www.ditl.org

The big problem is the American citizen's dogmatic view regarding free speech. "Free speech is guarantee" they use as an argument to say the most ludicrous and offensive things possible.

I ain't saying free speech is a bad thing. I say it's a bad thing when it's considered with a pure dogmatic approach and can end up being distorded like the Prime Directive was distorded in Voyager/TNG.

Rights come with Responsibilities, which most Americans conveniently forget about.

A bit OT, and a technicality, but it's not even true that this is a "democracy," as it's a Federal Republic. That's another word which isn't technically used properly either.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Rights come with Responsibilities, which most Americans conveniently forget about.

Amen.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:A bit OT, and a technicality, but it's not even true that this is a "democracy," as it's a Federal Republic. That's another word which isn't technically used properly either.

Something most people seem to forget about.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Rights come with Responsibilities, which most Americans conveniently forget about.

Sad, but true. People want all the power/rights without paying the price. And it'll bite us in the ass someday, or now.

I think that if people have full free speech, then other people should have the right to beat the crap out of them for saying it.

Nickswitz wrote:I think that if people have full free speech, then other people should have the right to beat the crap out of them for saying it.

100% agreed.

Nickswitz wrote:I think that if people have full free speech, then other people should have the right to beat the crap out of them for saying it.

Rather I would like to have that whenever they sprout an opinion, however well-founded or ludicrous, they will provide decent reasons along with it and take the responsibility to answer in a decent manner to challenges and that they will take responsibility for what they express.
Once an idea is created and expressed, it will stick around in human conciousness, the initial creator of that thought should know that his ideas and views can inspire others to actions and ideas of their own or will reform the first idea into a new one.

Let them take responsibility for what they say.

shran wrote:Let them take responsibility for what they say.

That is an unfortunately novel and alien idea to too many people.

As has been said many different ways, "Your rights end where they impinge upon mine."

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The big problem is the American citizen's dogmatic view regarding free speech. "Free speech is guarantee" they use as an argument to say the most ludicrous and offensive things possible.

I ain't saying free speech is a bad thing. I say it's a bad thing when it's considered with a pure dogmatic approach and can end up being distorded like the Prime Directive was distorded in Voyager/TNG.

The problem is that once you make it ok to start censoring things just because some people don't like them being said you've set a precedent that you can do that, and your right to speech is now left at the whims of who ever is currently in power.

The problem is that freedom isn't pretty. It's rough and tumble and you're going to have to deal with people doing things you don't like.

Phelps and his ilk have the right to speak their minds, but no one has to listen to them.

Tyyr wrote:The problem is that once you make it ok to start censoring things just because some people don't like them being said you've set a precedent that you can do that, and your right to speech is now left at the whims of who ever is currently in power.

The problem is that freedom isn't pretty. It's rough and tumble and you're going to have to deal with people doing things you don't like.

Phelps and his ilk have the right to speak their minds, but no one has to listen to them.

Last time I checked, precedents have been set in Canada and we aren't close of being a censorship-heavy society. Precedents have happened in plenty of countries around the world that could be described as society just as free as the US. This is a very good example of the slippery slope fallacy: just because we, as society, decide to censor X, doesn't mean that we will end up in a censorship-heavy society.

If you end up with a centralised government that is already strong and autocratic, so much that it can afford to censor the media in the US at its own whims, I think you have reached a point where you may have more civil liberties problem than mere censorship.

Everything, put as a dogma that can't, by definition, be violated, is a negative thing for any society as it become subject of abuse.

Well bully for Canada and all the rest. I'm glad you have that much faith in your government. I don't, and neither did our founding fathers. And it's not an example of the slippery slope fallacy. I'm not claiming we'll end up as a draconian police state tomorrow but why set the precedent? Seriously, why? Additionally, censorship is the biggest civil liberties problem. The moment you can shut down communication and discourse on a subject you've won the battle, everything else is just clean up.

Abuse, how so? Phelps and his flock are a tiny minority in a country of 300+ million people. They are almost universally loathed. They aren't winning converts to their cause and even if they did, well it's a free country, you're allowed to think as you please even if its repugnant to the rest of us. Why should you restrict the rights of 300+ million because of 50 loud mouth idiots? Arizona is taking the right steps, preventing them from protesting right at the funeral and that's it. There's no need to start taking whacks at the first amendment over this.

Freedom isn't for pussies, buy a helmet.

Yes, there is a downside to the marvelous prodigy that is freedom of speech. Phelps and his ilk have the right to say whatever the hell they want; people who disagree likewise have the right to say so. As to his right to be a complete ass to someone who's trying to bury his child - well, thankfully there are lawmakers who have the sense to enact something like this funeral protection zone.

Mikey wrote: As to his right to be a complete ass to someone who's trying to bury his child - well, thankfully there are lawmakers who have the sense to enact something like this funeral protection zone.

They're lucky to get that. I'd be perfectly happy to enforce the "Preston with a flamethrower" zone around funerals.

Unfortunately, perhaps, Phelps' right to be an ass trumps your right to reduce him to a pile of charred bone and cinder.

Unfortunately. Though when he finally does piss off the wrong person and ends up reduced to a pile of charred bone and cinder, we will all be well within our rights to proclaim our glee at his well deserved fate. I guarantee you'll have people showing up to protest at his funeral on mass.