This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
When Does Free Speech Cross the Line?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
And just from the opening of the KKK Bible; And from Lilith, because she was made as Adam's equal, all of the minorities were created, for they were the mud races, and not worthy of being alongside the pure(paraphrased a little); do you really think something like that needs to remain?
I see no huge difference between that and any one of a hundred passages of the Bible that promote what I would consider barbaric consequences for somewhat minor crimes.
I also feel that there could be value in such writing because, like it or not, it
is
part of the history of the United States. Do I find the idea abhorrent? Yes. But does that mean that, properly couched, it has nothing to teach us? No, far from it. It's an illustration of how much we've grown as a culture, and a cautionary tale of what happens when we allow the small-minded to fill us with a fear that overrides our logic and rationality.
/shrug Suppose, but I still find that version of the Bible to be one of the worse out there.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
However, I think that when communication is actually dangerous (not just upsetting, but is causing injury, death and helping promote criminal activity),
You're still left with the question of where to draw the line, because that argument could be used to ban the Qur'an.
I agree that there could be grey areas- I don't actually count the Quran as one of them, but I do agree that some books are borderline. But, i think that there should be a certain line we can agree should NOT be crossed. Legally, if you shout fire in a crowded room when there is no fire, and someone gets trampled to death as a direct result, you're criminally liable. Legally, if you are a doctor and give a seminar to parents instructing them to feed their children something poisonous, and they do and the kids die, you are criminally liable.
I'm not talking about works of fiction, or religious parable, from which someone could infer how to do something horrible, or where one interpretation might be that it's a reason to harm people. I'm talking about instructing people that doing something dangerous is actually healthy or good for them or their children. I'm not talking about giving legitimate instructions on how to do something, which someone might have an accident while following. I'm talking about someone who writes a manual on how to fix a car, and they leave out a step that involves disconnecting the battery, and as a result 100 people electrocute themselves because of the nature of the instructions given. I'm talking about someone who writes a book that says that children are emotionally healthier if they are molested, and that it is a valid way to form a bond with a child.
@ Adam- I agree that the KKK bible is trash, and the world would be a better place without it, but unless it actually is telling people to go murder others, it still falls into free speech. Morally, I kind of would like to see those people die horrible. Legally, I know that the need for the rule is worth putting up with scumbags like that from time to time.
Post by
gamerunknown
Did you know that the origin of the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" was from the case of Schenck v. United States, where it was used as an excuse to lock up pacifistic Jews during WW1?
Oh and what would your opinion be on, say, Watchtower or the Christian Science Monitor?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Not familiar with those. Do they give instructions about murder and child abuse? If so, you know my answer.
In terms of the clear an present danger clause- I agree it was not used appropriately in the Schenck vs. the US case- I think that advocating civil, non-violent disobedience does not equal a clear and present danger. However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that some forms of communication are clear and present danger.
That would be like saying this: Neighbor A thinks it would be a good idea to set up a neighborhood watch, saying that there have been some robberies in the area. Everyone agrees, and puts in the effort to set it up. After it was set up, it does happen to stop 2 robberies. Then, everyone finds out that the original reason Neighbor A wanted it was to catch his wife cheating. Was he wront for using it for selfish ends? Yes. Does that mean that a neighborhood watch, which actually does prevent crime and cave lives is a bad thing because someone who was involved used it inappropriately once?
Regardless of the validity of the Schenck case, yelling fire in a crowded theatre CAN get people killed.
Post by
gamerunknown
They both promote praying over surgery and there have been some notable cases of kids dying as a result.
Christian Science
Jehovah's Witnesses
Edit: Oh, I think this just about goes past what I consider justifiable in terms of l
ocking someone up
. Though she doesn't seem like a particularly pleasant lass either.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What's kind of- not funny, ironic maybe- is that last week, when the religious threads were going hot and heavy, I had made a comment in the Recycle Bin that I had an article that I wanted to make a thread about, but I wasn't going to because it was going to turn into another religious flame war. The article was about a couple who had let their baby die by praying rather than getting medical attention.
I really didn't want this to turn into a religious debate, but apparently there is no helping it these days. I was kind of hoping for a legal debate, maybe a little imput on corporal discipline in general, but I guess this isn't the audience for it.
What I will say is that when children die from exorcisms, or lack of medical care, or being starved or beaten, the parents sentences shouldn't be reduced because they felt they had a religious obligation to do what they did. If it was decided that these texts were advocating procedures that were leading to children's deaths, then regardless of whether they're religious or not, I'd say they present a public safety hazard. However, having not read the books, I know a lot of people will take a religious text and draw a conclusion that the majority of people don't, and the results can be tragic. I'd have to see the texts- do they just advocate faith healing as viable, or do they condemn anyone who seeks medical attention ever as going to hell?
