NationStates Jolt Archive

Damn straight. Dissenting opinions are as bad as shitting on the Bible, French-kissing (sorry, freedom kissing) Lenin's corpse and blowing yourself up along with an orphanage.

EDIT: also, thread-steal.

Let's stop beating around the bush. Clearly some posters think that it is, so why not make it a topic.

America under Bush is no UK under Thatcher. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4)

Let's stop beating around the bush. Clearly some posters think that it is, so why not make it a topic.

Myrmidonesia certainly thinks so, given his opinions about the Senate Majority Leader.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would ever think this. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, whyever they want. Any restriction upon this is an attempt to control people, and that is wrong, pure and simple.

Free speech is only terrorism if it disagrees with me!

free speech is important. everyone should be able to bash teh ebil right without pheer of retaliashun. But ppl shouldn't question left free thinkers cuz we're progressive and trying to progress to...well I don't know, i'm not permitted such information.

be a free thinker by following the left crowd. trust the state to take care of you. down wit capitalism and choice! except when killing babies because teh plantz overpopulated and it liberates women n stuff.

Terrifyingly, there are a lot of people in the world who are perfectly willing to use the label "terrorism" (among other pejoratives) to push their own agenda of authoritarianism -- to stamp out dissent, enforce social and political conformity, and impose a rigid hierarchy in government without any restrictions on its power. Personally, I think such people are insane, but be that as it may, the practical result is that they ignore real terrorism in favor of throwing the label around to suit their political ends. Sometimes, with some of the really crazy ones, I almost suspect they don't want to stop terrorism at all, because they think they can use the terror it supposedly inspires to make the rest of us buy into their propaganda.

Authoritarians scare me more than all the terrorists in the world ever could.

Mumbles an overused Benjamin Frankling quote.

No- not the one about beer!

Mumbles an overused Benjamin Frankling quote.

No- not the one about beer!

Ah, must be 'force shites upon reason's back' then.

Your point being?

Free speech is NOT terrorism! I believe people should be free to disagree with each other if they so choose.

free speech is important. everyone should be able to bash teh ebil right without pheer of retaliashun. But ppl shouldn't question left free thinkers cuz we're progressive and trying to progress to...well I don't know, i'm not permitted such information.

be a free thinker by following the left crowd. trust the state to take care of you. down wit capitalism and choice! except when killing babies because teh plantz overpopulated and it liberates women n stuff.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding! The right should be bashed but the left should not? :upyours:

There are no words in the English language that say just how vehemently I disagree. I do NOT trust the state to take care of me; I am a white male (no, that does not mean I'm automatically evil), so I have VERY GOOD reason NOT to trust the state to take care of me, unless you define "take care of" as "kill", "emasculate", "financially terrorize", "hinder from finding employment", "discriminate against", or perhaps "rob".

And I DON'T believe in killing babies; what did the babies do to deserve killing? They merely "inconvenienced" their mothers, which they did NOT choose to do, therefore I don't believe women should be allowed to choose to kill them. Unless they were impregnated against their will.

I VERY MUCH question what you call "left free thinkers". If they are truly free thinkers, then they will not object to people disagreeing with them.

The right is NOT necessarily "evil".

And the left is NOT necessarily "good".

And you want to prohibit "teh ebil right" from retaliating and responding to being bashed? That's not free thinking; that's TYRANNY.And we WILL respond and fight back; it is simply asinine and tyrannical (not to mention a double standard) to expect us not to do so.

I believe in freedom, not only of speech, but also of opinion and association. I believe people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe (even if it is "right-wing" or disagrees with YOU), and associate with whomever they wish to associate with (even if it is not YOU).

If anyone wants to follow the right and question you and your philosophy and opinions, that's THEIR decision, NOT YOURS.

Nope. According to the US Constitution, there is no should: Americans have the right to free speech.

Mumbles an overused Benjamin Frankling quote.

No- not the one about beer!

Fart proudly?

free speech is important. everyone should be able to bash teh ebil right without pheer of retaliashun. But ppl shouldn't question left free thinkers cuz we're progressive and trying to progress to...well I don't know, i'm not permitted such information.

be a free thinker by following the left crowd. trust the state to take care of you. down wit capitalism and choice! except when killing babies because teh plantz overpopulated and it liberates women n stuff.

:rolleyes:

As straw men go, that was pretty poorly done.

I'm a big fan of free speech- I think the internet is the best thing ever,
But!
There need to be limits!
Some forms of speech should be criminal.

- Hate Speech (e.g. <minority group> are evil and smelly and should be rounded up and killed)
- Threats (e.g. I am going to bomb <important location here> on <date> and no one can stop me!!!)
- Intellectual theft (e.g. And the rest of this post will be taken up by text from Rowling's latest Harry Potter book....)

Thus, in answer to the topic question, some forms of speech can be acts of terrorism.

:rolleyes:

As straw men go, that was pretty poorly done.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it was meant more as a joke than a strawman. No one is that stupid. At least...I hope no one is that stupid.

Let's stop beating around the bush. Clearly some posters think that it is, so why not make it a topic.

Who said it was?

The concept of free speech is a difficult one. One example that is often given in these forums is "is it free speech to shout FIRE in a crowded theatre"? Another example would be the idea of racist / homophobic / hate free speech.

IMHO the concept of free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy, especially when applied to government and establishment. One of the true markers of democracy is the freedom to be able to criticize the actions and policies of your government and leaders without fear of retribution.

However, free speech can only go so far. As said above, shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre isn't freedom of speech its just irresponsibility. It serves no purpose other than to disrupt everyday people for no rteason whatsoever (unless there was a fire of course).

