Hypothetical questions about free speech

[Pekka]

Aivo, "I think the problem of some Muslims getting offended really is secondary to the issue of fringe elements trying to gain support through scapegoating a religious community. I've yet to see any evidence of an "Islamization of Europe". After the last time a bunch of crazies gained control in here using similar psychological tactics, nobody was having fun."

You just didn't raise the Hitler card?

OTOH you say you see no signs of Islamization of Europe, but in the very next sentence it's third reich once again.

I don't see signs of either.

I think it's a big mistake to lump everyone into one or two fringe groups trying to gain political power or popularity using muslims as a scapegoat. Certainly there must be such individuals and groups.

I'm not talking about the moral or ethical sides of this at all. I'm simply advocating free speech, even if it means people get upset. When talking about some fringe groups, if we talk about the potentially dangerous ones, this is just doing them a big favour in my books. Closing down on _public debate_ and opinions is definitely not the way to go. Limiting rights and bringing in criminal law to this is even more of a joke.

This isn't an isolated issue. We have loads of issues, interest groups etc. I see no reason why this should be treated any differently, especially if we want to avoid trouble and arousing some people.

And seriously. Hitler card is extremely weak in any serious debate that doesn't have to do with WWII.

[Elok]

Are you kidding? The Hitler card is great! I play it against Pikachu, Squirtle, you name it. He can take on tons of enemies at once, the Nerve Gas attack can't be beat, plus you get Blitzkrieg and Maniacal Laugh. You just don't know what you're talking about, Pekka.

I admit Stalin's a little better though.

[Pekka]

Well it's kind of like giving up your rights for security. It's in fact the same thing and the same situation.

Not to mention that seeing fringe groups whose purpose is to eventually start a new holocaust is pretty damn far fetched at this point, close to paranoid. Even if that was the case, you don't combat it by saying well we're just not going to speak anymore about certain things.

People always try to limit the freedom of speech. It's the terrorists and the criminals who might benefit from it, it's the hitler wannabes and massacring racists, who ever it is, there's always a problem.

[Meticulous Man]

Pekka:

I'm absolutely not claiming that a 4th Reich is imminent, I just find politics based on scaremongering against a minority unacceptable. I read parts of SIOE's web site (http://sioe.wordpress.com/) and I think their rhetoric makes it clear that they are a bunch of whiny provocateurs who have nothing to offer society. Given the circumstances, there is no reason why their demonstration SHOULD have been allowed.

[dannubis]

It should have been allowed. Idiots have a right to speak their minds too.

Otherwise I don't see why the protest march of the muslim community against the danish cartoons was allowed. To Western society, this was a provocative act and did contribute nothing...

[C0ckney]

I'm simply advocating free speech, even if it means people get upset.

QFT.

[Meticulous Man]

It should have been allowed. Idiots have a right to speak their minds too.

Otherwise I don't see why the protest march of the muslim community against the danish cartoons was allowed. To Western society, this was a provocative act and did contribute nothing...

I value freedom of expression, but it can never be absolute and I don't personally give a damn about SIOE's complaints over their freedom of expression being "violated" (which apparently happened in accordance with Belgian law) when they are out to incite anti-Muslim sentiments. Things are never as clear-cut as "hey, we have freedom of speech in here so I can go around saying whatever I want".

[C0ckney]

how can you claim to value freedom of expression when you don't believe that free speech is a fundamental right?

[Meticulous Man]

how can you claim to value freedom of expression when you don't believe that free speech is a fundamental right?

Well, surely you don't think I should be allowed to, for example, spread the claim that C0ckney is a child molester in order to recruit a lynching mob, spray-paint slogans defaming someone all over the town, lie to the authorities (about my income or in a court trial, for example) because hey, I DO have free speech, etc... The line between what you are allowed to say and what you aren't is arbitrarily drawn through political struggle. What I meant when I said I value freedom of expression was that I am grateful for the reasonable amount of freedom of expression we currently have compared to places like North Korea - there is no general atmosphere of distrust, you don't get jailed or tortured for criticizing the state, memes get to spread freely on the Internet, and so on...

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Aivo½so


I value freedom of expression, but it can never be absolute and I don't personally give a damn about SIOE's complaints over their freedom of expression being "violated" (which apparently happened in accordance with Belgian law) when they are out to incite anti-Muslim sentiments. Things are never as clear-cut as "hey, we have freedom of speech in here so I can go around saying whatever I want".

As long as they are shouting in the streets, they should be allowed to speak their minds. It is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom. Who am I to say that they can not proclaim their in my eyes idiotic statements.

From the moment however they lift as much as a finger to disturb public order (thereby invading other peoples personal freedom), as far as I am concerned their minds can be scraped of the sidewalk

BTW, the same goes for the Muslim hotheads who would be fighting them.

[Arrian]

You know, you Euros (who are ok with this ban) may want to consider that banning something doesn't make it go away.

If this group is a bunch of idiots, you may be best served in allowing them to display their idiocy.

That's leaving aside the free speech/free association angle. If this was happening in the US, I'd be pissed. They've a right to march peacefully, and the "we can't protect you from teh angry muslims" defense is bull****. If the gummint actually believes that (doubtful), then that right there sounds like a rather serious problem, no?

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
I value freedom of expression, but it can never be absolute and I don't personally give a damn about SIOE's complaints over their freedom of expression being "violated" (which apparently happened in accordance with Belgian law) when they are out to incite anti-Muslim sentiments. Things are never as clear-cut as "hey, we have freedom of speech in here so I can go around saying whatever I want".

Obviously either the first or second part of that is a lie. Hypocrite

[Meticulous Man]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Obviously either the first or second part of that is a lie. Hypocrite

See post #39.

[C0ckney]

aivo, free speech is a fundamental right, which can only be restricted where there is a clear and obvious justification for doing so, and where some other right is infringed by not doing so.

to use an often repeated cliché, you cannot exercise free speech by yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. there is a clear reason why you cannot do this, namely because it puts people at risk of physical injury or worse. similarly, you cannot use your freedom of speech in order to incite people to commit violence against other people or a group of people, or say things which are likely to cause such a reaction (your child molester example being a case in point). again the justification for this limit on free speech should be clear and obvious.

however no such justification exists (although if you think you can provide one, feel free...), for restricting people's speech, because someone might be upset or offended. you do not have a right not to be offended, i see things which offend me very often, but i do not want to see them banned, because that is the 'price' we pay for living in a democracy. if you do not believe that, then you do not believe in free speech.