AM, specimen56 wrote: Hold on.. confused here. Now are you saying that inciting hatred CAN have good reprocussions. I understand this is not what you are trying to say, so could you please clarify this for me.

No. I am saying that inciting hate against actions is not an amazingly productive use of your time, and something i'd probably frown upon, but the point i'm trying to make is that inciting hate against a religion itself, can have no good repurcussions. For recent examples of how inciting racial/religious hatred has been a really great thing, please referr to 1930's Nazi Germany, 1990's Rawanda, Iraq under Saddam Hussein...

What I mean by 'its your opinion' is that hate is your opinion on a subject. When you say 'You in NO WAY have the right to hate.', my resonce mis plainly this: you Do have all the right to hate in the world. I can in no way understand how you think otherwise, to be honest. Please clarify this point for me.

Fine. In my opinion, you in NO WAY have the right to hate. Sure, it's only my opinion, but I dont think anyone has the right to hate. And DEFINATELY no-one has the right to incite hatred.

[specimen56]

At 7/17/04 10:41 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: No. I am saying that inciting hate against actions is not an amazingly productive use of your time, and something i'd probably frown upon, but the point i'm trying to make is that inciting hate against a religion itself, can have no good repurcussions.

I agree with you that hatred towards a specific group is unwanted, and can have no possitive reprocussions in a liberalist point of veiw. However I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell people that they are not allowed either these opinions or feelings of hate, or to announce their feelings of hatred.

Fine. In my opinion, you in NO WAY have the right to hate. Sure, it's only my opinion, but I dont think anyone has the right to hate. And DEFINATELY no-one has the right to incite hatred.

Now, what I mean is: How can no-one have the right to something we are naturally born with- to me, this is very much like saying the ideas of utility, men are only allowed to use their penis' for procreation, not for recreational purposes. Or we aren't allowed to use our right arm. Ok, stupid example, but it serves.
I know this all seems like I am in someway trying to subvert your ideas and convert you, quite the opposite, I am merely trying to understand what leads you to the idea that hatred is a negative thing?

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 12:12 PM, specimen56 wrote: I agree with you that hatred towards a specific group is unwanted, and can have no possitive reprocussions in a liberalist point of veiw. However I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell people that they are not allowed either these opinions or feelings of hate, or to announce their feelings of hatred.

That's fine. But should we have the right to tell me not to intice hatred in other people?

Now, what I mean is: How can no-one have the right to something we are naturally born with- to me, this is very much like saying the ideas of utility, men are only allowed to use their penis' for procreation, not for recreational purposes. Or we aren't allowed to use our right arm. Ok, stupid example, but it serves.

Beats me. If we have the right to rape and murder, then we have the right to hate. A lot of things that we CAN do we don't (at least, in my opinion) have the right to do. It is quite possible for me to hit someone over the head with a large stick, and i've had the ability to do so from birth. Doesn't make it right, or give me the right to do so.

I know this all seems like I am in someway trying to subvert your ideas and convert you, quite the opposite, I am merely trying to understand what leads you to the idea that hatred is a negative thing?

Well... hatred IS a pretty negative thing... In fact, it ranks pretty highly of my list of negative things.

[specimen56]

At 7/17/04 12:17 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: That's fine. But should we have the right to tell me not to intice hatred in other people?

Thats a good point. Again, I don't believe we do (we being anyone other than the self). I may be putting too much faith in humans, but overall we are autonomous beings. And no-one who would listen to extremests like the BNP are those who already leanthat way. I believe it is near impossible to make a human being, or any other sentient and conscious being for that matter, to agree with something that they do not believe in based upon another's words.

Beats me. If we have the right to rape and murder, then we have the right to hate.

I do not uderstand this part... Do you mean the capactiy, rather than the right?

