Blue Hobgoblin

I'm curious as to what people think on the issue of limits on free speech. I'm sure most everybody in this country wants to be able to speak their mind and express themselves without recrimination. But what about the controversial things like slander and libel, pornography, public nudity as a means of expression and graffiti? Should we have any kind of censorship? To what limit should one be able to criticize the government and its policies, and when does opposing government policy go too far? What kinds of protest should be allowed, and what kinds shouldn't? I'm curious to see people's opinions on this.

__________________
http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/qu...anha/venom.jpg http://www.spidermedia.ru/misc/logo/logo-venom.gif
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Gabo

Do what you want, the government has no right to intrude.

If you don't like pornography etc, you can decide not to view it for yourself. But you have no right to FORCE others not to view pornography (as long as all peoples involved consent to it, FORCED pornography is still wrong).

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

heyjoeo

Well personally I think we should imply Stalinistic policies and destroy all offending opinions in the world.

Just kidding.

Freedom of Speech is the shiz yo.

__________________
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
- - E.B. White
What kind of victory is it when someone is left defeated?
- - Gandhi

Blue Hobgoblin

Freedom of speech should only be limited if the speech is clearly something that can cause someone to be hurt, like making a death threat, or actively trying to incite violence, or yelling fire in a crowded room.

__________________
http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/qu...anha/venom.jpg http://www.spidermedia.ru/misc/logo/logo-venom.gif
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

globalvision

has anybody looked at the work of JS mill on this subject. im parts i agree with what he says. we should protect the right to free speech, unless this cause's harm to others. the so called 'harm principle' what constitutes harm is something that could be debated forever. but individuals should be allowed to say or think whatever they like. there must surely be limit's to what people can say or do. we can not allow people to publish articles who's sole purpose is religious hatred, nor can articles calling for terrorist attacks be allowed. where we draw the line however is harder then you can imagine. it is a constant balance between freedom of speech and freedom from harm.

Gabo

Something like yelling "fire" in a crowded room where there is no fire is fraud.
Fraud is already illegal, there's no need for special laws against it.

Also, making a death threat is the same way. They are coercing someone into something, which violates their natural right to liberty.




Who exactly is "we"? How can you define what is in the best interest for everyone? The answer is, it's not possible.

While discrimination seems immoral and unethical to some, it is a way of life. When you hire the best person for a job, you discriminate against people without job experience. When you choose a denomination, you discriminate against all the others. Discrimination is a natural part of life. It will happen and does happen.

In fact, when you make discrimination against the law, you are discriminating against all discriminators (which is everyone).

No one is supposed to be judged by the government for their beliefs. This may include the belief of some that all people of a certain denomination or race are bad people. The person who carries these beliefs is likely to be unpopular or hated by others as well, but that is no reason to use FORCE to make them stop their discrimination. Don't like it, turn the other way.


As for the terrorist attack threats, they are still open to their opinion so long as they don't act on that opinion, which would harm people's rights.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist

Naughty Nurse

I guess you can't have freedom without responsibility. And I guess how you define things is the sticky part!

There are people here making posts that I take to be essentially homophobic. But that's OK with me. Denying those people the right to (peacefully) express their opinion will not help anything. Encouraging debate might help. Where do you draw the line?

globalvision

i have not leaned yet how to include quotes in here but what the hell

i am certainly not against people having there views on any matter and everyone should have the opportunity to say as they wish, this must however be within limits. would you really stand by if Hitler was ranting in central park saying that all Jews should die and that the Aryan nation is superior to all else.

we must surely have limits on what be publicly said in certain situations. we, me, i, us whatever.

Naughty Nurse

Absolutely agree. But just where are those limits?

Hit the "quote" button! Then you can split quotes by using, within square brackets, "quote" and "/quote"

Gabo

I would laugh at him, then wonder why parks are owned by stupid government officials, then take a picture, then go home and email it to everyone I know.

There is nothing wrong with Hitler thinking all Jews should die. There IS something wrong, however, if he starts to kill the Jews.



As long as it doesn't violate anyone else's life, liberty, or property, it should be perfectly legal. But if they go so far as to communicate fraud, its illegal.

__________________
Libertarian (n.) - a selfish, money hoarding, drug using anarchist