Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Free speech?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Free speech? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 9:50:47 AM   
Apocalypso


Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

If you're going to quote from the Book of Revelation,
Don't keep calling it the "Book of Revelations",
There's no "s", it's the Book of Revelation,
As revealed to Saint John the Divine.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 9:52:59 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Apocalypso)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 9:53:01 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 9:58:12 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 10:00:10 AM   
Apocalypso


Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/20/2009
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

If you're going to quote from the Book of Revelation,
Don't keep calling it the "Book of Revelations",
There's no "s", it's the Book of Revelation,
As revealed to Saint John the Divine.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 10:08:48 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Apocalypso)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 10:18:24 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 10:37:03 AM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		You ain't on the bus, MJay. Quit pretending you are.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:06:00 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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"

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:07:55 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:08:36 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:09:00 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:16:01 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline
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." LOL I love my country.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:16:23 AM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
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).

_____________________________

No longer searching -- found my one and only right here on CM


(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:19:36 AM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

No longer searching -- found my one and only right here on CM


(in reply to MsMJAY)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:24:03 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		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.



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:25:39 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to searching4mysir)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 11:53:23 AM   
MsMJAY


Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline 		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?


(in reply to wanderingjew)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 12:08:57 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: Free speech? - 12/21/2013 12:36:16 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Good post Kana.
That Voltaire quote was *exactly* what I was thinking about when I started this thread.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Kana)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Free speech? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109