Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

SPEECH DOES NOT INCITE HATE YOU WANT TO SUCK MY DICK DON'T YOU

So you are saying that someone at a KKK rally inciting everyone to kill or bash blacks and gays does not incite hate or impinge on black or gay people's participation in society?

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

and when you do that, you have liberal fascism, which is
worse than any of the others, as decisions are made by
deciding what "feels" best to leftist nutjobs...

economic decisions will, at least, be made with some
thought toward output optimization, which has a
tyranny limiting effect in that a happy middle class is more
productive than any class under a tyrannical system...

which the ultra=rich are aware of...

so labor under the yoke of the rich???

yes, as it is much better than some nutjob commie/libs...

Could you translate this into English please?

I would be better able to respond to your post if I could understand what point you were trying to make.

 

[jwill3:16]

I Agree

 

[bwood]

Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

your post:

It is a typically libertarian perspective to see freedom as only something that a government violates. While the power of governments needs to be limited, so too do does the power of those who have economic control. If not, all you have is tyrannical government replaced by a type of economic fascism.

my reply:
(and when you do that, you have liberal fascism, which is
worse than any of the others, as decisions are made by
deciding what "feels" best to leftist nutjobs...

economic decisions will, at least, be made with some
thought toward output optimization, which has a
tyranny limiting effect in that a happy middle class is more
productive than any class under a tyrannical system...

which the ultra=rich are aware of...

so labor under the yoke of the rich???

yes, as it is much better than some nutjob commie/libs...)


you speak of limiting the government and then jump to the control of the free market...

so following your logic, first govt tyranny, then economic tyranny which is replaced with "superior" liberal tyranny...

no thanks...

i prefer policy decisions being made rationally and not
in a manner that embraces whatever the feel good movement
at the time is...

examples???

the great society which has cost several trillion dollars and
has not decreased poverty but has increased it...

the environmental movement, gee the ozone layer does what it wants and all those billions spent switching from cfc's was wasted...

quotas, boy that worked great...

all of these are knee jerk liberal actions that
had the sum effect of making those in charge of
the decisions "feel" good about themselves...

and bankrupt the middle class...

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

[/B]
my reply: (and when you do that, you have liberal fascism, which is worse than any of the others, as decisions are made by
deciding what "feels" best to leftist nutjobs...[/B]

I am not sure what you mean by this "feels best" thing. It can be argued that control by government is preferable to control by business because multinational, bankers, etc are not elected.

economic decisions will, at least, be made with some
thought toward output optimization, which has a
tyranny limiting effect in that a happy middle class is more
productive than any class under a tyrannical system...[/B]

I am still not sure what you mean? What is output optimization? The middle class is being eroded. The middle class subsidises big business.

which the ultra=rich are aware of...

Aware of what?

so labor under the yoke of the rich???

Not necessarily under control of the rich, under control of those who own.

yes, as it is much better than some nutjob commie/libs...)

Firstly, you are a liberal.

Secondly, why are monied interests using their wealth to control the media, manipulate the public, etc. less tyrannical than a government doing the same thing?

you speak of limiting the government and then jump to the control of the free market...

??? Economic control is as effective at controlling society (probably more so) than political control.

so following your logic, first govt tyranny, then economic tyranny which is replaced with "superior" liberal tyranny...

no thanks...

It can be argued that control by government is preferable to control by business because multinational, bankers, etc are not elected.

i prefer policy decisions being made rationally and not
in a manner that embraces whatever the feel good movement
at the time is...

rational by what standards?

examples???

the great society which has cost several trillion dollars andhas not decreased poverty but has increased it...

I don't know much about this era is US history so I can't comment. I suspect you;re probably wrong though.

the environmental movement, gee the ozone layer does what it wants and all those billions spent switching from cfc's was wasted...

Because free market competition is incompatible with environmental sustainablity the response of those on the right is to deny that the environmental crisis exists or that it can be remedied.

quotas, boy that worked great...

