Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Everything is fine. We are not at war in Afghanistan. There is no record of anyone named Edward Snowden. The Internet is a hive of terrorism that must be put down. You shall not speak your mind, for it will bring the downfall of our great country. 2+2=5.


How long?

[Nadaka]

Free speech has always had a limit

No it doesn't.

Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.
[/quote]

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

[Loud Whispers]

Free speech has always had a limit

No it doesn't.

Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.

They are impeachable rights which do not conflict with each other.

[penguinofhonor]

I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.

Free speech has always had a limit

No it doesn't.

Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?

[Loud Whispers]

I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.

4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?

That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.

[Vector]

I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.

4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

You are kidding, right?

[penguinofhonor]

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?

That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.

So I can violate your privacy with my speech.

[10ebbor10]

Free speech has always had a limit

No it doesn't.

Yes it did. Your rights end where the other's rights begin.

They are impeachable rights which do not conflict with each other.

I can perfectly verbally intimidate people to a point where they no longer dare speaking up. A good speaker can intimidate a mob and turn it into a violent riot. Spreading false information can kill someone's carreer, destroying their life and ruining whatever they were doing.

[Loud Whispers]

I can perfectly verbally intimidate people to a point where they no longer dare speaking up. A good speaker can intimidate a mob and turn it into a violent riot. Spreading false information can kill someone's carreer, destroying their life and ruining whatever they were doing.

And I can perfectly verbally support people to the point where they call you an insufferable prick, and they can also stop listening. If your job rests on rumours your job is already balancing on a pin and you need to use your rights to fix it, not throw them away. Any well natured person can speak out against a speaker, unless you take away their right to do so. Forcibly silencing those who you do not like - even if what they say is hurtful is reducing them to a spine without a head, a clockwork orange who is not living at all. Constricting free speech is the means to making the python your master.

[Scoops Novel]

I really think we've hit peak 1984 references with this NSA thing. So now a 9 on the 1984 reference scale is banning porn or 4chan, and a 10 is a massive international surveillance system. You'd think the gap between those two would be bigger.

4chan has been confirmed as a honeypot under heavy surveillance. It's had its servers shut down and everything saved by the FBI before.

You can't directly infringe on someones natural rights with speech.

Blackmail?

That's why privacy is a thing. When the NSA isn't breaking it.

Nope, we'll only hit peak 1984 references when we have advanced Nuerotoxins.

[kaijyuu]

Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.



When two or more rights seem to conflict, the restricting right wins out.

[Loud Whispers]

Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.

When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!

[Pnx]

Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.

When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!

By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?

Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone that was willing to give up a little liberty for a little safety deserved neither, but in reality most of us are willing to give up some of our liberty for safety from having to deal with things like... oh, let's say people repeatedly phoning you with rape/death threats, or mailing you mutilated animals, or things of that nature.

EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.

[Bauglir]

Harassment is another reason free speech has limits.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hurt someone however you like under the protection of free speech, but no, you don't have that right.

When applied to speech this is madness. How can you outlaw speech based on emotional reaction?!

By setting the line so far inside unacceptability that it can't reasonably be argued that the speech ought to be protected. Pnx provides some good examples of situations where the speech in question is clearly harmful* and unwanted by the target.

*Unless you want to argue that words can't hurt people, in which case we have some fundamental disagreements on the nature of the human mind that are unlikely to be resolved by an argument in this thread. However, given which thread this is, I think I can safely assert that you should probably accept that words can hurt people as a given, and argue from there.

EDIT: The degree to which the speech is malicious is also hugely important, and at a certain point persistence can make it obviously malicious regardless of the content.

[Loud Whispers]

By passing laws that disallow people from repeatedly contacting someone after they've made it clear they don't want contact?

That is called a restraining order, and curtails disallowing people from contacting the affected persons. It does not allow you to staple someone's mouth shut and break their fingers.

EDIT: Now if you want to live in a world where people are allowed to do such things, I suppose that's what you want, but you might have to accept that most of the rest of us really don't.

Yeah sure. I like how making saying bad [subjective judgements of course] things illegal stops people from being dicks.

We both live in the same world.