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
MyTie
I don't think it crosses the line, if it is free speech there should be no line.
I don't agree with this either. If someone gets arrested while trying to hire someone to kill their spouse, they shouldn't be able to hide behind "freedom of speech".
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So- if you tell someone that something poisonous is good for kids, in an official capacity (as a published author, a doctor, a nurse, etc.) and they kill their kid by feeding it to them, didn't you also assist/commit murder?
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't see that as freedom of speech, I would see that as someone assisting / committing murder
Issue is, speech can be divided into different categories like perjury and verbal assault (racist speech is a crime in the UK, but not the US afaik) and blasphemy (a crime in Iran, but not in the USA or UK - well, not an enforced crime in the UK, unless one counts the inclusion of insulting religion as hate speech).
Post by
xaratherus
I am not talking about books though, I count written word and speech separate in this case. I agree that if someone were to, say, go out and preach that homosexuals should be stoned to death as it appears in the Bible, then that speech would not be free and they could (and should) be punished for it, however, the fact that it appears freely in the Bible doesn't bother me any more than any other piece of fiction (with the exception that people believe the Bible isn't included in that category).
But current application of freedom of speech doesn't exclude that. See the recent case against Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Additionally, one can incite violence through writing almost as easily as through speaking; there is an additional component of empathy projection when speaking, but unless the text uses couching metaphors that are only made clear by the inflection of the speaker...
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.
This thread's original topic was, at best, only very minutely, tangentially connected to religion, to the point where the topic was
not
religion. But the thread has migrated to the topic of religion, despite really having nothing to do with the original topic - which was the point that Patty was making in his post. If you're going to cop attitude, you should at least try to make sure it's accurate; this is comes across as petty snarkiness.
So- if you tell someone that something poisonous is good for kids, in an official capacity (as a published author, a doctor, a nurse, etc.) and they kill their kid by feeding it to them, didn't you also assist/commit murder?
It wasn't considered that when the Surgeon General came forward and said that smoking caused cancer and could kill you. There used to be scads of advertisements for cigarettes and their amazing health benefits, but I don't ever remember reading that the advertising agencies involved, or that anyone from Big Tobacco, was ever prosecuted for several million cases of assisted homicide.
Post by
MyTie
This thread's original topic was, at best, only very minutely, tangentially connected to religion, to the point where the topic was
not
religion. But the thread has migrated to the topic of religion, despite really having nothing to do with the original topic - which was the point that Patty was making in his post. If you're going to cop attitude, you should at least try to make sure it's accurate; this is comes across as petty snarkiness.
The topic is freedom of speech. Someone brought up religion. This is "at best only very minutely, tangentially connected"? You need to read up on freedom of speech's history.
Post by
606231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
CoolWind
whats right or wrong is subjective,so where free speech crosses the line is subjective as well
there is not an answer to that question,not until there is an universal rights and wrongs that every human agrees on
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually, there seems to be a a lot of people in the country who believe that if a self help book, a diet plan, a nutritional guide, etc. is published, it must be true, or at the very least ineffective but safe. They don't know that what gets a book published is the publisher deciding whether or not it will sell, not an investigation into the research done. A lot of parents, if they pick up a book in a reputable bookstore, written by someone who is either listed as a doctor, or who is a celebrity, will at least try the things inside.
So lets say someone thinks "Tomatoes are good for you, I bet the leaves are even better. I'll tell people to feed their kids tomato leaves." and they make a tomato leaf cookbook. They do no research to find out that Tomato is in the nightshade family, and the leaves are poisonous. As a result of their book getting into bookstores, 200,000 people start making their kids tomato leaf and stem salads, teas, etc. A lot of kids will get sick, some will die. And it will be because the author presented themselves as an authority on something and told people that they could cook with tomato leaves when they in fact should not.
Honestly, how often do you see a new ingredient in a cookbook (especially one that is part of a plant we already eat) and say "hmm, better check and make sure that won't kill me".
Or, as another example, Oni- since you support free speech with zero limitations- lets say that you're walking down the street, and someone behind you runs over to a cop and tells them that you have a gun (which of course you do not). The cop draws his weapon, orders you to the ground, and in his attempt to cuff you his gun accidentally discharges and kills you. Does the person who was playing the joke- who wants free speech to cover for him lying about you- have zero culpability? Not that the cop has no culpability, but the other person said something that put you in harms way. Should there be no laws against that, since it's free speech?
