Americans are made up of about every race. But i am guilty of being proud of my country.I also like the britts.
northpoint, to censor this is to censor anything that may incite hate in the listener. that's when big government steps in and has fun stomping on our rights..
I am half English. Do you like me more? I think you are racist too. You're pointing out specific countries you like. Thats how racism stems.
I'm not opposed. I am not a libertarian and believe the state has some value, as well as an obligation to assist in the stewardship of the common good. I believe I have left behind the state of nature - Hobbes's life of "nasty, brutish and short" - and willingly relinquished up some individual autonomy in return for a commonly agreed upon set of rules of play, which are the laws enacted in common, for the common good. There are agreed upon limits to everything, and speech that is designed to incite hate, and nothing more, is rightfully curbed, in my philosophy. Its promulgation does more harm to the common good of civilized society than its proscription. I understand your position, and those of other libertarians (sorry - I don't mean to unduly label you, Nate - if I am wrong, I sincerely apologize). I do respect the philosophical and intellectual honesty of the point, which is to preserve free speech to an absolute degree, or lose it altogether. But I guess I have the ghosts of history whispering in my ear. Sometimes, speech brings harm to societies, and societies need to act in their own defense (or, more properly, in the defense of the weaker within those societies) if they are to keep the name "civilized."
As do us who will protect all speech, even those we do not agree with. When a government starts to take a right away, they have proven in history to not always stop at the first phase There are many things I do not agree with when it comes to speech, just as I'm sure I say things others wish I would not. I however will stand up even for those who I do not agree with to speak freely. Just as I am against unjust laws even for people who commit murder, rape and more. I am not trying to protect these people, however I am looking at the big picture. Once a right given to use by the constitution is trampled even to a small degree, the door is opened for the government to continue it's way to tyranny.
I do get what you're saying, Grim, and I respect it. It is a code of honor to hold to something like this, and I applaud such an honorable ethos. But I disagree. I do draw the line at speech that is designed to do nothing but incite. I am loathe to give a broad example, but I don't know of another way. Imagine a scene where two criminals are at play in the field of the damned. A victim is being robbed. One of the criminals, a weaker one, let's call him, wants to run. The other run, a sick fuck, didn't rob the victim, but didn't help him or her, either. And he wants to see the victim hurt, because it's obviously a "rich Jew." The sick fuck eggs the weaker one on - with just words. The weaker one does unspeakable things to the victim and they both leave, going their separate ways. The weak one is surely culpable. How about the sick fuck? In my world, yes. His speech was not protected because it had no merit, and was, by its nature, directly designed to incite the bringing of harm to another. I know - horrible example. But is it really? Once you admit a single instance where speech should be proscribed as detrimental to what society deems is endemic to its own health, then it's all a matter of decision. Personally, I acknowledge that I am not in a state of liberty. I gave that up once I left behind the state of nature. I agree to cede my sovereignty, at least in part, to others, by rules we can all live with. Once accepting that cession, again, it's a decision as to where that line is drawn - not whether there is a line.
I get what you're saying as well, however even if the speech does incite, it is still the act the guilty party committed. It's the same with my opinion on something such as drugs. Using drugs in your own home IMHO should be your choice. I do not agree with most drugs, I however do not believe government should get involved. However if you are high and you commit a crime you should go down for the crime you committed. Imagine if the government who bans speech you wish would be banned today, also bans speech you practice tomorrow? When you give up rights, even on a small scale there is no telling what the domino effect might be. Government loves power, it's greedy to it's core.
But that's the thing - a social contract is just that - a contract. It has two elements to it - the limitations to your liberty - which includes an agreement to abide by rules a collective, society, puts in place as part of the "contract," and the limitations to what you cede in the way of liberty to the state, acting as proxy for the community. It isn't a blank check on either side. Absolute liberty for one is absolute jeopardy for another. And once this is admitted, the issue is again where the line is drawn. Anti-abortion activists with graphic images in 4' x 8' placards, and bullhorns, lining the only route out of Spring Green, Wisconsin, to Madison? Free speech? Hell no. Passers-by cannot avoid the "speech." Children in cars cannot avoid seeing and hearing something that induces trauma; parents cannot shield their children from the speech as they risk causing an accident to do so. Different issue entirely, but I think the principle holds: society has a right to set limits. Once you accept the notion of limits, you vie over what those limits are. Regarding free speech, it is extremely narrowly proscribed what is not allowable, under a free speech doctrine. I don't see a slippery slope. I see a defining, in clear terms, of the terms of this particular area of the social contract.
The entire problem with your 'society' angle IMHO is as simply put. Who draws this line, the line will always be changing. A line of this nature there trully is no way to draw as everyone will see it differently, interpreting it will be impossible, it will be abused. Speech in itself is not a crime and should not be. If you're weak enough to fall for someone egging you on, you commit a crime, I'm sorry but you should go down for the crime you commit. The other person could be an accomplice, you however still did the act making you sicker than the person who egged you on in words 'back to your previous post'
Depends what they are superior at. It's like saying swear words are not abusing someone as they it is freedom of speech..
This is actually a good point. Giving them free speech makes it easier to know who they are, as they are not afraid to practice their free speech. Drive them undergound and what do you have? Look at the mess the war on drugs has caused, could you imagine these people all being underground? Something tells me they would be alot more violent than they actually are.
I don't agree with white pride or black pride as such, although I would agree with such things as heritage. Saying you have white pride is a bit rude and arrogant. saying I am proud to be austalian on the other hand is fine.....
Which is one reason why we have the process of judicial review that we do, so that laws are ultimately tested for constitutionality and the weight of inertia doesn't allow for the vicissitudes of popular opinion to bring ceaseless chaos. Much like a Republic, over a democracy. Of course, and that's what I am saying. By saying the other could be an accomplice on the basis of speech alone, you admit there are limits to free speech. And this "accomplice" aspect of speech is exactly what has been defined in at least one thread of judicial review: speech that induces another to do harm isn't protected as "free speech." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), for instance: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492/ Note the interesting thing: speech isn't an absolute right: and limiting speech is to be extremely, narrowly defined: In other words, it's a contract. Like all contracts, the rights and limitations are to be defined if we are to agree to exist within its paradigm.
But sorry, GRIM (and Guerilla), I thought we were holding to a position for the intrinsic merit, not for something that follows? In other words, your earlier point was to allow free speech on the principle, not for any intrinsic benefit that follows from it (except liberty, the defining principle). Beyond being arguable, "driving them underground" isn't based in principle, but from a presumed benefit from a tactic taken. The flip side would say - "they may coopt my kid" - shut 'em down!, based on a presumed benefit of following a particular course. This isn't about a presumed benefit, the ability to monitor folks we don't like - from your standpoint, nor should it be. This is about principle: an absolute liberty, v. a social contract that says that by agreeing to live in society, by definition, a communal structure, we cede some measure of sovereignty, and curb some enjoyment of liberty, to others. Oh, and, uh, you're wrong. Now shut your cake hole.
Which sounds good on the outside, however the site in question even though I have not actually looked at it to me doesn't appear to go to the point of what could be considered 'ceaseless chaos' If someone is calling for the death of someone for instance, that would be where speech is 'inciting' and I would agree could be prosecuted. Yes to an extent, however it's not just the speech. The guy is with him, he is in essense directing him/ordering him which does make him guilty. It is not just speech of an idea, not sure if I'm saying this correctly 'getting tired' Of course there are going to be extreme exceptions, just as there is in anything. For example I am totally for gun ownership. I do not own a gun, I however believe you should be allowed to own pretty much anything the government has. I however do realise nuclear arms for instance is going a bit too far