Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
16 Dec 2014: Introducing Shapers of Lore, Academy Line-Up Detailed - read more
10 Dec 2014: Heroes III HD Remake Announced for January 29th! - read more
5 Dec 2014: Website Update delayed, Community Q&A, new Vote on the way! - read more
24 Nov 2014: The Wizards’ Armies Have Arrived! - read more
14 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote #2 Results! - read more
11 Nov 2014: HC Icon Contest, Sylvan Townscreen Vote #2 - read more
7 Nov 2014: Dungeon Line-up Vote Round 2, Sylvan Townscreen Part 1! - read more
2 Nov 2014: Dungeon wins, line-up vote starts! - read more
18 Oct 2014: Tidbits of Information from Twitch.tv Stream! - read more
9 Oct 2014: Heroes 7 Wiki is Open, HC Design & Games - read more
16 Dec 2014: Introducing Shapers of Lore, Academy Line-Up Detailed - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas]
Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] [ This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (7) ]
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted February 08, 2012 03:18 PM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 15:19, 08 Feb 2012.

Corribus is correct in regards to the US law on the issue.  In the above scenario, it's better to just walk away and accept the possibility that you are indeed a &%*#§, your mother does/is blahblabla, and your children are blahblah.
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 08, 2012 03:26 PM
Edited by JollyJoker at 15:31, 08 Feb 2012.

That goes to show how seriously underestimated the effect is that words can have.
As far as I know, INCITING or CHEERING someone to a do something criminal is criminal itself: if there is a row, and bystanders cheer the fighters on, saying stuff like, "kill the basterd", and so on, as far as I know, this is a crime, and while this doesn't change the charge, if one of the fighters actually kills or seriously hurts the other, it would certainly be considered, if the killer could prove that he WAS cheered on and "lost control" because of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, before this gets "off-topic", the main thing here (and the purpose of the examples) isn't to justify violent action or something; the issue is still FREE SPEECH and the fact, and the law generally makes a difference between a personal offense that is intended to disparage the offended and a GENERAL offense that is directed to an unspecific body.
For example, if a flight is late and a passenger is annoyed and calls the pilot "bus driver", this may be indeed considered an offense, while something like an unspecific "blacks are dumb" is not.

That makes a lot of practical sense, when you consider SINGLE INDIVIDUALS, but it doesn't make sense at all, when considering organizations, because organizations don't "say something as an offhand remark". Organizations INTEND something, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

EDIT: Seeing the dits and comments, yes, in Germany it's different, and in Germany you are not allowed to praise Hitler either or say that the holocaust is a lie.
As opposed to that you can have legally sex with 14 - while fire arms are allowed only with a special permit...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 08, 2012 03:41 PM
Edited by Corribus at 15:48, 08 Feb 2012.

Quote:
as far as I know, this is a crime

Well it's not, not in the US at least.  And in any case:

Quote:
if the killer could prove that he WAS cheered on and "lost control" because of it.

Sounds like an excuse to me.  One might as well say, "Well I'm sorry your honor, it was the alcohol the bartender gave me that caused me to lose control and kill the man.  He's partially to blame."  Or "I'm sorry your honor, but the man looked at me kind of strange, and that caused me to lose control and beat the crap out of him.  He's partially to blame for looking at me."

Any in any case, there's still the issue of proof and evidence.  Obviously, not everyone who gets insulted gets violent about it.  So how do you go about PROVING that inflammatory speech CAUSED me to assault someone in a specific case, when it obviously doesn't all the time?  The only solution then would be to make insulting illegal by itself, no matter what kind of reaction it provokes.  [You can't make an activity illegal based only on what kind of reaction is causes in someone else.  I.e., an activity is illegal ONLY in the case someone else reacts to it in a certain way - it's illegal because it's illegal.  For the same reason, you can't make steeling illegal only if the victim gets upset about it.]  In which case there is no free speech at all, if saying certain things is fundamentally against the law.

Quote:
EDIT: Seeing the dits and comments, yes, in Germany it's different, and in Germany you are not allowed to praise Hitler either or say that the holocaust is a lie.

Which I think it is a heinous trouncing of a person's right to believe what they want to believe and express themselves accordingly.

Just out of curiosity, is it illegal to praise any aspect of Hitler?  I mean, can you say that Hitler was a charismatic speaker?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted February 08, 2012 03:45 PM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 15:46, 08 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Sounds like an excuse to me.


We call those "defenses."

I had a long post detailing manslaughter and what would need to be proven, but Corribus's simple "no it isn't" statement pretty much covers it.
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 08, 2012 03:53 PM

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, is it illegal to praise any aspect of Hitler?  I mean, can you say that Hitler was a charismatic speaker?


I seem to remember last year some tourists drunkenly made goose-stepping and nazi salute motions in a joking manner and were arrested for it in Germany.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 08, 2012 04:20 PM

You are arrested for doing stuff with the svastika (forbidden symbol), and for the Hitler greeting, but you can praise single aspects, like, he was a charismatic speaker.

