NationStates Jolt Archive

Being a citizen of the USA, I have always had this thought in the back of my mind too. Whenever I've travelled abroad to England, Spain, or over to Asia (China, Thailand, etc) I have noticed the harsh crackdown on 'hate speech' or 'anti-social' behavior. All in the name of our own good of course.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php

Article from NYT Int explores this issue. Your thoughts?

Are limitations on free speech needed? Or is free speech an absolute right? I'm not talking about fals advertising as that can be legally construed as fraud. I think the government needs to let me think for myself. I need to learn from my mistakes. The government isn't there to hold my hand.

*Discuss amongst yourselves*
:)

I think there's a certain value in a system that allows people with hateful ideas to speak them openly. It keeps them out where you can see them instead of hidden away where you never know what they're up to.

There are no absolute rights, but if we suppress speech we dislike then we do not have free speech.

Countries that do so do not have free speech.

Many western nations are making a serious mistake.

They think they're dealing with the problem, but they're actually sweeping hate and discrimination under the carpet and letting it fester. The bigots and haters are not going to disappear, and they're not going to shut up either, instead, they will just go underground.

Worse, by actually oppressing these people, you legitimize them. A racist in the US can gabble on as much as he likes - but if he claims he's being oppressed he's just going to be laughed at, since he has the same rights to say and do as he chooses as everyone else.

But a racist in Britain or Australia can entirely correctly say that he cannot say what he actually believes, that he IS part of an oppressed minority.

And that will only spread his beliefs among the dissatisfied and unhappy, who are always with us. In attacking speech they spread the poison.

Is speech itself even needed? We may have only the elite, first properly instructed and trained in political correctness and proper political position, taught how to write, and allowed to. After all, it's not like some plumber needs literacy beyond reading the markings on his tools anyway.

Being a citizen of the USA, I have always had this tjought in the back of my mind too. Whenever I've travelled abroad to England, Spain, or over to Asia (China, Thailand, etc) I have noticed the harsh crackdown on 'hate speech' or 'anti-social' behavior.

Are limitations on free speech needed? Or is free speech an absolute right? I'm not talking about fals advertising as that can be legally construed as fraud.

*Discuss amongst yourselves*
:)
[/QUOTE]
I would say "hate speech" should only be prohibited in public school. Students should not have to be subjected to racist and homophobic slurs during their day.

It seems okay elsewhere. Let the neo-Nazis come and protest, I don't care. Liberty consists precisely in letting people do what you don't like.

Political speech should be given the most protection (as it is now). People should be able to loudly agitate for revolution on the streets and be protected under the law (as it is now).

I think the threshold for prohibiting certain kinds of speech is when it creates a clearly tangible harm. For example, speech calculated to defraud someone should not be protected.

In the past, hate speech has in the past led to mass killings: witches, gypsies, jews, "heretics", etc. etc., so I guess you could say that Europe has learnt the hard way that there need to be limitations to free speech.

Interestingly, right now the discussion about free speech and its possible limitations have flared up again, here in the Netherlands and also on other parts of Europe, with people like Theo van Gogh and Geert Wilders propagating unlimited free speech.

I think there's a certain value in a system that allows people with hateful ideas to speak them openly. It keeps them out where you can see them instead of hidden away where you never know what they're up to.

Pretty much thinking the same.

I think there do have to be limits: freedom to express an opinion is one thing, but inciting violence (against minorities), for example, should not be acceptable.

Gah, is it possible to change a poll response, I clicked on the wrong one by accident (my correct response was "I think it has enough")

Anyway, I think there is a mid-point to find between free speech and not causing harm. I'm not talking about just insulting people but active incitation to violence is not appropriate for a public forum and effectively makes you part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. But I think some of the current legislation (in this country) goes to far is protecting people from just being insulted as opposed to protection from verbal threats/attacks which is what such legislation should be about.

I think there do have to be limits: freedom to express an opinion is one thing, but inciting violence (against minorities), for example, should not be acceptable.

Incitement to violence is not protected in the US; nor are such things as incitement to riot. Basically, you're not allowed to use your right of free speech to attempt to inflict specific harm.

But, for instance, here in OZ it would be illegal to say "blacks are inferior" or anything of that ilk. While I would be as offended by that statement as anyone, I don't believe it should be worth jail time or a fine to say waht a person honestly believes.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Even the most minor intrusion opens the door but a little. And then they want a little more... And a little more....

*Man typing on his computer* THe government sucks! It's taken away too many of our rights! Heck, it's probably illegal to say this! *SWAT team bursts in, drags the man away*

I'm in two minds on this issue.
On the one hand, sure, let people say what they like. Everybody ought to be free to make a total ass of him- or herself if they so wish. And contrary to what many USAmericans on here seem to believe, that's the way it mostly is all over Europe. The days of the Stasi listening in to your phone calls and reporting you are long gone, you can privately say whatever you feel like.

The "hate speech" problem kicks in on a different level, usually when speaking in official function, or when addressing a wider audience by giving speeches or publishing books.
And to some extend I can relate to the motivation behind curtailing some of those. It's entirely pragmatic, when you get down to it. As a country and as a society, you're better of without violence and any kind of internal group warfare, and allowing books and speeches that are likely to cause violence (either by the group agreeing with the speaker/writer and acting out some stupid ideas, or by the group targeted and feeling the need to pre-emptive defense) does not exactly contribute to peaceful living.
It's a little like traffic laws on speed limits : you're not allowed over it, but you're not allowed to go drastically under it, either, as that could encourage other drivers to overtake in potentially dangerous situations.

Overall, I'm undecided.

In the past, hate speech has in the past led to mass killings: witches, gypsies, jews, "heretics", etc. etc., so I guess you could say that Europe has learnt the hard way that there need to be limitations to free speech.
Except most times it was the speech by the government itself, and the government will always make what it says considered the objective truth.
How do you imagine someone banning hate speech and punishing itself for it?

You're twisting the history, BTW. The Inquisition did not allow free speech - the speech which wasn't along the current line of the Church was banned. It was laws against "hate speech" which led to the slaughter of "witches" and "heretics". Except it was "heresy" instead of "hate speech", but the meaning is the same.

Worse, by actually oppressing these people, you legitimize them. A racist in the US can gabble on as much as he likes - but if he claims he's being oppressed he's just going to be laughed at, since he has the same rights to say and do as he chooses as everyone else.

I don't know. The likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and a few less openly inflammatory people aren't oppressed, but they do wield quite a bit of influence with their listeners.

I don't know. The likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and a few less openly inflammatory people aren't oppressed, but they do wield quite a bit of influence with their listeners.

Sure, they can push their wares. And some will buy. But in the US Ann Coulter can be argued with, opposed, her arguments dissected and the reasonable majority can see the errors for what they are.

Some demagogue in Liverpool gives a speech to a select audience, and likely no one will ever look at what he said - his vitriol will go unopposed.

Except most times it was the speech by the government itself, and the government will always make what it says considered the objective truth.
How do you imagine someone banning hate speech and punishing itself for it?

You're twisting the history, BTW. The Inquisition did not allow free speech - the speech which wasn't along the current line of the Church was banned. It was laws against "hate speech" which led to the slaughter of "witches" and "heretics". Except it was "heresy" instead of "hate speech", but the meaning is the same.

I think you (possibly deliberately) misunderstood that post.
It doesn't matter if hate speech is used by government officials, churches, or a private person. It always encourages hatred and discrimination, and will in many cases call for violence.
Europe saw it used by the churches against heretics and witches, by governments against students and dissidents, and by revolutionaries against people with more money. It's been used legally and illegally, and the population never ever benefited from the results.