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Actually, there seems to be a a lot of people in the country who believe that if a self help book, a diet plan, a nutritional guide, etc. is published, it must be true, or at the very least ineffective but safe. They don't know that what gets a book published is the publisher deciding whether or not it will sell, not an investigation into the research done. A lot of parents, if they pick up a book in a reputable bookstore, written by someone who is either listed as a doctor, or who is a celebrity, will at least try the things inside.
So lets say someone thinks "Tomatoes are good for you, I bet the leaves are even better. I'll tell people to feed their kids tomato leaves." and they make a tomato leaf cookbook. They do no research to find out that Tomato is in the nightshade family, and the leaves are poisonous. As a result of their book getting into bookstores, 200,000 people start making their kids tomato leaf and stem salads, teas, etc. A lot of kids will get sick, some will die. And it will be because the author presented themselves as an authority on something and told people that they could cook with tomato leaves when they in fact should not.This is a good example of a debatable point. I think if a publication company wants to stay in business for longer than 5 minutes, they will fact check their books. This isn't a perfect process, but it is fairly good. We don't have books telling us to but an ammonia/bleach mixture in baby bottles to calm upset stomachs.Honestly, how often do you see a new ingredient in a cookbook (especially one that is part of a plant we already eat) and say "hmm, better check and make sure that won't kill me".
Or, as another example, Oni- since you support free speech with zero limitations- lets say that you're walking down the street, and someone behind you runs over to a cop and tells them that you have a gun (which of course you do not). The cop draws his weapon, orders you to the ground, and in his attempt to cuff you his gun accidentally discharges and kills you. Does the person who was playing the joke- who wants free speech to cover for him lying about you- have zero culpability? Not that the cop has no culpability, but the other person said something that put you in harms way. Should there be no laws against that, since it's free speech?
This is a pretty bad example. I don't think the joker should get in trouble. There was no way they could have predicted a shooting happening there. If I were to tell someone to meet me somewhere, but plan on standing them up, and they get in a car wreck on the way there, that car wreck is in no way my fault.
Post by
gamerunknown
Deepak Chopra's books and homeopathy books still get published in the US; I have no trust in the publishing companies.
Post by
xaratherus
This thread's original topic was, at best, only very minutely, tangentially connected to religion, to the point where the topic was
not
religion. But the thread has migrated to the topic of religion, despite really having nothing to do with the original topic - which was the point that Patty was making in his post. If you're going to cop attitude, you should at least try to make sure it's accurate; this is comes across as petty snarkiness.
The topic is freedom of speech. Someone brought up religion. This is "at best only very minutely, tangentially connected"? You need to read up on freedom of speech's history.
I'm pretty aware of it, thanks. Regardless of their history, they are two separate topics. I'm not really interested in discussing this with you further; consider it closed because I'll have no further responses on the topic.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
No where does it say it's illegal or that you can/should be prohibited from reading say The Black Mass, The Anarchist Cookbook, Mein Kampf, To Train Up a Child, etc.Well since this thread is about the deaths that are tied into the last example there.....I do believe that books like that should be removed from circulation, as you can declare free speech all you want, but if a person is reading the book, then going out and doing what is says well....
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
To be fair, most of those who are going to read those books, more then likely are already set in a certain mind set and want them specifically to learn how to do what it says there.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not really interested in discussing this with you further; consider it closed because I'll have no further responses on the topic.Then why reply?
On-Topic: I think it is pretty amazing that the books banned because they are considered a danger to society are often embraced by later generations. This book might be required reading in a hundred years. I'm scared to think what society would look like if that were the case. Undoubtedly much more diverse, tolerant, or whatever other catch phrase you want to attach to it.
Post by
gamerunknown
I'm scared to think what society would look like if that were the case.
Oh,books that were banned are usually the best to read. Candide for a book that was banned in America, or Animal Farm elsewhere. Even getting an accurate depiction of the beliefs or professed beliefs of someone one despises comes in handy - I've read transcripts of Osama Bin Laden's speeches, but not "My Struggle".
Post by
Squishalot
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
).
However I'm slightly torn about whether it should include swearing at cops/judges. The latter certainly seems reasonable to ban in a courtroom but I'm definitely unsure about the police.
I'm generally in agreement with this, but I would also add any speech that explicitly breaks other laws of the land. This would then include criminal verbal abuse of others, including cops. Swearing in a courtroom is already covered by a legally binding contract (i.e. you implicitly / explicitly agree to abide by the rules of the court by being there).
Just my two cents.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.