As for hate - fueled free speech, I think that that is unfortunately the price we pay for having free speech. As long as there are more people to say they are wrong (and there usually are) then society as a whole should be safe.

To quote another old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".:D

This thread is so appallingly one sided that I just had to say 'yes, it is terrorism' just to be awkward. Carry on.

IMHO the concept of free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy, especially when applied to government and establishment. One of the true markers of democracy is the freedom to be able to criticize the actions and policies of your government and leaders without fear of retribution.I would say even more than that. Free speech is one of the cornerstones of good governance. Period.

Even in a dictatorship, people need to be free to speak their minds, otherwise how will the dictator have any idea what is truly going on in the country.

Ohshucksiforgotourname, get new batteries for your sarcasm detector! :)

But to the OP, does freedom of speech include spreading bomb-plans? Or the code for viruses?

Clearly, some things that can be said are terrorism:

'I will kill you if you don't do what I want'

In fact, I think that statement is pretty much the core of terrorism.

However, I agree in general. Restricting free speech is damaging to society.

My view on all of this is that there are two kinds of ways of transmitting a viewpoint in the form of speech:

There is an address, which is a declaration of the opinion of an individual or group, a request for information, the presentation of information, a statement of supposition or hypothesis, slander and defamation etc.

There is also a rally, which is a call designed to persuade people into action (whether enemies or allies). This can include lobbying, strike action, rioting, incitement to terrorism, and also charity drives and the like.

Now, there is absolutely no question that the address should be protected by law. Declaring one's opinion, making information public knowledge and asking questions in the open must never be made illegal. Sure, we can allow private prosecutions where we feel a statement has been excessively unfair or harmful, but there should be no ban on the initial statement.

A declaration of intent may, of course, result in the person being arrested on suspicion of the conspiracy to commit crime, but that doesn't change they should be allowed to say it without being arrested for saying it; they're being arrested for the crime they may be about to go and do.

As to the rally, on the other hand, there are certain times when we need to be careful on the kind of incitement we are allowing to occur. For instance "You guys should go and kill people" is, if genuinely intended to encourage people to commit murder, probably not the sort of thing you should be permitting. The "Sticks and Stones" approach to this kind of free speech - that people should be free to say what they want because ultimately it is not their fault if people listen to them - is mistaken, in my view; words can hurt and influence, and a degree of culpability needs to be extended to those who would encourage misdeed.

Basically, it should be illegal to seek to drive someone else to commit an illegal act, but that's the only limitation on free speech that I think we will really want or be able to justify.

Ok, what did I miss?

Let's stop beating around the bush. Clearly some posters think that it is, so why not make it a topic.

Free speech is important. But hate speech and terrorist speech should be banned. You need to regulate free speech somewhat, otherwise you get people like Fred Phelps.

I'm a big fan of free speech- I think the internet is the best thing ever,
But!
There need to be limits!
Some forms of speech should be criminal.

- Hate Speech (e.g. <minority group> are evil and smelly and should be rounded up and killed)
- Threats (e.g. I am going to bomb <important location here> on <date> and no one can stop me!!!)
- Intellectual theft (e.g. And the rest of this post will be taken up by text from Rowling's latest Harry Potter book....)

Thus, in answer to the topic question, some forms of speech can be acts of terrorism.

I don't see the connection between some forms of speech being problematic and these being terrorism. Which forms of speech do you conclude can be terrorism - can I assume that you mean that I have to change my behaviour or you will quote J. K. Rowling at me!

Threats and hate speech are only problematic if the targets of these acts allow them to be so. If you define hate speech as being inciting others to break the law, then that is illegal as an act. Incitement to an illegal act is illegal in itself. If however it is something along the lines of "I hate that dumb, stupid, irritating, cherry cola" then it is just an expression of personal opinion. It may be one that you or I find obnoxious (when cherry cola is substituted for some group) but there is no reason to make it illegal, and it certainly is not terrorism.

Threats could, just about, be construed as terrorism, if you had reason to believe that the action threatened would be carried out conditionally. If it is unconditional it is not terrorism, it is just violence.

Clearly, some things that can be said are terrorism:

'I will kill you if you don't do what I want'

In fact, I think that statement is pretty much the core of terrorism.

However, I agree in general. Restricting free speech is damaging to society.
So like: I will kill for 8 hours of sleep' is terrorism? Even if the person has no weapon.

not unless your threatening to kill someone. assuming of course such a threat is credible to the point where it intimidates.

Who said it was?
Myrmi. The thread's closed for flaming/trolling etc now.

Myrmi. The thread's closed for flaming/trolling etc now.

What exactly did he say?

The very notion of any restriction upon free speech renders the term illusory. The dynamics of NSG demonstrate that, even when the sentiments expressed err into outright stupidity, the reason and critical analysis of the majority serve to silence the source, or simply disregard their posts. The same principle, whailst taking into account that NSG is by no means microcosm of general society, ought to apply within society.

What exactly did he say?
Something along the lines of the Senate Majority Leader committing treason and emboldening terrorists by daring to admit that the war in Iraq was lost. Not quite 'free speech = terrorism", but it's what I think the OP was on about.

Thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524586&highlight=traitor

I'm a big fan of free speech- I think the internet is the best thing ever,
But!
There need to be limits!
Some forms of speech should be criminal.

- Hate Speech (e.g. <minority group> are evil and smelly and should be rounded up and killed)
- Threats (e.g. I am going to bomb <important location here> on <date> and no one can stop me!!!)
- Intellectual theft (e.g. And the rest of this post will be taken up by text from Rowling's latest Harry Potter book....)

