NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
|
The only thing that should be banned in regards to speech, are those things directly soliciting direct acts of violence against another person or organization.
That's it.
IMO....
I wish someone would kill George Bush...(Fine, didn't plan or try to organize the action).
I hate whites...(Fine, hatred isn't against the law, or at least it shouldn't be, as we all, hate at one point or another, seems illogical to punish an universally expressed emotion).
Let's go out tonight and hang us some blacks(Illegal, as it's a direct call to physical violence).
Fran is a Bitch,and a fucking cunt licking, slut..(Fine).
Islam is for fags(Fine, it's an opinion, with no direct physical call to violence).
If any wetbacks walk in here let's kick the shit out of them(Not fine, direct call to violence).
White trash bitches, that fuck niggers deserve to be shot(this one may or may not be fine depending on context, As in some guy in his living room or porch reading the newspaper about something, and he says it, Fine. A guy with a gun confronting a bi-racial couple saying that, would be considered a direct threat of harm).
Fags, are the spawn of satan(Fine, it's an opinion, with out physical consequence).
Now, I don't agree with any of those statements, but I see no reason to make stating the ones I tagged "Fine", illegal in and of themselves. Unless the goal is to eliminate hatred. LOL, yeah, that's a quick path to hell. You can't eliminate a base human emotion, you can only at best punish those that act on those emotions in a physical way.
Most talk even hate filled talk is just that or else millions upon millions of americans would be killed yearly, by hate word spewing attackers.
Anyway, I'd rather run the risk of being called a foul word, than run the risk of being prosecuted for a temporary anger burst.
Oh, yes, people will point to examples that could have been stopped if such laws were in place, I could point to examples as well, that with a little more hatred could have alleviated a lot of suffering as well. It's a dual edged sword mind you, humans, as hard as we try to be psychic still have not gained the ability to distinguish between two persons speaking identical words, which will commit a "real" crime and which will not. Thus what's the fucking point of banning something that is indeterminant at best. "Innocent until proven guilty".
Hatred is an innate human quality, sorry it sucks but it is, and any attempt to remove the ability of expressing that hatred is just as severe and unacceptable a limitation as not being able to criticize the government.
Besides, society has plenty of power to deal with these things without restricting "freedom of speech", if anything we are social creatures, even those of us that are less social than the norm. People are self-correcting in there viewpoints given proper ridicule by their peer group, thus if speech is being promoted it probably means a fair portion of the public believes it, so silencing that group would only alienate them further.
Legislating speech doesn't work, outside the boundaries of direct calls to harm. You may imprison or fine some people, but it does nothing to degrade the mentality and feeling, and the only way to change a persons view is to you guessed it, talk to them honestly. Nothing else works.
Anyway, that is my view, ban direct calls to harm that's about it. Everything else is subjective and alienates the hate group further.
|
RE: What does "Free Speech" mean to you? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread