The judicial system is racist, and its the Jews' fault

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
So then admit you don;t have freedom of speech because of obcenity laws.

Obscenity isn't expression. I'm against obscenity laws, but because they're stupid.

And given we have already been slidding down the slope for decades, your too late to whine about it.

Non sequiter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And we judge hate speech not to be expression either. It is an act if it falls within certain boundaries, and we will prosecute those who act that way.

...

That's stupid. Hate speech is expression (by which I mean political or philosophical expression) by definition, pretty much.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
This debate is silly. It is plainly obvious that allowing people to say anything at any time would lead to catastrophic consequences. You can't libel, threaten or slander people.

Which is why you don't let them say it at any time

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Ooh! I don't agree with any limitations!

That is, I don't agree with any limitations on freedom of expression. IMO yelling "Fire!" is not expression, so don't bring up that tired old example. I agree on limitations on venue, such as in immediate incitement to violence - like someone in a city trying to start a riot - but the speaker should be free to express his ideas in some other forum.

Therefore I can use the slippery slope argument. In fact, IMO as soon as any laws which prevent expression of a particular idea are passed, free speech no longer exists.

And who defines what is "expression"? You?

Are we, BTW, to conclude you oppose libel laws?

[BeBMan]

At least in some cases obscenity should be protected as expression

[DarkCloud]

HERE is a prime example of why limiting free speech is harmful: (any statement made on the web could be construed to be a public statement- and how do you enforce these laws?)

Let's face it: People can say some pretty stupid things on the Internet. And sometimes what they say can be pretty offensive.

A case in point is neo-Nazi hate sites. These knuckleheads still believe in a perverted socialist philosophy and rule by an Aryan "master race." Worse, they want to spew this garbage to a larger audience than their buddies. They want a global audience. And the Internet provides the perfect medium.

The Washington Post recently reported that the German interior minister has identified almost 800 neo-Nazi Web sites located outside Germany. These sites are accessible to Germans and, therefore, in violation of its curbs on neo-Nazi speech.

Regrettably, to shelter themselves from the German restrictions, the global skinhead gangs got smart and housed their sites on servers in the United States. Now, the German government wants to shoot the messenger. Germany's supreme court recently ruled that the country's restrictions on neo-Nazi speech could be applied outside Germany within the borderless world of cyberspace. In other words, Americans who own the servers or communications networks over which neo-Nazis distribute their materials could be held liable.

And it's not just Germany that is going after American firms whose sites might carry such material. In late November, a French court ordered the popular American Web portal "Yahoo!" to find a way to prevent French citizens from accessing auctions of Nazi memorabilia. "Yahoo!" has asked a U.S. federal judge to block the French court's ruling. The company says the court is violating the free speech rights of "Yahoo!" and its property rights as an American firm.

Whatever you think of the efforts by German and French judges to sanitize the Internet, there's a big problem: They can never work -- at least not without creating an international police force to patrol the World Wide Web and punish any company whose networks might be used to transmit neo- Nazi messages or deal in Nazi memorabilia.

Even if such a global government solution were possible, holding the messenger liable is rarely an effective way of halting the flow of objectionable material. The funny thing about humans is that the more you try to shut them up, the more they want to be heard. Shutting down one channel of communication will force people to seek other channels.

Moreover, the rest of the world has often held a bit of a grudge against America's strong defense of free speech and its beloved First Amendment. In a recent column praising the French verdict in the "Yahoo!" case, for example, a writer for the British newspaper The Guardian boasted:

"To those of us who have endured decades of cultural imperialism, in which American companies claim an apparently God-given right to impose their values on every territory they choose to occupy, U.S. outrage at the French verdict raises, at best, hollow laughter."
Let them laugh. They've reminded us why, in part, we rebelled against England in the first place. Thankfully, Americans take free speech a bit more seriously than the Brits, the French, the Germans and rest of the world. And, yes, America could become the guardian of free speech worldwide by offering the protection of the First Amendment over the Net to millions of people who have been denied the right to speak freely in their own countries.

Consider: This column will likely appear on the Web and be available to a global audience. And it likely will generate hate mail from people overseas who will call me another arrogant American who wants to impose my country's will on the rest of the world. But the fact that they will find this article on the Web and respond to it proves why the free flow of ideas over the Net is so important.

Trying to shut down a few skinhead hate sites may seem harmless to a European judge. But it poses an impossible enforcement challenge. It's also a serious threat to the sacred concept of free speech.

...

http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-15-01.html

[Last Conformist]

Consider: This column will likely appear on the Web and be available to a global audience. And it likely will generate hate mail from people overseas who will call me another arrogant American who wants to impose my country's will on the rest of the world. But the fact that they will find this article on the Web and respond to it proves why the free flow of ideas over the Net is so important.