Thus, in answer to the topic question, some forms of speech can be acts of terrorism.

I disagree. I can hate people who dye their hair purple, and scream about how much I hate them and what degenerates they are until I am blue in the face. It's when I incite violence "So we should kill all them degenerate purple motherfuckers" that it becomes a crime.

A threat is not necessarily a crime, but when you find your ass sitting in an interrogation room getting grilled on how you intend to carry out your threat, you will find that free speech carries consequences.

Intellectual theft is not freedom of speech, and I don't think anyone would bother to argue that it is.

Speech which is an imminent threat (like screaming at a University commencement, OH MY GOD, HE'S GOT A GUN!!!! for shits and giggles, is not covered under free speech as it would incite a panic and people could be hurt or killed).

As an American, I'm glad the Constitution did not ban certain types of speech as being a crime in and of themselves. But people need to realize there can be social, economic, and criminal consequences for what they say.

I disagree. I can hate people who dye their hair purple, and scream about how much I hate them and what degenerates they are until I am blue in the face. It's when I incite violence "So we should kill all them degenerate purple motherfuckers" that it becomes a crime.

A threat is not necessarily a crime, but when you find your ass sitting in an interrogation room getting grilled on how you intend to carry out your threat, you will find that free speech carries consequences.

Intellectual theft is not freedom of speech, and I don't think anyone would bother to argue that it is.

Speech which is an imminent threat (like screaming at a University commencement, OH MY GOD, HE'S GOT A GUN!!!! for shits and giggles, is not covered under free speech as it would incite a panic and people could be hurt or killed).

As an American, I'm glad the Constitution did not ban certain types of speech as being a crime in and of themselves. But people need to realize there can be social, economic, and criminal consequences for what they say.

How you be so smart, missus? Anyway, what she said.

Free speech is important. But hate speech and terrorist speech should be banned. You need to regulate free speech somewhat, otherwise you get people like Fred Phelps.

I'll disagree here. As abhorrent, disgusting, hateful and completely batshit insane as I find the hypocritical Phelpses, I think people need to hear them spew their vomitous verbal diarrhea. It's only once you've heard what they preach that you realize how truly evil and insane they are, and want to put half a world and a million hot baths between you and them. (And it's freedom of speech that lets me express my -- enthusiastic -- opinion of them.)

How you be so smart, missus?
I gots my free, inferior Amerikan ejumacashun. ;)

I'll disagree here. As abhorrent, disgusting, hateful and completely batshit insane as I find the hypocritical Phelpses, I think people need to hear them spew their vomitous verbal diarrhea. It's only once you've heard what they preach that you realize how truly evil and insane they are, and want to put half a world and a million hot baths between you and them.


I gots my free, inferior Amerikan ejumacashun. ;)

And now you're responsible for provided free, inferior (supposedly) Amerikan ejumacashun. Scary, innit :p

I'll disagree here. As abhorrent, disgusting, hateful and completely batshit insane as I find the hypocritical Phelpses, I think people need to hear them spew their vomitous verbal diarrhea. It's only once you've heard what they preach that you realize how truly evil and insane they are, and want to put half a world and a million hot baths between you and them.
What we really need (with regard to the Phelpses) is not legislation to prevent them from doing it but the emergence of a modern-day prophet who can represent God in a private prosecution for defamation of character.

The very notion of any restriction upon free speech renders the term illusory. The dynamics of NSG demonstrate that, even when the sentiments expressed err into outright stupidity, the reason and critical analysis of the majority serve to silence the source, or simply disregard their posts. The same principle, whailst taking into account that NSG is by no means microcosm of general society, ought to apply within society.
Chris, your analogy is mistaken. If anyone came on here looking for people to join him on his quest to eliminate the Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Whites/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Gays/Politicians, he'd be banned forever with his thread deleted. And well he might, too.

You can't just set out a universal rule saying:

All hate speech or all threatening speech should be banned. That will just lead to a bunch of more problems.

We have to be pragmatical in our approach, we have to assess each situation to see how dangerous these people are. Saying you hate gays is not the same as inciting terrorism.

You can't just set out a universal rule saying:

All hate speech or all threatening speech should be banned. That will just lead to a bunch of more problems.

We have to be pragmatical in our approach, we have to assess each situation to see how dangerous these people are. Saying you hate gays is not the same as inciting terrorism.
*Nod*

I suggested here (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12569019&postcount=22) a dualism of speech, suggesting that each side of the coin be legislated separately, which seems like a reasonable approach to me.

And now you're responsible for provided free, inferior (supposedly) Amerikan ejumacashun. Scary, innit :p

I worked for a publishing company and for a media corporation in Manhattan before I decided to become a teacher. I hated both jobs and it finally worked out in my head to the fact that in both, I was making money for executives and not really doing anything I considered worthwhile.

I feel that teaching is an important and necessary part of a free society -- even when it seems that politicians and citizens belittle its worth and have this fairy-tale construct in which teaching is an EASY JOB.

Chris, your analogy is mistaken. If anyone came on here looking for people to join him on his quest to eliminate the Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Whites/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Gays/Politicians, he'd be banned forever with his thread deleted. And well he might, too.

Remember folks: there is no absolute of free speech on privately owned sites. In other words: the site owner and those s/he designates as his/her agents have the final say.

Chris, your analogy is mistaken. If anyone came on here looking for people to join him on his quest to eliminate the Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Whites/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Gays/Politicians, he'd be banned forever with his thread deleted. And well he might, too.