So now they're working on legilation that balances personal freedoms with public responsibilties.

hmm Canada and parts of europe seem backwards perhaps it is time for an American intervention. isn't there oil in the north sea perhaps we should start there?

hmm Canada and parts of europe seem backwards perhaps it is time for an American intervention. isn't there oil in the north sea perhaps we should start there?

Why bother? You effectively run this place already, what with the economy sipping a cup of Lemsip and going to bed when the US declares it feels a bit chilly, and what with certain European leaders being so far up your president's arse they couldn't get a haircut in years!

Why bother? You effectively run this place already, what with the economy sipping a cup of Lemsip and going to bed when the US declares it feels a bit chilly, and what with certain European leaders being so far up your president's arse they couldn't get a haircut in years!

we are not invading Ireland the bowl of shamrocks every year is token enough of submission to the American way.

It doesn't matter if hate speech is used by government officials, churches, or a private person.
You don't understand. The government or the Church (when it's in power) can't use hate speech. Speech used by them automatically becomes acceptable and proper.
Like, for instance, 'hate' speech against whites and heterosexuals is fine in our pro-minority society, since they aren't ones.


Europe saw it used by the churches against heretics and witches,
No. It wasn't hate speech, it was execution. Direct, not through speech. And what was it for? It was for heresy - the medieval equivalent of 'hate speech', since it was treated as hate speech against God and Church.

by governments against students and dissidents,
And this is just nonsense. Governments use law, police and oppression, not "hate speech".

It seems like you're equating "hate speech" to mean any form of hostility.

we are not invading Ireland the bowl of shamrocks every year is token enough of submission to the American way.

I wasn't only talking about Ireland ;)

You don't understand. The government or the Church (when it's in power) can't use hate speech. Speech used by them automatically becomes acceptable and proper.
Like, for instance, 'hate' speech against whites and heterosexuals is fine in our pro-minority society, since they aren't ones.

No. It wasn't hate speech, it was execution. Direct, not through speech. And what was it for? It was for heresy - the medieval equivalent of 'hate speech', since it was treated as hate speech against God and Church.

And this is just nonsense. Governments use law, police and oppression, not "hate speech".

It seems like you're equating "hate speech" to mean any form of hostility.

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

Definition by wikipedia

Are you tying to tell me that Hitler's tirades, the pope Urban's call for a crusade or the French revolutionists' calls to kill off the aristocracy don't fit that definition?

Sure, they probably wouldn't have called it hate speech. But then again, neither would a modern day racist or Islamist.

I wasn't only talking about Ireland ;)

seriously do you all give the shamrocks to any other country?
On saint Patrick's day?

the only reason The Us might be special is the large number of Irish Americans.
But from what Ive seen most of the Irish consider them little more then bastards.

seriously do you all give the shamrocks to any other country?
On saint Patrick's day?

the only reason The Us might be special is the large number of Irish Americans.
But from what Ive seen most of the Irish consider them little more then bastards.

I don't know, to be honest.
There's a good deal of Irish all over the world, with large numbers in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK as well.

Nah, the Irish don't have a problem with Americans. Only with those that come over here and declare that they are in fact Irish... that doesn't seem to go down so well with many. ;)

Are you tying to tell me that Hitler's tirades, Hate speech until he came to power.
the pope Urban's call for a crusade Not hate speech.
or the French revolutionists' calls to kill off the aristocracy Partially, but it wasn't these calls which driven the revolution.


Sure, they probably wouldn't have called it hate speech.
Of course. Partly because whatever government does is legal by definition.
Partly because burning and dismembering heretics isn't hate speech - it's action.
On the contrary, arguing against that action would be hate speech of the day.

Hate speech until he came to power.
Not hate speech.
Partially, but it wasn't these calls which driven the revolution.

Of course. Partly because whatever government does is legal by definition.
Partly because burning and dismembering heretics isn't hate speech - it's action.
On the contrary, arguing against that action would be hate speech of the day.