"Proves"? What?

[DarkCloud]

and this will really quash the 'nazis will disappear if we don't let them speak' argument:

As a society, we also need to tolerate the public expression of hateful speech for important practical reasons. Chief among these is that, if we attempt to muzzle hate speech using the law, we run the risk of actually increasing and intensifying the exposure such speech receives via the media. Even worse, the hate-monger is often transformed into a martyr for free speech. It is unlikely that Canadians would be as familiar with the names Zundel, Keegstra and Ross if we did not have laws which censor hate speech.

History provides further lessons on this point. There were hate speech laws in Germany in the 1930s. Several Nazi leaders were prosecuted and some spent time in jail. Predictably, rather than quashing anti-Jewish sentiments, these prosecutions had the opposite effect: they created martyrs of those prosecuted and gave momentum to the Nazi movement. Though some might argue that the German laws were not strong enough, creating a more powerful law simply runs the risk of capturing more speech that should not be censored. At the same time, there is no certainty that such laws will work. If history is to be our guide, time and time again we see that passions and ideas cannot be snuffed out by prosecution. Ideas are singularly resistant to, and flourish in spite of, official persecution and legislation.

Perhaps the most poignant lesson to be learned from the German experience is that there is increased danger whenever a citizenry shrinks from its democratic commitment and instead defers to the state to silence hate-mongers. By disengaging from public debate, citizens not only become less sovereign, they also run the risk of losing the battle against the hate-monger.

It is also useful for society to know who is spreading hate. By identifying and monitoring their messages, we are able to act quickly if hateful expression turns into hateful action. Furthermore, those expressing hate will know that society is keeping watch on them. In contrast, prohibiting hate speech will have the effect of forcing these communications underground, possibly causing more harm in terms of discrimination and violence than if the messages had been publicly aired. Hate speech is bad thing. In a perfect world, it would not exist; but we live in a less than perfect world where the emotion of hate is, unfortunately, real. Public expression of hate tests our commitment to those values we cherish as a society: equality, tolerance and diversity. Hate speech directly challenges all citizens—not just those who are targets of hateful expression—to reaffirm those values that form the foundation of our society. Hate speech challenges us to stand up and be counted, to commit ourselves to the ideals of equality, and to accept diversity. As such, they provide an important field test for civic activism.

http://www.bccla.org/positions/freespeech/98publicspaces.html

[DarkCloud]

Last Conformist-

That portion you quoted might be a non-sequitur- but the rest of it makes a lot of sense-

so someone bans 'hate speech'... what's to stop them from construing speech to mean 'postings on the internet' since a wider audience can be reached through the net? And then if things posted on the internet are 'evil' then it's not much of a jump to censor books- because the forms of expression are the same.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
And who defines what is "expression"? You?

By expression I mean political and philosophical expression.

Are we, BTW, to conclude you oppose libel laws?

There's a reason that those laws are relaxed when it comes to talking about public figures - because such speech then often is or approaches political expression.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
so someone bans 'hate speech'... what's to stop them from construing speech to mean 'postings on the internet' since a wider audience can be reached through the net? And then if things posted on the internet are 'evil' then it's not much of a jump to censor books- because the forms of expression are the same.

That's not really the issue - the issue is jurisdiction. It's just as hairy with libel laws, to which most reasonable people have no objection.

[DarkCloud]

What are you saying?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


By expression I mean political and philosophical expression.

And who defines what is political or philosphical expression?

I'm sure you wouldn't want to forbid me from telling a friend "the jews should be killed off" over a beer. I'm fairly sure you'd have a problem if I waved a poster with the same message on the streets. Somewhere between those two you have to draw the line. You're either a free speech fundamentalist, or you're on the slippery slope.

There's a reason that those laws are relaxed when it comes to talking about public figures - because such speech then often is or approaches political expression.

Um, OK. Am I to infer you've got no problem with the banning of any sort of speech that is not, in your opinion, political or philosophical expression?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm fairly sure you'd have a problem if I waved a poster with the same message on the streets.

I don't think he would, actually. I wouldn't, as long as you are giving a speech instructing the listerners they should go out and kill Jews now.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
And who defines what is political or philosphical expression?

I'm sure you wouldn't want to forbid me from telling a friend "the jews should be killed off" over a beer. I'm fairly sure you'd have a problem if I waved a poster with the same message on the streets. Somewhere between those two you have to draw the line. You're either a free speech fundamentalist, or you're on the slippery slope.

Actually, I think you should be able to do both, but the police can step in if it looks like it's about to turn into actual violence.

Um, OK. Am I to infer you've got no problem with the banning of any sort of speech that is not, in your opinion, political or philosophical expression?

No, just that I don't think it's an absolute evil (again "Fire!" in a crowded theater).