Free Speech Debate Fun Time

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
yup to my :rolleyes: or the statement itself?

If you agree with my sarcastic statement then I guess agree to disagree and it is what it is. :lol:

Someone died and they are trying to say goodbye. If someone did that at my families funeral they wouldn't be walking afterwards...
 

Blind Theory

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
936
Reaction score
120
Location
Colorado
There is a difference between being an asshole and being the ungodly, pretentious fucktards that the WBC is. An asshole is the guy in the BMW that cuts you off then gets mad when you try to pass him afterwards and flips you the bird. What the WBC does is morally wrong and just complete shit.
 

highlordmugfug

themuthaphukkindeath
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
471
Location
_
I see what the WBC does as harassment, not just exercising their right to free speech. :shrug:
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
There is a difference between being an asshole and being the ungodly, pretentious fucktards that the WBC is.

No there isn't. There's just more adjectives in the second one.

An asshole is the guy in the BMW that cuts you off then gets mad when you try to pass him afterwards and flips you the bird. What the WBC does is morally wrong and just complete shit.

'Morally wrong' is horribly ambiguous and not something that should be used to legislate, whatever the 'gay marriage is an abomination' wanks might think.

Free speech extends to everyone. Even people who's views are abhorrent.

I see what the WBC does as harassment, not just exercising their right to free speech. :shrug:

If what they're doing falls under harassment in the location they're doing it, they should be charged with it. Though I find it hard to believe it would. And don't really think it should.
 

highlordmugfug

themuthaphukkindeath
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
4,652
Reaction score
471
Location
_
If what they're doing falls under harassment in the location they're doing it, they should be charged with it. Though I find it hard to believe it would. And don't really think it should.
Why wouldn't it and why don't you?

Why would standing around and yelling slurs at someone not be considered harassing them?

If someone went to a mall or something and started yelling that everything bad that happened was because of all the niggerlovers they'd either be charged with something or at the very least made to leave. I don't see how it's any different, and I don't see how stopping something like this is a slippery slope to no more free speech.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
My main concern is that we people shouldn't legislate against very specific situations and there's little difference between standing in a group and calling people who pass you a fag-enabler and calling them a scab.

EDIT: For what it's worth I don't think someone standing in a shopping centre shouting that everything bad in the world is down to niggerlovers should be a crime, either.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
Specific scenario already exist though. You can get in trouble for throwing racial slurs to begin with. You can't slander someones name (unless it is the truth). Nearly every law that goes against free speech that I know of personally I see nothing wrong with.

Hell even in school, private businesses, home, etc. you can be thrown out for being obnoxious.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
I'm not disputing that certain laws exist, I'm saying in most cases they shouldn't.

Slander and libel are different situations.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
I'm not disputing that certain laws exist, I'm saying in most cases they shouldn't.

Slander and libel are different situations.

You can slander someones name by the actions of "free speech", but the law prevent it (or rather punishes for it).

If we are going to get super technical then you can say whatever you want, you just might get a ticket or arrested afterwards. :lol:

Well in saying most cases you are allowing instances for free speech to be taken away so I don't see why this can't be added to said list...
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
You can slander someones name by the actions of "free speech", but the law prevent it (or rather punishes for it).

Slander and libel are very specific and don't really relate to free speech. Free speech is about being able to voice any opinion or interpretation, not about making false factual claims about people or businesses.

Well in saying most cases you are allowing instances for free speech to be taken away so I don't see why this can't be added to said list...

Can you reword that, please?
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
Slander and libel are very specific and don't really relate to free speech. Free speech is about being able to voice any opinion or interpretation, not about making false factual claims about people or businesses.



Can you reword that, please?

Well someones opinion could be in fact making false claims WBC does that kind of crap all the time, it is just that no one gives a shit. Free speech I would assume is the ability to say whatever you want libel/slander included.

In saying "In most cases they shouldn't" you are leaving that open ended so my point was that if you can obviously find a scenario where free speech should be restricted you aren't being very consistent.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
Well someones opinion could be in fact making false claims WBC does that kind of crap all the time

Examples?


In saying "In most cases they shouldn't" you are leaving that open ended so my point was that if you can obviously find a scenario where free speech should be restricted you aren't being very consistent.

I mentioned earlier the only exceptions I think should exist. Incitement to violence and theats. I believe I've been entirely consistent.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
I guess by definition they are not "technically" slandering since it requires the individual/group to be specific, but the many things they say/promote if directed at actual individuals would be considered slander. So I'd feel safe in saying that despite the lack of social harm (debatable pending on if people begin to start subscribing to their POV) it still falls underneath the same umbrella. They think what they are saying is fact and present it to others as such, the only difference is generalities don't seem to count as slander.

I agree about violence/threats for sure, but you (or maybe it was someone else) presented this as a slippery slope situation and the same could be qualified for violence/threats was my main point there.
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
I guess by definition they are not "technically" slandering since it requires the individual/group to be specific, but the many things they say/promote if directed at actual individuals would be considered slander.

Definitely, but that's the whole point, isn't it? That's why Fox News can get away with stating absolute nonsense. So long as you don't attribute it to specific people or organisations it's legal - precisely because it's freedom of speech. And I think that's acceptable enough, if irritating. There's no way to legislate it without it being a gross infringement of people's rights.

I agree about violence/threats for sure, but you (or maybe it was someone else) presented this as a slippery slope situation and the same could be qualified for violence/threats was my main point there.


Nah wasn't me :)
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
Definitely, but that's the whole point, isn't it? That's why Fox News can get away with stating absolute nonsense. So long as you don't attribute it to specific people or organisations it's legal - precisely because it's freedom of speech. And I think that's acceptable enough, if irritating. There's no way to legislate it without it being a gross infringement of people's rights.




Nah wasn't me :)

Well I don't know. I'm going to have to go off topic a bit and say Rush has directly slandered many peoples names and somehow also gets away with it. :scratch:

My point is it all falls under the same umbrella more than anything. It is one thing to say as an example that "God does not approve of gays and as such they will go to hell" and saying "God Hates Fags". That is what I'd call a generalized slander. Who is to say this does not hurt someone.

It's ultimately irrelevant I agree that freedom of speech is important just like I think due process is important, but sometimes it is cut and dry enough I'd like to be able to skip the BS. I'd say this is cut and dry just like I'd say the Josh Holmes trial should just be skipped for the same reason (confessed, witnesses, etc.). I could see though how safety/convenience can eventually take away freedom, however, that is a borderline slippery slope argument (but a plausible one at least).
 

chronocide

Total Grind Hell
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
619
Reaction score
82
Location
Glasgow, UK
Well I don't know. I'm going to have to go off topic a bit and say Rush has directly slandered many peoples names and somehow also gets away with it. :scratch:

Has he? I'm quite surprised he gets away with it in The Land Of Litigation.
 

flint757

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 17, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
197
Location
Houston, TX
Has he? I'm quite surprised he gets away with it in The Land Of Litigation.

Well I haven't heard otherwise. He called a girl who went in to congress to talk about birth control and called her a slut, whore, prostitute. Now I think slander and libel cases are handled in civil court and someone has to file charges. It is possible some people just don't bother pursuing.

The comments by people defending him are so gross though either way.
 


Top