Print

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

[Bohandas]

But if the guy got arrested for harassment, then what does that have to do with free speech?

It means that it isn't real. Its a cheap, yet somehow still effective, buzzword used by western governments to dupe people into believing that because speech is provisionally less restricted than it is in some other countries their citizens have some grand freedom to speak freely that is really little more than smoke and mirrors.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

Do you agree then I should be able to post, in public, "<Bohandas' real name> is a child molester?" Including a picture of you, your address and your workplace?

[Strife26]

How valuable is complete, total, absolute free speech, anyway?

It isn't.

Bohandas, there's a helluva far cry from the accepted limitations on freedom of speech and smoke and mirrors.

You are allowed to speak you mind unless you are maliciously doing so to seriously harm someone, and if it's in a political context, then you can almost always do it anyway.

You may not shout fire in a crowded theatre, because then there does end up being smoke all over the place.

[Doomchild-]

That's what I MEANT when I said that it is the "last TRUE bastion of free speech". Its the last place where free speech doesn't always come with a mile long list of exceptions, provisos, and disclaimers.

so what you're saying is that the internet is the only place where free speech ever existed because it's the only place where people can compete in the "worlds biggest douchebag" contest without fear of legal consequences? that free speech basically just means you have the right to insult anyone at any time without cause, justification or even knowing who you're insulting?

you obviously need a better hobby...

[Heliman]

I... think I'll skip over the rest of the stuff happening in this thread and go back to the argument on UK law (ie: "Is it ok to prosecute people for things like this").  That at least seems relevant to the case at hand.

It's quite simple, if it was protected, people could protest funerals. I don't know how or why someone would want to do that, but I'd like them be able to.

This is circular reasoning.  You're saying that this should be protected free speech because you think this should be protected free speech.  I could equally say people should be allowed to murder with spoons because I think they should be allowed to murder with spoons.  It's like you're starting with "All speech (including clear harrassment) should be protected" as a premise and not backing it up in any way.

Actually insulting or defaming speech isn't protected at all in the UK through specific exceptions. Along with a variety of other things.

Yeah.  Especially if it involves malicious lies or harrassment (which the guy in this case managed to exhibit pretty well).

NONONONO I SPENT AN HOUR TYPING UP AN ARGUEMENT FUCK YOU RES NET GOD DAMNIT

You know what? No, I'm not doing this all over again. no argument is given by me.

[Flare]

But if the guy got arrested for harassment, then what does that have to do with free speech?

It means that it isn't real. Its a cheap, yet somehow still effective, buzzword used by western governments to dupe people into believing that because speech is provisionally less restricted than it is in some other countries their citizens have some grand freedom to speak freely that is really little more than smoke and mirrors.

I think it's just due to people misunderstanding what rights entail. No right can be held without responsibilities to use this right responsibly. A right to assembly doesn't mean that it's permissible to get together organize and plot activities that harm individuals. The right to operate a car doesn't mean that a person is admonished from any responsibly to follow traffic laws. The right to free speech doesn't forgo a person's responsibility when said person uses it to purposefully incite violence among some people in his community, or deliver him from any any sort of liability when this person knowingly uses it to inflict harms upon others. The right to procreation for example, doesn't give necessarily mean that it's fine for a couple to abuse the system and pop out a baby every 9 months and leave it to the government to fund them.

The main thing that connects all of these together is that a right becomes restricted when it harms another person. The right to be able to flail about in one's free time ends where the fist meets the nose of another person for example. Specifically to the case, the family's right to be free of harm was violated when the individual in question trolled them.

[kaijyuu]

I must disagree with you Flare, especially on this point:

A right to assembly doesn't mean that it's permissible to get together organize and plot activities that harm individuals.

In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.


As for "using rights responsibly", there's some syntax weirdness with rights so I'll post this before I go any further:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yeah, the way people talk about "rights" is actually syntactically very weird.

Imagine you're alone on a desert island with no human contact. If I say that you have a right to a phone call, what does that mean? How is it any different from a case where you don't have a right to a phone call?

A "right" that you have is actually a restriction on how other people are allowed to act with respect to you. If you are arrested by the police and you have a right to a phone call, that means that the police are obligated to provide you with a phone and allow you to make a call on it. It doesn't actually say anything at all about you, even though you are the one who supposedly "has" this right.

So while a right that you have is never something that you are compelled to do or not do, it is always something that someone else is compelled to do or not do. Each of your rights is actually someone else's responsibility.

If you have a "right" I believe you have a right to enforce it no matter what you plan to do. Using your analogies, you actually don't have the right to drive a car wherever you want. You have a right to drive it on the road and not into other people.

When two rights seem to conflict, the repressing one wins out. For example: I have the right to protest. Another person has the right to property. Therefore, I do not have the right to burn down their house as a form of protest.


There is no "responsible" use of rights since if you're actually within your rights, you literally can do no wrong. Any debate should be where the line is drawn on what is and isn't a right you have.

[Gunner-Chan]

In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.

In the UK that's actually called Conspiracy to murder. It's a crime too. In the United states discussing and planning a crime is just charged as Conspiracy, assuming one of the members of said group attempts or carries it out.

