Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ShadowWolf_IH on January 26, 2005, 11:10:32 pm
-
since we are all up for a good debate, how about we go ahead and discuss freedom of speech vs slander and just flat out hate statements.
discuss, debate, have fun, keep it PG-13.
what is your opinion
-
I think everyone should have the right to call you, or any other man woman and child, a large floppy penis
-
Let them talk. You don't have to listen if you don't want to.
-
I'd rather slaughter anyone and everyone who expresses an idea of belief which I do not agree with.
-
You have the freedom to say whatever you want, but you also have the freedom to get sued or beat down for it.
-
ah behold the tyrrany of an0nistan :D
-
Actually, it's Northern Rapistan.
And my currency is the Penile Pound.
I love NationStates.
-
Actually, on second thought, telemarketers and anyone who calls your house during dinner should be executed. Some Marine Recruiter called me during dinner today, even though I have no intention whatsoever of joining the military, and wouldn't hang up for about fifteen minutes.
-
Just tell them you're interested in theater. ;)
-
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will fight to protect your right to say it."
I think creationism is outdated neo-conservative bull**** - but if someone said "we're rounding all the creationists up and putting 'em in death camps" - I'd have to do something.
In personal life, you may insult me all you want so long as I don't have the means to stop you. That's freedom and democracy. ;)
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
I think everyone should have the right to call you, or any other man woman and child, a large floppy penis
:ha:
-
if hate groups didnt have freedom of speach it could be worse, at least this way thay can make total fools of themselves. they would be able to hunt down and recriut weak minded individuals to serve in their ranks. the problem with freedom of speech is that it puts far too much info out there for the average mind to process and anylize the given info most of which is useless. freedom of speech denies people the freedom to select what they want to hear. giving total freedom on one aspect of everyday life will take away another freedom. giving somone the right to carry a firearm denies others the freedom to not have to worry about being shot. its always a tradeoff. the concept of total freedom seems like a fantasy. total freedom is anarchy, but anarchy cannot be totally free cause you are not free from the negative aspects of human behavior which will surely manifest themselves. freedom is just another buzzword we use to pimp our so called 'superior' government. regaurdless of weather or not you have freedom of speech you will still have hate groups. if you have to hate people, at least be fair about it and hate all people equally.
-
What is too bad, actually, is that most people dont realize that slanderous and libelous statements do not fall under the free speech laws in most countries. It is certainly this way in the US, and it is enforced very strictly. However, a cold, hard truth seems to be accepted legally, as well as civilly (is that a word?), regardless of the situation. But oddly, only if it is asked if it were so. You cant just come out and say "This man screwed a goat, and hired the ****** guy to deface a website". You arent even allowed to say anything suggestive.
I dont know what the free speech laws are in the UK, but in the US, they are very conflicting, IMO.
-
Not really, obscenity laws are about punishing people for behaving in a way that they should know better than to behave that way in public and to enforce a slightly more moral public enviroment.
Example:
Child A buys an album that his parents have deemed obscene. They show it to their friends whose kid has been asking for the same album and they think it obscene too. Now in a perfect world, and I wish with all I am that it were at least thus, the parents would take matters into their hands, as is their responsibility, and "explain" to the children why the album is bad. After enough "explanation" the kids will get the hint that they shouldn't spend their money on filth and the album will tank so another onewon't be made. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world, so the government has stepped in with Obsceneity Laws, BTW, I'm all for laying out in B&W what is to be considered obscene in the public square, that way all the cards are out on the table before the hand. These laws prevent people of low character from exposing society to their degenerate ideas.
As I said, I would prefer to leave it in the parents hands, but as we've seen, a lot of parents these days don't pay attention to what they're children are doing away from school.:(
-
Lib - were you ever a teenager?
I can tell you now, that 90% of kids, even if were sat down and spoken too like an adult, would still get the album.
But these days instead of purchasing the album they would just d/l it for free off the internet, so the so called offensive album should theoretically go down the drain anyway. :) Perfect balance.
I think freedom of speech is great, used in the correct time and place.
Certain public areas should be neutral, people can talk and discuss things, but in a civil way.
As for parents treating kids like adults, oh. my. god.
There may be a good idea somewhere in that concept but I am yet to see it applied correctly.
