Calgary paper runs cartoons

[darkbeaver]

RE: Calgary paper runs ca

It,s crazy,but some would use free speech to be critical of free speech.

 

[I think not]

Re: Freedom of Speech

:!: Warning! This post may contain coarse language. Reader discretion advised.

You appear to be evading the substance of my posts in lieu of a more "you're wrong because I disagree with you" approach. The argument that freedom of speech should be, in and of itself, entirely absolute and ultra vires any institution of Government is, in my opinion, too dangerous an idea to adopt.

Consider this situation:

An anti-gay group is advocating for the deportation of homosexuals from Canada; on every street corner, and in front of every public building, they protest the presence of homosexuality in Canada with signs that read "Deport the fags!", and similar flyers are distributed everywhere, and are strewn outside schools and other public buildings.

Is this freedom of speech acceptable?

Instead of what if scenarios, give me a negative example of free speech that has been doucmented.

 

[FiveParadox]

Hitler and his anti-Judaist expressions.

 

[I think not]

I said free speech, is there any particular reason why you want to distort free speech into meaning an act?

 

[FiveParadox]

I wasn't referring to his acts; I was referring to his speeches and literature, inciting hatred toward those of the Jewish faith.

 

[I think not]

I think you are jumping the gun, Hitler was a dictator, what he said was law, are you saying if someone was to hold lectures of hatred towards Jews it would inevitably lead to the gas chambers?

 

[FiveParadox]

I would urge you to stop twisting my words, I think not.

Hitler exercised his "absolute freedom of speech" to incite hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, notwithstanding whether or not he had the authority to legislate to their effect.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

I wasn't referring to his acts; I was referring to his speeches and literature, inciting hatred toward those of the Jewish faith.

Hitler wasn't a part of the regular populace. If someone had said he was full of crap......up against the wall.

Offense does not constitute harm, only in cases where free speech would lead to direct harm, should it be limited. If an angry mob was riled up to the point that they were on a violent rampage, then yes - stop it. If the government spreads lies and propaganda in order to accomplish that very same violent rampage, it's not free speech, especially when it can't be challenged.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

I would urge you to stop twisting my words, I think not.

Hitler exercised his "absolute freedom of speech" to incite hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, notwithstanding whether or not he had the authority to legislate to their effect.

You are taking extreme situations under a fascist dictatorship and appyling it to democracy and I'm twisting? Let's just agree we won't agree and leave at that.

I personally find it sad that young people are under the opinion that government should dictate what you can and cannot say.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

I would urge you to stop twisting my words, I think not.

Hitler exercised his "absolute freedom of speech" to incite hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, notwithstanding whether or not he had the authority to legislate to their effect.

Hitler didn't allow freedom of speech to the general populace that oppossed his views.

 

[FiveParadox]

Said1, my point in regards to your post up there, regarding a violent mob, would be that absolute free speech would continue to apply under the assertions that some posters are making — whereby everyone should be able to say whatever they want, all the time, notwithstanding whatever the consequences thereof may be.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

Said1, my point in regards to your post up there, regarding a violent mob, would be that absolute free speech would continue to apply under the assertions that some posters are making — whereby everyone should be able to say whatever they want, all the time, notwithstanding whatever the consequences thereof may be.

I understand your point. This has never been the case though, for the most part instigators have been arrested for inciting (SP) violence. Free speech and the freedom to rouse and angry mob are not the same thing and treated as such in most societies.

 

[FiveParadox]

It may not have been the case to date, but there is nothing wrong with pre-empting an inevitability.

 

[FiveParadox]

Sorry. I am starting to get kind of [insert adjective to describe anger, frustration, or an unhappy mixture of both] in regards to this debate, so I respectfully bow to my "opponents," and bid you a temporary adieu; I am going to step back from this particular topic for a while, and maybe a fresh look on it later will inspire a higher level of debate from myself.

:!: Edit Corrected a typo.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

It may not have been the case to date, but there is nothing wrong with pre-empting an inevitability.

Yes there is. For example, the great John Stuart Mill would argue that if it wasn't for bigotted red necks yelling "get lost queers" we wouldn't see the gay community speak out about their values, beliefs and ideas. Freedom of speech forces people to defend their value system. It's necessary and leads to progress and change. I'm not sure how you can't see that.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: Calgary paper runs ca

Freedom of speech has often resulted in misinformation, and that misinformation has often led to tragedy. The makers of thalidamide exercised thier freedom of speech.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs ca

Freedom of speech has often resulted in misinformation, and that misinformation has often led to tragedy. The makers of thalidamide exercised thier freedom of speech.

And limiting speech does the same thing. Did Germany have any limitations on speech at the time the drug was being used?

 

[Hank C]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs ca

five,

while i do agree our hate laws have a respectable intention, there is a great risk that such laws result in the suppression of "truth" in favour of the expression of "propaganda".

When we sterilize our speech, the people become ill-equiped to argue with the suppressed language making them more susceptable to coersion rather than less.

In some regards, the concept of "only responsible freedom of speech" is a process in the dumbing down of the populace.

For once I am on the same side of the argument as you!

For the record, I find Austria outlawing an expression that the Holocaust never happened, the US Department of Defense outlawing the broadcasting of coffins returning from the Iraq war on television and Canadas "hate laws", equally despicable. We seriously need to rethink which way we are heading if we allow government to tell us what we can and cannot think.

Canada is not known for its freedom of speech, over the last 20 or some years it has gotten worse. I guess that is what some what though........kinda sad.

 

[sanch]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

Putting words in my mouth is a discrediting practice against yourself, Sanch. Perhaps you should come up with arguments of your own, instead of trying to twist mine for your own purposes.

I did not say that Mr. Levant did not have the right to publish the cartoons; I said that he should not publish them on the grounds that it would serve no purpose other than to incite more controversy unnecessarily.

This is what you wrote.

I have no doubt in my mind at all that Mr. Levant is doing this exclusively for the purpose of "stirring the pot." He should be ashamed of himself; the only reason to publish the cartoons now is to offend people, and that is all that this person is doing.

Shame.

There is no ambiguity here at all and nothing was twisted. You claimed that Levant's intent was to stir the pot and agitate.

Your second time around you do not impose any intent on Levant that is true but this statement is not an adequate defense of what you said the first time around which was an attack on Levant. And I don't think that attack was particularily original.

It also seemed directed at Levant's ethnic background which would be the only reason to insert "shame." What entitles you to assume motivation on the part of Levant and then when someone questions your response using the same criteria it is bad form?

It may take you a few years to understand this Five but the rules and decorum you associate with high school debating do not apply in the real world. It's a "fuddle duddle" world at its best.

 

[FiveParadox]

HAH! You imply that my criticism of Mr. Levant is racially motivated?

Fine.

I'm done with this debate.

You people need to grow up, and start debating constructively, instead flinging insults at other members.