It's well understood that the right to free expression is the foundation of a free society. It's also understood that there have to be limits to free expression - one can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre, one can't publicly threaten to cause harm, one can't slander, and so on. These are reasonable limits upon the right to free expression, established in the interest of public safety. Free expression should not allow actual harm.
That said, there are some limitations upon free expression that are established not to prevent actual harm, but to forbid offending sensibilities. For example, Germany has laws forbidding the display of Nazi symbols or portraying the Third Reich in any way that could be interpreted as positive. These laws don't serve to protect the public safety or the safety of individuals - rather, they forbid the mention of an embarrassing era of German history. Such restrictions upon free expression seem to be less about freedom, more about a social and political need to "save face."
More recently, in England, a gardener has been ordered to remove an "offensive" topiary because one person complained.
A gardener who carved a giant bush into a hand displaying a rude gesture has been ordered to remove it after being accused of committing a public order offence.
Richard Jackson has displayed the offending topiary, which shows the middle-finger sign, in his garden for the last eight years.
The 53-year-old has now been told by the council to alter it after a neighbour complained, but he has refused to comply.
Mr Jackson, from Tamworth, Staffordshire, said: 'I was contacted by the police and they said the council had been in touch because somebody had complained to them about it.
'Apparently, one person was offended by it and the police said it was a public order offence.
Are the needs of the public served by forbidding such an "offensive" topiary? Is it necessary for the law to protect the public from being "offended?" If so, how does one define the limits of what is "offensive?"
its been there for 8 years and now some whining curtain twitcher has gone & yapped about it.
well...
-----
"When the government fears the people you have Liberty,
when the people fear the government yo have tyranny,
when injustice becomes law, Rebellion becomes Duty!"
~ Thomas Jefferson.
"Is it necessary for the law to protect the public from being "offended?"
people find everything offensive nowadays, if we run to the police every time Joe Bloggs says/does anything "offensive" the world will be a boring place
I think to a degree, it is necessary. It is also the authority`s responsibility to protect the populance from all manner of harmfull influences, not allways direct, brazen threats. Highly offensive slogans, words and public behaviour can cause such a large enough public outcry that it disturbs the peace and has the potential for civil unrest.
There a religious reasons behind this, there are racially insensitive reasons behind this, as there are many variables of what people do to offend others. Both to take into account. What you say and do in privacy, or in the company of friends, in certain sorroundings, under safe circuimstances(we`ll say they`re used to your personality and behviour for the effects of this point) is completely different from saying offensive things to people, acting bizarre in "public", creating a disturbance, or generally trying to provoke a negative reaction from people.
Some people behave in such a manner, or sprout offensive slogans, say things to people, solely to provoke a negative reaction, sometimes they get more then they bargain for in that said reaction from people observing whatever offensive behaviour is issued, sometimes in is in the individual`s best interest and wellfare to stop and punish the offensive behaviour, to deter them from further outbursts. some people do it to issue a personal statment for attention, or simply to cause havok in their own little way.
When you live in a populance, with other people, it is expected that you treat others with respect, the choice to be civil. Freedom of speech is a hallmark of a free society, of free people, but those said people should have enough common sense to know when they are infact going too far, can be a variable fuse for some people. but the problem exists that some behaviour, some words are so offensive that it causes public outcry, even civil unrest, it disturbs the populance of tax paying, law abiding citizens. As a general rule of thumb, common sense and understanding should apply.
Screaming swearwords out in a shopping mall food quart with children present, tagging racial slurs on a wall in spray paint, exposing yourself in public, pulling the fingers at elderly people, verbally provoking people by deliberately targeting them with what you have an educated guess of having the potential to greatly offend and cause a reaction from are the hallmarks of a trouble maker. These are but some examples. People who take their "free spirited anture" too far, at the expense of other`s well being are a disturbance, if a warning is not taken seriously, or perhaps the initial offense is too great, they should be punished by the authorities.
