Free Speech

[Slickyrider]

Julian Assange is an American hero (even though he's not American).

Sure, there is the damning evidence that the Taliban has received, and will take action upon (such as killing innocent Afghanistani citizens), but there's also a certain level of moral integrity that world leaders should sustain, and some of the released documents...interfered with that. However, they do tell the truth. Such as, one of the world leaders is often seen being accompanied by a "voluptuous blond", whom is described as his "mature Ukranian nurse".

It is our right to have access to certain information. In this case, it was released rather sloppily and without consideration for who might have access to it.

 

[Pear]

I support free speech completely with the exception of when it is inciting violence. Wikileaks should be allowed to publish their documents. What kind of insane world do we live in where a country, supposedly with great freedom of the press, suppresses journalists who are showing horrible atrocities, partially caused by the government of the people they're informing?

 

[Marcus]

I support free speech completely with the exception of when it is inciting violence. Wikileaks should be allowed to publish their documents. What kind of insane world do we live in where a country, supposedly with great freedom of the press, suppresses journalists who are showing horrible atrocities, partially caused by the government of the people they're informing?

A corrupt and secretive world.

 

[Jeremy]

I support free speech completely with the exception of when it is inciting violence. Wikileaks should be allowed to publish their documents. What kind of insane world do we live in where a country, supposedly with great freedom of the press, suppresses journalists who are showing horrible atrocities, partially caused by the government of the people they're informing?

You say unless it incites violence, but that's the very argument people use against WikiLeaks.

 

[«Jack»]

Jeremy, I can't help but get the feeling that you're endorsing any speech, even if it falls into slander/defamation. Which if I remember correctly, is illegal.

 

[Pear]

I support free speech completely with the exception of when it is inciting violence. Wikileaks should be allowed to publish their documents. What kind of insane world do we live in where a country, supposedly with great freedom of the press, suppresses journalists who are showing horrible atrocities, partially caused by the government of the people they're informing?

You say unless it incites violence, but that's the very argument people use against WikiLeaks.

There's a difference between directly and indirectly inciting it.
If I say, "Hey everyone, let's go beat up Johnny!" and he gets hurt, I'm at fault.
If I say, "Hey everyone, Johnny is part of religion X!" and someone beats him up, then the blood is on the hands of the person who acted violently.

 

[Psychonaut]

I am totally, completely, 100% against free speech for the safety of our nation.

deal w/it. :J

 

[Ciaran]

Yes I support free speech.

What type of question is that.

 

[Susie]

Hell yeah I support free speech! lol

 

[«Jack»]

Yes I support free speech.

What type of question is that.

I think the main question being asked is at which point you move past having free speech apply.
For me, it's at slander/defamation.

 

[Marcus]

Yes I support free speech.

What type of question is that.

Even if the consequences of that person's views could be war?
As I said before, a prime example for you, asyou are also from the UK, is Terry Jones.

 

[Hasfarr The Great]

Being a guy who's parents were born and raised in Iran, I know how important free speech is. Hey, any kind of freedom. There's almost no freedom in Iran. Especially with the elections last year...

 

[Micah]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

 

[Psychonaut]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

however, when it is intentionally offensive, it becomes invasive to the receiving person's rights, and is then abuse in one form or another.

but i c u postin "laws should only protect people's rights" so you've already got that covered.

pretty much agreed. there's still plenty of room for things that are violent in nature, and are intentionally harmful/provocative in order to either garner attention (for whatever reason) or to acquire something.

it, like most other things, can't be covered by such a blanket statement, but detailing what is and isn't right makes more complications that it helps avoid.

i dunno. /internet theory guy

 

[Marcus]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

So you would be accept it if people went round the streets saying "(black person obscene word) are ....."
or more relevant for you "USA is a pile of *censored.2.0* they should all be shot dead." simply because they can have freedom of speech?

Ww no censoring, had to sort that out :/

 

[Psychonaut]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

So you would be accept it if people went round the streets saying "******s are ****s."
or more relevant for you "USA is a pile of *censored.2.0* they should all be shot dead." simply because they can have freedom of speech?

nope. as that would be verbal abuse and covered by one right or another, i'm not exactly sure which one.

 

[Jeremy]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

So you would be accept it if people went round the streets saying "******s are ****s."
or more relevant for you "USA is a pile of *censored.2.0* they should all be shot dead." simply because they can have freedom of speech?

I wouldn't accept it, but I wouldn't put them in jail. I would not associate with them, do business with them, etc. Society obviously rejects people like that. It doesn't need to be illegal. Someone who says stuff like that would be far worse off than the person he is saying it to.

 

[Marcus]

Speech that people find offensive shouldn't be illegal. We shouldn't make everything we disagree with illegal. Laws should only protect people's rights.

^

So you would be accept it if people went round the streets saying "******s are ****s."
or more relevant for you "USA is a pile of *censored.2.0* they should all be shot dead." simply because they can have freedom of speech?

I wouldn't accept it, but I wouldn't put them in jail. I would not associate with them, do business with them, etc. Society obviously rejects people like that. It doesn't need to be illegal. Someone who says stuff like that would be far worse off than the person he is saying it to.

But don't you understand, those words might have consequences for others?

@Psyhco: mind censoring that, I didn't realise it would slip through :/
Yes it would be breaking the racism law I mentioned earlier, but people could still say, in essence, exactly that, but just more discreetly, so that it had the same impact to those who the person was offending, but broke no laws.

 

[Pear]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

So you would be accept it if people went round the streets saying "******s are ****s."
or more relevant for you "USA is a pile of *censored.2.0* they should all be shot dead." simply because they can have freedom of speech?

I wouldn't accept it, but I wouldn't put them in jail. I would not associate with them, do business with them, etc. Society obviously rejects people like that. It doesn't need to be illegal. Someone who says stuff like that would be far worse off than the person he is saying it to.

But don't you understand, those words might have consequences for others?

@Psyhco: mind censoring that, I didn't realise it would slip through :/
Yes it would be breaking the racism law I mentioned earlier, but people could still say, in essence, exactly that, but just more discreetly, so that it had the same impact to those who the person was offending, but broke no laws.

It's not against the law. While the person is an idiot, they have the right to say it. They'll be shunned by society, which is punishment enough.

 

[Sporge27]

You should have free speech, but when you say something offensive intentionally at people you should be prepared for the consequences. I believe your speech if rude is grounds to refuse you service at a privately owned business. It is also grounds for someone to tell you to get off private property.

I fully support free speech but it doesn't protect you from other peoples right to defend against it. Just because you can say anything does not mean people have to listen we have freedom of listening too.

Really I think there should be a golden rule here. Don't be a Douche-bag!