- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 9,204
- Reaction score
- 3,228
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
lizzie said:Intent to incite people to violence would have to be proven based on the outcome, and would be a subjective judgement on the individual being accused, so that would make the entire process unjust. Regardless of intent by someone who says something hateful, it is the responsibility of those offended to control their impulses to take violent action. They could respond in the same manner as the original offense was offered, but resorting to violence, in response to a non-violent action, regardless of whether or not the intent was to inflame, is an unreasonable response by the offended.
The fact that I have the same opinion about free speech today as I did last week means I have been manipulated how, again?
I thought that was clear. The filmmaker has an agenda. He counts on responses such as yours to further it. And you oblige him.
He doesn't need responses to further his right to free speech.
His agenda is not to further freedom of speech.
His agenda is not to further freedom of speech.
It doesn't matter if he has an *agenda* or not. He can say what he wants, regardless of his motive.
It amazes me how so many leftists take on the anti-liberal position whenever it comes to world affairs.
Crap
Should America restrict its free speech to stop hate speech etc, yes. People have proven throughout World and American history that they are too stupid to be able to handle absolute free speech.
Will America restrict it, no. End of discussion really
There are parameters around Freedom of Speech. There are also parameters around criminal behavior when objecting to that speech. It is up to the authorities to enforce the law to maintain the peace. Americans should not be punished because various people cannot control themselves and wreak havoc on society.
People have proven throughout World and American history that they are too stupid to be able to handle absolute free speech.
But it's not for the benefit of terrorist foreigners, its for the benefit of our soldiers and diplomats, and US tourists traveling overseas.
The insulting hackery of this thread is the "appeasing muslims" strawman argument. Nobody on the left has any desire to appease muslims, only to safeguard American lives and American interests abroad.
its just not something I can ever get my head around, its a system that protects groups like the KKK and allows people to preach hate against a minority etc. I'm all for free speech but in moderation, I personally dont believe the human race can be trusted with complete free speech.
You just said something bad about a group of people. That sure looks like hate speech to me.
It is time for Higgins to go to jail, now.
That is what I thought when I read the title.
Of course not what kind of question is this?
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....Tell you what, I'll run my next poll idea through you first to see if it meets with your approval.
well no you can say bad things about people in other countries you just cant incite hate which is what of course this video did. Should the Muslims reacted differently to the video? Of course they should of. Should that video have been allowed to be made? No it shouldn't.
Im not going to push this issue far because I now how important complete free speech is in the US and your nvr going to agree with me, which is fair enough.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....
I understand that, but, that freedom of speech is one of the reasons the US and other like countries have been able to make advancements sociologically, in medicine and technology in how we as human beings. To abridge those freedoms would be to stunt the grow of a democratic society stands for. The people or groups that commit mayhem and murder because of words or ideals they do not like cannot dictate to a sovereign nation. such as the US. An effective protest can bring about change two examples in the US are the Vietnam protests and Civil Rights marches, those are example of freedom of Speech in action.
There are limitations to freedom of Speech, there is no such thing as complete free speech as far as I know.
Yeah, especially in light of the fact that they are now "democracies".
very true in regards to the civil rights marches but could you not also argue that it was your type of "freedom of speech" that allowed white people to ban people of colour from stores, public transport, schools etc in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?