A good summary of how illiberal Europe actually is ... in a context where the Muslim immigrants there push for Shariah
http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/
Victimless crimes shouldn't require any form of punishment...
Yet true, absolute freedom of speech remains a tricky subject.
Quite recently we've given imam El Alami Amaouch thirty days to leave the country. I think he's a cancer to society. But hatespeech is just another facet of freedom of speech. No matter how little we like it. I alslo fear exiling him will only make him more into a martyr. And yet I'll be glad to see the back of him.
It's stuff like him that sometimes has me question how far we can take freedom of speech. But if we ever admit to drawing a line, we'll never see the end of it.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 07, 2016, 07:19:13 AM
Victimless crimes shouldn't require any form of punishment...
Yet true, absolute freedom of speech remains a tricky subject.
Quite recently we've given imam El Alami Amaouch thirty days to leave the country. I think he's a cancer to society. But hatespeech is just another facet of freedom of speech. No matter how little we like it. I alslo fear exiling him will only make him more into a martyr. And yet I'll be glad to see the back of him.
It's stuff like him that sometimes has me question how far we can take freedom of speech. But if we ever admit to drawing a line, we'll never see the end of it.
Yes, how did exiling the Ayatollah work out for the Shah?
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on November 07, 2016, 07:19:13 AM
Victimless crimes shouldn't require any form of punishment...
Yet true, absolute freedom of speech remains a tricky subject.
Quite recently we've given imam El Alami Amaouch thirty days to leave the country. I think he's a cancer to society. But hatespeech is just another facet of freedom of speech. No matter how little we like it. I alslo fear exiling him will only make him more into a martyr. And yet I'll be glad to see the back of him.
It's stuff like him that sometimes has me question how far we can take freedom of speech. But if we ever admit to drawing a line, we'll never see the end of it.
It might possibly be a pendulum situation. Protected hate speech seems dicey to me. I just keep my fingers crossed that it won't incite violence. Unfortunately, I think it does. If we start drawing lines, there will be push back, I think, and some kind of equilibrium might occur. I don't know that, it's a speculative possibility. Laws are not necessarily sacrosanct. Neither is the constitution. Governments pass laws. They invent them, usually because of public pressure.
Quote from: SGOS on November 07, 2016, 05:11:36 PM
It might possibly be a pendulum situation. Protected hate speech seems dicey to me. I just keep my fingers crossed that it won't incite violence. Unfortunately, I think it does. If we start drawing lines, there will be push back, I think, and some kind of equilibrium might occur. I don't know that, it's a speculative possibility. Laws are not necessarily sacrosanct. Neither is the constitution. Governments pass laws. They invent them, usually because of public pressure.
Perhaps. I tend to be a bit more cinical on this matter, I guess. I just think the line will be pushed back and forth forevermore. Which in essence does not have to be a bad thing: One might say, as we grow and learn; we adjust.
But it does present other problems. At what point does blasphemy get concidered hatespeech, for example? Or if not concidered hatespeech, then taboo? The majority rule should not decide what should be allowed to be vocalized. I don't think 'the public' has that right over any minority.
Though I will not lie, hearing free speech be abused for such filth makes me sad and sick.
Y'all missing my point. Not about secular hate speech. It is about implicit establishment of one or more religions in the public square. Not as controversial in Europe (see Vatican City) ... but a definite no-no in the US. The day the establish some church etc ... I hope it gets opposed until it goes to Hell.