People who pay their taxes and abide by the laws are deserved of going about their day without being provoked.
In saying that, what I have made as far as expressing my opinion is that theres is a need to keep the peace, public disturbances and civil unrest, public outcrys are things that need to be prevented. Sometimes those that take offense are perhaps just too sensitive for their own good, but there is the rule of thumb that we should use common sense and simply be "reasonable".
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
Dodo [forum info]
[PM]
Representing the demented psychotic underbelly of the American dream.
No, it's possible. Take the classic yelling fire in a crowded theater example: in the confusion someone can get trampled depriving them of life, and the theater can lose business and be subject to lawsuits which would deprive the owner of property. The tricky part is determining where the line between that real threat and simple offense is. What they call "hate speech" is one of those tricky areas: is someone just saying something that others find distasteful or is it a call for people to do real harm? I find it's best to err on the side of liberty. Others might disagree.
The billions of dollars that go into the advertising industry would suggest that you're wrong.
People choose their own actions and cannot be compelled to do things they do not want to do.
As Alexander says, education is a major influence on people. If someone is educated in an atmosphere of hate speech, they can grow up to think that the hated are less than people and so, in their mind, killing them isn't murder.
"Anyway, whether directly or indirectly people can be caused to act by the words of other; you only have to ask an insurance salesman that, let alone any propagandist."
This.
Its a free man`s right to express himself, to share his own opinions and views, but he must also be possessed of personal accountability and face responsibility as well, in the event of causing harm through his choice of expressionism, or even communication. Co-insiding with your fellow man in a populance, the respective societies that we live in, that we are a part of, means that you are expected to show respect and courtesy to your fellow citizens, this also includes choosing to not provoke people into negative reactions, deliberately influencing harmfull actions, or offending them through not so much as an act of ignorrance, but willfully provoking people to be at unease.
If you willingly choose to provoke a reaction from someone, through deliberately offending someone, then you must be willing to face the possible repurcussions of your actions through expressionism, or communication, you must have personal accountability.
"Which is impossible really, actions can do that, words can't. "
Ever heard of riots started through the words of another ? I`m sure you have.
I`ll give a basic example from my own recent experiences, should someone "deliberately" choose to make racist remarks towards Orientals, directing them at my charge, my partner, when I am in her company, in a social gathering, or in public, which is sometimes the case in New Zealand, then most likely there will be a very unpleasant reaction caused and that person not acting through ignorrance by telling a tasteless joke, in the wrong circuimstances, but instead through willfully and deliberately provoking a hostile reaction ,will have to deal with it.
Why do I use this example, because it goes hand in hand with the views and points I tried to express earlier in the post. Apply this to say a Mother, or a Father seeking to protect their children, why should their children, say for this example, be exposed to someone seeking deliberately to be offensive and blatant in their bizarre behaviour ? If this were deemed perfectly acceptable based on someone`s morals and social ideas, ie. what they deem perfectly acceptable in public and social situations, then so be it. But the person who was responsible for exposing said children to bizarre and offensive expressionism will have to deal with any potential consequences. It is in these sorts of cases that someone seeking to deliberately offend and provoke people, may infact be unwittingly setting themselves up for harmfull resolutions to a conflict they caused under social protocals.
To be reasonable is not an exact measurement of how we temper our need to express ourselves and how we choose to peacefully co-inside with our fellow man in our resepctive societies, but we must still act with courtesy and respect, we must use common sense and our best judgement. Sometimes its easier to look at expressionism being context sensitive, certain situations and enviroments are more suitable for the type of expressionism that may provoke the offense of others and will instead be accepted by others.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
"I have yet to see any convincing reason to support the idea that society will fall apart with absolute freedom of speech.
In fact I assert that people shouting at the top of their lungs about racist or hate filled propaganda, or false information will hang themselves when given absolute freedom to talk.
