That's not ignoring that. However it's up to us ton use our free speech to combat it and voice reason. Not expect law legislation that jeopardizes all our voice in the future to continue to do so. That's my opinion on it. We all have it, or none of us have it. There's too much too much to lose to grant that power to the law. Without it being an absolute, all our voices face a constant threat and the right doesn't exist. It's our job to use our speech to hold others accountable to theirs. We pay prices and have obligations when we have rights.
It's worth noting though that people who say their right to free speech is restricted when they are shamed for spewing hate and BS are twisting the concept.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 10, 2016 9:17 AM MST
Also it's only technically a lie when misinformation is spread when the person saying it knows it to be false. When someone spreads misinformation they believe to be true, for whatever reason, they aren't really lying. They are just wrong and not factual.
Even if free speech causes the deaths of innocent people you stand sturdily behind it no matter what. Good to know. For future reference. Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday.
How do you decide if speech results in deaths? Legislate against actions. That's the crime.
Your idea is like saying the Turner Diaries and Mein Kampf shouldn't be able to be available since they might inspire someone. Yet being able to have these books are important to be allowed so they can be criticized and as proof of what they say instead of just taking peoples words about them. They need to be allowed so the thoughts expressed in them can be available for critique and deconstruction of them by academic and logical circles can happen. Silencing them by law doesn't stop the ideology or lies. it pushes them underground and protects them from being evaluated by rational thought. What you keep suggesting is just playing ostrich in the false belief that it will then not be there anymore. Sorry, but I believe and value our core American values. I really can't understand why you hate these concepts and ideals so much. Protecting the legal right of Free Speech does not mean accepting the views of bad people or promoting them.
For the record. The words of people like Thomas Jefferson, John Brown, and Frederick Douglas resulted in lives lost. Yet, the outcome and reasons was for the greater good. Sorry but your logic has a severe flaw and the your goal doesn't justify the means. Someday, somehow, your proposed methods will be used against people like you trying to get to better place. As the old saying goes, " the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 10, 2016 10:33 AM MST
Well, I'M answering because I DO know what it means.. That's cause I keep up.
Ok, here goes.. Alex Jones, a perpetrator of fake news, says Sandy Hook was FAKE, FAKE, FAKE. He said they weren't sobbing mothers and fathers.. He said they were ACTORS, and the ONLY reason for it was so that Obama could CONFISCATE everybody's guns..
So, of course, some right wing NUT job believed him, and made DEATH THREATS against one of the grieving mothers. Who knows if she would have carried it out???
See why I surround myself with smart friends like you excon? I'd go bonkers otherwise. Thank you for your reply. I know this reply is not directed at me but he** it's my question, right? :)
Sorry for answering again.. I was being facetious above.
There ARE limits to free speech.. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater, and that's exactly what I think Jones does.. He needs to be charged as an accessory in the very case we're talking about...
You can reply 50 zillion times to every question excon. I think A**hole Jones is a walking time bomb. Free speech according to him? Inflammatory bullsh** lies that will cost lives. He doesn't give a rat's a** and neither do his defenders. Why that is I will never understand. Thank you for your reply! :)
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't speech as it pertains to the concept of free speech. Speech has multiple meanings and contexts. The law against it isn't really a limit on the right. It's a law based on the contextual meaning of what the word means in the term. Speech not meaning Freedom to say any word anywhere. It's speech as in meaning the free expression of ideas and concepts. Yelling fire or bomb when there isn't one isn't expressing an idea or concept, it's using a word to cause panic. There is a night and day difference. It's not really a limit of free speech. It's defining what speech is and the case judgement says that it's expression of ideas and concepts, not just words.
'Yelling fire or bomb when there isn't one isn't expressing an idea or concept, it's using a word to cause panic. There is a night and day difference.'
Let me rewrite that for you and tell me what you think:
'Yelling 'fire' or 'bomb' or anything else (eg, 'paedophile') when there is no evidence isn't expressing an idea or concept, it's using a word to cause panic and/or anger. There is a night and day difference.'
Of course I would. The person making the threats is where this focus should be. Tabloids are nothing new. Now the internet lets us be exposed to all kinds of stuff and it is up to US to filter.
excon 