You, know, it's not forbidden to speak the truth or to attest human features, like, "he loved dogs and animals in general", but it is forbidden to make a cult of him or the NS-regime or lie about ascertained facts.

I'm still quite sure that you can be charged in the US for cheering others up doing something criminal like killing or raping someone. It may not be accepted as a mitigating circumstance for the actual perp, but the cheerers may face charges as well.

Which, what I repeat, is the actual point.

There is something like

a) a limit to the freedom of speech, in what is generally defined as the tolerance to suffer bull (an example would be other societies and the offense of mothers and sisters, for example), and lies, intended or not, which could be called PROVOKING

b) a limit to the freedom of speech, when it comes to INCITING things generally seen as bad, like violence or discrimination.

For example, an initiative to "treat women like ****, because they deserve nothing else, MIGHT be declared illegal (depending on the SOCIETY; of course it wouldn't be illegal in countries where women ARE treated like ****).

In any case, the way I see things, a single individual should have a lot more leeway with words, than an "organization", whether it's the publications of them or the words of a representant of said organization when speaking as such and for it. The reason is, that an organization is always MEANING what it says, and INTENDING something, which isn't true with individuals, at least not in that sense.

To give an example, hearing a not-too-sober guy mumbling something about "****ing black basterds", is something completely different than seeing a group of masked and white-robed people proclaiming something like the superiority of the white race over the black one.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 08, 2012 04:23 PM

Actually no, people who encourage beforehand and cheer on afterwards the murder of people like abortion doctors don't even get a slap on the wrist afterwards in the US. There are even some states debating legislation that you can kill doctors who perform abortions as defense of the baby.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted February 08, 2012 04:30 PM

Thougg off topic, somehow the doctors guilt in regard to abortions made me wonder how horribly it must be for a government executioner to later on be told that the executed criminal turned out to be innocent.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 08, 2012 05:44 PM

Quote:
Actually no, people who encourage beforehand and cheer on afterwards the murder of people like abortion doctors don't even get a slap on the wrist afterwards in the US. There are even some states debating legislation that you can kill doctors who perform abortions as defense of the baby.


That's the difference I mean. AN INDIVIDUAL will get slapped when (s)he is PRESENT when it happens AND encourages and cheers on, but an organizsation (or individual) won't when they do it in general - even though in the case of the organization it's actually an intended effect, while the individual may have an excuse (for cheering).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted February 09, 2012 01:01 AM

Quote:
Actually no, people who encourage beforehand and cheer on afterwards the murder of people like abortion doctors don't even get a slap on the wrist afterwards in the US. There are even some states debating legislation that you can kill doctors who perform abortions as defense of the baby.
The latter would sound ridiculous even in Iran. Do you have any actual materials on this?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 09, 2012 02:10 AM
Edited by Shyranis at 02:12, 09 Feb 2012.

Quote:
The latter would sound ridiculous even in Iran. Do you have any actual materials on this?


Straight to the government of South Dakota. Here.

Ask and recieve.




Back to the topic of free speech.

You should be able to say whatever you want, but if you're in a position of high power and influence it's my opinion that you should at least be shunned for actions and words that are crafted with the intention of bringing people serious harm.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 12, 2012 02:57 PM

Very disturbing, Bill C-11, the Canadian SOPA.

Hubby passed on the information to me. He also wrote to our MP as a constituent in concern about the bill.


____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 12, 2012 03:35 PM
Edited by Elodin at 15:36, 12 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Quote:
The latter would sound ridiculous even in Iran. Do you have any actual materials on this?


Straight to the government of South Dakota. Here.

Ask and recieve.




Contrary to what the Huffy-Puffy post may have written, the bill you mentioned has nothing to do with legalizing the killing of professional baby killers (abortion providers.) Liberal "news sites" have free speech but use free speech for deceptive purposes quite often.

Washington Post
Quote:

just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."

Jensen's defense of the bill, however, is unlikely to make abortion rights advocates any happier, since he seemed to dismiss as irrelevant the possibility that the measure could inflame anti-abortion fanatics to violence.

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."



Quote:

Very disturbing, Bill C-11, the Canadian SOPA.



Yeah, another example of "benevolent big brother" government wanting to know and mold your every thought, word, and action into what the State wants you to think, say, and do. Something that is really scary is that mind-reading tech is advancing rapidly and very soon will be a reality. Big Brother will certainly justify its use of such tech to go beyond forbidding saying certain things to even forbid thinking certain things. Reeducation camps...
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted February 13, 2012 12:03 AM
Edited by shyranis at 03:28, 13 Feb 2012.

Quote:

Quote:

Very disturbing, Bill C-11, the Canadian SOPA.



Yeah, another example of "benevolent big brother" government wanting to know and mold your every thought, word, and action into what the State wants you to think, say, and do. Something that is really scary is that mind-reading tech is advancing rapidly and very soon will be a reality. Big Brother will certainly justify its use of such tech to go beyond forbidding saying certain things to even forbid thinking certain things. Reeducation camps...


