NationStates Jolt Archive

I dont actually think that... but is freedom of speech a good thing.

Or


Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.

5
4
3
2
1.....

I dont actually think that... but is freedom of speech a good thing.

You're not actually allowed to say that, "incitement of racial hatred" laws forbid it, although, maybe not on the internet.

God(my God that is) Bless free speech. NUKE THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

Maybe there should be a poll.

Could you define "freedom of speech"? I find saying simply freedom of speech to be rather vague.

You could try giving the thread a better title.

*takes a deep breath in* and through the nose positive, out the mouth negative, through the nose positive, out the mouth negative....

Really bad idea, Arz. You'll only attract the wrong type of people to this thread with that title.

I dont actually think that... but is freedom of speech a good thing.

Or


Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.The latter.

Hmm... The problem isn't with saying it... it's when you believe it. You can say whatever the heck you want, but there's something wrong with you if you genuinely believe that Gays and Jews are killable (which I know you personally don't, but that's not really the point).

Cue Thought Police, stage right. >>;

I cant believe this isnt locked yet...Maybe no one shrieked? :confused:

Hell, if a tabloid can say Jennifer Aniston just had a three eyed baby, I believe we can say anything we want.

My advice for the poll: Ask what's worse, homosexuality or holocaust denial. I'd be quite interested in the answers but I never had the guts to start a thread on it. Seeing as this one can hardly get any worse, that kind of poll should be the least of your worries...

Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.
Thats the general consensus isn't it?

The latter.
Typical.

I'm all for freedom of speech, as in the freedom to state ones beliefs and try to persuade. I don't consider incitment and brainwashing to be protected by "freedom of speech."

I cant believe this isnt locked yet...Maybe no one shrieked? :confused:Meh, I only shriek when they sound serious or they talk about me.

I dont actually think that... but is freedom of speech a good thing.

Or


Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.

It is one thing to say it and a whole other to loose all of those sports stars and entertainers.... Much less those in the everyday work force that our way of life depends upon. :p

*<}:o) H-D

Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.

Definately YES!

But when you step on anyones toes? For some people with black skin "Black" is offensive, others even don't care for "Negroes". I care nothing what is (political) correct or not.

Could you define "freedom of speech"? I find saying simply freedom of speech to be rather vague.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want as long as you don't hurt the feelings of any ethnic, religouse, sexual, political etc group unless they have been branded that they do not fit the norm in which case you can say whatever you want about them.

Free speech is essensial. If your not allowed to put forth your views in a public arena, your never going to admit them to people with more rational views who can explain why your policy of killing all the jews, for example, is nuts.

You'll allways tread on someones toes.. but at least you'll get debate going.

seems to me that you started talking about freedom of speech an not anything too closely related to the thread title, inteligent too, not as tho i was expecting an mabie thats why it hasnt been loked yet

I wonder how many people would consider telling unstable and thus easily exploitable people to "kill all Jews" to be protected by the right the freedom of speech.

(The above is a result of watching an episode of Law & Order.)

Actually, the title of the thread is entirely true.

Eventually, we ALL must die.

Freedom of Speech, at least in America, was only intended to prevent the government from silencing protestors and the like. The first amendment really wasn't intended to govern what people say towards one another. Though slander and liable still apply though.

Free speech is essensial. If your not allowed to put forth your views in a public arena, your never going to admit them to people with more rational views who can explain why your policy of killing all the jews, for example, is nuts.

You'll allways tread on someones toes.. but at least you'll get debate going.When's the last time you managed to convince an unteachable otherwise?

Should we only be allowed to have free speech as long as we dont step on anyones toes.[/QUOTE]
but then that wouldn't be free speech now would it? that would be restriced speech. that's why I don't understand things like the FCC who censor what should be free, because people might be offended. meh.

There once was a day when you punched a guy in the nose because he insulted you. Those days are over though.

There once was a day when you punched a guy in the nose because he insulted you. Those days are over though.Yeah, now that we have IMs and Forums, you can get insulted by people you'll never even meet...

Very true, but the tone of the thread had left discussing NS forums, but to freedom of speech in general. Pay attention.

Ha!
Innoffensive 'Freedom of Speech', as espoused by certain uber-liberals, is impossible. Everything offends somebody, so the only way to have such a 'freedom' would be not to talk.
Its a sort of all or nothing thing, really.
Although there are a very few cases where freedom of speech is limited. Slander (or was it libel? Its one of the two, I get 'em mixed up sometimes) is illigal. You cant threaten anybody important, you cant incite riots and such, all that.
Of course you CAN do these things, as long as you dont get caught.