Newsflash: Spain "not the Arabian desert of 14 centuries ago..."

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a difference between a character in a video game saying "kill all the haitians" and somebody actually suggesting you kill haitians in real life.

Slight difference. Not that much to mean anything though.

Incitement to commit violence is incitement to commit violence. It doesn't matter whether I say it about one individual while part of a crowd or say it about a group of individuals from the comfort of my own home: if I endorse violence in real life I should be held accountable for the consequences of my endorsement.

Yes, in civil courts, after someone has done a crime as a result. Protection of free speech requires that tolerate some hatred in books and speeches.

[lord of the mark]

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???


I havent read the book, and so dont know the specifics - it seems to me that A. there MIGHT be a difference between "here how to beat your wife gently, which is defined as a way that doesnt leave marks" and "heres a way to beat your wife without leaving marks, which hitting with the degree of force you want might otherwise do" with its unstated motivation of avoiding getting caught. B. I think its quite reasonable to doubt the motivation, given that many wives ARE beaten by men who try to do so without leaving marks, and especially without leaving marks visible with normal clothing, precisely to avoid getting caught. C. I think a greater degree of scrutiny is warrented in the case of wife beating, which at least in the US, and i presume in Spain, is always illegal, and corporal punishment of kids, which (though im no fan of it) is legal within bounds.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, in civil courts, after someone has done a crime as a result. Protection of free speech requires that tolerate some hatred in books and speeches.

why does it require the above book though??? Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

There is a difference between a character in a video game saying "kill all the haitians" and somebody actually suggesting you kill haitians in real life.

Slight difference. Not that much to mean anything though.

Huge difference to anybody with half a brain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

Free speech isn't always about political and social 'debate'. In that sense you can say that banning violent games/movies is perfectly consistant with freedom of speech. I don't agree with that. Freedom of speech is also a good goal because people should be allowed to say what they believe, with only the most minimal of restrictions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

Free speech isn't always about political and social 'debate'. In that sense you can say that banning violent games/movies is perfectly consistant with freedom of speech. I don't agree with that. Freedom of speech is also a good goal because people should be allowed to say what they believe, with only the most minimal of restrictions.

Its a good goal to be able to say what you believe, but its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc. These are competing goals, and one cant say a prior which should trump the other. In the case of political and social debate i see why free speech absolutism makes sense. Beyond that its one good among others.

[Imran Siddiqui]

its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc.

Yes, nice goal, but secondary to being able to say what you believe, IMO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc.

Yes, nice goal, but secondary to being able to say what you believe, IMO.

depends on the extent to which restrictions are required to get some gain in the culture. If a little restriction can make a big gain in the culture, it may be worth it.

[BeBMan]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

why i think we've got to seperate issues of US first amendment jurisprudence from more general democractic theory (this was also a problem in French head scarf thread)

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

Because limiting free speech in certain (small & defined) national security instances makes sense to me, while limiting free speech because someone somewhere may commit violence against someone by reading a book is silly. After all, remember, we don't ban Mein Kampf, and I don't think we should.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

Because limiting free speech in certain (small & defined) national security instances makes sense to me, while limiting free speech because someone somewhere may commit violence against someone by reading a book is silly. After all, remember, we don't ban Mein Kampf, and I don't think we should.

If say the FRG chooses to ban it, i can see some arguments for that. The US doesnt have group libel laws, and Britain does. Both are successful liberal democratic societies. Theres more than one way to skin this cat.

If Mein Kampf had the kind of circulation that GTA:vice City has (not to compare the two asfar as content) id be more concerned. and again, I dont think Mein kampf had anything in the way of specific technical instructions, as the book under discussiondoes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US doesnt have group libel laws, and Britain does. Both are successful liberal democratic societies. Theres more than one way to skin this cat.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Security of whom, though?

Your comfy, middle class, preserve my lifestyle security?

Or the security of a sizable portion of the population who happen to be the wives of fundamentalist men?

Your nation shall persevere and be protected, but the weakest and least heard from members will be consigned to whatever fate awaits them?

I'd rather my nation protect all of its citizens, and possibly die a quick death than last a lengthy period while providing protection for only the dead husk of what it should have been.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Security of whom, though?

Strawmen aside, I thought I already made that clear... national security, ie, security of the state... you know from which entity all rights come from?