You seem to be under the impression that for something to be hate speech, it would have to be illegal.
That's just not true. The US has people using hate speech quite legally, and it's still hate speech.

Being a citizen of the USA, I have always had this thought in the back of my mind too. Whenever I've travelled abroad to England, Spain, or over to Asia (China, Thailand, etc) I have noticed the harsh crackdown on 'hate speech' or 'anti-social' behavior. All in the name of our own good of course.

Who goes on holiday to England, and notices the police are tough on 'hate speech'?

I don't know, to be honest.
There's a good deal of Irish all over the world, with large numbers in Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK as well.

Nah, the Irish don't have a problem with Americans. Only with those that come over here and declare that they are in fact Irish... that doesn't seem to go down so well with many. ;)

We are Irish. Who are you to tell us we are not!!

I'm in two minds on this issue.
On the one hand, sure, let people say what they like. Everybody ought to be free to make a total ass of him- or herself if they so wish. And contrary to what many USAmericans on here seem to believe, that's the way it mostly is all over Europe. The days of the Stasi listening in to your phone calls and reporting you are long gone, you can privately say whatever you feel like.

The "hate speech" problem kicks in on a different level, usually when speaking in official function, or when addressing a wider audience by giving speeches or publishing books.
And to some extend I can relate to the motivation behind curtailing some of those. It's entirely pragmatic, when you get down to it. As a country and as a society, you're better of without violence and any kind of internal group warfare, and allowing books and speeches that are likely to cause violence (either by the group agreeing with the speaker/writer and acting out some stupid ideas, or by the group targeted and feeling the need to pre-emptive defense) does not exactly contribute to peaceful living.
It's a little like traffic laws on speed limits : you're not allowed over it, but you're not allowed to go drastically under it, either, as that could encourage other drivers to overtake in potentially dangerous situations.

Overall, I'm undecided.

The reason I favor erring on the side of more freedom is that as soon as you start to curtail things, however well intentioned you are, somebody has to make a judgment on where that level is, and that's where politics, motivations and corruption kick in. Better to keep all that away.

We are Irish. Who are you to tell us we are not!!

Real Irish people *nods*

Real Irish people *nods*

there are more Irish people over here then on that little island.

that makes Us the real Irish.
In fact we shall add to the United states the title "The Real Slim Ireland"

And that country on the island shall be called "The country formerly know as Ireland"

all breweries distilleries and other places of alcohol creation are to be transfered post haste, along with the staff.

Dont worry we will send you the Budweiser brewery.

Whenever I've travelled abroad to England, Spain, or over to Asia (China, Thailand, etc) I have noticed the harsh crackdown on 'hate speech'...
Really?

There's (misguided, but understandable) anti-holocaust denial laws in Germany and Austria, a limitation on saying "go and kill X" in the UK, but that's almost it. Hardly a huge clamping down on free speech.

Certainly, speech about Islam, Christianity and one or two other subjects gets heated responses from many sections of European society, but then that's part of free speech too.

One thing what ever puzzled me is that the United States claim to have Freedom of Speech, but have with the FCC an organ, which censors the media?

Really?

There's (misguided, but understandable) anti-holocaust denial laws in Germany and Austria, a limitation on saying "go and kill X" in the UK, but that's almost it. Hardly a huge clamping down on free speech.

Certainly, speech about Islam, Christianity and one or two other subjects gets heated responses from many sections of European society, but then that's part of free speech too.

You forgot to mention you cant call Scientology a cult in the UK.

One thing what ever puzzled me is that the United States claim to have Freedom of Speech, but have with the FCC an organ, which censors the media?

who uses transmission Tv??? Everyone here has cable and satellite.

You forgot to mention you cant call Scientology a cult in the UK.
Och, you can.

There may be some over-zealous (paid-up?) police that say you can't, but there's no law against it.

who uses transmission Tv??? Everyone here has cable and satellite.

Which makes the whole thing only weirder.

