The government should place no restrictions whatsoever on the spoken word. That statement should end there. I don't know how many of you read Animal Farm, but in that book, the "constitution" starts out reading "All animals are created equal", then it morphs into "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others". The standard argument for restriction of speech starts out with yelling fire in a crowded theater. Nobody should be allowed to do that, right? It would cause a panic and people could get hurt. Well, if you disallow that, then the slippery slope begins. Then you can follow it up with somehting like - You shouldn't be allowed to promote the KKK at government functions. Everybody hates the KKK, so everybody agrees. Even half the KKK guys because they would rather promote themselves elsewhere and they think its a waste of resources to recruit a bunch of school kids. Well, now you have two wins in the suppression of speech. Then you throw out - no speaking out against the president at a political event. And introduce that rule after a big riot at a campaign speech where a baby was trampled to death. The people are angry and there's public support for the bill and the supreme court has it's hands tied because there are already two precident setting cases limiting the effectiveness of a constitutional right. (in reality there are far more than two). Now you end up with a people that has ingrained in them a sense of free speech - because that is what they are taught growing up - and that individually become infuriated to discover that it is not so. But they become infuriated individually and rarely or never as a group. And they can easily be silenced by removing their right to free speech, by ignoring them, or by applying any other methods of pressure in their direction. ------ While I agree that common sense restrictions on free speech should exist. They should not be implemented by the government. In the case of the theater, the theater should have a rule against it. Breaking theater rules can be against the law. That way, when the people do not like the rules, they can protest the theater by not giving it business. The theater can change the rules, go out of business, or keep the rules with their remaining customer base if it's large enough. Getting a theater to change rules only takes the local community to take action. Getting the government to change laws takes considerable economic resources, a large dedicated national base, planning, lobbying, etc. A capitalist implementation of censorship is the most effective tool. It can change as quickly as community standards change. A government implementation of censorship could never be as fluid, and is subject to corruption.
Freedom of Speech means that you can hold your own conference and say whatever stupid shit you want. It does not mean that you can attend my conference and say whatever stupid shit you want. I have all sorts of freaks posting moronic crap to my forums and then wondering why their posts are deleted, their accounts are closed, and their IP's are banned. They believe that freedom of speech gives them rights over other peoples property.
Will made my point just above this post. People seem to think that someone else kicking them out of a private event is taking away their right of free speech.
Will Spencer, There have been a some violent incidents in my country against people that have used mohammed(phub) pictures on their sites and in communities. I don't think America is an exception, you should be careful with displaying that avatar. Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
The most famous honor killings in Europe was when a director was shot to death after displaying a "bad picture" about islam in one of his movies. I don't remember his name but he was one of the most famous directors in Netherlands.
I am already guilty of crimes punishable by death according to Islamic law. I don't let it bother me much. I believe you are referring to Theo van Gogh. Don't forget Pim Fortuyn.
I hope you wear a good body armour How would you else be able to defend yourself against the local whahhabbi gang?
You are certainly not and you are in a deep hatred since you chose to insult 1.5 billion people. I support a full freedom of speeach(including insulting) but I don't support the insulters. Think about, you are christian. God will punish you for hatrist expression. I suggest you to make a jihad against your attitude
you'd fight and you were right but they were just too strong they'd stick it in your face and let you smell what they consider wrong
Freedom of speech is the privilege to say anything you want and be responsible on the words that you said. It is not an absolute freedom because we need to consider what we say as we might violate the rights of other people.
But what does "be responsible on the words that you said" mean to you? Does it mean that, if you say something that offends someone, you should peacefully accept having your head chopped off? It's just too vague.
Things that limits freedom today in my country(Sweden): You can't speak about statesecrets at all. You can't offending an ethnical minority or religion in public. Prostitution is banned. Movies are censored. ID-numbers(All your personal information such as high school grades, where you live, where you work, when you leave the country and every hospital visit is logged in a database) More than 50% in income tax if you earn more than 5000$(well almost 5000$) The police have the right to bug any phone they want, without letting you or the public know. You are forced to go to the school until you are 16 Forced conscription and/or education in the army(if they pick you) And much more
I think it's a pretty simple concept really, free speech means you can say any profound or profoundly dumb thing you want--period. Where people get confused is in thinking that having the right to say dumb things relieves them of any responsibility for the dumb things they say. Think of slander as the grand example. In the U.S. you will never be arrested for slandering someone. You have the right to freely say anything, even untruths. However, you can later be held financially accountable for any damages your untruths cost the person(s) you spoke them of. With free speech comes responsibility.