:A lot of things that we CAN do we don't (at least, in my opinion) have the right to do. It is quite possible for me to hit someone over the head with a large stick, and i've had the ability to do so from birth. Doesn't make it right, or give me the right to do so.
But it is one thing to have a feeling and opinion and quite another to physically act upon it. From how it sounds, it would seem that you (hypothetically) would wish a world without even the feeling or idea of hatred. And this is what I am contesting. And yes we are all born with the capacity to hit someone round the head with a large stick, and I agree that we should not have the right. However, like I said, it is one thing to physically cause harm, and another to offend. Hatred=offence; hitting someone round the head for whatever reason=harm. I do oppose harm, but not offence.

Well... hatred IS a pretty negative thing... In fact, it ranks pretty highly of my list of negative things.

If this is your opinion (quite obviously) then I have no quarrel with this. I would, however like to ask WHY you see hate as a negative thing, other than your a natural idea that you have.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/17/04 12:40 PM, specimen56 wrote: Thats a good point. Again, I don't believe we do (we being anyone other than the self). I may be putting too much faith in humans, but overall we are autonomous beings. And no-one who would listen to extremests like the BNP are those who already leanthat way. I believe it is near impossible to make a human being, or any other sentient and conscious being for that matter, to agree with something that they do not believe in based upon another's words.

Of course it is. It's what we do in politics all the time. People may be convinced by anothers arguments and agree with something that they previously didn't believe or agree with.

I do not uderstand this part... Do you mean the capactiy, rather than the right?

Both. We have the capaticy to hate, rape and murder. Therefore if, because we have the right to hate because we have the capacity to do so, we have the right to rape and murder.

But it is one thing to have a feeling and opinion and quite another to physically act upon it. From how it sounds, it would seem that you (hypothetically) would wish a world without even the feeling or idea of hatred. And this is what I am contesting. And yes we are all born with the capacity to hit someone round the head with a large stick, and I agree that we should not have the right. However, like I said, it is one thing to physically cause harm, and another to offend. Hatred=offence; hitting someone round the head for whatever reason=harm. I do oppose harm, but not offence.

A world without the idea or feeling of hatred would be Utopia. You said it is one thing to cause harm, and one to offend. Hatred is NOT equal to offence. Offence can be committed quite accidentally and without any meaning to. Forgetting somebody's name, for instance, may cause them to take offence, but it is in no way in the same league as hating someone.

If this is your opinion (quite obviously) then I have no quarrel with this. I would, however like to ask WHY you see hate as a negative thing, other than your a natural idea that you have.

Well... It IS negative. It causes us to hate... I dont think I can describe it well. It just causes general bad feelings, comes with fear, anger and violence. America hates Al-Quaeda. Why? Because Al-Quadea hates America. Result: 9/11. Sure, I know not EVERY American absolutely hates Al-Quaeda, but work with me here. If Americans liked Al-Quaeda, because Al-Quaeda liked America, would 9/11 have happened? No.

[Gunter45]

There's a line between being able to say what you want and being stupid. Of course if you walk into a Harlem bar and start spouting off black jokes you're going to get murdered, plain and simple. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to say racist jokes, just don't be an idiot about it. And you can't be sued simply for insulting someone, you CAN be sued for slander, which is having a reckless disregard for the truth while trying to damage someone's reputation. However, it is hard to prove whether or not there is a "reckless" disregard for the truth and whether or not your intent was to damage a person's reputation. It's even harder to prosecute when talking about public officials and people in the public sphere, like celebrities. You can say anything you want about them. Heck, I can say that Kerry is obsessed with strangling whores or that Bush beats children with lead pipes in the Oval Office and nobody could touch me. It's called the Thick Skin Doctrine, meaning that anyone who enters the public realm must be able to have a "thick skin" to take all the crap and lies people are going to say about them, and they can't do anything back, because 1) it is extremely difficult to prove that there was the intent to damage someone's reputation and 2) if people were constantly living in fear of getting sued by public figures, there would be not way to criticize, them, which is really what a Democracy is based on. Thus, I think it is ridiculous when people say damned stupid things like "Bush is starting a police state," or "the American government is taking away all our free speech," because, when it comes right down to it, you can say whatever the hell you want about public figures, hell, you can make a magazine and print up the most ridiculous stories you want.