I would need more specifics as to what you are refering to to comment

all of these are knee jerk liberal actions that
had the sum effect of making those in charge of
the decisions "feel" good about themselves...

and bankrupt the middle class...

This whole feel good thing sounds like a weak argument. My reading of history is that the social progress that society has made in the last two hundred years has been the product of the efforts of social reformers and other lefties, opposed (of course) by conservatives and other noxious right-wingers at every step.

Greater wealth in itself doesn't necessarily lead to a proportionate increase in standards of living. Look how poorly people in Hong Kong live despite their extremely high per capita income. It is only the work of evil leftie social reformers "hindering" the free operation of the free-market system there that has changed housing conditions there from atrocious up to poor, and provided free (ibut low quality) school education and basic healthcare.

The American middle class is being bankrupted by an inefficient free-market system. Look at the mess your healthcare system is in, your excessive military spending, your failure to provide state funded education, etc.

American social indicators are abysmall because of the ultra-conservative ideological nature of your society compared to Europe where evil socialists have provided a much better standard of living for their people. This is despite a much higher per capita income and post-war properity in contrast to the devastation Europeans had to contend with.

Your entire system is inefficient. It does not provide the same level of equal opportunity as other Western nations. Opportunity in your system is determined far more by wealth than any other western country (despite the exceptions that are bandied around by the right-wing to prove the opposite).

 

[bwood]

i would respond further but i feel you are being
deliberately obtuse...

a typical liberal ploy...

what is output optimization...

 

[HansNZ]

i would respond further but i feel you are being
deliberately obtuse...

a typical liberal ploy...

what is output optimization...

"output optimisation" is some wanky liberal euphemism for economic production?

The fact that you can't articulate your ideas clearly doesn't make me obtuse. I shouldn't have to guess at what I think you might be saying because of your lazy writing.

 

[p0ink]

Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

1. Do you believe people should be free to tell lies about others which damage their reputations, without penalty? Should I be allowed to spread rumours that you are a paedophile?

2. Do you think that people should be free to incite hate and violence against others so that they cannot participate equally in society?

3. Do you believe people have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded room?

1. there are penalties for that. you sue people for defamation of character.

2. yes, people should be allowed to say things that i may not agree with. who are you to determine what is 'inciteful' or what is considered 'hate speech'?

3. there are also penalties for that.

 

[HansNZ]

Re: Re: Re: Why don't people understand freedom of speech?

1. there are penalties for that. you sue people for defamation of character.

2. yes, people should be allowed to say things that i may not agree with. who are you to determine what is 'inciteful' or what is considered 'hate speech'?

3. there are also penalties for that.

yes, and ariolanine disagrees with these penaties.

Ariolanine: The only right you have in this country concerning words that come out of your mouth is that the government cannot put you in jail for stating an opinion. That is it.

btw, if someone is rallying others to bash faggots or niggers, it is not my "opinion" that this is inciteful or hate speech. It is a obvious to most sane people. But I understand the unlimited potential american conservatives have for arguing that blue is red and not being able to see how ridiculuous their arguments are.

I can see how this thread is going to develop. I will now have the 10,000 right-wing conservatives that dominate EF attacking me and expecting me to respond to every one of their quirky arguments.

 

[Rockafella Skank]

HansNZ, the Sumpreme Court of the US, a bi-partisan panel of jurists, has ruled repeatedly that the content of speech cannot be regulated by the government (except when broadcast over public airwaves). Hateful speech cannot be a crime because those who listen have the free will to ignore it. Even if one chooses to believe or agree with the hateful speech, the government cannot regulate a thought. It is only when the hateful speech becomes inciteful is there potentially a crime.

Your example of yelling "fire" in a crowded room is a crime. Yelling "kill darky" in an empty field is not. Yes, both could cause a breach of peace or violence. But, while these examples are simplified, the law is purposely vague to consider the time, place and manner of the speech in question. In other words, the first is likely to create panic. The second isn't likely to do anything at all.

BTW, Fast Twitch Fiber, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as a First Amendment protection from interference from state governments.