|
| Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
posted September 03, 2009 03:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
can i go say lies about you in public? is it my right?
Yeah of course, people do that all the time ... you don't have less right to do that than others.
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 03:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
can i go say lies about you in public? is it my right?
Yeah of course, people do that all the time ... you don't have less right to do that than others.
There's always the subtle difference between what you can do and what you should do. Lying about someone is not necesarily, but that doesn't make it nice. Of course, you can be charged by putting someone in bad light by claiming they did something illegal which they did in fact not.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 05:48 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:52, 03 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
My point is, if you can fight for the KKK's freedom and win, then you know that your own freedom is safe also. Draw the line and hold it, because the slope of morality is very slippery indeed.
Exactly. "Offensive" speech must be protected. Who defines offensive? Different people are offended by different things and even saying "facts" is offensive to some. If "offensive speech" is outlawed the party in power will begin to define what is offensive as speaking out against their policies and ideologies.
Quote:
Uh? As far as I know, insulting a person means breaking a law, it is called "inviolableness of the personality".
Same goes with racism. If I call a black person a ni****, I surely broke a right, don't you think so?
In the US speech that is false and slanders a person can result in a lawsuit. Public figures can usually be spoken about with any sort of accusation without repercussions.
Offensive racist speech and insults should be protected. No one is free not to be offended and what is offensive is a subjective thing. I personally hate racist speech but the right to speak in such a manner must be defended if free speech is to be maintained.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
Shyranis:
The issue is not whether they advocate violence - it's whether they perform violent acts. In acting as the head of government, Hitler was not only advocating killing Jews/homosexuals/etc - he was actually performing violence as part of the government.
Angelito:
Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's a violation of rights. (Likewise, just because something is legal doesn't mean it isn't one.)Quote:
If I call a black person a ni****, I surely broke a right, don't you think so?
No.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 06:03 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:04, 03 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
Maybe I am in the wrong thread here, but do you really mean if someone in public says to you "You're a snowing piece of s**t, your mother is a wh**e, and your father is retarded!", it is all fine and no problem at all? No harm done? No rights violated?
Maybe I underestimated the way people in romania act towards each other...
Angelito, you have to take this from a neutral point of view. What makes that breaking any more rights than saying bad things about "comrade Stalin"?
The issue isn't analytical, different people are offended by different things. So you either have free speech -- which doesn't favor anyone, or you have a selected choice of words which depends on WHO you ask to choose them. If you ask Stalin his opinion on what is "allowed" and what is not is vastly different than yours.
Unfortunately both aren't analytical.
And no, I wouldn't be offended. Why the hell would I be? I don't even know that guy/girl. And might I ask you, what does it make a difference if he does not SAY it but he obviously THINKS it? It won't change what he thinks about me.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 07:23 PM |
|
|
in israel there is a law im not sure how to translate fully,"Hozaat Diba" when i go around tempring lies about you,that you know have proffs otherwise,youcan go to cort with me,and win.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 07:27 PM |
|
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 07:59 PM |
|
|
so where is line between slander and free speech (thanks binabik)
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so where is line between slander and free speech (thanks binabik)
arbitrary. And it sucks.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
so whats neeed to be done?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:20, 03 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
so where is line between slander and free speech (thanks binabik)
Defamation or "defamation of character" is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.
Slander is a spoken defamation.
Libel is a written defamation.
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
so whats neeed to be done?
Anything with a "special cases" attached to it is unfair and sucks, especially concerning Free Speech. "public figures" being a special case, because people like to speak out stuff or propaganda against/for them, are "protected" and you can't sue such people for slander/libel. The conclusion is obvious: slander is stupid.
What should be done? I think you should leave this to the people. People should be educated enough to realize that what someone speaks isn't always from the author/whatever in question. I mean, it's not like they can't make a difference between Bob who says stuff about John, and John himself, hypothetically speaking.
If Bob brings up "proof" for his claims, then it should be the AUDIENCE he is TARGETTING's job to see whether this proof is valid or not, not "blind faith" in some judicial court's decisions 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:22 PM |
|
|
Question: the swedish newspaper,Libel or not?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question: the swedish newspaper,Libel or not?
Speculation and tabloid news? It is more of a gigantic speculation, like most news papers.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Question: the swedish newspaper,Libel or not?
If they talk about "public figures", yeah like I said, it's "an exception" or "special case".
ANYTHING with special cases should rise some cloud of doubt. Libel does that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
its not wierd to have a cloud of doubt regarding wether the president humane or alien (gives an example not too far off truth-death style).
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
its not wierd to have a cloud of doubt regarding wether the president humane or alien (gives an example not too far off truth-death style).
Sure, you're welcome to have that cloud of doubt. Should the jury tell you what should your doubts be?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 02:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
My point is, if you can fight for the KKK's freedom and win, then you know that your own freedom is safe also. Draw the line and hold it, because the slope of morality is very slippery indeed.
Exactly. "Offensive" speech must be protected. Who defines offensive? Different people are offended by different things and even saying "facts" is offensive to some. If "offensive speech" is outlawed the party in power will begin to define what is offensive as speaking out against their policies and ideologies.
How very ACLU of you =D
Anyway.
Freedom of speech means you are free to defame anybody you want. Just be prepared for the possible financial consequences if you damage somebody's reputation to the point where it is difficult for them to obtain employment, sponsorship, etc.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 04:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom of speech means you are free to defame anybody you want. Just be prepared for the possible financial consequences if you damage somebody's reputation to the point where it is difficult for them to obtain employment, sponsorship, etc.
No this is stupid IMO. "difficulty" is a subjective concept, and it depends on the person, it is impossible to prove exactly a "difficulty level" because it is not absolute for everyone. It is not measurable, period.
People should be allowed to BELIEVE what they want! If I believe Joe's words about Mike, it's MY fault and MY FULL responsibility. It should NOT give Mike a right to charge Joe just because people listen to Joe.
Unless Joe's job is to inform people, in which case of course, he should get charged AND fired!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2009 05:44 PM |
|
|
Maybe I just hadn't chosen my words correctly, I should have said made it impossible to find employment in their field. For example, a person steals artwork from somebody and sells it, claims it is their work and starts calling the original artist's employers and saying work done for them may be in violation of copyright law. Thus nobody wants to hire the original artist. That would clearly be a case of defamation.
Defamation is vilification of a person usually through lies.
Please don't say my argument is stupid, because it feels like you're implying I am stupid. You can say it is flawed, or wrong, or I am misinformed. This is just as request though and you're free to say it's stupid all you want but I'm just letting you know that that language can be hurtful. I know Elodin had a similar complaint. Can't we keep this as a respectful dialog?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
|
|
