Total Freedom of Speech is Bad

I will correct it before Kali does it, plus it feels so good when you're not a native speaker. civilization*

Freedom of speech is important, and anyone should be able to express their views.

However, if they do so in a way that abuses or harasses other, then you should be punished for expressing your views in that way, not because of the views you expressed.

This is the view of the courts and Government of the UK, and I fully support them in this.

I do not see how anyone can say hurling racist abuse at someone is okay because of freedom of speech. People should have the freedom to be racist, but it is whether or not the way they express their beliefs harms others that is important.

Here's the fundamental flaw with both these arguments: Issues such as public decency and harassment are entirely detached from the subject of limiting free speech. Insinuate that public decency laws are a positive example of limiting free speech falls under the same logic as insinuating that screaming "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a positive example of limiting free speech. The reality is that, in both cases, free speech in not being limited, especially not in a "positive" (subjective nonsense) manor.

Further more, TheEmperorAugustus seems to be completely ignoring the subject of Kali's post. Kali's post was specifically targeted at the OP's disgusting and brutish notion of locking people he disagrees with up until they change their fundamental way of thinking.

Yes, I did disagree with that point in the OP. I don't think she should be locked up for her racist views, but she should be locked up for how she displayed those views.

I've read through this a couple of times, and for the life of me I cannot work out what your point is. It would be helpful if you could clarify this.

In short: Issues like public decency and harassment have nothing to do with free speech, and as such cannot be considered limitations of free speech.

Yes, I agree.

If I in anyway implied that I believed imprisonment was a suitable method of rehabilitation I appologise and make it clear it was not. However I beleive Kali's condemnation of statists and generaly humanity focused justice ideologists was quite clear and this was the point I was adressing.

I believe, however, you are nitpicking: so I ask this question for clarification. If restricting a persons ability to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre; and restricting a persons ability to spout lies intended to harm a persons character or reputation (defamation); and restricting a persons ability to publicly abuse someone verbally is not a restriction of their "freedom to speak free of restriction": what term would you use instead?

I can't really name one off the top of my head, but its fairly obvious "freedom to speak free of restriction" implies the freedom to express or hold ones own ideals without restriction. Not the freedom to cause physical harm, harass another citizen, or promote harmful libel.

Millions of lives would be saved from starvation, war, disease, etc. in a complete Leftist society. Billions of lives would be bettered or enhanced in some way, or more properly ALL life would be better off. If it takes a few locked up neo-cons to save a million people that's hardly a loss.

Then, can't we just tell Luxembourg to go completely leftist so that the entire world is saved?

Wow, you picked up on that? You must be some kind of Rhodes Scholar.

Being nice for no reason, especially to a degenerate red like Scipio, asks far to much from a self-respecting, intelligent individual like myself.

And I would greatly appreciate it if you did these things. I cannot learn from mistakes that I don't recognize. As well, it does both me and my opponents harm to debate without recognizing basic linguistic mistakes. Unlike most of you, who for some unfathomable reason cannot stand having your mistakes corrected, I fully support peer review of my speech.

That's actually just wrong. Unlike the hordes of malformed youths and hippies that swarm across the rest of the forums, I don't expect or desire massive, fundamental changes to society. Also unlike those filthy, cancerous masses, I do not advocate ridiculous solutions to imaginary problems. Operating within the status quo world order to maintain the status quo world order is not only entirely feasible, but also completely desirable. I don't claim to know how the world works, nor do I claim to be morally correct or justified. The reds claim both, but also advocate violence, disorder, and bigotry.

And I'll stop you right there, because I only addressed "this situation" within the first paragraph of my post:

"No decent human being would tolerate your sentiments regarding speech, and no rational one would find them relevant here."

Drunk and disorderly conduct, as well as harassment, are not speech issues. Having the freedom to express your beliefs does not mean having the freedom to walk up to someone and shout racial slurs in their face while intoxicated.

As Demondaze says, it's not an issue of speech. You are (or should be, I don't know how it works in the politically correct capital of the world) allowed to say whatever you want, just not wherever you want, whenever you want, or however you want (however meaning delivery, not content). In the States we refer to these as time, place, and manner restrictions. They don't infringe on your 1st Amendment rights to free expression because they don't care about content.

"Don't live for yourself, live for your offspring and your neighbor."

That discordant, vague, hellish yammer is the bilious slobbering of the not-men who walk in our skins and somehow find, in their deformed, membranous masses, the nerve to decide our fates. Its utterance is something only the most twisted, corrupted beings can tolerate. I envy the common man who either cannot, or does not understand the true meaning of your arcane blasphemy.

Too, you can find this sentiment off the reeking brutes, who think nothing and do nothing but destroy and violate anything that suits them.

Every advance in the development of humanity has come because it benefited its creator. Or rather, because it suited its creator's whims.

^Text-based sodomy.^

Why does everyone here feel that it's necessary, in an argument about free speech, to vocally denounce the racist statements that woman made?

How is it even slightly relevant to the point?
I suspect all of you of being closet racists after reading this thread, I truly do.


@Karakoran
13, blah blah, you know the drill.


EDIT:
Did I?
Your post appeared above mine when I refreshed.

Witchcraft.

I see we have a dissident. Take him to camp 16!

You already filled 16 with the newborn girls.
Not to intern them, you just needed to throw their raped corpses somewhere.

Be that the case, we will build camp 17 with their corpses.

Camp 17 is where you keep the brown people.

Isn't it hypocritical that the reds who want a society to be based on happiness and sunshine, cant handle insults in there country lest someone feelings get hurt? That sounds rather childish to me, when the government tells you what you can and cant say, that is authoritarian.

I make no effort to hide the fact that I am an authoritarian socialist - Yes, I do believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that if you can't use a bit of common sense when it comes to it, you probably shouldn't be speaking anyway. Feel free to say whatever you want, but if you say some that offends/threatens somebody in their presence, that is wrong.

Regarding the whole Kali issue, and me supposedly being offended constantly - I'll be honest now. I played it up a lot. I reported/responded to a lot of posts that really didn't offend me. I got too caught up in it all, and I made myself look bad because of it.

Basically, it was all a big, fucked up game.

Not really people can say anything they want, I believe in personal justice, not authoritarian regimes, let man solve his own problems.