View Full Version : Free speech does not protect you from opposing religion
Lexical
10-15-2012, 11:05 AM
So I read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html) and it discussed how many government officials including Obama are saying that free speech " has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views." This nonsense is being spewed in light of recent events revolving around that stupid YouTube video that caused mass riots in several Muslim nations.
First, I am pretty sure we have enough intelligence to say that the riots were planned by Muslim extremists and terrorists as an anniversary for 9/11 who then used the year old film as a scapegoat and justification for killing a U.S ambassador. Second, why is it only focused on Religion? Why can any religious nut bash homosexuals or anyone else not of their religion, but if you bash their religion all of a sudden you are in the wrong? None of this shit makes sense. Heck, I might even be committing treason for posting such outrage at this ludicrous.
'U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”' Okay so then we definitely need to start tearing pages out of the bible right? Most of Leviticus definitely needs to go as well as many parts of the Koran that spout hatred and anger towards "infidels." But now we are faced with the catch 22 where then we are not being tolerant of their intolerance.
The entire point of freedom of speech is so we can address each other and speak our minds and differing stances on subject matters that might be . This inevitably will piss someone off. Cartoons world wide can not depict the prophet Muhammed in any way, shape or form because that is offensive. What is even worse is that we are being tolerant to the death threats that extremists respond with to said depiction of Muhammed. Which of these incite more fear and illustrate the most hatred? Seriously, fuck this PC bullshit.
Lexical
10-15-2012, 11:09 AM
What if I get a large group of zealot atheists together and we all decide that any talk/mention of G-d is a deemed insufferably outrageous/demeaning towards our beliefs and thus we will respond with force? Will that be protected? Fuck no! Only shows you how stupidly biased this bullshit is becoming.
Reiker000
10-15-2012, 11:14 AM
Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere. The guys that made the stupid anti Islam video aren't being sent to work camps.
Freedom of speech however doesn't mean what most people think it does. You can say stupid things (in the right venue - it doesn't protect you from preaching Satanism in church) but that doesn't mean you're free from the repercussions of your actions. Culpability is losing its meaning a lot faster than freedom of speech is.
Also, other nations have differing culture and values than America does, and the world is becoming more and more globally connected.
Lexical
10-15-2012, 11:38 AM
Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere.
Sadly it is mate. There has been many recent legislature as the article discusses that has been passed that limit the use of free speech.
Freedom of speech however doesn't mean what most people think it does. You can say stupid things (in the right venue - it doesn't protect you from preaching Satanism in church) but that doesn't mean you're free from the repercussions of your actions. Culpability is losing its meaning a lot faster than freedom of speech is.
You are right and wrong. I do understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean I can go into a church service and start banging pots and pans and spout satanic dogma since that disrupts the others from their freedom of speech. However, in an open forum like Youtube or on the internet in most cases, posting an anti-religious video is a perfect example of free speech and is nowhere the same instance as described above. Just because a group finds something offensive is not enough justification to censor the thing in question. The depiction of Muhammed is a perfect example. If I draw a picture and say this is Muhammed and post it on this forums, then I should be protected by freedom of speech. It does not disrupts theirs and is just silly in general.
Also, other nations have differing culture and values than America does, and the world is becoming more and more globally connected.
I also understand that there are differing cultures and values in the world, but with the world becoming more and more globally connected, the freedom of speech is something that needs to be protected and any acts that seek to circumvent the whole thing should be met with strong resistance. The internet is an open global forum and should be kept as such. When blatant censorship comes in the guise of tolerance, then you have a big problem. Though it may be childish, the best response to such a stance is "sorry you got butthurt." I am not saying that hateful speech should be protected everywhere, but if they congregate to themselves and are not plotting anything that might disrupt/harm others then it should be protected. If there is an open forum and they post on it, then that is also fine as the forum was meant to be open and with open forums you have the dredge of society come out. I might not agree with what they are saying, but I do believe they should be protected in such cases.
What I don't get is how we should "tolerate" other cultures (and by other cultures I mean extremists) who spout nothing but hate and threaten others with violence or respond with violence as that directly tries to censor others' free speech. That isn't being tolerant, that is being stupid.
Raavak
10-15-2012, 12:25 PM
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
Freedom of speech means protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't require any protection.
Orruar
10-15-2012, 12:51 PM
Freedom of speech means protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't require any protection.