Either way, I think if you want to make that decision for yourself, you can- but letting an infant or young child die is making the choice to for someone who can't speak for themselves. I believe your religious freedoms don't extend to doing harm to other people, and I consider killing or neglecting your children, or abusing them, to be doing harm to other people.
What I hope (maybe it's the wrong venue) is that this isn't going to devolve into yet another "Religion vs. Atheist" debate. It would be refreshing for us to evaluate the question as it was posed- and related instances like pedophile books, or medical homeopathic guides that people turn to and die as a result of using unproven treatments- and not make it about "Well, if you ban instructions on how to rape kids, and how to build bombs, you obviously are going to ban religious texts."
Post by
Patty
Godwin's Law has now been replaced by <Insert Name Here>'s Law.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving faith or religion approaches 1.
Post by
Jubilee
It would be refreshing for us to evaluate the question as it was posed- and related instances like pedophile books, or medical homeopathic guides that people turn to and die as a result of using unproven treatments- and not make it about "Well, if you ban instructions on how to rape kids, and how to build bombs, you obviously are going to ban religious texts."
But when the line you draw is subjective like it seems to be, then that's exactly what people are going to wonder about. When you take your morality and apply it as the standard on what people are allowed to say and not say, why can't anyone do that?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Jubilee- I'm not debating with you- if you are saying that drawing a line outlawing manuals on child abuse and rape are "subjective" then I can't even have this conversation. I will say that you are the most subtle and capable troll that I have ever seen on an internet forum- your ability to make your argument just "out there" enough to drive people crazy, without being obvious about it, is really an art. I will salute your skill, but I will not get engaged anymore.
@ Gamer- in response to your edit, I fail to see the problem. Someone posted literature about how they wanted to emulate their hero- Osama- and how they wanted to martyr themself in a terroristic act. When they investigated her belongings, they found manuals about terrorism and poisoning, as written by Al-Quaeda. There may have been reasonable doubt about her intent to use them, which is why one charge was dismissed, but she did own books that fall squarely into the "they're dangerous, and instructions on how to kill people" and expressed a desire to use them. And she was convicted accordingly. This sounds familiar...oh, I remember. Columbine. Only that time they found the information after it was too late.
Post by
Jubilee
Jubilee- I'm not debating with you- if you are saying that drawing a line outlawing manuals on child abuse and rape are "subjective" then I can't even have this conversation. I will say that you are the most subtle and capable troll that I have ever seen on an internet forum- your ability to make your argument just "out there" enough to drive people crazy, without being obvious about it, is really an art. I will salute you skill, but I will not get engaged anymore.
And I salute your passive-aggressive replies!
There are people who think those things are okay to do, you dismiss them and say their books should be banned. That's clearly the imposition of subjective morals: they believe one thing, you believe another, you have more people behind you so you work to get their beliefs eradicated. If you don't have any other basis for that than "I see it, and if you don't you're a troll", I'm not sure how that is any different than any other person with any other view from saying the exact same thing.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
chaosultimamage
Godwin's Law has now been replaced by <Insert Name Here>'s Law.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving faith or religion approaches 1.
Breaking the "Person's Law" styling, it could be like Orranis' Laws of Eldritch Possibility and Probability or whatever.
The Internet's Law of Religious Inevitability.
Post by
xaratherus
Glad quite a lot of you aren't lawmakers. My position is:
Freedom of speech ends at speech which incites violence or is overtly threatening, speech which violates legally binding contracts or orders (e.g. perjury, revealing state secrets, breaking non-disclosure agreements, breaking restraining orders et cetera) or committing conspiracy (as in conspiracy to commit
crime x
).
I am really not trying to pull this thread off onto yet another religious discussion - really, I'm not. However, by your statement here, I'm fairly certain that most of the Abrahamic holy texts would not be covered by free speech. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all promote violent punishment (up to and including execution) for certain moral "crimes" which in modern society are not punishable beyond civil ends, or not considered crimes at all.
I'm not disagreeing with your definition from a legal standpoint, but again, the definition is by no means universal, nor would I consider it as cut-and-dried as the language portrays it.
Godwin's Law has now been replaced by <Insert Name Here>'s Law.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving faith or religion approaches 1.
Breaking the "Person's Law" styling, it could be like Orranis' Laws of Eldritch Possibility and Probability or whatever.
The Internet's Law of Religious Inevitability.
I like the latter. Or we could call it the "Bad Penny Rule" (since it's always turning up).
Post by
pezz
I have no objection to the book Elhonna mentioned in the OP, for the following reason:
"I read it in a book" is not and never will be a legitimate excuse to torture your children.