Which makes the whole thing only weirder.

it is just the matter of the goverment wanting to regulate something so they keep the transmission system running that no now watches just to have something to pretend to be Nazis about.

It is in the constitution the goverment can regulate like a Nazi anything that isn't used by anyone.

a limitation on saying "go and kill X" in the UK, but that's almost it. Hardly a huge clamping down on free speech.

shh! can't you see we are backwards freedom haters even though we can still say "Al qaeda is awesome" over the phone and not be dragged off to gitmo :p

You forgot to mention you cant call Scientology a cult in the UK.

I had that in my window a few months back and never got any issues though I did take it down once it got slightly sad

The reason I favor erring on the side of more freedom is that as soon as you start to curtail things, however well intentioned you are, somebody has to make a judgment on where that level is, and that's where politics, motivations and corruption kick in. Better to keep all that away.

Yeah, that's where I stand as well.

Och, you can.

There may be some over-zealous (paid-up?) police that say you can't, but there's no law against it.

In fact the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) not only threw it out, they also issued guidelines to the City of London police as to what exactly is hate speech (incitement to kill X) and what isn't (hurting someone's feelings) just in case the money in their pockets was making them confused.

I think that like most freedoms, it comes with a responsibility. Yes, you should have the right to say whatever you want. But you bear the responsibility for the fallout of what you say.

Rights without responsibilities is self-destructive.

Except most times it was the speech by the government itself, and the government will always make what it says considered the objective truth.
How do you imagine someone banning hate speech and punishing itself for it?

You're twisting the history, BTW. The Inquisition did not allow free speech - the speech which wasn't along the current line of the Church was banned. It was laws against "hate speech" which led to the slaughter of "witches" and "heretics". Except it was "heresy" instead of "hate speech", but the meaning is the same.

So "practicing witchcraft" is equal to "hatespeech" too? And comparing that "heresy" to "hatespeech" is nonsense: hate and disagreement are not the same thing. Do I disagree with you? Yes. Do I hate you? No. It's exactly the other way around as you put it.

The examples I gave were situations were the hatespeech, the prejudices against certain groups, were so widespread that they became law or (semi-)official regulations: situations were the ruling class officially condoned and promoted hatespeech against certain groups, leading to the eventual prosecution of these groups. The witches are evil and do nasty things to us! (Exit everyone accused of witchcraft) The jews are evil and poison our wells! (exit jews)

You seem to be under the impression that for something to be hate speech, it would have to be illegal.
That's just not true.
That is true, when discussing legislation. Because any speech, hate or not, with laws or not, is OK when used by someone above the law - Government, Church.

So "practicing witchcraft" is equal to "hatespeech" too? And comparing that "heresy" to "hatespeech"
Pretty much yes.

Have you read Malleus Maleficarum, or Witch Hammer? A great read, BTW, no worse than that Dan Brown's book, at least.

In the Inquisition's legal system, witchcraft was often prosecuted through heresy laws. And the difference between heresy and hatespeech is so small it's even nonexistant. Heresy was the hatespeech of the day - hate of Church and so God.

Or, more precisely, hatespeech is the heresy of our day. No one is going to prosecute someone hatespeaking against whites or heterosexuals, for instance. Hate speech is just a form of heresy, it's speaking things that aren't officially recognized as proper.



The examples I gave were situations were the hatespeech, the prejudices against certain groups, Don't mix the terms. Hate speech is not the same as prejudice.

The Inquisition didn't even hate the heretics - they killed them because it was their job, protecting the faith from misinterpretation.


situations were the ruling class officially condoned and promoted hatespeech against certain groups, leading to the eventual prosecution of these groups. A mistake again. This is just plain wrong.
The Inquisition wasn't prosecuting the heretics because of some hate speech. They were doing it because that was their job. They were told to do it directly.
"Condoning and promoting hatespeech" did not lead to prosecution - on the contrary, speech was only used to cover the prosecution, when even used at all.

