RE: Free speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Apocalypso -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:50:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
Is there any?


As you can understand, it's not something I've sought out online, but I'd assume so. I can't imagine there wouldn't be, considering how straightforward it would be to do with CGI.



TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:52:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

What about computer generated child porn?



Or fiction? Or drawings? I realize I'm out of step with the courts and the law, but in the grand philosophical vision of freedom of speech and expression, yes, it should be allowed, and those who indulge in it exposed to the free speech of the rest of us.

Let me state my position again, because there seems to be confusion. If you don't support the right to free speech you despise, then you don't support free speech.




MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:53:01 AM)

Your anger and name calling does not change the fact that YOU are the one who said that there were no buts to believing in free speech. I simply pointed out the error in your statement. There are indeed buts to free speech. Maybe you should try reading what you said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Then you agree that there is indeed a "but" to free speech. Our individual opinions on where that line is drawn may be different but we all know that there IS a line. And I never said that repercussions had to be of a legal nature. Social ones tend to work very well in the case of celebrities.


What a dumbass response! Response with more speech isn't a limit. Social repercussions are how free speech works.

And no, I am not agreeing, so please try reading what I said again. There is no "but."

You are on the bus, or you are off the bus.




TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 9:58:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Your anger and name calling does not change the fact that YOU are the one who said that there were no buts to believing in free speech. I simply pointed out the error in your statement. There are indeed buts to free speech. Maybe you should try reading what you said.




I said you had posted a dumbass response, and you are proving my point. I said it plainly, and I get bored repeating myself. There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.



Apocalypso -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 10:00:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.

But you've also said that direct incitement to violence crosses the line for you. That's still a limit on absolute free speech, even if it's a minor one.

Me telling people to beat up someone else is still speech, as long as I'm not the one acting on that.



TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 10:08:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.

But you've also said that direct incitement to violence crosses the line for you. That's still a limit on absolute free speech, even if it's a minor one.

Me telling people to beat up someone else is still speech, as long as I'm not the one acting on that.



I disagree. Incitement to violence leaves the realm of expressing a thought or opinion, and becomes an action. In the hypothetical you offer, that would be conspiracy to commit battery.



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 10:18:24 AM)

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face. It does not change the fact that you contradicted yourself and only now have you chosen to change your wording. The fact that you call my response dumbass means nothing. It does more to discredit you than me. If you are bored you are free to not participate in this discussion.

And I agree as long as speech remains in the realm of speech and does not violate anyone else's rights then there are no buts. Therefore my original statement stands. I have every right to speak against the hate speech that goes on against members of the LGBT community in the name of religion and to say that there should be repercussions for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Your anger and name calling does not change the fact that YOU are the one who said that there were no buts to believing in free speech. I simply pointed out the error in your statement. There are indeed buts to free speech. Maybe you should try reading what you said.




I said you had posted a dumbass response, and you are proving my point. I said it plainly, and I get bored repeating myself. There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.




TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 10:37:03 AM)

You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.



Politesub53 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:06:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I disagree. Incitement to violence leaves the realm of expressing a thought or opinion, and becomes an action. In the hypothetical you offer, that would be conspiracy to commit battery.


Hardly true, but keep trying to convince yourself, let alone the rest of us.

Making a hate speech, to no one in particular, would never stand up in court as a "conspiracy"



Politesub53 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:07:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.


Oh goody, someone else stating you need to be X, Y or Z to find hate speech obnoxious.



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:08:36 AM)

Perhaps you are on different bus than I am. (I am trying hard to not inject a short bus joke here.)
My belief is that every right or freedom we have has (and should have) some limitations attached to it to insure people behave responsibly. Whatever bus you are on is fine for you. THAT one is my bus.

In the case of DD, my "bus" is that Phil, GLADD and A&E all acted within their legal rights. So I am not sure why anyone is even maintaining this particular case violated anyone's rights. On the contrary. I think it affirmed everyone's rights. YMMV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.