No one needs to read a book to figure out how to torture a child, or lack the knowledge necessary to bring one up properly.
There's no way this book can really aid someone who tortures their child in lieu of knowing how to raise them. You can't make a legal case out of it, and you don't need anything more than a minute amount of imagination and a horrible lack of a conscience to torture children.
It's not like a book that tells you how to make a bomb, which is technical knowledge you can't just invent for yourself.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
breaking non-disclosure agreements
While this is one instance where saying something could lead to court proceedings, it's worth distinguishing from the other instances as tort rather than crime.
Edit: There isn't much distinction between written and spoken word in English law. Out of the things you mentioned, saying or writing certain things would contravene the law in each instance other than, perhaps, restraining orders. Unless letters are included in those. The only instance where they're treated differently are in slander and libel and that's in name only.
By the way, something can be libellous and true in the UK, so one only needs to file suit in order to challenge a supposedly libellous passage and the defendant has to prove that the statement isn't damaging to the reputation.
Also, ElhonnaDS, you brought up the Bible in the OP and after some google fu, the guy who wrote the book that supposedly caused the murders was a Christian minister. Do you think he shouldn't be allowed to preach? What if he just advocates following the law that Jesus said to follow to the jot and tittle (including making sure one goes to live outside of the community should one menstruate, not eating shellfish, not wearing clothes of mixed fibres).
Edit: Fix
Post by
MyTie
I think Free Speech is over the line when it's offensive or hurtful to someone else, and this book certainly qualifies for that.
Agreed.
I really disagree. Just because someone is offended, doesn't mean that something should be against the law. Also, as terrible as this book is, it doesn't actually hurt anyone, or facilitate the hurting of someone. The parents who let the little girl starve to death in the cold are to blame, not the book.
I think free speech is over the line if it facilitates something horrible, such as: the giving of troop locations to terrorists, atomic secrets, the safe combination to a bank, etc etc. Since these parents can do horrible things with or without the book, it isn't over the line. Only if the book were necessary to do something evil would the book be over the line.
Post by
MyTie
Godwin's Law has now been replaced by <Insert Name Here>'s Law.
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving faith or religion approaches 1.
I also find it amazing that when people talk about what they believe, their beliefs will be talked about. You sir, deserve a nobel prize for this remarkable discovery.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
breaking non-disclosure agreements
While this is one instance where saying something could lead to court proceedings, it's worth distinguishing from the other instances as tort rather than crime.
Edit: There isn't much distinction between written and spoken word in English law. Out of the things you mentioned, saying or writing certain things would contravene the law in each instance other than, perhaps, restraining orders. Unless letters are included in those. The only instance where they're treated differently are in slander and libel and that's in name only.
By the way, something can be libellous and true in the UK, so one only needs to file suit in order to challenge a supposedly libellous passage and the defendant has to prove that the statement isn't damaging to the reputation.
Also, ElhonnaDS, you brought up the Bible in the OP and after some google fu, the guy who wrote the book that supposedly caused the murders was a Christian minister. Do you think he shouldn't be allowed to preach? What if he just advocates following the law that Jesus said to follow to the jot and tittle (including making sure one goes to live outside of the community should they menstruate, not eating shellfish, not wearing clothes of mixed fibres).
There is a difference between instructing people what you think they should do- and what you think they should do to other people. If he was teaching women not to come into town when they were menstruating, and they listened, I have no complaints. If he was teaching men to tie up their wives and drag them out of town, so as not to offend God, then there is a problem. If he preached that people should not wear clothes of mixed fibers, it's all good. If he preaches that they should strip said clothes off of people in the street, or send their children to school naked if non-mixed fiber clothes aren't available, there is an issue.
If you want to instruct people how to live their lives, and they listen, good for them. If you want to instruct people to assault people, abuse children, steal, rape, torture, opress and deny the rights of others, etc., then it becomes an issue. You have the right to think what you want and live how you want as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others. If you can convince someone else to live a certain way, believe a certain thing that you believe, etc. then that's fine. If, as a result, they are criminally negligent and let their children die, or feel that they have a mandate to stone people in the street, then they have to be punished accordingly. If you are specifically teaching them that they need to stone people on the street and let their children die, then you need to be held accountable also.
The other time when there's a probelm, is when you mislead someone to convince them to do something, and then they as a result die. If you instruct them that a combination of nyquil and seltzer cures cancer, and that it won't work unless they stop taking their doctor prescribed medications, and it hastens their death, or they die when the accepted treatments would probably have saved their life, that's also a situation where you're infringing on others rights because you're tricking them into harming themselves, which they wouldn't be doing if they understand the facts as they are.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.