Freedom of Speech...should it be above everything?

Dean wrote: JLocke wrote: seventhsojourn wrote: Does a life ban seem excessive for sending one abusive email?   http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm The kid wasn't just openly, rudely disagreeing with someone. He wasn't even just being mean. He was threatening the President of the United States. Directly threatening violence on a specific individual is very different from making a statement through burning a book or speaking controversially.  Having said that, since I haven't read the actual letter, there is no way I can make the call. Is it possible the government is overreacting about this? Sure. But we don't know the specifics of what the letter said, so I really can't say if the exile was justified or not. I think arresting him and making him do some time would have probably sufficed, if even that.  Let's excercise a little perspective here at least.   The US government does not tell people they have been banned from the USA.   The FBI does not contact the local police force in a Bedfordshire village and tell them what to do.   A "drunk and high" 17 yo kid sends an abusive email to who exactly? Anyone here got Barrack's email address? No? No one has.

On a side note: Freedom of expression is necessary for freedom of religion. For example, if you're a Catholic then you believe in the holy trinity, which in itself is an insult to islam (polytheistic blasphemy). Freedom of religion wouldn't make much sense if religious people wouldn't be permitted to openly discuss their belief, since the content of these discussions could be considered offensive or insulting towards some other religions.

As a humorous example: "He said 'Jehova'!"

^ Sure. But that puts you in a position where you have to define rules for detecting malicious intent and determining some artifical boundary between inoffensive and offensive. Of course you could come up with examples that in your opinion are either clearly harmless or clearly offensive. But other people may not share your view - for example, Muslims are notorious for being offended when a non-believe even utters the name of their prophet and ommits the obligatory "praise be with him". 

Speech can not do harm. People reacting violently to one's speech does harm. The person at fault is the one who reacts violently. 

Edited by Paravion - September 15 2010 at 09:31

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Speech can not do harm. People reacting violently to one's speech does harm. The person at fault is the one who reacts violently.  Why are people willing to build up a causal change with speech when they would clearly not attempt to do so in most circumstances?

As far as opinions and beliefs are concerned I think this is certainly true.
However when we enter the realm of conspiracy legislation there have been precedents when the 'speaker' was punished for the violent acts of those reacting to the 'speech'
I'm thinking of Charles Manson here re his conviction for conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders carried out by members of the group at his instructions. The prosecution cited the so called 'joint-responsibility' rule to find Manson guilty of crimes the fellow conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy’s aims. Now I admit I have no idea what exactly the 'joint responsibility' ruling consists of so I can't make any argument for this being a flawed prosecution or otherwise.

Where's that legal eagle Ivan when ya need the critter?

^ That is your opinion - but what if someone else is more easily offended? As soon as you concede that some statements which you see no problem with might be offensive to "someone", you put yourself on a slippery slope.

ExittheLemming wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Speech can not do harm. People reacting violently to one's speech does harm. The person at fault is the one who reacts violently.  Why are people willing to build up a causal change with speech when they would clearly not attempt to do so in most circumstances? As far as opinions and beliefs are concerned I think this is certainly true. However when we enter the realm of conspiracy legislation there have been precedents when the 'speaker' was punished for the violent acts of those reacting to the 'speech' I'm thinking of Charles Manson here re his conviction for conspiracy to commit the Tate/LaBianca murders carried out by members of the group at his instructions. The prosecution cited the so called 'joint-responsibility' rule to find Manson guilty of crimes the fellow conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy’s aims. Now I admit I have no idea what exactly the 'joint responsibility' ruling consists of so I can't make any argument for this being a flawed prosecution or otherwise. Where's that legal eagle Ivan when ya need the critter?

Trouserpress wrote: Easy Livin wrote: It seems to me that those who demand freedom of speech most are those who go out of their way to be nasty at someone else's expense. This is an enormous and unhelpful generalisation. Are you seriously suggesting organisations like Amnesty International "go out of their way to be nasty at someone else's expense". I doubt it, but that's what your statement implies.

I don't believe AA advocate complete freedom of speech regardless of who it offends. They have shown themselves to be an honourable organisation who make their points forcefully but respectfully.

Edited by Easy Livin - September 15 2010 at 13:09

Padraic wrote: Easy Livin wrote: The rules of this site could be said to deny our members carte blanche to say whatever they like, and thus deny them complete freedom of speech.  As is the right of the forum and site ownership, as this is essentially private property, and if a user doesn't comport with their rules they may be rescinded access to the use of the forum.  I am a member of another (non-music) forum where topics such as these, indeed all political/religious/etc. threads are strictly forbidden. Different story altogether when one is discussing laws and the power of the state.