Choosing to be offended by stupid things is giving your own autonomy away, and asking "mommy" to step in and make it all better for you is the way of weak willed cowardly fools."
QFT. If people can't even deal with other people's views in public, how can they even deal with their views in a more private, serious discussion? Anyone who calls against absolute freedom of speech is ASKING for a nanny-state. Do you really want Big Brother watching you?
I also enjoy (In the sense that they have borrowed heavily from shopenhauer's 'Ways to win an argument', the strawman that resulted in only two of life_lost's points being addressed at all.
The latter half was definitely addressing The_Corpsie. Apologies for any confusion that may have arisen on that behalf.
However, as you seem be to calling for parents to not be able to raise their child in any way they seem fit, that DOES bother me. You haven't transcended anything your parents taught you? I know I have.
While parents may teach their children anything they choose, it remains the responsiblity of said children to come into their own and form their own beliefs.
Freedom of speech is REQUIRED to be absolute, else you can't really call if "freedom of speech", can you?
I also enjoy (In the sense that they have borrowed heavily from shopenhauer's 'Ways to win an argument', the strawman that resulted in only two of life_lost's points being addressed at all.
Never read it.
The fact is, Lost's points rely on the "fact" that people cannot be influenced by words. And, although it is fun watching racists prove their stupidity whenever possible, hate speech and incitement to violence shouldn't be protected.
If you preach and preach and preach about how gays are inferior and do not have a place on this earth, and your followers attack gays then you should be punished as if you committed the assault itself. However, that's not possible (due to the constraints of proof) so, I see no problem with taking a little pre-emptive action that prevents you from calling for the deprivation of someone's life or liberty.
Free speech is far more of a responsibility than a right.
While people are not isolated islands, do you disagree that they are ultimately responsible for the things they believe and do?
I mean that the child, and person, is responsible for what he/she believes. While that does mean forming your own, i would not presume to say what beliefs any person has a DUTY to form their own. Borrowing or stealing or keeping other people's is acceptable, as long as they can be held accountable for holding those beliefs.
It was meant to say that regardless of what their parents believe, the burden lies on the child regardless, especially once it matures.
"Should I form my belief in my illness and disregard that of the Dr?"
I would have no problem with you making that choice. I might think you an idiot, but you could still form that belief, and it would be your right to act upon it if you so chose.
"I simply fail to see why 'freedom of speech' is something to be sought after."
To stop tyrannical rule? To encourage free thought and opposing viewpoints? To allow us to advance as a society?
While people are not isolated islands, do you disagree that they are ultimately responsible for the things they believe and do?
People who commit prejudice-based violence are still criminals. Incitement is another crime. Yes, the owner of the fist is ultimately responsible but that doesn't absolve the person who perpetuated the belief that it was ok to do that.
Incitement to hate-crime is more complex than someone saying "go and hit the fag/nigger/jew". It's also creating the environment where you're rewarded for it.
that regardless of what their parents believe, the burden lies on the child regardless, especially once it matures.
Rubbish in Rubbish out. If a parent/authority figure educates a child, it takes a lot of work to adjust that to a non-hateful view. The educators have a duty to be fair and they should take some of the blame when they preach hate. Especially when it ends with murder or assault.
The violence is a symptom of something much more complex.
"
People who commit prejudice-based violence are still criminals. Incitement is another crime. Yes, the owner of the fist is ultimately responsible but that doesn't absolve the person who perpetuated the belief that it was ok to do that.
Incitement to hate-crime is more complex than someone saying "go and hit the fag/nigger/jew". It's also creating the environment where you're rewarded for it."
Saying you believe anyone is lesser or inferior does not need to cause violence. Even in a fostering environment where that belief is the norm, nobody TOLD you to do it. Nobody MADE you do it.