Actually it is big brother government made up of 2 parties that have been doing this same song and dance for decades (like all the times they saved Mickey Mouse) being bought and paid for by big media companies like Universal, Sony, Fox, Warner, Disney, etc that want to stamp out competition. Artists these days are making more money in many cases by not being signed up with an RIAA company (like indie labels that barely take anything and leave a lot of rights with the artist or in some cases by self publishing if they are well enough known). Anyway, it is one example of the horrific legislation that is passed regardless of who is in congress or the white house.

Here is Chris Dodd threatening politicians who do not bow down to their Hollywood masters.:

Quote:
“Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."



P.S.

My keyboard is messed up, kids played with the laptop now quotation is È instead and lots of non-letter symbols are either accented letters or not where they should be.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 13, 2012 08:27 AM

They have changed the language - you have to change that one back.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Drakon-Deus
Drakon-Deus


Bad-mannered
Legendary Hero
Everywhere and nowhere
posted February 26, 2012 08:52 AM

With no free speech a nation is no better than the Nazi and the Commies.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted February 26, 2012 01:19 PM

At the least the Nazies had a good economy, the US has lacked that since well.... quite a long time ago.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted June 04, 2013 10:20 AM
Edited by Elodin at 10:22, 04 Jun 2013.

Are you ready to be arrested in America for "anti-Muslim" comments? Under Obama that is about to become a reality.

Clicky

DOJ Warns Anti-Muslim Rhetoric Could Violate Law

Quote:

A U.S. attorney in Tennessee said that it’s possible that some inflammatory criticism of Muslims posted on social networking sites could violate federal civil rights laws.

“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” U.S. attorney Bill Killian told the Tullahoma News last week. “This is also to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”

Killian, along with an FBI agent, are expected to attend a meeting Tuesday in Manchester, Tenn. hosted by a local Muslim group to “educate people on the First Amendment and its application in society.”

His comments sparked concern among conservative groups that the federal government is about to crack down on anti-Muslim rhetoric – a claim the U.S. attorney denies.

“It has nothing to do with Sharia law,” Killian told Fox News. “It has to do with the United States Constitution and federal statutes. You have a right under the First Amendment to hate Muslims. You can hate all Muslims if you want to.”

But he added a caveat — “as long as it does not rise to the level of violating federal civil rights laws.”

....

“Could an Internet posting or letter in the mail or a phone call or a personal confrontation constitute a violation of those statutes,” he asked, citing 18 US Code 241 and 18 US Code 245. “Yes, it could.”

So what about the lawmaker who posted the photograph of the shotgun? Would that be a violation of federal law?

“I don’t know whether it does or not,” Killian told Fox News. “We’re treating that as if it were offensive conduct and trying to use this event as we have on many other occasions in the district — utilize events of this nature to have people understand the Muslim religion and the Arab and Muslim people.”

Miller said the government’s explanation is problematic.

“It doesn’t make anybody here locally feel any better,” he told Fox News. “It seems as thought they are creating a sacred group here that consistently gets attention from the federal government.”

“It’s interesting the Department of Justice and Homeland Security really seem to take up the banner for the Muslim population,” Miller said. “Why aren’t they having one for the Baptists? Why aren’t they having one for the Methodists? Why aren’t they having one for Jews?”

And Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, believes the Obama administration is using federal law to protect Muslims from criticism, Politico reports.

“In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S., the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights,” the group wrote online.



Clicky
Quote:

Don't offend Muslims with your posts on Facebook, you might commit a felony, says two officials serving under the Obama administration's Department of Justice. This news is reported today by a web site called MrConservative.com. This same story was also reported today on an alternative news web site called Before It's News. The story appears to have been originally reported in The Tullahoma News, a local newspaper in middle Tennessee. Additionally, the story was covered in Politico last night.

....

The announcement of the event stated it was an “educational effort” to “inform the public” that such anti-Muslim statements may offend Muslims and violate their “civil rights” and cause prosecution as felony acts.

The article on MrConservative.com finishes with this, “Killian’s statements are a complete perversion of the Constitution. Free speech means free speech. There are a few recognized limitations: Speech directed at children can be limited (such as TV commercials) and or speech that is an immediate incitement to violence. There is no limitation on speech that offends or insults someone. That type of limitation on speech exists only in socialist Europe or under sharia law. In perhaps, sad to say, in Obama’s America.”

The Times story reported, “Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.”

Its clear from the Times story and the reactions in other online publications that not all believe the civil rights of Muslims include a “right” to not be offended by comments or artwork featured on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. Critics point out that material offensive to Christians is posted and tolerated as free speech on a daily basis. But criminalizing of speech or artwork that offends Muslims, it should be remembered, is part of Shariah Law. If this kind of speech is criminalized in the United States, is it being done out of respecting or even enforcing Shariah Law here in our country?


____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 (7) ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1365 seconds