Has Justin Trudeau Finally Eaten Too Many Tide Pods?
freemindfade, should it be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Should it be allowed to post ISIS-related bomb-making guides?
If yes, you are consistent and I congratulate you for that. If no, you do support limiting free speech.
Re. cartoons, my lying eyes will have me believe you posted the bacon and eggs/Cathy cartoon above. Perhaps I am laboring under a too limited definition of "cartoon"?
Hate speech shouldn't be tolerated but it doesn't mean it should be banned - that's usually the wrong approach. Things can be prevented in other, less direct ways - stop providing funding and tax exempt status to those who do it for instance. You know, the things that the liberals are all to keen and eager to do to christian conservatives but for some reason can't consider doing to Muslim's preaching for the annihilation of Jews.
But the worse thing imaginable? Pass a law that makes it illegal, ILLEGAL, for us to point out that the hate speech of Islam is hate speech and prevent people from criticizing the profoundly stupid and dangerous ideology.
Trudeau and the liberals: patsy and tools of Islam.
the bacon and eggs/Cathy cartoon
that's not a cartoon, that's a REAL picture of a REAL video. It's a visual aid to help understand how illogical you are arguing. Perhaps you should watch the video to see what NOT to do, instead of calling it a cartoon.
should it be allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater
please enlighten me, how would a ban on speech stop anyone from doing that? It wouldn't magically make the words disappear. Every time stupid people act out, you can't just make another ban. Your ban ends up limiting the rights of law-abiding people simply so you have a tool to punish people that are idiots.
Attempting to ban bomb-making information is like trying to catch sand through a sieve. The Internet has opened the floodgates of knowledge no one can close. Even if attempted self-censorship by Internet search engines and social media websites successfully kept the flood of information at bay, other websites would continue to publish and there would always be the print versions of these instructions.
You see how that works? Turns out terrorists are smarter than you, and won't adhere to your bans, criminals always find a workaround, so it makes no sense to push the rights of civil people into dystopia for the bad apples.
freemindfade: Sorry for calling your "visual aid" with two frames and captions a "cartoon" :-). As someone who is used to the written word I am not aware of such fine distinctions!So enlightened by the difference, perhaps you can learn that I am not "Cathy"? haha!
I guess we should all wish for the Watchtower to change from their silly Caleb and Sophia cartoons about homosexuality and the like and over to serious Caleb and Sophia "visual aids" :-D
In seriousness, just to be very clear: You believe in no free-speech limitations, so that you believe it should be legal to yell "fire" in a theater?
Again, I respect your consistency if this is indeed your oppinion!
A theater is a private sector, free speech does not apply there. Private entities and private spaces, however, are largely not required to protect your speech, and the first amendment does not protect what you say—only your right to speak. And the first amendment already has limits in this country:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
- Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
- To make or distribute obscene materials.
- Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
- To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
- Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
- Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Publishing a bomb making guide, or yelling in a theatre have nothing to do with what the first amendment is about.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When the government tries to regulate or punish any kind of communication, a number of questions must be answered to determine if the controls will survive a constitutional challenge. The most basic is whether the conduct to be controlled qualifies as “speech.”
This is where you are trying to twist this in a strawman way that any communication constitutes "speech". I personally don't feel trying to ban everything is the way to go, but the government doesn't see it that way, they have controls, but the above line is what you should familiarize yourself with
Freemindfade: The "fire in theater" is often cited as an example of the limits of free speech. This is indeed a limit on free speech as it defines a class of "banned speech"; i.e. speech which present a clear and obvious danger. You bring up the periphery issue that speech (yelling) is not allowed in a theater to begin with; this is true, but it is easy to imagine a similar situation in a public venue or a private venue which just happens not to have any such laws. Should it be allowed to (knowing the outcome) yell "fire" in such a setting?
By the way, please wait for me to re-define speech in some technical manner before bringing this issue up; also, I am not in favor of "banning everything". I am discussing your suggestion there should be no limitations to speech.
Let me bring up another example so we don't get hung up on the issue the speech happens in a theater:
Suppose someone use his free speech (in a public medium, for instance a public park) to incite domestic terrorism. He quickly has a large following which he every weekend try to convince terrorism is just and right, i.e. he provide reasons for terrorism and explain how it should be carried out.
After a while, the number of terror attacks go up, and it is determined (for instance through interviews) the terrorists are inspired by this person and cite his ideas as why they carried out the attacks.
The person begin to note this in his speeches, and says it is a good and just thing, and intensify his calls for more terrorism.
I belive this would (and should!) constitute "banned speech" because of the (a) obvious and direct danger (b) he is aware of the danger and nevertheless persists. I therefore think the speech should be banned; i.e. his free speech should be limited.
Do you agree?
Jacobi what has inciting acts of terrorism got to do with criticising Islam?