Agree/Disagree?

[Phenom78]

Most atheists are not committed to the destruction of Christians, unlike the KKK who is. But there is a line of demarcation and most people know where to draw that line. Just as most people can identify what is pornography and what isn't, even if they can't put it in words, they know it when they see it. It's the same with freedom of speech and individual freedoms. People know what is over the line and what is not. This is over the line.

There is no such thing as a totally free society, if you did that would be called anarchy, not society, which implies some type of a social structure which you don't have in chaos and anarchy.

I agree with your premise of not a completely free society. There is merit in that statement.

But the problem is, as it was with porn, we each have a different notion of where that line is bra.

We have put up with a very liberal line with respect to free speech precsiely because it is such an unmitigated disaster when government begins licensing thought and speech. Thus I may hate what they say, but I'll fight for their right to say it.

I'm tired of this nanny state concept of the left. I dont need a new set of parents to not only now tell me what to do, but what I can think. And that is as someone from the right.

Anyone on the left who supports such measures is not only stupid, but suicidal. Time to get out of the latte house and see how the rest of the country actually feels about issues. because I promise you when you tell people they can start outlawing thought initially it will be things you like, because most on the reight are naturally inclined against this kind of censorship. But once they get used to the idea you guys are fucked.

 

[pdaddy]

I agree with your premise of not a completely free society. There is merit in that statement.

But the problem is, as it was with porn, we each have a different notion of where that line is bra.

We have put up with a very liberal line with respect to free speech precsiely because it is such an unmitigated disaster when government begins licensing thought and speech. Thus I may hate what they say, but I'll fight for their right to say it.

I'm tired of this nanny state concept of the left. I dont need a new set of parents to not only now tell me what to do, but what I can think. And that is as someone from the right.

Anyone on the left who supports such measures is not only stupid, but suicidal. Time to get out of the latte house and see how the rest of the country actually feels about issues. because I promise you when you tell people they can start outlawing thought initially it will be things you like, because most on the reight are naturally inclined against this kind of censorship. But once they get used to the idea you guys are fucked.

I agree that there is some grey area in the middle where some disagreement is, however, the vast majority of people will agree whether something is pornography or obscene when they see or read it. It will only be those on the far, far left that will decide that everything is permissible.

I doubt that you will find too many people that will agree that membership in the KKK is compatible with the police force. Of course it is ok if you are a democratic senator (Robert Byrd, D-WV), but not if you are on the police force.

Of course, as with porn, there will be some grey area but the KKK is too far out to be considered a grey area. If I was a cop and I was a pacifist, that would be a grey area (could I do the job with my views on violence?....maybe)

But society has rules and there will always be restraint. You have to admit that our society would be better off without pornography. Not that it will ever go away or am I advocating prohibition, but in the overall context, we would be better off without it.

I don't believe in the sliding slope theory that once you start something socity will allow it to slide out of control. Americans have shown time and time again that we don't let that happen. We have our limits.

 

[Phenom78]

I agree that there is some grey area in the middle where some disagreement is, however, the vast majority of people will agree whether something is pornography or obscene when they see or read it. It will only be those on the far, far left that will decide that everything is permissible.

I doubt that you will find too many people that will agree that membership in the KKK is compatible with the police force. Of course it is ok if you are a democratic senator (Robert Byrd, D-WV), but not if you are on the police force.

Of course, as with porn, there will be some grey area but the KKK is too far out to be considered a grey area. If I was a cop and I was a pacifist, that would be a grey area (could I do the job with my views on violence?....maybe)

But society has rules and there will always be restraint. You have to admit that our society would be better off without pornography. Not that it will ever go away or am I advocating prohibition, but in the overall context, we would be better off without it.

I don't believe in the sliding slope theory that once you start something socity will allow it to slide out of control. Americans have shown time and time again that we don't let that happen. We have our limits.

I'm not generally speaking a fan of slippery slope arguments either. But I'm also aware that much of the decison making authority on these matters has been coopted by the courts. Assuming a common sense legal solution through the judiciary is suicidal. Not because they are so bad, but because the law doesn't work that way. Its why among other things we are the only westernized nation without a sensical abortion policy, even in those areas where there is almost universal agreement.

There are other far more effective ways of dealing with bad police officers than monitoring their private thoughts and speech.