I wasn't really referring to the odd anomolous thread we do seem attract as much as the more regular threads such as the "It's acceptable to eject Muslims from aircraft" thread we recently had.

I worked for a publishing company and for a media corporation in Manhattan before I decided to become a teacher. I hated both jobs and it finally worked out in my head to the fact that in both, I was making money for executives and not really doing anything I considered worthwhile.

I feel that teaching is an important and necessary part of a free society -- even when it seems that politicians and citizens belittle its worth and have this fairy-tale construct in which teaching is an EASY JOB.



Remember folks: there is no absolute of free speech on privately owned sites. In other words: the site owner and those s/he designates as his/her agents have the final say.

On other words, Mods are evil.....:D

Free speech is vital. That way you know exactly who the nutters and bad guys are! due to free speech we now know that the chommel sector is a bit of a dictator.

The words themselves, you should be free to speak.

It is the consequences of your words, the actions taken as a result, those are important.

You could say "I hate whites" and if you're really thinking that, it'll be a while before you change your mind. Will arresting you really help Anything? I think not. However, suppose you were to convince two of your friends to beat up this white guy. Now, it gets blurry, because I would say that the more important aspect here is not that you incited violence, but that you were, as a result of inciting violence, a partner in crime. You could've stopped it and etc... so on and so forth (can't think of all the legal terms right now).

So... if someone were to say "We should bomb the White House" that might be acceptable (I wouldn't stop them from saying it). However, if a week later, the white house is bombed, you can quite easily guess who is the prime suspect (or at least, will be detained for conspiracy to commit the crime, maybe even tried and found guilty).

But the words themselves? They don't hurt and there's little we really can do to change opinion. It's the actions that follow that are important and inciting to violence directly might be enough to warrant suspicion that you are going to commit a crime in the near future, depending on your wording.

So yeah, free speech all the way, but you better be ready to take the consequences of your words like a responsible human being.

Also - since we have an idea of privacy in western culture, it is generally accepted that free speech is public only. In private, people (whomever controls the space) can limit things more, although any actions occurring as a result of you inciting to violence will still get you as prime suspect, if word gets out.

/ramble

Free speech is the only real reason that the west is worth defending. Without it we become the same as the Stalinists, Nazis, Fundimentalists of this world.

On other words, Mods are evil.....:D

Was there ever a question!? :D

Its not "my country right or wrong". The stars and stripes and the union jack are only great flags because of the freedoms they represent, no matter what idiot leaders we manage to elect.

I disagree. I can hate people who dye their hair purple, and scream about how much I hate them and what degenerates they are until I am blue in the face. It's when I incite violence "So we should kill all them degenerate purple motherfuckers" that it becomes a crime.

A threat is not necessarily a crime, but when you find your ass sitting in an interrogation room getting grilled on how you intend to carry out your threat, you will find that free speech carries consequences.

Intellectual theft is not freedom of speech, and I don't think anyone would bother to argue that it is.

Speech which is an imminent threat (like screaming at a University commencement, OH MY GOD, HE'S GOT A GUN!!!! for shits and giggles, is not covered under free speech as it would incite a panic and people could be hurt or killed).

As an American, I'm glad the Constitution did not ban certain types of speech as being a crime in and of themselves. But people need to realize there can be social, economic, and criminal consequences for what they say.

My first post doesn't really closely reflect my views, I was just trying to incite debate. :D

But in answer to your first comment, "I hate <group>" is not a crime, it's an expression of an opinion. However, expressing such an opinion can be unacceptable, if expressed, say, by a professor, to a student belonging to that group.

Inciting violence is criminal. But saying "I hate <group> and you should too" isn't inciting violence, but it is more than just an opinion, it's promoting said hatred. So, for example, a T-shirt from the US with such a slogan wouldn't make it into Canada.

I'm pretty sure an American posted a terrorist threat on the net as a joke and was hit with criminal charges.

And I'm not sure, but as a Canadian citizen posting chapters of Harry Potter online may be fair use as long as I don't demand money. :p

But saying "I hate <group> and you should too" isn't inciting violence, but it is more than just an opinion, it's promoting said hatred. So, for example, a T-shirt from the US with such a slogan wouldn't make it into Canada.

So "I hate George Bush and you should too!" wouldn't make it across the border?:D

When Lunatic Goofballs is the one exercising it, definitely:p

Its not "my country right or wrong". The stars and stripes and the union jack are only great flags because of the freedoms they represent, no matter what idiot leaders we manage to elect.

...I'm not following your connection to the topic...?

I think pretty much everyone here agrees that free speech is a good thing. The real debate is when free speech falls into the "grey" area of hate speech and spreading dangerous information.

Now I have always been passionate about free speech and have a "more is better" attitude. However, recently I've begun questioning my beliefs, especially after reading about that abomination of a human, Fred Phelps (http://godhatesfags.com). What a steaming pile of tripe! I don't think I could find a more hateful man in all of history! What Fred Phelps says is the very definition of hate speech. So do we ban it?

Then on this tread, Rejistania brings up the question of whether it should be legal or not to spread information about building bombs or the source code of viruses. Should dangerous information be kept out of the hands of the public?

After some deep thought and careful consideration, I have come to the following conclusion, the government cannont be trusted. You are probably saying "WTF are you talking about?", but let me explain.

Anytime there are any kind of qualifiers on our freedoms, the government takes advantage of them. Let's make it a little easier for the police to find criminals, we'll loosen up wiretap laws. Result, the government starts spying on its own citizens. Terrorists are hiding in other countries to escape prosecution for 9/11, let's give the president the authority to invade other countries without congress declaring war. The result, we invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 under the pretense of looking for terrorists. The list can go on and on and not just in the US.

