LeazesMag 0 Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right? FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. that goes for quite a few people.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? With the right to freedom of speech,thought and expression comes the responsibility not to use it in an imflamatory manner.....thats in some UN accord thing which I cant remember the name of but its the framework of a lot of anti-hate laws in existance. In other words, think what you like, but wind others up by expressing those thoughts in an imflamatory manner and, rightly or wrongly, you're nicked. It's deliberately vague laywer speak and creates more problems than it solves if you ask me. How can you measure the extent of "imflamatoryness" for fucks sakes? so you have freedom of speech but you have the 'responsibility' not to use it? thats just daft. may as well not have the freedom in the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. one of which is limits based on showing respect for the flag of the country and those defending it. Those who can't do this can fuck off and if they won't go of their own free will should be banged up until they agree to to. I've made my comments on this and stand by them. I also don't care what you do or don't do in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. have you thought that through at all? "advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years." has it ever occured to you that some peoples political aim would be to do either of the things mentioned here? Tbh, i think you'd get locked up if you turned up on your soapbox and started shouting "all Muslims are terrorists" faster than you could say mad mick mcnick! all in the name of "freedom of speech (but lets not hurt anyones feelings eh)" Not saying its right btw. (the Genocide bit) Edited March 24, 2010 by AgentAxeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right? FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. one of which is limits based on showing respect for the flag of the country and those defending it. Those who can't do this can fuck off and if they won't go of their own free will should be banged up until they agree to to. I've made my comments on this and stand by them. I also don't care what you do or don't do in Canada. ...shhhhhhh now, be a good lad the grown-ups are talking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. one of which is limits based on showing respect for the flag of the country and those defending it. Those who can't do this can fuck off and if they won't go of their own free will should be banged up until they agree to to. I've made my comments on this and stand by them. I also don't care what you do or don't do in Canada. ...shhhhhhh now, be a good lad the grown-ups are talking aye, and you're a security expert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right? FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. no, i think i've read it correctly. my point is freedom of speech within acceptable limits is not freedom of speech at all. thats like saying "you're free to go anywhere in this cell" when you've been locked up. and who decides the limits? another million dollar question indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 24, 2010 Author Share Posted March 24, 2010 Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right? FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. no, i think i've read it correctly. my point is freedom of speech within acceptable limits is not freedom of speech at all. thats like saying "you're free to go anywhere in this cell" when you've been locked up. and who decides the limits ? another million dollar question indeed! precisely. Left wing loonies like tooner, think muslims and others should be allowed to impose their own ideas and limits of their own wherever they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 "Freedom of Speech"...Sorry must have missed that memo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 no it doesn't Yes, it does. say or do certain things nowadays and you get arrested. Look at the whole concept of 'hate crimes'. basically politically driven nonsense that keeps other political influences down. if your enemy cant say what he wants to say then how can he communicate his ideas? no it doesn't...... (source wiki) In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990). freedom of speech protects ones right to percieve the world and comment on it as he/she sees fit unless he/she steps across the line as set out by the government. I can't believe I am going to say this but LM was right when he said free speech has limits (unfortunately for LM the limits set out by the government do not correspond with LM's). I would defend anyones right to say "All muslims are terrorists -Ann Coulter", but not "All muslims are terrorists and should be killed, lets go and kill some muslims". There is a difference. have you thought that through at all? "advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years." has it ever occured to you that some peoples political aim would be to do either of the things mentioned here? Tbh, i think you'd get locked up if you turned up on your soapbox and started shouting "all Muslims are terrorists" faster than you could say mad mick mcnick! all in the name of "freedom of speech (but lets not hurt anyones feelings eh)" Not saying its right btw. (the Genocide bit) its the law so I'm guessing it was thought through by whoever wrote the law and let me get this right, you're are advocating political change by bloody/violent revolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) Do you think everyone should be allowed complete freedom of speech then? Or does it only apply to people on the extreme right? FYP no, imo freedom of speech should apply to everyone. if you dont like what people are saying then dont listen. naughty Alex, trying to imply I'm on the extreme right of the political spectrum so in the case of Rwanda, do you