Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

@snood,

snood wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

We seem to do fine over here, freedom of speech shouldn't be about spreading lies and hate.

You ever watch Fox News?

I have seen it now and again, when curious about what the forces of evil are saying. Most of the time it's incredibly parochial and of no real interest to anyone outside America.

It wouldn't fall foul of hate speech legislation but would find itself up against laws that require broadcasters to be unbiased, which have been on our statute books a long time.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That is incorrect, Izzy.
If Englishmen have been terrorized by your government
dissuaded in dread from giving voice to their concerns,
then definitionally, that is indeed stifling.

izzythepush wrote:

We're not terrorised by our government, pissed off at them,
but we can always vote them out.

In the MEANtime,
u remain stifled by the force and intimidation of law.

izzythepush wrote:

You seem a lot more wary of your government,

Yes; its good to be careful.
All governments r sources of power.
By its nature, power can used constructively or destructively.
We shud all be watchful, to defend our liberty
by keeping government "weak, starved and inoffensive" blessings be unto Heinlein.

izzythepush wrote:

and say quite a few paranoid things.

I have never had a paranoid thought.
I have always been acutely aware that NO one
has ever followed me, nor bugged my fone nor spied upon my personal life.
Paranoia is an EGO-based malady, whose delusions serve
to falsely magnify the imagined importance of the afflicted person's ego
by his believing that powerful organizations r inordinately interested in him
because of extra-ordinary super-qualities that he mentally attributes to himself.

That has never happened in my experience; it will not.
I have always been free of paranoia.
However, I 'm aware that liberals want to aggrandize the power of government (for collectivism)
at the expense of the personal freedom of the citizens -- in no way centered upon ME.

I want the citizens to fight back against government to progressively degrade
its jurisdiction as well as possible.

It is a fact that Individual liberty and government jurisdiction r INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

The citizens need to support one and to strangle the other.

That 's Y we threw out the King of England and his representatives.

David

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Moslems have got plenty of real reasons to be pissed off with America. Some of them are just waiting for an excuse, and this film provided it. You can't make a film like that and then be surprised when the response is violent. Look at what happened when American troops mistakenly burned copies of the Koran, and this was deliberately intended to offend.

Quote:

Muslims are idiots.

Such a sweeping statement about a huge group of people shows how simplistically your brain functions. You see things in black and white terms and cannot appreciate nuance. It's a ridiculous statement, like most of your idiotic pronouncements.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

What a pathetic ******* chauvinist you are. There is nothing superior about your country or your country's laws, and certainly not about your delusional point of view. Who is to determine what is truth and what is not truth? You? Spare us. Almost all speech* in the United States is protected for the very reason that it prevents the majority from gagging minority points of view. One can't be silenced just because one's point of view is unpopular, or runs contrary to the view of the majority. *The only cases in which the courts consider that speech may be curtailed are in cases in which it can be shown to directly harm others, or to incite others to criminality. The example of shouting fire in a crowded theater has been the classic expression of this exception.

You really are a disgusting rah-rah super patriot, and the hilarious aspect of it is how frequently you sneer at Americans for just that reason.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Our hate crime laws don't censor. They look at something after the event to see whether or not it's classed as hate crime. For example, if I took a copy of the Koran and threw it on a bonfire that would not fall under our legislation. If however, I made a video of myself doing it and released it on youtube with lots of fanfare and a load of anti Islamic vitriol I would find myself up in front of the beak.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Our hate crime laws don't censor. They look at something after the event to see whether or not it's classed as hate crime. For example, if I took a copy of the Koran and threw it on a bonfire that would not fall under our legislation. If however, I made a video of myself doing it and released it on youtube with lots of fanfare and a load of anti Islamic vitriol I would find myself up in front of the beak.

U don 't live in a free country.

England used to be free, up to around 1920.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm not stifled by anything, I can't deliberately tell lies so that a group of people can be upset, intimidated, nor can I ask for groups of people to be attacked. I never wanted to do any of that in the first place.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

It's fairly obvious what's truthful and what's a downright lie. There's nothing wrong with opinion, it's how that opinion is expressed.

You just can't handle any form of critcism no matter how slight without throwing an enormous hissy fit, and take general trends or ideas as a personal attack.

Stick to what you do best, paraphrasing Wikipedia.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

You've said that before. We were less free in 1920, we had no NHS, and were a lot more reluctant to criticise the weak and powerful.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I'm not stifled by anything, I can't deliberately tell lies so that a group of people can be upset, intimidated,
nor can I ask for groups of people to be attacked. I never wanted to do any of that in the first place.