How easy would it be for the government to say, "Opposing the war in Iraq is dangerous hate speech against our troops, therefore all opposition is banned." Or, "The spreading of misinformation that global warming exists is a danger to national security."

Yes, this is a "slippery slope" argument, but it is a slippery slope we're standing on.

So "I hate George Bush and you should too!" wouldn't make it across the border?:D

*laughs* Good point. I'm no law student. I have no idea how they make those calls.

Let's see...

From wikipedia: Freedom of Speech, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Canada)
In April 29, 2004, Bill C-250 was passed which includes as hate speech propaganda against people based on their sexual orientation. It is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true."

So I guess in Bush's case it'd be true. :D

I'm a big fan of free speech- I think the internet is the best thing ever,
But!
There need to be limits!
Some forms of speech should be criminal.

- Hate Speech (e.g. <minority group> are evil and smelly and should be rounded up and killed)
- Threats (e.g. I am going to bomb <important location here> on <date> and no one can stop me!!!)
- Intellectual theft (e.g. And the rest of this post will be taken up by text from Rowling's latest Harry Potter book....)

Thus, in answer to the topic question, some forms of speech can be acts of terrorism.
How can you say you support free speech and then post that little list of yours?

1) Criminal?? No. Actionable as civil tort, yes. Taken into consideration in judging severity of related criminal acts, maybe. But making speech itself criminal? No, no, a thousand times no!

2) If we are to have free speech at all, even direct threats must be considered credible and imminent for the statements alone to be acted against. Otherwise, anyone who says anything even remotely negative to someone could be accused of "threatening" them. Remember, it was claims that any vague action or even inaction was a threat against a person that drove the accusations in the Salem witch trails, and even now, there are people who think a person who "looks scary" (wow, subjective) is a threat. How about a "scary" looking person who talks loud or is angry at someone? Should they be labeled terrorists?

3) Copyright infringement and intellectual theft are already CIVIL torts, but NOT because there is any limitation on free speech. Such infringements are not allowed because they interfere with the copyright/trademark/patent holder's ability to make money off their intellectual property. But if it were because SPEECH is restricted, then holders of intellectual property could ban people from even talking about their products without paying for the privilege. So much for, oh, say, independent consumer reports or critical reviews. Oh, and remember, it's a civil tort matter, not a criminal one, and that is as it should be. Speech is not criminal.

4) None of the "examples" you listed in anyway amounts to terrorism, so your conclusion that some speech can be terrorism is not proven. I dismiss it.

We should all remember that in the US, the First Amendment protection on speech is designed to protect dissent. It is there to make sure that all people are totally free to criticize their government, and it is extended to include non-governmental entities such as corporate business interests and churches as well. It guarantees not only the right but the ability to "speak truth to power." It does not protect speech that is actually libelous/slanderous, or speech that can be proven to be intended specifically to incite violence. And it cannot be used as a shield to protect actual criminal acts, such as child porn. So there are plenty of protections in place for society against hurtful words without slapping terrorism labels all over anything some of us don't like.

What Harry Reid said falls well within the rights of all US citizens, and to claim otherwise is to attack the very principles our government claims to be fighting for in Iraq.

EDIT: For those who missed it, the Harry Reid remark refers to the thread that inspired this one.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it was meant more as a joke than a strawman. No one is that stupid. At least...I hope no one is that stupid.

Indeed. Anyone's who's actually that stupid should be an elected official, not some guy on the internet.

Free speech is important. But hate speech and terrorist speech should be banned. You need to regulate free speech somewhat, otherwise you get people like Fred Phelps.
As long as other people have the right to shout down idiots like Phelps, then idiots like Phelps are a small price to pay for my freedom to express my ideas.

What we really need (with regard to the Phelpses) is not legislation to prevent them from doing it but the emergence of a modern-day prophet who can represent God in a private prosecution for defamation of character.
Not only do we need such a person, but we need to give him/her a tv show, too. :D

Not only do we need such a person, but we need to give him/her a tv show, too. :D

"Tonight, on a very special Judge Judy..."

How can you say you support free speech and then post that little list of yours?

1) Criminal?? No. Actionable as civil tort, yes. Taken into consideration in judging severity of related criminal acts, maybe. But making speech itself criminal? No, no, a thousand times no!

2) If we are to have free speech at all, even direct threats must be considered credible and imminent for the statements alone to be acted against. Otherwise, anyone who says anything even remotely negative to someone could be accused of "threatening" them. Remember, it was claims that any vague action or even inaction was a threat against a person that drove the accusations in the Salem witch trails, and even now, there are people who think a person who "looks scary" (wow, subjective) is a threat. How about a "scary" looking person who talks loud or is angry at someone? Should they be labeled terrorists?

3) Copyright infringement and intellectual theft are already CIVIL torts, but NOT because there is any limitation on free speech. Such infringements are not allowed because they interfere with the copyright/trademark/patent holder's ability to make money off their intellectual property. But if it were because SPEECH is restricted, then holders of intellectual property could ban people from even talking about their products without paying for the privilege. So much for, oh, say, independent consumer reports or critical reviews. Oh, and remember, it's a civil tort matter, not a criminal one, and that is as it should be. Speech is not criminal.

4) None of the "examples" you listed in anyway amounts to terrorism, so your conclusion that some speech can be terrorism is not proven. I dismiss it.

