Originally posted by cashthetrashI don't disagree that the mass of the people would see through such things, and maybe even that most victims just laugh off racist abuse.
Well if you have laws prohibiting sex with children which every government should then any reasonable citizen would reject such behavior. So any such speech would be rejected by the mass of the people and seen as the abuse that it is. People are not as ignorant as you might think. And most people would walk away and just protect and teach their childre ...[text shortened]... hts. But instead give them more protections. Restricting them would only cause greater illness.
However, I think it words like 'most' and 'the mass of' which are the problem.
You seem to accept that allowing a racist to spout their views will lead to more racist abuse (while acknowledging that most people won't be fooled by it, and most victims will just laugh it off).
As far as I'm concerned, if a person's statements are intended to cause serious suffering for others, then they shouldn't have the right to make such statements.
Just because the majority are able to see through it, doesn't mean a minority won't act on it.
Originally posted by RedmikeSex with children is illegal as it should be, using "I read about it somewhere" as an excuse for the act is as unacceptable as murdering someone because you read a Jim Thompson book.
Well, in the cases I gave, it would hurt:
the children who might be abused because of the statements made in favour of having sex with children;
the people who might be subject to abuse because a racist says they are inferior and should be deported/harrassed/beaten;
the mentally ill person themselves, who says things in the throes of their illness w ...[text shortened]... ok for someone, say, to give out leaflets advocating adults having sex with pre-school children?
Racists are the losers when making racist statements, if the statements aren't true how can they cause offence?
Not sure about the mentally disturbed person are you saying we should actually put a physical gag on them?
Originally posted by StarrmanActually I see more we agree on than disagree. I will say this. I have seen animals that have more rights than humans. Try urinating in public like a horse does and see what you get. I have never seen a animal get a speeding ticket. Nor do they have to pay tax's. Never saw a lion convicted of murder. But maybe its because of lack of speech.Anyway I suppose it is hard to have one without the other. Free Speech or Human Dignity, Because without Free speech it appears to me you lose dignity.
Well, I again disagree that free speech is what seperates us from animals, the rights we have in society, it seems to me are more important in such a definition. Now free speech may be one such right, but I think that it falls within the boundaries of our human rights rather than as a precursor as you seem to be suggesting. We're getting a bit far from th ...[text shortened]... d together, though dignity is the more important as t would seem to allow free speech to exist.
Originally posted by WajomaI'm not arguing about the act of having sex with children.
Sex with children is illegal as it should be, using "I read about it somewhere" as an excuse for the act is as unacceptable as murdering someone because you read a Jim Thompson book.
Racists are the losers when making racist statements, if the statements aren't true how can they cause offence?
Not sure about the mentally disturbed person are you saying we should actually put a physical gag on them?
I'm arguing that people shouldn't have the right to say "sex with children is ok, here's how to do it without getting caught".
Similarly for racists. Just because most rational people know they spout nonsense, doesn't mean they should have the right to broadcast their ideas. Of course an untrue statement can cause offence.
I'm not sure what the answer in the case of mentally ill people is either.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI guess it's a case of which of them is both sufficient and necessary for human society.
Actually I see more we agree on than disagree. I will say this. I have seen animals that have more rights than humans. Try urinating in public like a horse does and see what you get. I have never seen a animal get a speeding ticket. Nor do they have to pay tax's. Never saw a lion convicted of murder. But maybe its because of lack of speech.Anyway I sup ...[text shortened]... r. Free Speech or Human Dignity, Because without Free speech it appears to me you lose dignity.
Originally posted by StarrmanHave you been Locke'd up again?
Perhaps you could elaborate? Which agents and patients of each are you using, and comes before on what basis?
Mebbe the context ain't clear...A group of Muslims obtained an urgent court interdict to prevent the publication of certain Danish cartoons in a South African rag whose circulation has hitherto been maintained by stories cut and pasted from ananova.com. Quoth the judge, "'Human dignity comes before freedom of speech", or words to that effect. I don't really care what the exact words were: the idea is that the media have the responsibility not to publish material that they know people are going to find insulting and degrading. If the cartoons had ridiculed
Of course the question is where to draw the line, or Mother Grundy will have a field day.
Originally posted by RedmikeIt's just amazing to me how people survive in different societies with different laws and customs. Yet, everyone within those systems seem to do alright. I guess it's just a matter of which one has the greatest advantages and disadvantages. Which one makes you the happiest. I know one thing that doesn't make me happy is child abuse and another is racism. We have laws against both. And talking about it won't change the law. And it won't change my mind.
I'm not arguing about the act of having sex with children.
I'm arguing that people shouldn't have the right to say "sex with children is ok, here's how to do it without getting caught".
Similarly for racists. Just because most rational people know they spout nonsense, doesn't mean they should have the right to broadcast their ideas. Of course an untrue ...[text shortened]... offence.
I'm not sure what the answer in the case of mentally ill people is either.
Originally posted by RedmikeI support investigating the merits of each case rather than applying an a priori final solution. Ultimately, it is the public's duty to go to court and the court's responsibility to make a ruling. Neo-Nazi death metal is a suitable vehicle for testing the limits of public tolerance.
But is it ok for nazi bands to sing songs glorifying the holocaust?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageArguably it's not art. Or music.
I support investigating the merits of each case rather than applying an a priori final solution. Ultimately, it is the public's duty to go to court and the court's responsibility to make a ruling. Neo-Nazi death metal is a suitable vehicle for testing the limits of public tolerance.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSigh... I'm transparent as usual. Yes, this time 'Qualities'...
Have you been Locke'd up again?
Mebbe the context ain't clear...A group of Muslims obtained an urgent court interdict to prevent the publication of certain Danish cartoons in a South African rag whose circulation has hitherto been maintained by stories cut and pasted from ananova.com. Quoth the judge, "'Human dignity comes before freedom of speech" ...[text shortened]...
Of course the question is where to draw the line, or Mother Grundy will have a field day.
Anyway, I see now what you mean. If we're sticking solely to the case of the cartoons and not dealing with the ensuing mayhem that has occurred, then I agree that human dignity should come before free speech. However, I'm not convinced in this case that human dignity is the thing which has been set opposed to free speech. Rather that free speech has been set against personal beliefs, those in this case of the muslims in question. Now the real question is, should the personal beliefs of the muslims exceed the right to free speech for others?
My own thoughts, for now, are they should not.