This kind of relates to both your points:
If the person who told you someone was inferior didn't do it themselves, then you have formed your own belief that it is right to hit/maim/kill that "inferior"
If the person who told you someone was inferior didn't do it themselves, then you have formed your own belief that it is right to hit/maim/kill that "inferior"
If you drive drunk, you have formed your own belief that it is ok to drive when mentally and physically impaired. However, if someone has given you lots of alcohol and then insisted it is ok for you to drive- maybe even helping you into the car, they are also responsible.
Now, you may or may not kill someone on your journey home- but that doesn't mean you're a safe driver.
then you have formed your own belief that it is right to hit/maim/kill that "inferior"
It is my opinion that freedom of expression vs keeping the peace is a decision to made in where, people deem an expression, repressive. So far, the only answer most societies have offered is to attempt to censor the expression in question. But this opens a whole new world of problems.
Awhile back, there was a debate on an anarcho website between an aggressive activist and a pacifist. The debate was about whether or not hate groups should be allowed to speak in public and disseminate their literature. One of course said it should be burned and the public speaking rights should be denied. The pacifist said that they should be allowed just as other people are allowed to publicly protest such ideas, but violence is not needed to make a change.
Do get me wrong there's a part of me that would love to smash every form of tyranny with a boot heel, but a violent revolution will need constant violence to keep it alive and that is a world no better than the current. Given this I also see censorship as a form of violence.
Censorship is a violent reaction from those who may disagree with any given idea, which in turn creates an environment in where ignorance thrives and the result is apparent.
In sum, I do not condone the use of censorship, even if it meant the realization of autonomy. Because, yet again, liberty gained this way would live and die through Censorship and to me that's not liberty.
One the lighter side: At times,the world can be a shit-whole, so there's nothing wrong with a tad bit of catharsis to eases the tension.
The debate was about whether or not hate groups should be allowed to speak in public and disseminate their literature. One of course said it should be burned and the public speaking rights should be denied
When does it stop being protected speech and, instead, becomes slander and libel?
Censorship is a violent reaction from those who may disagree with any given idea
If you are referring to a damaged ego (slander), then I don't see it as a 'crime' that needs to be regulated by a government...slander and libel are instruments that corporate governments use to protect their own interests...The same with libel..either way the person has the right to defend one's self...in these two case it would be a verbal and a written defense.
Edited by: nic_esqueleto
at August 01, 2012, 12:54pm
I am not promoting out right lies...everyone should have the right to educate themselves with a full spectrum of materials to a gain a critical understanding of the situation. Everyone also has the right to come to a conclusion and do what they will with it.
What happens when you slander millions of people in one go?
What happens? False history is written, millions of people are repressed and oppressed.... and this is what happens when the millions don't fight the 'one lie.' But at the end of the day defend or not...
Tinfoil hat? the laws in the US were and are written to protect land owners and their property...I can't speak for other countries and I'm not a lawyer.
I might have used "right" in the wrong context,...but as long as we are going down this route, I did use the term "should"...if we are going to debate what is a right then that is fine... A right is a false term used to build a false idea that we are actually free, it is something that can be manipulated on paper to dictate actions of others....And before you jump to the conclusion that I'm advocating something inhumane, let me say I'm not. Moving on, since we live in a world where rights are placed to dictate morality, I think it was safe to say everyone should have the right to educate themselves with a full spectrum of materials. Meaning no information should be denied to an individual for any reason.
Should it be legal? It's painfully obvious where I stand on this...you are not going to make me out to be some kind of tyrant by asking this question.....once again everyone has the right to uncensored documentation and come to their own conclusions....We all have a 'right' to fight against tyranny. And in this case right is being used with ability, because sometimes rights/laws are written to hinder one's abilities, such as censorship for instance.
"If the millions fight the 'one lie' then surely democracy results in societal censure. Like lawmaking."
and as I stated before this is societies only answer...