We should all remember that in the US, the First Amendment protection on speech is designed to protect dissent. It is there to make sure that all people are totally free to criticize their government, and it is extended to include non-governmental entities such as corporate business interests and churches as well. It guarantees not only the right but the ability to "speak truth to power." It does not protect speech that is actually libelous/slanderous, or speech that can be proven to be intended specifically to incite violence. And it cannot be used as a shield to protect actual criminal acts, such as child porn. So there are plenty of protections in place for society against hurtful words without slapping terrorism labels all over anything some of us don't like.

What Harry Reid said falls well within the rights of all US citizens, and to claim otherwise is to attack the very principles our government claims to be fighting for in Iraq.

Sorry for the confusion. Not all 'bad speech' is terrorism. It was a vague post, I was going to bed at the time.

But terrorism is an act of communication- it is meant to communicate fear, spread terror. Speech is one form of communication than can be employed to spread fear. Thus some speech is terrorism.

Sorry, but if I'm not allowed to read you the complete contents of a Harry Potter book, then that's a restriction on my speech.

For threats and hate propaganda, intent is critical. Often we say 'I'm going to kill you' in jest, or in lieu of a realistic threat. Context is everything, so if we were to say 'I'm going to kill you' in a situation where it would be taken seriously, then that's a threat, and should be considered a criminal act, regardless of whether or not there's any attempt to follow through.

*laughs* Good point. I'm no law student. I have no idea how they make those calls.

Let's see...

From wikipedia: Freedom of Speech, Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Canada)


So I guess in Bush's case it'd be true. :D
Truth is an absolute defense. :D

Sorry, but if I'm not allowed to read you the complete contents of a Harry Potter book, then that's a restriction on my speech.

It's not your speech -- it's J.K. Rowling's words. You can talk about Harry Potter till the cows come home, but when you are reproducing her work and giving it away, so to speak, you're not practicing free speech.

Check out the disclaimers at the beginnings of DVDs. You can watch them. You cannot use them for a public performance. ;)

Sorry for the confusion. Not all 'bad speech' is terrorism. It was a vague post, I was going to bed at the time.

But terrorism is an act of communication- it is meant to communicate fear, spread terror. Speech is one form of communication than can be employed to spread fear. Thus some speech is terrorism.

Sorry, but if I'm not allowed to read you the complete contents of a Harry Potter book, then that's a restriction on my speech.

For threats and hate propaganda, intent is critical. Often we say 'I'm going to kill you' in jest, or in lieu of a realistic threat. Context is everything, so if we were to say 'I'm going to kill you' in a situation where it would be taken seriously, then that's a threat, and should be considered a criminal act, regardless of whether or not there's any attempt to follow through.
Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree vehemently.

Terrorism is not speech. Period.

Terrorism is an action. It is the planting of bombs, the detonation of bombs, the hijacking of planes, the murdering of civilians, the release of poisonous gasses in enclosed spaces, the distribution of bombs, poisons, etc, through the mail, and so on. None of those things is speech. They are all actions.

A person who claims they are being oppressed and calls upon others to rise up against that oppression is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- engaging in terrorism.

A person who claims that the existence of a particular group is bad for society and they should be stamped out is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- engaging in terrorism (as much as we might wish otherwise).

A person who distributes bomb-making instructions to others so that they may build bombs for the purpose of detonating them IS engaging in an action in furtherance of terrorism. Not, in and of itself, terrorism but certainly part of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, i.e. terrorism. NOTE: Distribution of said instructions is not speech; it is an action.

EDIT: Additionally, a person who incites others to commit acts of terrorism MAY be engaging in terrorism, or in acts in furtherance of terrorism, IF AND ONLY IF his speech is specific enough to identify a target and strongly encourage acts of violence against the target (including offering rewards such as money or passage into heaven), and even then, it is terrorism only if the violent acts actually occur or are attempted. Short of that, such speech falls under lesser charges such as "menacing."

Do you start to see the pattern here? Speech =/= terrorism, even when they actually are related.


Oh, and by the way, you ARE allowed to read me the entirety of all the Harry Potter books (but PLEASE don't). What you are not allowed to do is charge money for the service UNLESS you pay a fee to JK Rowling's publisher. And you are not allowed to read them to me and claim that you wrote them. Also, you are allowed to say whatever you like about those books. You can even parody them mercilessly, if you like. Your speech of and about the books is protected. Your claims to ownership of their contents is not. So, not a restriction on your free speech.

It's not your speech -- it's J.K. Rowling's words. You can talk about Harry Potter till the cows come home, but when you are reproducing her work and giving it away, so to speak, you're not practicing free speech.

Check out the disclaimers at the beginnings of DVDs. You can watch them. You cannot use them for a public performance. ;)
Public performances of book readings is a gray area in copyright law. It is much clearer in music and movies and other works that were originally meant to be performed or displayed in front of an audience, because the performance/display is the main means of delivering the work to a paying audience.

Books, on the other hand, have much more leeway. Schools do not have to pay fees to publishers/writers for permission to read copyrighted works aloud in class. Same with book clubs, and bookdealers who might host readings for promotional purposes. But if you were to make copies of JK Rowling's books and distribute them for free, then you would be infringing her copyright. Even then, in the book industry, no suits are ever brought for non-approved distribution of small numbers of copies. Usually, it has to be over 1000 before a complaint will be made.

Free speech for oldthinkers. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Goldstein's and Eurasia's(1) Eastasia's(2) Eurasia's(3) Eastasia's(4) Eurasia's sabotage against BB. Minitrue mark doubleplusungood crimethink. Miniluv say oldthinkers should go joycamp. BB rectifies fullwise.


