There's no such thing as free speech without responsibility.
Good God, Texas Has Done It
- Thread starter Mutai Sho-Rin
- Start date
And did I say there was such a thing?
We must remember, though, that ultimately it's the INDIVIDUAL who's responsible for what he does, says, and thinks.
Oh, and how are those folks doing in Texas?
Yeah, pretty much:
And then you proceeded to make a joke about it by comparing advocating ethnic cleansing to advocating colon cleansing.
And there you've hit the crux of the debate. Free speech is free speech, but what about if a neo-Nazi party becomes popular? Should they be allowed to incite hatred and violence? Or does the fact that it's the "will of the people" make it okay? In Canada, legally, it does not, and while I'm a big fan of free speech, this isn't a problem for me.
Free speech isn't unqualified in the US either. You can't shout fire in a theater, nor make threats against the President and other such qualifiers. I am pretty sure you can't advocate genocide either, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being one of those disapproved of.
Oh, you can threaten the president, you just can't do so in a way that sets off alarms, or seems a real threat that may be acted upon.
You could have told Bush if you remove the battery from your cellphone and turn it off, and shove it up his ass, can he still hear you?
For example.
You could have told Bush if you remove the battery from your cellphone and turn it off, and shove it up his ass, can he still hear you?
For example.
Disapproval is one thing; deciding that some kinds of speech should be banned is quite another. But then, that's why we have courts, judges and lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that, if I were to read a blog by some crackpot saying we should exterminate all the Laplanders, I wouldn't feel the slightest impulse to go out and kill a Laplander. Assuming I could find one.
Come on. We're still doing Bush jokes?
That would probably pass unnoticed by the courts, here. The law really targets anything that looks like it could become a movement.
They don't have to be. All one has to do is stand on a street corner and say "I think [insert name of group] should all be killed." Under that law, that person is now a criminal and should be jailed. And for what? Stating an opinion. By saying that sentence, this person *has* advocated or promoted something. Like I said: thoughtcrime.
Incite, no. Advocate, yes. As much as we all hate to hear it, it is free speech. Anyone remember Skokie?
Sure, I mean, there he was, the biggest little clown in all of history and you guys had so little respect for the office of the president of your whole frakking nation that you actually put him there!
BEST.JOKE.EVAH
Teachers have, and will continue, to teach in and around crappy textbooks. They are not obligated to follow them word for word.
A little bit optimistic seeing how the Texas Education system is one of the worst in the nation.
This will only get taught if the standardized tests the teachers have to teach to are "updated" to reflect this material, because if it ain't on the standardized test the school district and teacher's ratings are based on, it ain't getting taught.
Why are you talking about Obama? Because we didn't put Bush anywhere. He stole two elections.
Bush is the most brilliant and cost conscience politician in history, not spending a dime more than necessary to defeat Al Gore, but probably way to much to defeat Kerry. Bush freed more people from tyranny than all of Europe combined since WW-II, excepting Europes freeing of European colonies. Sadly, those day are behind us, and now tyrannts are lining up for free US benefits. Fortunately, they'll eat Europe long before the US, because almost all of our immigrants are Catholic.
Bush is the most brilliant and cost conscience politician in history
You lost me right...about...here.
There are two problems with this position.
First: you're making an artificial distinction between speech and action. Speech can also be an action.
If I swear an oath, for example, I have done much more than just say something: I have performed an action as well.
Philosophers call these kinds of statements "performatives," and these kinds of actions "illocutionary acts." See J. L. Austin's How to Do Things With Words for a classic discussion of this topic.
Second: one thing you can do by making an utterance is break the law.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech anywhere. There has never been any such thing as absolute freedom of speech, anywhere, at any time. And that's a good thing.
Every civilized country has passed laws against saying certain things at certain times to certain people. You cannot, for example, communicate secrets to your country's enemies during wartime. You cannot make false statements about other people that would damage their reputation. And you cannot make false statements to people in an attempt to sell them something or persuade them to give you money.
Another thing you can't do is persuade, encourage, instigate, pressure, or threaten someone to get them to commit a crime. Traditionally, that's called 'incitement.' What's more, even attempting to incite someone to commit a crime is a crime. If I offered someone money to have you killed, simply because I don't like your opinions, I would and should go to prison.
If someone can and should be prosecuted for attempted incitement to murder, I don't see why they can't or shouldn't be prosecuted for attempted incitement to genocide--that is to say, mass murder.
I'm not sure if we actually need a law to cover incitement to genocide. It may simply be superfluous. But there's nothing wrong with it in principle.
This argument assumes that all ideas are equal. They aren't.
If I read your post, and decide that I can't tolerate the fact that you're alive, and I try to persuade some similar-minded person to kill you, then I am guilty of a crime.
And why? Because murder is universally condemned--and rightly so. What's more, most attempts to justify homicide are universally condemned. No right-thinking person would ever accept, for example, that people should be allowed to kill each other over disagreements on a message board. That's madness.
Certain types of speech are just out of bounds, even in the freest and most liberal societies. And like I said: that's a good thing.
In fact--your position is not just wrong--it's backwards. You're criticizing the wrong section of the Criminal Code. The real problem is Section 319(2), which makes it an offence to communicate statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group.
Thoughtcrime only exists when you try to regulate people's private thoughts or feelings. That's the problem with Section 319(2), which criminalizes attempts to persuade or encourage people to do something that is not, itself, against the law: namely, to hate other people. That's like passing a law against trying to persuade other people to like Star Trek.
That section of the Criminal Code should be repealed. But the law against advocating genocide should stand. If nothing else, we need it to give substance to Canada's adherence to the Genocide Convention.
Even Section 319(1) is justifiable, since, once again, it aims to punish people who try to incite others to break the law. But not Section 319(2). That is over the line.
And they are. Once you do more than "advocate" and start "beating on people" then you cross a line.
Bush is the most brilliant and cost conscience politician in history, not spending a dime more than necessary to defeat Al Gore, but probably way to much to defeat Kerry. Bush freed more people from tyranny than all of Europe combined since WW-II, excepting Europes freeing of European colonies. Sadly, those day are behind us, and now tyrannts are lining up for free US benefits. Fortunately, they'll eat Europe long before the US, because almost all of our immigrants are Catholic.
Hm. Sounds like the plot of a sci-fi novel.