Edited by: nic_esqueleto
at August 01, 2012, 01:37pm
Should it be legal? It's painfully obvious where I stand on this...you are not going to make me out to be some kind of tyrant by asking this question.....once again everyone has the right to uncensored documentation and come to their own conclusions
So- the "correct" response to someone who deliberately spreads lies in an attempt to harm another human (deprive them of a fair trial by jury, hinder employment, enforce segregation, to justify assault or murder)
Is to deny those lies and hope that people believe you?
because sometimes rights/laws are written to hinder one's abilities, such as censorship for instance.
Laws are written to hinder your ability to punch someone in the face. And?
Besides- censure is not the same as censorship. Censure is public condemnation and if you're going to lie with the intent to harm people, then why shouldn't money be taken from your pocket to right the wrong?
I would like to think that if one has access to uncensored documentation, then the "truth" will be found, so to speak...People can deny a 'truth' and wrongly harm someone, yes. Does this make it right? NO..But censorship only serves to aid those that wish to manipulate the public and with censorship it makes it easier for inhumane treatment to prevail....
Laws hinder much more than a punch....some laws are written to promote social immobility, some are written to regulate diets, some are written to keep a man from having more than one wife....so there's much more to it...
Yes I understand the difference the public can condemn a mans naughty bushes or anything else that falls under the topic of discussion...But to make an over arching law of censorship is wrong, in my opinion.
I would like to think that if one has access to uncensored documentation, then the "truth" will be found, so to speak
You're new to the internet, aren't you?
I suggest you start looking at signal to noise, and also wonder about a little thing called privacy. And... well.. to be blunt, it doesn't matter what you think- the internet has shown that people are quite capable of denying the truth, no matter what the evidence is.
Laws hinder much more than a punch.
Which is more important- your right to punch someone randomly or my right to be free from those punches?
But to make an over arching law of censorship is wrong, in my opinion.
"Do not tell lies in an effort to harm people, otherwise we will make you pay for reparations"...
Please explain where the moral injustice is in that statement.
"You're new to the internet, aren't you?" This statement is childish.
Seriously, I'm not saying that addresses etc should be freely viewed by the public...AS I have already stated "People can deny a 'truth' and wrongly harm someone, yes. Does this make it right? NO"
I lived tit for tat for quite sometime and it made me miserable...anyone is free to live that way..I choose not to.
"You're new to the internet, aren't you?" This statement is childish.
Dreadfully sorry. Maybe I should have said, "you have not witnessed how people abuse this wonderful means of free speech and almost limitless tool that permits us to obtain uncensored information".
I don't care what you like to think- the way we use the internet proves that the world doesn't work in the manner you wish.
"People can deny a 'truth' and wrongly harm someone, yes. Does this make it right? NO"
What about the lies you cannot disprove? Should they be given the same "authority" as the truth?
I lived tit for tat for quite sometime and it made me miserable...anyone is free to live that way..I choose not to.
So you're not going to point out where the moral injustice occurs. Why should the victim of slander have to fund the truth when the perpetrator has already harmed their financial capabilities?
Please, tell me what is so wrong about forcing a malicious liar to stop being malicious and to repair the damage they caused. (which is not tit for tat, btw)
You are naive to think that I don't realize that the world doesn't 'work' the way I wish...I apologize, you sir are getting tedious.
lies that cannot be proved or disproved should be irrelevant, but it is painfully obvious the world does not work this way...And I think it is wrong...I also think that governmental systems that have proven to have special interests should not have this kind of power either...Once again just because I think this way doesn't make it an actuality.
I will fight for injustices and think that people should seek aid when damage has been IRREPARABLE, but it is the case that governmental bodies often times only act when there is an interest...So back to censorship, this would would hide accountability where action is needed.
there's nothing wrong with trying to stop someone from causing harm...I never said that and obviously laws don't stop it either, a person has the ability to chose not to cause harm, aside from special cases, of course...
Edited by: nic_esqueleto
at August 01, 2012, 03:09pm
A gardener who carved a giant bush into a hand displaying a rude gesture has been ordered to remove it after being accused of committing a public order offence.
public order offence.