Saying "Shoot Jonny in the head, he's such a turd" is hate speech. Actually shooting Jonny isn't.

In the past, hate speech has in the past led to mass killings: witches, gypsies, jews, "heretics", etc. etc.
All of those regimes involved criminalizing speech that they disagreed with, also. It would be more correct to say that suppression of free speech is what led to mass killings.

That is true, when discussing legislation. Because any speech, hate or not, with laws or not, is OK when used by someone above the law - Government, Church.

Ok, let's sum this up in simple words :
The original argument was that Europe has in the past suffered a lot from the results of legal hate speech. This is one of the reasons why they have outlawed some forms of it.
It used to be legal, used by governments and religious institutions, and now some of it has been made illegal.

A mistake again. This is just plain wrong.
The Inquisition wasn't prosecuting the heretics because of some hate speech. They were doing it because that was their job. They were told to do it directly.
"Condoning and promoting hatespeech" did not lead to prosecution - on the contrary, speech was only used to cover the prosecution, when even used at all.

Saying "Shoot Jonny in the head, he's such a turd" is hate speech. Actually shooting Jonny isn't.

True, the inquisition wasn't motivated by hate speech. The public lynching Jews after being told by the inquisition that doing was a moral and good thing to do were, though.

True, the inquisition wasn't motivated by hate speech. The public lynching Jews after being told by the inquisition that doing was a moral and good thing to do were, though.
They were doing it because they were profoundly ignorant, too, because all forms of speech other than what the church was forbidden, so they couldn't learn anything about other people.

I think there's a certain value in a system that allows people with hateful ideas to speak them openly. It keeps them out where you can see them instead of hidden away where you never know what they're up to.

Many western nations are making a serious mistake.

They think they're dealing with the problem, but they're actually sweeping hate and discrimination under the carpet and letting it fester. The bigots and haters are not going to disappear, and they're not going to shut up either, instead, they will just go underground.

Worse, by actually oppressing these people, you legitimize them. A racist in the US can gabble on as much as he likes - but if he claims he's being oppressed he's just going to be laughed at, since he has the same rights to say and do as he chooses as everyone else.

But a racist in Britain or Australia can entirely correctly say that he cannot say what he actually believes, that he IS part of an oppressed minority.

And that will only spread his beliefs among the dissatisfied and unhappy, who are always with us. In attacking speech they spread the poison.

Thread.

Seriously, that was all that needed to be said right there. Cracking down on free speech will bring nothing but disaster.

Giving people more freedom, more education, more understanding...that's how you create a truly self-sustaining society. We've seen so many times in the past how oppressive societies only breed hatred and fear and horrible uprisings. They simply don't work, and I honestly don't understand why people are still trying them.

Och, you can.

There may be some over-zealous (paid-up?) police that say you can't, but there's no law against it.

what ever happened to this kid then ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1

forgive me my knowledge of British news is limited. (it hurts my head to see things spelled like centre). maybe the media dropped the story when charge were dropped.

True, the inquisition wasn't motivated by hate speech. The public lynching Jews after being told by the inquisition that doing was a moral and good thing to do were, though.
And "hate speech" laws would have prevented that how?

---

If people do whatever anyone suggests to, it's one of two things:
1. They are complete idiots. Then no speech is needed at all, except for from specially trained leaders. Not free, nor "unfree", just let the shepherd do the talking.
2. They want to do it anyway, and that someone simply voices their desire.

Inquisition wasn't telling people to lynch the Jews (in fact, it didn't like lynching at all) - people hated them on their own. Antisemitism is about as old as the Old Testament: people tend to dislike those who believe themselves to be a superior race and keep to their rituals and own society, without assimilating.
Even Hitler was riding himself to power on a wave of antisemitism. He didn't create it; what he did was turn the anti-jewish sentiments into action. And then, when the Government officially supported antisemitism, it of course spread like an avalanche.