U said that I: "say quite a few paranoid things."
I consider that to be a lie.
Apparently, u "wanted" to say it.

Shud u be vulnerable to legal penalties?
In America, u 'd not be.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's fairly obvious what's truthful and what's a downright lie.

That is really not true, Izzy.
Give that some thought.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I have, downright lies are obvious. I'm not talking about areas of genuine disagreement, but a deliberate intent to deceive.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
I'm not stifled by anything, I can't deliberately tell lies so that a group of people can be upset, intimidated,
nor can I ask for groups of people to be attacked. I never wanted to do any of that in the first place.
U said that I: "say quite a few paranoid things."
I consider that to be a lie.
Apparently, u "wanted" to say it.

Shud u be vulnerable to legal penalties?
In America, u 'd not be.

Nor would I over here, a lot of what you say could be treated as paranoia. It would be classed as fair comment.

If however, I were to say you had a gun because you were some time of criminal planning a series of assaults on certain sections of the community, printed your name address and photograph, and tried to persuade people to firebomb your home then I would be vulnerable to legal penalties.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You've said that before.

It was TRUE, b4.

izzythepush wrote:

We were less free in 1920,

Since then, your natural rights to defend your LIFE ITSELF,
were violated by your government; than that, there is nothing more FUNDAMENTAL.
Relative to THAT, all else is trivial.

izzythepush wrote:

we had no NHS,

It had never been a function of government to become involved in that.

izzythepush wrote:

and were a lot more reluctant to criticise the weak and powerful.

Evidence ??

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I have, downright lies are obvious.
I'm not talking about areas of genuine disagreement, but a deliberate intent to deceive.

My observations of years in the legal profession, in active litigation, have proven to me, time and again,
that people can and DO fall in love with their lies (love is blind)
with stories that tangibly benefit them, until thay come to BELIEVE them.
Litigants on both sides march in standing in front of u, confident of victory for many reasons.
That is human nature (less than obvious).
Both sides in a fight don't usually win.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Now that really is funny, coming from the King of Hysteria at this site. Whenever i criticize you or anything remotely related to little England, you start flinging out hysterical charges about what i've said that you can never back up, because i've never said them. For example, nothing in what i've written here suggested for a moment that i have accused you or anyone else of making a personal attack against me.

You have got to be one of the worst members here at making and sustaining a rhetorical argument. It's not surprising to see you sneer at me rather than answer the substance of my post. I'd say that's because you can't, and you can't because everything you think you know about the United States you learned from watching television. I suspect that you know as little about the laws of your own nation as you do about the United States.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
I'm not stifled by anything, I can't deliberately tell lies so that a group of people can be upset, intimidated,
nor can I ask for groups of people to be attacked. I never wanted to do any of that in the first place.
U said that I: "say quite a few paranoid things."
I consider that to be a lie.
Apparently, u "wanted" to say it.

Shud u be vulnerable to legal penalties?
In America, u 'd not be.

izzythepush wrote:

Nor would I over here, a lot of what you say could be treated as paranoia. It would be classed as fair comment.

Izzy, I refuted that already,
but now u have asserted it again,
as if I had not refuted it. Did u read my explanation?
U did not post any rejection thereof, nor any justification. I 'm perplexed.

David

0 Replies

Freedin of speech is a human right but hate is not.

This is very difficult to identify and depends on what is definaed as hate.

Villification should not exist as there is no need for it but defamation, laible and slander should be outlawed only, not villification

not

frreedom of speech

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

If you don't know the American ambassador to Libya was killed yesterday, by a mob angry with the USA for allowing Terry Jones (not of Monty Python, but the Koran burner) to distribute a film mocking the prophet Mohammed. If you've not seen any of it, it's badly acted, chock-full of inaccuracies and seems to have no purpose other than to insult Moslems. Now another American has died as a result of Terry Jones actions. Is it time for America to introduce legislation banning the preaching of hate similar to laws in Europe?

Jones invariably uses his own name, Poop; the person responsible for this video uses the name "Sam Becile" and they're still trying to figure out who the person actually is. Actually, when you think about it, the name sounds like it could be some member of YOUR family...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

Other stuff you might enjoy:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/islam-comic/index.htm

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/islam-comic/images/Mohammeds%20Believe%20it%20or%20Else.jpg

http://crusaderammunition.com/

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Actually up to around 1820 or thereabouts (if memory serves) when they formally legalized fractional reserve banking and burned all the tally sticks.

0 Replies

Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know