[specimen56]

At 7/17/04 02:11 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Of course it is. It's what we do in politics all the time. People may be convinced by anothers arguments and agree with something that they previously didn't believe or agree with.

Personally, I think it'd be near impossible to impose extremist views upon someone who has them to no degree at all...

Both. We have the capaticy to hate, rape and murder. Therefore if, because we have the right to hate because we have the capacity to do so, we have the right to rape and murder.

We also have the capacity to lie- and thaty can also be beneficial at times, no matter what fairy tales we were all spoon fed. In this world, some things that are usually seen as a bad thing can be used benificially in the right context. For instance, most people (I do not, however) see it wrong to kill sentient, conscious beings, whereas in a battlefield there is little else to do, or killing animals...

A world without the idea or feeling of hatred would be Utopia. You said it is one thing to cause harm, and one to offend. Hatred is NOT equal to offence. Offence can be committed quite accidentally and without any meaning to. Forgetting somebody's name, for instance, may cause them to take offence, but it is in no way in the same league as hating someone.

Sorry to be podantic(sp), but the true Utopia, as described by he who coined the phrase (again, I forget his name...), the true Utopia would be one of freedom. And within thiswould surely include the freedom of emotion and feeling...
Anyways. Hatred also has no linkage to harm. You ccannot harm someone merely by disliking them for any reason, you CAN cause them offence, in a higher degree than just forgetting someones name, offence comes in many difference variations. For a little more information, consult the Hart/Devlin debate...

Well... It IS negative. It causes us to hate... I dont think I can describe it well. It just causes general bad feelings, comes with fear, anger and violence. America hates Al-Quaeda. Why? Because Al-Quadea hates America. Result: 9/11. Sure, I know not EVERY American absolutely hates Al-Quaeda, but work with me here. If Americans liked Al-Quaeda, because Al-Quaeda liked America, would 9/11 have happened? No.

Your basic arguement there is 'hate is bad because it is', to be honest. It is one thing to hate, and another to act upon that hate, as I have stated many times. People should be refrained from physically acting upon that hate, but not actually hating or telling others of their hatred

[bombkangaroo]

Both. We have the capaticy to hate, rape and murder. Therefore if, because we have the right to hate because we have the capacity to do so, we have the right to rape and murder.

slight problem here, rape/murder and hatred are two entirely different things.
hate is a feeling, a physiological reaction to something that we find detestable.
rape and murder are actions.
hate, in and of itself harms nobody. the same cannot be said of rape and murder.
rape and murder are illegal because they infringe on the quintessential freedoms inherent in our society. hatred does no such thing.

i probably won'tbe taken seiously for this, but i realy think we need to learn to tolerate the intolerant.
having thought about it, i wouldn't mind abu hamza preaching hatred in the streets, so long as he was not responsible for any criminal action, or anything that violated the freedoms of others.

the problem with defining hate speech is that common sense is not common to everyone. many people will chose different interperetations of what was said.
i see no problem with the first example that BCC gave, the one denigrating islam and demonising its followers, because they have the right to debate those facts and to educate those who believe what was said.
i don't believe that a line is crossed until something is done, or explicitly encouraged by the speaker, that violates the rights of another person.

for instance, there are some vegetarians who hate people who eat meat. they consider themselves morally superior and would relish any opportunity to lambast anyone who chooses to eat meat. i eat meat, and i don't think they should think that way about me, but i respect their right to believe that.
if they started an argument with me over my dietary preferences, i would listen to their case, then make my own.
if they threaten me, or infringe on my rights, then they have crossed the line. similarly, if they don't just agree to disagree and leave me to go on my way, then they would be harassing me.
until that happens all that they have said remains their opinion, to which they are entitled.