Orruar
10-15-2012, 12:55 PM
The only way to have any kind of logical consistency when it comes to free speech is when it is coupled with property rights. The reason you can't go into a church and start screaming whatever you want is because the owner of the church doesn't permit it. If the owner of the church permits it, it is perfectly fine.
mgellan
10-15-2012, 01:49 PM
The only way to have any kind of logical consistency when it comes to free speech is when it is coupled with property rights. The reason you can't go into a church and start screaming whatever you want is because the owner of the church doesn't permit it. If the owner of the church permits it, it is perfectly fine.
I tend to agree, what you do on public property is free speech even if it's utterly reprehensible (eg Wesboro Baptists) but you can't use free speech as an excuse to invade my property.
The only modifier is if you're inciting hate in ANY venue that may lead to actions (eg inciting moslems to attack non-moslems due to perceived slights) then you're committing an incitement to violence, which is recognized in law at least in the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada) - if we had these laws in some other countries and enforced them we'd see a lot of this crap disappear.
Regards,
Mg
bylbob
10-15-2012, 02:44 PM
Go talk shit to a police officer... . Free speech is an utopy.
Frieza_Prexus
10-15-2012, 03:07 PM
I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.
Orruar
10-15-2012, 04:29 PM
I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.
Agreed. I just don't believe people can be held responsible for how their words affect another person. Some people are so easily offended that once you start holding people responsible for how their words affect others, there is no end. At it's core, South Park fights against this type of thinking with every single episode.
azeth
10-15-2012, 04:31 PM
Makes whimsical assumptions and theorize regarding the constitutionality of the first ammendment, then post on P99 R&F.
This is going places.
Frieza_Prexus
10-15-2012, 04:35 PM
Makes whimsical assumptions and theorize regarding the constitutionality of the first ammendment, then post on P99 R&F.
This is going places.
While this is not the likeliest of places, you are aware that P99 has quite a number of posters who are practicing attorneys and law students, yes? We might actually have a reasonable and interesting discussion on the subject.
This thread indeed is going places.
P.S. The First Amendment IS constitutional given that it is in the Constitution. I think you mean "theorize on the constitutionality of limiting the First Amendment."
Orruar
10-15-2012, 04:35 PM
What we really need is a "Draw a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed Day", where everyone posts a hand drawn cartoon of Mohammed in every place they can.
azeth
10-15-2012, 04:41 PM
you are aware that P99 has quite a number of posters who are practicing attorneys and law students, yes?
You are aware that 90% of these people are liars, yes?
Please post your degrees, or transcripts. Please.
azeth
10-15-2012, 04:43 PM
Also @ Xasten/Frieza, i've read many of your posts and you're clearly educated. So, I do believe you aren't a liar.
If you'd like to join my internet country club we're currently charging only 10 bit coins.
Frieza_Prexus
10-15-2012, 04:45 PM
Please post your degrees, or transcripts. Please.
Hah, like I would be so insecure as to throw that up here.
Lazortag
10-15-2012, 05:03 PM
Xasten seems too nice to be a lawyer.
Ravager
10-15-2012, 05:09 PM
The root of the problem is emotions. People get too emotional about stuff and act stupidly. Emotions are dumb and should be hated.
Raavak
10-15-2012, 05:11 PM
The Vulcan's gave up emotions because they are too dangerous :/
The Vulcan's gave up emotions because they are too dangerous :/
Did they now?
http://i.imgur.com/sA0l2.gif
Alawen
10-15-2012, 06:18 PM
The root of the problem is emotions. People get too emotional about stuff and act stupidly. Emotions are dumb and should be hated.
We wouldn't be sentient without emotions. Studies of people with damage to those parts of their brains are horrible. They're crippled and unable to make decisions.
Tarathiel
10-15-2012, 07:38 PM
fuck organized religion
i oppose free speech in most cases on p99 boards because the ppl here are offensively stupid
Orruar
10-15-2012, 08:39 PM
We wouldn't be sentient without emotions. Studies of people with damage to those parts of their brains are horrible. They're crippled and unable to make decisions.
That doesn't mean emotions are necessary for decision making, only that the two reside in the same area of the brain. Regardless, emotions are part of us and blaming them is like blaming the rain on the sky. The ability to control emotions is what makes us more than just animals. Well, some of us.
Orruar
10-15-2012, 08:40 PM
The root of the problem is emotions. People get too emotional about stuff and act stupidly. Emotions are dumb and should be hated.
Yes, we should wish for Equilibrium. Best shitty movie ever. What was up with the illogical gun switch?
Safon
10-15-2012, 10:42 PM
Hah, like I would be so insecure as to throw that up here.
I'm a judge irl, but I won't dignify requests for proof of my credentials to these trolls either. Stay strong brother
Triangle
10-15-2012, 11:07 PM
So I read this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html) and it discussed how many government officials including Obama are saying that free speech " has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views." This nonsense is being spewed in light of recent events revolving around that stupid YouTube video that caused mass riots in several Muslim nations.
First, I am pretty sure we have enough intelligence to say that the riots were planned by Muslim extremists and terrorists as an anniversary for 9/11 who then used the year old film as a scapegoat and justification for killing a U.S ambassador. Second, why is it only focused on Religion? Why can any religious nut bash homosexuals or anyone else not of their religion, but if you bash their religion all of a sudden you are in the wrong? None of this shit makes sense. Heck, I might even be committing treason for posting such outrage at this ludicrous.
'U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”' Okay so then we definitely need to start tearing pages out of the bible right? Most of Leviticus definitely needs to go as well as many parts of the Koran that spout hatred and anger towards "infidels." But now we are faced with the catch 22 where then we are not being tolerant of their intolerance.
The entire point of freedom of speech is so we can address each other and speak our minds and differing stances on subject matters that might be . This inevitably will piss someone off. Cartoons world wide can not depict the prophet Muhammed in any way, shape or form because that is offensive. What is even worse is that we are being tolerant to the death threats that extremists respond with to said depiction of Muhammed. Which of these incite more fear and illustrate the most hatred? Seriously, fuck this PC bullshit.
You are confusing a lot of what is actually law with what some people are arguing.
First forget about what the UN dude says because that is not applicable to the law of the US.
Secondly cartoons can depict muhammed if they are created in the US period. I don't know about other countries laws but that sentence you wrote about not being able to do it is incorrect. You might not hear this often because people don't want others to make such cartoons, but it is entirely legal in the US which is why the dude who created that film cannot be prosecuted for it, but instead he was arrested for not paying his taxes or parole violation or whatever he was arrested for.
These laws won't change because the constitution is not vague on this point, hell its the first amendment.
Finally I looked up that quote you attributed to Obama and he simply did not say that, it was someone else lol... Even if some UN thing is passed it will not trump the US Constitution.
Orruar
10-15-2012, 11:26 PM
First forget about what the UN dude says because that is not applicable to the law of the US.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the UN. Article 6 of the Constitution says all treaties made are also the supreme law of the land. It is this article that is perhaps the most destructive of our rights. It's right up there with the commerce and general welfare clauses.
Triangle
10-15-2012, 11:56 PM
Don't be so quick to dismiss the UN. Article 6 of the Constitution says all treaties made are also the supreme law of the land. It is this article that is perhaps the most destructive of our rights. It's right up there with the commerce and general welfare clauses.
Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.
Basically in order for our freedom of speech to be eroded, the Supreme Court would have to rule on case law to overwrite their precedent. However no statutory law / treaties can be made to erode it as any conflict with be held in favor of the Constitution.
Frieza_Prexus
10-16-2012, 12:03 AM
I'm a judge irl, but I won't dignify requests for proof of my credentials to these trolls either. Stay strong brother
I suppose it's a good thing I haven't made any claims concerning myself then. Though, if you want me to, I suppose I could try to dig up my sixth grade report card.
Orruar
10-16-2012, 12:53 AM
Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.
Basically in order for our freedom of speech to be eroded, the Supreme Court would have to rule on case law to overwrite their precedent. However no statutory law / treaties can be made to erode it as any conflict with be held in favor of the Constitution.
If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...
Raavak
10-16-2012, 10:40 AM
If only the Supreme Court was an infallible institution that always upheld the Constitution...
Tasslehofp99
10-16-2012, 09:36 PM
Freedom of Speech hasn't existed in this country for years. and......
I hate all religious people, they're all so nuts. IMO only solution to the world's problems is to ban religion of any form totally, cause gods fake.
Protection or sympathy from the UN or Obama or any other US government official for that matter towards the people who raided/killed a US ambassador is where I draw the line though. I'm going to start putting videos on youtube every week where I talk shit about every religion and wipe my ass with pages of their religious texts in every one until they try to infringe upon my constitutional rights so I can have my name in a supreme court case.
Tasslehofp99
10-16-2012, 09:39 PM
Photoshopped pics of mohammed the thief giving blowjobs and taking money shots to the face from jesus all day. sup
stonez138
10-16-2012, 09:51 PM
Freedom of Speech hasn't existed in this country for years.
People who make ignorant statements like this obviously have no concept of what life is like outside of America and don't realised how blessed they are to have been born here.