[Frumple]

In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.

Opinion being noted, haven't people actually been convicted of a crime during the planning stages? I'm not sure if conspiracy to commit murder actually requires a murder attempt or not. Ninja'd: Apparently it doesn't, at least in some places.

Your line of thought there, kaijyuu, is also directly in contention with a lot of efforts to combat sexual predation. Not weighing in on the issue in any way, just noting it.

[Flare]

I must disagree with you Flare, especially on this point:

A right to assembly doesn't mean that it's permissible to get together organize and plot activities that harm individuals.

In my opinion, absolutely everyone has the right to plan to murder someone. No crime is committed until they actually try to murder someone.

That is very strange to me, moreover counter intuitive too. I think we should look into what you refer to as planning. The main thing here is the intent that is the key in which people are charged when plotting murder. For example, if you were an under cover police officer disguised as a hitman attending a meeting where a bunch of people are looking to pay professional assassins to knock off people they don't politically agree with, I'm fairly certain that they would be charged with attempted murder. Likewise, if a group of people are planning to plant a bomb in the middle of downtown, I don't think it's all that difficult to say that when the police have evidence of their intent, and they have evidence of their organizing to accomplish this goal there's very little reason to hold that they should be arrested only after the bomb goes off and kills lots of people.

I think what you're concerned with is the severity of the planning. A person shouldn't be charged if there's a lack of evidence to their intent and their steps in bringing about such an action. When a group of people do do it. It is abusing their rights to cause harm to other people, the right of assembly included.

As for "using rights responsibly", there's some syntax weirdness with rights so I'll post this before I go any further:

Yeah, the way people talk about "rights" is actually syntactically very weird.

Imagine you're alone on a desert island with no human contact. If I say that you have a right to a phone call, what does that mean? How is it any different from a case where you don't have a right to a phone call?

A "right" that you have is actually a restriction on how other people are allowed to act with respect to you. If you are arrested by the police and you have a right to a phone call, that means that the police are obligated to provide you with a phone and allow you to make a call on it. It doesn't actually say anything at all about you, even though you are the one who supposedly "has" this right.

So while a right that you have is never something that you are compelled to do or not do, it is always something that someone else is compelled to do or not do. Each of your rights is actually someone else's responsibility.

I don't understand the point you're bringing up. I'm fairly sure that when I say that all rights have some sort of responsibility imposed onto the person endowed with it that by necessity there are other people in this picture.

In any case, when I use the word rights in a sentence, I mean it in the legal sense as that is more or less the only relevant thing here. It is my view that rights exist solely on the fact that it is recognized when a sovereign entity does it (or at least most of them anyway).

If you have a "right" I believe you have a right to enforce it no matter what you plan to do. Using your analogies, you actually don't have the right to drive a car wherever you want. You have a right to drive it on the road and not into other people.

It is not up to me to enforce it, it is up to the sovereign entity to enforce it. To clarify in any case with your car analogy, I would say that people will always have a right to drive it, yet will not always be able to drive the car responsibly and therefore even when they do have the right they can't exercise their right to drive their car without breaking the law. The issue is two fold here: Rights, and the responsibilities they entail. You will always have the right (or at least ignoring extraneous circumstances), but you will never always be able to do so responsibly.

When two rights seem to conflict, the repressing one wins out. For example: I have the right to protest. Another person has the right to property. Therefore, I do not have the right to burn down their house as a form of protest.

I do believe you're not using the correct definition of protest here. No where does the right to protest, or the definition of protest for that matter, state that you have to burn or destroy anything while protesting even though it may be associated with it.

There is no "responsible" use of rights since if you're actually within your rights, you literally can do no wrong. Any debate should be where the line is drawn on what is and isn't a right you have.

I don't think you're making the connection here. The exercising of these rights within the context of the rights of the people around you is to exercise your right responsibly.

[kaijyuu]

Your line of thought there, kaijyuu, is also directly in contention with a lot of efforts to combat sexual predation. Not weighing in on the issue in any way, just noting it.

I'm in direct contention with a lot of that stuff already, most notably the bullshit they put convicted sex offenders through.


Yeah I'm probably being idealistic. Violating some rights can prevent further (and greater) violation of other rights; I already know that. I really have no argument against the pragmatic utilitarian other than "I disagree."

[Leafsnail]

Since when was plotting to murder someone a right...?

[Dsarker]

<insert herein stereotypical "if you aren't one of them why do you care about their rights" argument here>

[kaijyuu]

Since when was plotting to murder someone a right...?

Despite your history of doing it in this thread already, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're legitimately asking a question and not pulling a sentence out of context and strawmaning it to death.

The freedom in question is freedom of assembly. In order for this to not protect plotting to harm someone, "not being plotted against to be harmed" needs to be a right of the potential victim. A case definitely could be made for that, but to me that falls under thought crime, since no action was taken against the victim yet.

[Frumple]

Just for clarification, though, if they actually made physical plans, gathered the appropriate material, and had a set date and apparently the willingness to commit the act, that wouldn't be covered under the right to assembly as you're conceiving it? It's fine to plan out a murder, but not prepare for it?