The Soviet Union banned aggressive speech against the Party (which is BTW less restrictive than highly applied hate speech laws, since it only forbids speech against the Party, not against anyone). Did that save it? No. It was eroded from inside, when everyone just wanted the Party to fall; it took just a crack, and everything fell to pieces.
Restrictions on free speech are like blinders: they just keep you from being aware. Keeping the minorities from knowing who doesn't like them, until he stabs them in the back.

When you criminalize one kind of speech or idea there is nothing stopping you from doing it to another. Outlawing offensive speech is one of the first steps toward an oppressive totalitarian dystopia.

When you criminalize one kind of speech or idea there is nothing stopping you from doing it to another. Outlawing offensive speech is one of the first steps toward an oppressive totalitarian dystopia.

I'd like proof!

I'd like proof!
And I'd love to give it to you but that information illegal in the UK and probably throughout the EU.

And I'd love to give it to you but that information illegal in the UK and probably throughout the EU.

thats okay because iirc America is the one doing all the freedom of speech attacking :)

what colour shackles would you like?

When you criminalize one kind of speech or idea there is nothing stopping you from doing it to another. Outlawing offensive speech is one of the first steps toward an oppressive totalitarian dystopia.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Even the most minor intrusion opens the door but a little. And then they want a little more... And a little more....

Yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded area when there isn't a fire is not protected form of speech. Is this part of a slippery slope to a tyrannical government?

We definitely need more free speech in this nation. It's really sad that one has to obtain a permit to hold a rally of some sort. The idea of America was one that would allow people to freely gather together and protest and have their own voice. Nowadays the "people," to to speak, don't really seem to have this.

Side Note on Political freedoms:

Most major polls show that 2/3 of america want us out of Iraq, yet we are still there. This shows us that the directives of the government and the directives of the people are two different entities.

I feel that a democratically elected government is one that serves the people. That means that our politicians are our servants, meaning that the people have the right to tell them what to do and how to vote.

All we have done over the past centuries is evolve from power to one person to power to a few people, rather than truly giving power to the people.

Yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded area when there isn't a fire is not protected form of speech.
You say tomato, I say tomahto. You say that's a crime, I say that's comedy.

I belive in Germany you can go to jail or prision for doing to Nazi salute......or being rude on the highway...this goes for visitors also...

Seeing as how the United States has never suffered the indignity of falling prey to fascism, authoritarian communism, religious fanaticism or any other dangerous and destructive ideology, I'd have to say our policy of free speech and openness has worked very well.

Keeping extremists in the open keeps them under control.

I support the US policy on freedom of speech. The thing about requiring a permit for public protests - it varies by jurisdiction, and is mostly to prevent protests from causing major inconveniences to the public at large, since they have a tendency to block off streets.

I think that banning hate speech is dangerous and counterproductive. I consider it a point of pride that neo-Nazis can march on any major street in the US. After all, the same laws make organizing a counter-demonstration a simple matter of contacting the local Jewish community...

Ironically, as far as I know, Israel has no laws restricting neo-Nazi demonstrations either. Maybe because any neo-Nazi organizer is smart enough to know that covering oneself in blood and jumping into a shark tank would be both cleaner and quicker than holding a public neo-Nazi demonstration in Israel.

what ever happened to this kid then ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1

forgive me my knowledge of British news is limited. (it hurts my head to see things spelled like centre). maybe the media dropped the story when charge were dropped.

The CPS told the City of London police to stop being stupid and dropped all charges before it even came near a court. Oh and Liberty is looking at possibly starting action against the police for blatant misuse of police powers and possible evidence of corruption.

The reason I favor erring on the side of more freedom is that as soon as you start to curtail things, however well intentioned you are, somebody has to make a judgment on where that level is, and that's where politics, motivations and corruption kick in. Better to keep all that away.

Funny you should think that there is any country in the world that doesn't curtail free speech...
Or don't you have libel laws were you live? Laws against prejury? Laws that will allow companies to force their employees not to pass on information on their products? Copyright laws, even?
All of the above curtail free speech. Free speech as an absolute right doesn't exist, it's all about balancing freedom of speech against public interest.