Kids will be kids, slap them on the ass, and they learn their lesson.
Game Over.
-
umm, "explain" == beating the tar out of them till they shut their smart mouths and do as they are told. I was petrified of my father even as a teenager. That probably a large reason why I am like I am.
-
ah I see. :D
;)
-
freedom of speech is technically all very good. it means i can spout off about Christianity whenever i like. unfortunately people seem to twist freedom of speech around to mean, 'talk about anything you like except Christianity'. but still, i guess i should be thankful that i'm not in a country where spouting off means i get my tongue torn out or something.
beating a child shouldn't be a regular thing, but it can be a good thing if necessary. for example if a kid makes a sparkler bomb (which my brother regularly does- you scrape sparkler dust into a can and light it, the whole thing whooshes up into a pyro's dream) and sets it off inside the house, that's probably a good time to smack his ass.
-
I'm all for speech freedom. How else can you tell who the idiots are? :p
-
Actually, on second thought, telemarketers and anyone who calls your house during dinner should be executed. Some Marine Recruiter called me during dinner today, even though I have no intention whatsoever of joining the military, and wouldn't hang up for about fifteen minutes.
Three words: Telephone Preference Service :cool:
-
Free speech and libel suits are not actually contradictionary.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
beating a child shouldn't be a regular thing, but it can be a good thing if necessary.
[color=66ff00]I find this a somewhat dangerous thought.
Consider: You're effectively saying to a child, a still forming psyche, that violence is a solution to a problem. The ones that don't make the connection between doing wrong and being hurt are recieving a fairly negative suggestion.
There are better ways, one I've seen is to simply pin the child to the floor face down until they agree to behave, the child associates a feeling of powerlessness with misbehaviour. Lots of genuine 'problem children' have shown a postive response to this method of punishment.
[/color]
-
Free Speech has always been a strange thing, mainly because it gets twisted to suit peoples needs. As I've said before, theres a line, it's a thin one admittedly, but heres an example :-
America is a phsycopathic country. (Iran is a Terrorist State)
All Americans are phsycopathic.. (All Arabs are Terrorists)
I'm not looking at this as a true statement, just a familiar statement for this context.
The first one is not, in my opinon, an offensive comment, but just as we all are made aware that not all Arabs are Terrorists, yet we associate their countries with funding Terror actions.
In many cases it is true, or at least heavily implied that the governments of said countries are assisting Terrorist acts, even if only by inaction.
The second statement is a generalisation, like assuming all Arabs are Terrorists, it's unfair, but the first statement is only someones opinion of the countries actions based on observation.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I find this a somewhat dangerous thought.
Consider: You're effectively saying to a child, a still forming psyche, that violence is a solution to a problem.No, you're using negative stimulus to instigate and reinforce a desired behavior set. It's basic psychology. If the child associates pain and embarrassment with a given type of behavior then they won't behave that way The ones that don't make the connection between doing wrong and being hurt are recieving a fairly negative suggestion.
There are better ways, one I've seen is to simply pin the child to the floor face down until they agree to behave, the child associates a feeling of powerlessness with misbehaviour. Lots of genuine 'problem children' have shown a postive response to this method of punishment.Problem Children...I have a real problem with this, in my life I have met very few "problem children". Only spirited and highly intelligent youngsters whose idiot parents and the quacks they take them to assume that they are damaged because they can't sit still when forced to slow down for everyone else. A child who is full of enegy and/or asks lots of questions shouldn't be drugged or otherwise forced to conform, they should be guided and helped to find their full potential.
[/color]
-
But where to draw the line? What to "ban" to be on the safe side?
...I'd say "freedom of interpretation" lies at the core of the problem :)
-
I think using the word 'You' instead of 'Your Leadership' or 'Your country' lies very close to the heart of the problem.
I've seen it happen a few times on here, and it's an easy trap to fall into. The moment you say 'You' it suddenly becomes a personal accusation instead of a discussion, and the other side is immediately obliged to defend themselves. So, rather than saying..
'So then you decide to invade Iraq'
You say...
'So then, your government decides to invade Iraq'
etc...
-
Too long.
And lol at the guy who complains about all the anti-american propaganda on this forum then starts a topic on freedom of speech. twat.