1) Minitrue fix misprint. Eurasia is ally, and always has been.
2) Minitrue fix misprint. Eastasia is ally, and always has been.
3) Minitrue fix misprint. Eurasia is ally, and always has been.
4) Minitrue fix misprint. Eastasia is ally, and always has been.

-----------------------------

I just had to do that.

What we really need (with regard to the Phelpses) is not legislation to prevent them from doing it but the emergence of a modern-day prophet who can represent God in a private prosecution for defamation of character.

This is similar to the old plan to start accounts called stuff like "Jesus", "Biblical God", and "Prophet Mohommad" to get people banned.


Chris, your analogy is mistaken. If anyone came on here looking for people to join him on his quest to eliminate the Muslims/Jews/Blacks/Whites/Christians/Hindus/Buddhists/Gays/Politicians, he'd be banned forever with his thread deleted. And well he might, too.

Looking at your join date, it is clear you missed Fourth Holy Reich. No, you will not get banned for advocating genocide on NSG.

It's not your speech -- it's J.K. Rowling's words. You can talk about Harry Potter till the cows come home, but when you are reproducing her work and giving it away, so to speak, you're not practicing free speech.

Check out the disclaimers at the beginnings of DVDs. You can watch them. You cannot use them for a public performance. ;)I'm not sure books have the same disclaimer. All they say is that it may not be reproduced or transmitted and then goes on to list several way of transmiting and reproducing that this includes (such as electronic, mechanical or photocopyied). It doesn't list verbal though, and because verbal communication is such a huge part of how we live you think they'd explicitly include verbal if they could. So I don't think people can prohibited from talking about things - the exception being (in the UK) the official secrets act.

All intellectual property seems to do is prevent people using your work as their own.

So paroting what was in the book would be fine so long as you acknowledged that it was the author's work and did not charge others to listen to you. Whereas showing someone a DVD publicly would count as electronic transmission.

I'm not 100% sure on this, but still pretty sure.

I'll disagree here. As abhorrent, disgusting, hateful and completely batshit insane as I find the hypocritical Phelpses, I think people need to hear them spew their vomitous verbal diarrhea. It's only once you've heard what they preach that you realize how truly evil and insane they are, and want to put half a world and a million hot baths between you and them.

True. You make a very good point. However, it's very damaging to many people like the families of those killed at VA Tech. Let's say one of your friends got killed in an accident. You wouldn't want to hear Fred Phelps ranting about how they deserved what they got because there is homosexuality in America. He's sickening to all of us who are just going through our daily motions. It's much worse for those in a bereaved state.

I direct you to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And from Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927):
To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I'm a big fan of free speech- I think the internet is the best thing ever,
But!
There need to be limits!
Some forms of speech should be criminal.

...
- Intellectual theft (e.g. And the rest of this post will be taken up by text from Rowling's latest Harry Potter book....)

Intellectual theft is not freedom of speech, and I don't think anyone would bother to argue that it is.

And I'm not sure, but as a Canadian citizen posting chapters of Harry Potter online may be fair use as long as I don't demand money. :p

But this is not speech, and I wouldn't be sure it's not intellectual theft. Your posting the chapters without permission means someone who may have bought the book, or borrowed from the library a purchased copy, will now have the same material without Rowling being reimbursed for her work.

This is similar to the old plan to start accounts called stuff like "Jesus", "Biblical God", and "Prophet Mohommad" to get people banned.
Well, kinda, only with a little more credibility. Someone with a really powerful and authoritive manner of speech, but a complete non-celebrity.

Looking at your join date, it is clear you missed Fourth Holy Reich. No, you will not get banned for advocating genocide on NSG.
I'm a reincarnation (since Oct 03) anyway, but either this was before my time or during my inactivity. *Shrug*

Anyway, you'll note I said nothing about the advocation of ideas being prohibited; what I said was that when people came on to stir the NSGers to engage in such actions (including *gasp* going to another game or forum) they have traditionally been removed, and I think the moderators would agree with that assertion.

But this is not speech, and I wouldn't be sure it's not intellectual theft. Your posting the chapters without permission means someone who may have bought the book, or borrowed from the library a purchased copy, will now have the same material without Rowling being reimbursed for her work.
What about speeches, then? Could it ever be considered a violation of intellectual property rights to repeat a speech or a significant portion of a speech made by one to another?

What about speeches, then? Could it ever be considered a violation of intellectual property rights to repeat a speech or a significant portion of a speech made by one to another?

That I am not sure of, but I do know that if one were to post chapters of copyrighted material on line, which was the original premise, it's not protected speech.

Thinking about it, I would think it must be. If one is writing a paper in which one publishes selected excerpts of a speech, one must also credit the speaker and time and place of the speech, as well as to which audience it was given. Surely if it were not important in terms of intellectual property, no one would care if you reproduced a speech without giving due credit?

True. You make a very good point. However, it's very damaging to many people like the families of those killed at VA Tech. Let's say one of your friends got killed in an accident. You wouldn't want to hear Fred Phelps ranting about how they deserved what they got because there is homosexuality in America. He's sickening to all of us who are just going through our daily motions. It's much worse for those in a bereaved state.
Such things are very sad, but not wanting to hear someone's bullshit, bigoted opinion interjected into one's own personal tragedy, or even being terribly hurt by hearing someone's bullshit, bigoted opinion, is NOT a reason to stop said moron from spouting his bullshit, bigoted opinion.

To those whose pain is made worse by the likes of Phelps, free speech grants the only remedy it can -- the right to tell Fred Phelps exactly what we think of him.

