-
The results of the egg decorating contest have been announced! Everyone's designs were amazing! Congratulations to our winners!
Free Speech
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
- Status
I have no idea what WikiLeaks is but I support freedom of speech because it's their opinions and it's not always going to be the truth. People take freedom of speech offensive but It can be offensive when someone does it to insult like for Example: "Go touch your boyfriend" to gay people or "You look like poo" to Black people, That can be offensive to people but they have the right to say it because no one can stop you from saying it, You just have to be aware where and when you say it.
Oh and this links with my Hate Crime topic a bit, So y'all can go criticize Jeremy now.
Oh and this links with my Hate Crime topic a bit, So y'all can go criticize Jeremy now.
EpicGamer12
Senior Member
I don't think there should be total freedom of speech.
Say there is an abusive parent. He verbally abuses his child/children, and the children are sad. They believe the parents when they say that they are stupid, idiotic, fat, meaningless, etc., and that's how bullies usually come up in schools. He takes the anger out on someone else like a poor innocent kid, and if the kid gets enough of it, he eventually commits suicide. In the end, it seems it is the parents fault for the kid committing suicide.
Also another scenario where a white person is racist to a black person, or a group or white people are racist to a group of black people. It's starts out with a few inappropriate words then leads to violence and hate crimes.
I don't know much about WikiLeaks but it seems all they are trying to do is get people interested in politics and other things.
Say there is an abusive parent. He verbally abuses his child/children, and the children are sad. They believe the parents when they say that they are stupid, idiotic, fat, meaningless, etc., and that's how bullies usually come up in schools. He takes the anger out on someone else like a poor innocent kid, and if the kid gets enough of it, he eventually commits suicide. In the end, it seems it is the parents fault for the kid committing suicide.
Also another scenario where a white person is racist to a black person, or a group or white people are racist to a group of black people. It's starts out with a few inappropriate words then leads to violence and hate crimes.
I don't know much about WikiLeaks but it seems all they are trying to do is get people interested in politics and other things.
I would have worded that better but I'm on a *censored.2.0*ty little phone and typing long messages is painful. You know what I meant thoughJeremy said:
And to elaborate. Take the recent example of Terry Jones, the pastor who tried unsuccessfully to enter England to give a speech, having recently threatened to burn the Qu'ran on the anniversary of 9/11. Do you honestly feel he should have been let in? He argued about freedom and speech, but there has to be a line drawn. Whatever they say, the DWOC is a very anti Muslim organisation, and in my opinion crosses the line into extremist Christianity. Letting him in would have brought danger to those near him in England, from outraged Muslims following his threat to burn their holy book.
This is why Freedom of Speech should not always be allowed.
You're saying we should end free speech, so terrorists don't want to hurt anyone. Why don't you punish the real crime, violence? If they are going to commit acts of violence, they should clearly be in jail.Marcus said:
It's kind of like saying that we shouldn't have built the twin towers so the terrorists don't fly planes into them.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Terrorists will do what they do until they get their way- in the case of extremist Islam, for all other religions on the planet to be extinguished.Jeremy said:
What I'm saying is that these speeches encourage the terrorists to strike. If he came to England, for all you know a group of Muslims furious with his earlier threat may have followed him with a bomb. If they had detonated successfully, people would have died because he was given the freedom to make his speech. However, because he was not allowed to, nobody died.
I also disagree in general with allowing people to make racist comments and having the full right to do so. At the moment, you would be prosecuted for running around the street shouting, "I hate ******s." for incitement to racial hatred. If you got your way and freedom of speech was allowed, then there would be no prosecution for this, people would therefore have the freedom to do so, and this would lead to more violence and fights breaking out.
Well what if announced that whenever Marcus talks, I get really offended and I am a violent person and will want to commit an act of terrorism.
Do you think it should be illegal for Marcus to talk? Or should I be the one who faces the penalties?
Do you think it should be illegal for Marcus to talk? Or should I be the one who faces the penalties?
![[Nook]](/data/avatars/m/1/1990.jpg?1585850325){kind=avatar}
I don't think terrorists have a stable mind either... lol...Marcus said:
And insults are speech too. What if I said you were insulting to me whenever you spoke? Burning a book is not insulting to me. It might be insulting to some people, but everyone has their own opinions. That's why I think we should all respect each other's opinions and not use force to silent them.
- Status