I support the US policy on freedom of speech. The thing about requiring a permit for public protests - it varies by jurisdiction, and is mostly to prevent protests from causing major inconveniences to the public at large, since they have a tendency to block off streets.

I think that banning hate speech is dangerous and counterproductive. I consider it a point of pride that neo-Nazis can march on any major street in the US. After all, the same laws make organizing a counter-demonstration a simple matter of contacting the local Jewish community...

Ironically, as far as I know, Israel has no laws restricting neo-Nazi demonstrations either. Maybe because any neo-Nazi organizer is smart enough to know that covering oneself in blood and jumping into a shark tank would be both cleaner and quicker than holding a public neo-Nazi demonstration in Israel.

You will find that most European countries will also allow neo-Nazi demonstrations, as hate-speech laws applies only to a tiny minority even among neo-Nazis.
Even those countries that have laws against Holocaust denial won't deny neo-Nazis their right to demonstrate.

I belive in Germany you can go to jail or prision for doing to Nazi salute......or being rude on the highway...this goes for visitors also...

Well, as many beliefs it has precious little grounding in reality...

Funny you should think that there is any country in the world that doesn't curtail free speech...
Or don't you have libel laws were you live? Laws against prejury? Laws that will allow companies to force their employees not to pass on information on their products? Copyright laws, even?
All of the above curtail free speech. Free speech as an absolute right doesn't exist, it's all about balancing freedom of speech against public interest.

I didn't say there was any country in this world that doesn't curtail free speech. I said I favor erring on the side of caution.

I didn't say there was any country in this world that doesn't curtail free speech. I said I favor erring on the side of caution.

Well, the "as soon as you start to curtail things, however well intentioned you are, somebody has to make a judgment on where that level is, and that's where politics, motivations and corruption kick in"-bit sounded a lot like you assumed that totally uncurtailed free speech was possible. Or even a positive thing.

Well, the "as soon as you start to curtail things, however well intentioned you are, somebody has to make a judgment on where that level is, and that's where politics, motivations and corruption kick in"-bit sounded a lot like you assumed that totally uncurtailed free speech was possible. Or even a positive thing.

Nope. Never said or assumed that.

As it is I'm not satisfied with the Free Speech in my country. That's why I chose option #3

Restricting the free exchange of opinion is a very dangerous course of action. It either demonstrates that the government regards truth as unimportant and subordinate to ideology, or it demonstrates that the government considers themselves to be the ultimate arbiter of truth. Neither of those governments are ones I'd want to be running my country. Obviously incitement to violence and slander should be illegal, but racist, sexist or otherwise ignorant speech should not.

Personally I think the US have got it about right, although possibly leaning too far towards censorship. By and large I far prefer the politics of my home country (UK), but Freedom of Speech is one of the few areas where the US is better, as is the written constitution and ability to challenge legislation in the courts in general).

The local cable company in Burlington, Vermont is in the process of deciding whether or not to cut out Aljazeera English as a news source...They just had a town meeting on it, out of the 50 people that spoke their opinions on the subject, only 6 wanted it pulled...Maybe the batteries in their remotes need to be changed, or they could always get up off their (more than likely) fat asses, and change the channel manually...Go first amendment!!

The OP seems to exaggerate the amount of limitation on free speech in Europe ( clearly China and others are a different issue). There are laws against hate speech (incitement to violence primarily), but it's not like there is a great restriction on freedom, it only restricts those minorities with rather bigoted views.

Even still, I dislike the precedent it could set, and, in the UK, seems to have come off the back of 9/11 and 7/7 terrophobia and the government's like of increasing security at the cost of personal liberty.

In general, there is not a need for huge restrictions as our culture is not one of loudly proclaiming our views. Proto-thoughtcrime perhaps, or just politeness.