[bumcheekcity]

At 7/18/04 09:52 AM, specimen56 wrote: Personally, I think it'd be near impossible to impose extremist views upon someone who has them to no degree at all...

Hitler, 1930's Germany? Sure, It's an old bloody argument, but he managed to swing a good 30million people, so it's definately a major point.

We also have the capacity to lie- and thaty can also be beneficial at times, no matter what fairy tales we were all spoon fed. In this world, some things that are usually seen as a bad thing can be used benificially in the right context. For instance, most people (I do not, however) see it wrong to kill sentient, conscious beings, whereas in a battlefield there is little else to do, or killing animals...

Be that as it may. Not all the things we are capable of doing are good, and not all are bed. Therefore, just because we have the capacity to incite hate, doesn't mean we should have the right to.

I am also aware that killing, which we shouldn't have the right to do, could be the right thing to do in certain times, but not in peacetime. And inciting hate, unless you can think of a majorly brilliant circumstance in which it could be useful, and we'll class those as exceptions, is not justifiable.

Sorry to be podantic(sp), but the true Utopia, as described by he who coined the phrase (again, I forget his name...), the true Utopia would be one of freedom. And within thiswould surely include the freedom of emotion and feeling...

Exactly, you're free to hate, but there is no hate. That is Utopia.

Anyways. Hatred also has no linkage to harm. You ccannot harm someone merely by disliking them for any reason, you CAN cause them offence, in a higher degree than just forgetting someones name, offence comes in many difference variations. For a little more information, consult the Hart/Devlin debate...

Yes, but by spreading and inciting hate, you can cause things to happen. Hate is the indirect cause of 9/11. It was the indrect cause of the Holocaust. It was the indirect cause of the Kurds Genocide by Saddam. Sure, circumstances were the direct cause, in all of those cases, but under them all there was a great big dollop of hate. Hatred of Americans by Al-Quaeda, hatred of Jews by Hitler, Hatred of the Kurds by Saddam. Maybe the hatred itself doesn't cause harm, but the increased inciting of hatred did, albeit indirectly.

Your basic arguement there is 'hate is bad because it is', to be honest. It is one thing to hate, and another to act upon that hate, as I have stated many times. People should be refrained from physically acting upon that hate, but not actually hating or telling others of their hatred

Fine. Hate if you like. Tell others if you like, but dont INCITE the hatred. Key word there, incite. To install fear of hatred in another person. Word it how you like, the fact is, that without people inciting hate in other people, the world will be a much safer and happier place. I am fine with giving up my freedom to incite hatred in other people for the sake of the rest of the world.

[Gunter45]

We have free speech in a lot of ways, but there are things that nobody should have the right to say. It was mentioned earlier in this thread (I forget who, sorry about that) that "nobody has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." It is altogether dangerous and irresponsible to create a panic in a crowded space of any sort. There is no reason anyone should do such a thing and revoking that ability infringes on nobody's freedom negatively. I also believe that inciting a riot is in the grey area, dark grey. While we were founded by revolutionists, and it is one of our fundamental rights as a citizen to rebel, it is not a civil action to stir up a mob to commit random, mindless destruction. In some cases a riot may be the most effective way to send a message, but 9 times out of 10, it's just one person feeding a mob mentality. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but it's not the same as saying whatever the hell you please just because you feel like it. It's hard to tell where to draw the line, and if anybody honestly believes that they could rewrite the laws to make them so that it would be better for everyone, then they're either one of the most brilliant minds of our time, or they're just fooling themselves. Laws have very little to do with right and wrong anymore, they deal with the spectrum in between. Constitutional law especially. The Constitution was written to be ambiguous so that it could adapt to a rapidly changing society, so it's really tough to say how much regulation is necessary and Constitutional at a given time. That's what the Supreme Court is for.