Dear Steven,

You're a persistent little blighter.
And, I guess I am a pious little ...

Ok. Should the quotes you gave be illegal?

You want me to be specific.

No. The first four shouldn't be illegal. None of the
things you mentioned are physically going to
harm anyone. It's in the way people will perceive
those things. You can't ban things simply on the
way they're going to be perceived. When they don't
actually do harm in themselves.

The same goes for the last two quotes. If you google
"Evil Bible Quotes," there are many examples given
along the lines of the quotes you gave. Yet no one
bans the Bible or makes it illegal. Again it's
a question of perception. Religious and Community
leaders have to
take responsibility for the way their followers
will be inspired to behave. We can't ban things
simply because a small minority of fundies may
take the words of a religious text literally.

That's all from me Steven.
I've got the flu at the moment, and
I'm going back to bed...

Cheers

Foxy,

Hope your flu gets better soon.

We seem to be in complete agreement.

Nobody I know of argues that free speech includes:

--The right to libel (Hagannah B);

--The right to take part in a conspiracy to murder (Hagannah B again)

--The right to incite violence NARROWLY DEFINED (Yes, there will always be some borderline cases)

--The right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (Samsung)

We do seem to agree that free speech includes the right to attack any belief system, ideology, set of ideas or opinions. That specifically includes any religious belief system even if it offends the believers.

However some forms of attack – eg pissing on a Torah scroll with or without Nazi regalia– should not be done in a public space.

I await Samsung's reply.

Samsung>"That's ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom."

Samsung>"Total free speech, and total freedom, IS anarchy."

There. This proves that you do not have a logical argument, as it's contradictory and that it is entirely conceptual and hence meaningless.

Samsung, your definition of anarchy is also entirely subjective. Greater free speech than we have now IS NOT IN ANY WAY ANARCHY.

Also, your definition of free speech is entirely absolute. Which is useless. Spreading lies about AN INDIVIDUAL, through public media or public dissemination with the intent of damaging their reputation, is a different issue than what is being discussed. As I said, none of what you or Foxy has been saying applied at all to the op, or later discussions.

Speaking of Foxy, it is a shame that people can so easily adopt others' viewpoints without reason or understanding them. Foxy copied your "ANARCHY" claim, which was irrelevant and meaningless as described above. So you propogated your viewpoint with a slogan, much like "FREEDOM is SLAVERY", and unthinkingly perhaps, it is echoed by others without criticism or inquiry. All the examples you provided, such as aasault, have absolutely nothing to do with the op, or your claims that free speech is anarchy.

People have to get over this stupid belief that the media and government has helped to create that you have a right not to be offended by someone else. Before when I said, "voice for a voice makes the whole world voiceless" it was a demonstration of this mentality and the effect it would have. Right now we live in a censored country where free speech is being worn away and replaced with a 'code' of politeness and non-offence, as causing offence is made illegal. Remember when that journalist was fired for calling Thorpe's feet "humongous"? Fired.

steven some of those examples should be free speech, especially yelling fire in a crowded theatre (where does it say it's not?). If people react like morons and beleive the person yelling out and stampede, that is thier own fault. Humans are reknowned liars and to believe a random stranger in such a situation is completely moronic and your own responsibility.

Most intelligent people would immediately tell the person to shut the hell up, or they would first look for evidence of a fire and disbelieve some random person.

The fire problem assumes people are morons and that the speaker is responsible for their actions. That is a bad assumption and part of the problem with our society.

The problem with other examples is that the "conspiracy to murder" becomes a thought crime. This is where ACTION, not speech is the criminal act. You should be able to say what you want, as long as you do not ACT to do so and kill someone. If I say, "someone should kill our PM", many people would laugh and agree. ACTION toward such an end is where the the crime begins to take place.

Similarly "inciting violence" is a very dubious "crime". The police incite violence against protesters. People may incite violence against a mob attacking someone, or for self defence.

This leads you to the whole sedition rubbish and all the other crimes the State wants to imprison people for daring to speak out on. Example: China views Free speech about the Tiananmen Sqr Massacre as "incitement to violence" (strike one) and part of a "conspiracy to murder government officials" (strike two). Only action to do either would amount to a crime.

*would amount to =should amount to

Dear Steven,

Thanks. I am feeling a bit better.
I slept all day.

Thanks also, for making me see the difference
between a personal code of conduct and what
should be made acceptable in a civilised
society.

Dear Steel,

I was not copying Samsung, merely referring
to his earlier posts. Please re-read my post
(prior to this one).