EdBowie -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:09:00 AM)

Or you are burning the bus...
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Then you agree that there is indeed a "but" to free speech. Our individual opinions on where that line is drawn may be different but we all know that there IS a line. And I never said that repercussions had to be of a legal nature. Social ones tend to work very well in the case of celebrities.


What a dumbass response! Response with more speech isn't a limit. Social repercussions are how free speech works.

And no, I am not agreeing, so please try reading what I said again. There is no "but."

You are on the bus, or you are off the bus.




MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:16:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.


Oh goody, someone else stating you need to be X, Y or Z to find hate speech obnoxious.



"...but, but it ain't me. GOD said you should kill them there gays. And if you don't like me saying it you must be a freedom hating communist." [8|] LOL I love my country.



searching4mysir -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:16:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Freedom of speech includes written and artistic work. Including paintings and photography.

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.





Child porn isn't "speech" in the first place.





Child porn is not speech. It is photographic evidence of a crime (child sexual abuse).



searching4mysir -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:19:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Perhaps you are on different bus than I am. (I am trying hard to not inject a short bus joke here.)
My belief is that every right or freedom we have has (and should have) some limitations attached to it to insure people behave responsibly. Whatever bus you are on is fine for you. THAT one is my bus.

In the case of DD, my "bus" is that Phil, GLADD and A&E all acted within their legal rights. So I am not sure why anyone is even maintaining this particular case violated anyone's rights. On the contrary. I think it affirmed everyone's rights. YMMV.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.





I agree, which is why I never thought this was a first amendment issue in the first place.



EdBowie -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:24:03 AM)

Conspiracy charges require an act in furtherance. Incitement does not. Care to guess why? Because words are words, not actions, your ludicrous claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.

But you've also said that direct incitement to violence crosses the line for you. That's still a limit on absolute free speech, even if it's a minor one.

Me telling people to beat up someone else is still speech, as long as I'm not the one acting on that.



I disagree. Incitement to violence leaves the realm of expressing a thought or opinion, and becomes an action. In the hypothetical you offer, that would be conspiracy to commit battery.




MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:25:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Freedom of speech includes written and artistic work. Including paintings and photography.

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

So if there is no but you are saying that child pornography should be a protected form of free speech, correct? No buts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.





Child porn isn't "speech" in the first place.





Child porn is not speech. It is photographic evidence of a crime (child sexual abuse).


I see what you are saying and agree. It is not protected speech and it should not be. That was my point.



MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 11:53:23 AM)

That is such a difficult gray area. I don't like any of it. But unless someone can show how a story, drawing, painting or even an avatar would cause harm to a real child then I can see no reason to outlaw it. I am completely unfamiliar with David Hamilton. The soft core films would depend on what exactly is going on in the film. A lot of factors are involved but if it uses real children I am leaning more towards saying it should either not be allowed or at the very least have a whole lot of restrictions attached.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wanderingjew

What about stories that would include sexual activities with minors, or drawings or paintings? Or soft core films where there is no coercion of the actors? Or the work of David Hamilton?




DomKen -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 12:08:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
There are no buts, when speech remains in the realm of speech.

But you've also said that direct incitement to violence crosses the line for you. That's still a limit on absolute free speech, even if it's a minor one.

Me telling people to beat up someone else is still speech, as long as I'm not the one acting on that.



I disagree. Incitement to violence leaves the realm of expressing a thought or opinion, and becomes an action. In the hypothetical you offer, that would be conspiracy to commit battery.

So if I express my opinion that I'd like to see you beaten to a pulp you think that should be protected but stating "go beat you Heretic to a pulp" would be illegal? That seems to an awfully small nit to try and pick.



popeye1250 -> RE: Free speech? (12/21/2013 12:36:16 PM)

Good post Kana.
That Voltaire quote was *exactly* what I was thinking about when I started this thread.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875