Ask the 14 year old girl was shot in the head for speaking her mind if we have free speech. I'd like to see you even joke about wiping your ass with the Quaran in the Afghanastan. I bet you'd be begging for your American freedoms.
Orruar
10-16-2012, 10:55 PM
People who make ignorant statements like this obviously have no concept of what life is like outside of America and don't realised how blessed they are to have been born here.
Ask the 14 year old girl was shot in the head for speaking her mind if we have free speech. I'd like to see you even joke about wiping your ass with the Quaran in the Afghanastan. I bet you'd be begging for your American freedoms.
This kind of relativistic argument reminds me of when the Federal Reserve claims our paper money isn't losing value because you can still trade it for as much of the other countries' paper money as you could before.
We should aspire for more than being one step better than Afghanistan.
stonez138
10-17-2012, 12:16 AM
America is far from perfect but to suggest we are one step better then Afghanistan is nearly as asinine as Tasslehofs post.
Visual
10-17-2012, 01:04 AM
i believe in the greek gods. specially the hot blonde one from the hercules tv series
Lexical
10-17-2012, 03:39 AM
I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.
Thank you for your rhetoric. I 100% agree.
You are confusing a lot of what is actually law with what some people are arguing.
First forget about what the UN dude says because that is not applicable to the law of the US.
The U.N. is our international theater and many of our stances/treaties there affect our laws here. It is a way the SOPA nuts are trying to squeeze their legislation into trade agreements between USA and Canada. Though I do agree that the U.N. does not have an overall say in our domestic policy, they can definitely affect it.
Secondly cartoons can depict muhammed if they are created in the US period. I don't know about other countries laws but that sentence you wrote about not being able to do it is incorrect. You might not hear this often because people don't want others to make such cartoons, but it is entirely legal in the US which is why the dude who created that film cannot be prosecuted for it, but instead he was arrested for not paying his taxes or parole violation or whatever he was arrested for.
Yes our cartoons can depict Muhammed legally, but if extremists can get any episode of a cartoon pulled from the air, then what is even the point of having the law?
Finally I looked up that quote you attributed to Obama and he simply did not say that, it was someone else lol... Even if some UN thing is passed it will not trump the US Constitution.
I never meant to quote Obama, but I can see the confusion. I was ranting so I wasn't at my best in terms of coherently writing down what I was thinking. The quote in question is actually from the article which is what I meant to quote. My apologies.
The Obama administration has actually pushed for many laws that would weaken free speech. For example, in the UN we have this http://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/03/23/combatting-intolerance/ And his speech he gave to the U.N. was far more apologetic than it needed to be as in at all. There was no reason to apologize for that lunatic, but I can at least find solace with that Obama has stated we will hunt the extremists responsible for the murder (and some say assassination) of the US ambassador and other Americans. I understand being tactful in international relations, but the first amendment is one of the most sacred amendments in the bill of rights and we should never budge when it comes to it.
Orruar
10-17-2012, 09:21 AM
America is far from perfect but to suggest we are one step better then Afghanistan is nearly as asinine as Tasslehofs post.
I didn't mean we were currently only one step better. But using your own relativistic argument, a step better is all we should really worry about. Relativism leads to a race to the bottom. Some prefer to compare themselves against a more absolute standard.
Raavak
10-17-2012, 09:30 AM
Generally it is true that treaties trump laws both state and federal, but a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution is invalid.
Part of the problem is that if you have an executive branch that ignores the Constitution and enforces only the laws it wants to, etc, does it really matter?
Tasslehofp99
10-18-2012, 05:23 AM
I wouldn't go to Afghanistan and if I was born there I'd kill myself before believing in some fake religion and making it the center of my entire life.
Tasslehofp99
10-18-2012, 05:27 AM
World would be a better place if anyone who has killed or would like to kill a person over religion was dead. World would be a better place without religion as a whole.
Free Speech is as good as dead in the United States as soon as people are held responsible for their words inciting other people's actions halfway across the world. I hope 1000 more slanderous videos are released about jesus, mohammed, and any other fake ass gods or prophets; except I hope that any retard who would kill someone over such a video is castrated publicly and made an example of.
Heavydrop
10-18-2012, 06:21 AM
World would be a better place if anyone who has killed or would like to kill a person over religion was dead. World would be a better place without religion as a whole.
Free Speech is as good as dead in the United States as soon as people are held responsible for their words inciting other people's actions halfway across the world. I hope 1000 more slanderous videos are released about jesus, mohammed, and any other fake ass gods or prophets; except I hope that any retard who would kill someone over such a video is castrated publicly and made an example of.
I disagree, doesn't mean I'm going to kill you for it.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.