-
It is my fervent opinion that people should be permitted to say whatever they want, regardless of how obscene it is, the only exceptions being direct threats and libel.
-
I feel you should be able to say whatever you want, as long as it's not a direct threat or libel, and as long as you're not being payed to annoy people over the phone.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Free Speech has always been a strange thing, mainly because it gets twisted to suit peoples needs. As I've said before, theres a line, it's a thin one admittedly, but heres an example :-
America is a phsycopathic country. (Iran is a Terrorist State)
All Americans are phsycopathic.. (All Arabs are Terrorists)
Iranians are not Arabs. The more you know!
-
They's Semites(like the Israelis) right?
-
Nope, Aryans hence the name Iran. And not all Israelis are Semites, only 20% or so. (plus the 15% of the population thats Arab)
-
I thought that the Iranians were Persian for some reason.
-
Well, I meant the natural born Hebrews, not the children of immigrants, but thanks for the info.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I thought that the Iranians were Persian for some reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians
That one says 51-70% of Iranians are Persians.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I feel you should be able to say whatever you want, as long as it's not a direct threat or libel, and as long as you're not being payed to annoy people over the phone.
Pretty much what I think.
As for the whole side discussion about children, I have found parenting to be pretty disgusting in general. It's sort of an ultimate form of the strong oppressing the weak; the parents attempt to dictate and mold to their children whatever their ideals are, or just plain whoever they want to see their child be, without any real regard for how that'll affect them in life. Like the guy selling his kids' Christmas presents on ebay, or the deaf lesbian couple specifically trying to have a deaf child.
And of course, the people who seem like they should allow their kids more freedom are always the ones who work the hardest to make them think a certain way.
-
The Iranians are Persian like the Germans are Saxon.
The Iranians are Aryan like the Germans are European.
you see the difference?
-
You should be allowed to say anything you want. that way the world knows you're a tard.
Like if someone wants to kill all the gays. though that is morally wrong to do, you should let him say it all he wants. then everyone will know he's a smacktard, and the police can keep an eye on him incase he tries anything.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Too long.
And lol at the guy who complains about all the anti-american propaganda on this forum then starts a topic on freedom of speech. twat.
there was actually a very good reason for this thread, one that i'm sure you are not aware of. maybe in time you will be made aware of the outcome. So don't assume, because at least in this case, you don't know what is going on behind closed doors.
and for the record.....
name calling...how quaint.:rolleyes:
-
I do know.
-
well it's good to know that you can get into my yahoo, my icq, and my msn. once again...see above post.
-
Dont need to mate, your last post made it pretty obvious what you're trying to do.
-
And lol at the guy who complains about all the anti-american propaganda on this forum then starts a topic on freedom of speech. twat.
That could easily fall under libel (If it's false) and it's not like America has any sort of monopoly on free speech.
-
any given right WILL always be abused.
-
Accusing people of spouting anti-american propaganda and hate-statements easily falls under libel as well, although theres no a court in the world would entertain either cases.
-
Then we shall make our own court, and we shall name it the Supreme Court of International Relations and Merciless Justice.
...yup..
-
Originally posted by Gank
...although theres no a court in the world would entertain either cases.
Yes there is. The 9th Circus Court of Assholes will hear any argument and probably rule the opposite you think it should.
-
I wuv you too.
-
The America-hate thing would be difficult to make stick in a court.
On the other hand, the twat comment will kill you in a libel suit.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, on second thought, telemarketers and anyone who calls your house during dinner should be executed. Some Marine Recruiter called me during dinner today, even though I have no intention whatsoever of joining the military, and wouldn't hang up for about fifteen minutes.
Well you can hang up in the first minute. I answer the phone, they say who they are and I say "thanks for calling, bye!" and click.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
On the other hand, the twat comment will kill you in a libel suit.
Actually no. If you watch the first epiosde of Penn & Tellers Bull**** you'll learn something quite funny.
Apparently the lawyers advised them to never call anyone they featured a fraud, a charlatan or a con man because that would leave them open to libel cases.
Calling them f**kers, b*****ds or s**theads however is perfectly legal and isn't actionable.
:lol:
-
Exactly. Libel does not mean insults; it means saying things about someone that are in direct contradiction with concrete facts, and are meant to be harmful.