believe it was ok for the militias to speak over the radio and compell there sympathizers/supporters to cleanse the 'cockroaches' from the country? this is the type of thing the canadian and european hate laws are installed to stop, not someones political views Quite surprised to see him making such a staunch defence of the likes of Abu Hamza. Perhaps he hasn't thought this one through. I think you may have misread my post (or I wasn't clear in what my point was), freedom of speech with no limits would not have allowed the prosecution of the perpetraitors of the Rwandan genocide. There must be limits on what can be said when the words are used to compell someone/someones to engage in acts that are contrary to the rule of law in a civil society, the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views. no, i think i've read it correctly. my point is freedom of speech within acceptable limits is not freedom of speech at all. thats like saying "you're free to go anywhere in this cell" when you've been locked up. and who decides the limits? another million dollar question indeed! the bit in bold was directed at alex. the rest about the limits is pretty clear I think. I just don't understand why you are advocating the use of speech as it relates to violent revolution(ie contrarian political views), the important bit on the above paragraph is"the limits are there to encourage civil discussion of diametrically opposed views." Should we as a civil society not protect the ideals and the laws that make up the foundations of the open political climates in our countries? Edited March 24, 2010 by tooner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 I was referring to aa not you tooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Really think Rawanda is out of context with regard to freedom of speech isn't it?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Really think Rawanda is out of context with regard to freedom of speech isn't it?? not really, it's exactly the sort of thing the current hate speech legislation is in place to ward against. it was words over the radio that sparked the massacres, granted the underlying racial tension had existed for long before that it was words that got the ball rolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Really think Rawanda is out of context with regard to freedom of speech isn't it?? not really, it's exactly the sort of thing the current hate speech legislation is in place to ward against. it was words over the radio that sparked the massacres, granted the underlying racial tension had existed for long before that it was words that got the ball rolling. Sorry but how is that in context to Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Really think Rawanda is out of context with regard to freedom of speech isn't it?? not really, it's exactly the sort of thing the current hate speech legislation is in place to ward against. it was words over the radio that sparked the massacres, granted the underlying racial tension had existed for long before that it was words that got the ball rolling. Sorry but how is that in context to Europe? which is it parky? context for freedom of speech or context for europe? I realize that the political climate and stability for Rwanda is/was far from where it is in europe, the point I was trying to make was that freedom of speech with no safe guards leaves the doors open for tragedies like the Rwandan genocide, if you prefer we could look at the former Yugoslavia as they happened at the same time, not entirely the same thing because the atrocities were carried out by state sponsored death squads ,but again there the unchecked vilification of minority muslims escalated to the point where neighbour was pitted against neighbour. Not really a fair comparison though because the victims had no recourse to have their greivances heard, and the war ended with new political boundaries being drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3240 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3989 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I think the government got it wrong when it starting passing extra offences post 2001 to somehow empahsise religious hatred. I think within law there's always been a clear difference between "Christians/Hindus/Jews/Muslims are idiots for believeing nonsense" and "Christians/etc should be killed and I encourage it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Tucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Yup. necessary tho. think about it dimwit. freedom means just that, freedom. not freedom with limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Yup. necessary tho. think about it dimwit. freedom means just that, freedom. not freedom with limits I thought we were discussing what it meant it practical terms. I didn't realise we were doing OED definitions There's no such thing as absolute freedom for an individual since granting it to one person would immediately have consequences that would have the potential to remove it from someone else. Think about that one 'dimwit'. While you're at it, perhaps you can tell me whether you're advocating total freedom and, since I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake here, you can define that for me too. Edited March 25, 2010 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Freedom without boundaries is just a word. I am sure I read that somewhere. ?? do you not mean freedom with boundaries is just a word? freedom without boundaries is freedom. freedom with boundaries is oppression. So all laws are oppressive are they? Danny B rarely tucked himself in like this. Yup. necessary tho. think about it dimwit. freedom means just that, freedom. not freedom with limits I thought we were discussing what it meant it practical terms. I didn't realise we were doing OED definitions Freedom of speech? it doesnt exsist. you're only allowed to say what the man allows you to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now