I'll quote Cat-Tribe's helpful post:

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I'd like to add to my last post that I believe that speech (like all things we do) has consequences. For a Fred Phelps, the consequence will be public ridicule and rejection, angry mourners physically chasing him and his followers from cemeteries. I think it should also include rigorous journalistic investigations into his activities (since he has chosen to make a public figure of himself). And frankly, I think it would be totally appropriate if the consequences included a sound thrashing once a week from aggrieved parties.

But it should NOT include official censorship. As much as we hate him, if we deny him the right to speak, we lose the right to do so ourselves.

Hahahahahaha. Ha.

My first post doesn't really closely reflect my views, I was just trying to incite debate. :D

But in answer to your first comment, "I hate <group>" is not a crime, it's an expression of an opinion. However, expressing such an opinion can be unacceptable, if expressed, say, by a professor, to a student belonging to that group.

Inciting violence is criminal. But saying "I hate <group> and you should too" isn't inciting violence, but it is more than just an opinion, it's promoting said hatred. So, for example, a T-shirt from the US with such a slogan wouldn't make it into Canada.

I'm pretty sure an American posted a terrorist threat on the net as a joke and was hit with criminal charges.

And I'm not sure, but as a Canadian citizen posting chapters of Harry Potter online may be fair use as long as I don't demand money. :p


Copyright laws are more draconian in Canada than they are in the US. The US at least has a fair-use policy which allows educational institutions to use passages from novels, or snippets of songs etc without paying the copyright fees. Not so in Canada. It doesn't matter that you aren't demanding money here...the fact that you are posting another's work without permission, and without paying the copyright fee is considered to be damaging per se.

As for inciting violence, well, this is generally protected under s.2(b) of Charter, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". There is no provision in the Criminal Code making it a crime to incite violence UNLESS YOU DO IT AGAINST THE STATE, which is pretty much par for the course in most countries. You might trigger other mechanisms, such as provincial human rights legislation if you do so, or you might be charged with defamation if you start making certain statements about people, (or even small groups), etc. You will not, however, go to jail for declaring that all Muslims should be killed, as reprehensible as such a sentiment is.

Canadian customs...well now. That's another issue. We still restrict a hell of a lot of gay porn from being imported into Canada. We have various language restrictions that seem ridiculous as well...for example, you can not import an English language novel into Quebec unless there is also a French language version. The reverse is true outside of Quebec...no French unless available in English. However, not letting in a shirt with a hateful slogan is a different kettle of fish. The makers of that shirt do not have Charter protection. Someone making that shirt IN Canada however...would.

Copyright laws are more draconian in Canada than they are in the US. The US at least has a fair-use policy which allows educational institutions to use passages from novels, or snippets of songs etc without paying the copyright fees. Not so in Canada. It doesn't matter that you aren't demanding money here...the fact that you are posting another's work without permission, and without paying the copyright fee is considered to be damaging per se.

As for inciting violence, well, this is generally protected under s.2(b) of Charter, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication". There is no provision in the Criminal Code making it a crime to incite violence UNLESS YOU DO IT AGAINST THE STATE, which is pretty much par for the course in most countries. You might trigger other mechanisms, such as provincial human rights legislation if you do so, or you might be charged with defamation if you start making certain statements about people, (or even small groups), etc. You will not, however, go to jail for declaring that all Muslims should be killed, as reprehensible as such a sentiment is.

Canadian customs...well now. That's another issue. We still restrict a hell of a lot of gay porn from being imported into Canada. We have various language restrictions that seem ridiculous as well...for example, you can not import an English language novel into Quebec unless there is also a French language version. The reverse is true outside of Quebec...no French unless available in English. However, not letting in a shirt with a hateful slogan is a different kettle of fish. The makers of that shirt do not have Charter protection. Someone making that shirt IN Canada however...would.

I stand corrected. =P

I stand corrected. =P

It's a Canadian trait I think, to believe we are less restrictive than they are in the US. The truth always comes as something of a shock...especially to people like Maher Arar, no?

We take less notice of infringements of our constitutional rights...perhaps because we've had them for less time. Or maybe it's the British stoicism that still colours our national persona...'wot then, Crown and Country, stiff upper lip, none of that hysterical brouhaha they have down in the States...' :D

You learn quickly, as a protester, just how little you ARE protected by the state.

It's a Canadian trait I think, to believe we are less restrictive than they are in the US. The truth always comes as something of a shock...especially to people like Maher Arar, no?

Disturbing. Is Canada more restrictive in practice, or just in theory?

We take less notice of infringements of our constitutional rights...perhaps because we've had them for less time. Or maybe it's the British stoicism that still colours our national persona...'wot then, Crown and Country, stiff upper lip, none of that hysterical brouhaha they have down in the States...' :D

Conversely, one can see it as an American trait shining through: glorifying their nation's war of creation, escaping the shackles of an oppressive government, has put them always on the look out for the next despot, the next act of oppression, always prepared for another revolution.

You learn quickly, as a protester, just how little you ARE protected by the state.

Yikes. Sounds like you have stories to tell.

Yikes. Sounds like you have stories to tell.

Well, I certainly have a few I could tell you about protests...

Well, I certainly have a few I could tell you about protests...

By all means, share if you want too. I'm feeling a little less outraged then usual. I need something to kick it back up.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would ever think this. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, whenever they want, whyever they want. Any restriction upon this is an attempt to control people, and that is wrong, pure and simple.

Suppressing a dissenting opinion is wrong. BUT...

Well, I'm going to quote precedent here:

"The most stringent protections of free speech would not protect a man from prosecution were he to cause a panic by standing up in a crowded theater and yelling 'Fire.'"

If anyone gets the historical context of the reference, I think you'll agree that it's rather appropriate.