If you could kill...

[Bahumat]

If you could kill all the people (mostly on forums) who quote the "Freedom of Speech" act, but without actually realising you cant use it to insult/bash people, would you?

 

[Chronictank]

If you could kill all the people (mostly on forums) who quote the "Freedom of Speech" act, but without actually realising you cant use it to insult/bash people, would you?

you can use it to insult/bash people tho
like if i said bahumat is a homosexual priests's love child, i wouldn't get arrested
However there are other legistlations stopping people from saying what they want, freedom of speech is a myth

 

[Bahumat]

you can use it to insult/bash people tho

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.[1]

Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies in many places around the world, have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved.

Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:

Defamation (slander and libel)
Swearing at someone or "abusive" statements to them
Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
Obscenity
Lying in court (perjury)
Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy).
Speaking publicly without a permit
Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
Limits on the size of public demonstrations
Profanity on television
Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
Noise pollution
Speech that contains a copyright infringement
Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[2]
Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
Fighting words doctrineU.S. 1942) "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"
Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
Blasphemy is illegal in several Western and Muslim countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)
The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail.
In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia.
In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited "services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures". (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code)
Specific recent examples that may involve freedom of speech include:

Virginia Law - § 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another.
If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. (Code 1950, § 18.1-255; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

 

[Bahumat]

you can use it to insult/bash people tho
like if i said bahumat is a homosexual priests's love child, i wouldn't get arrested
However there are other legistlations stopping people from saying what they want, freedom of speech is a myth

Haha you knew I'd be anal enough to reply when only posting "you can use it to insult/bash people tho".

You will now be arrested by the cock police, they will pin you down and helicopter your face off!

 

[Chronictank]

which act are you refering to
they are all different depending on where you are at the time
for example the Universal Decleration of Human rights has stuff to protect your rights to certain liberties but restrictions are non-binding

If you are refering to the Europan Convention of Human Rights, again different standards

If you are refering to the United States First Ammendment, which you quoted the rules are again different

So really what you posted is meaningless

You also failed to read what you posted, the restrictions only apply if

the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner

In the UK they have added the additional rules for 'inciting religious hatred' and variosu other rules under the anti-terrorism laws

Furthermore adding to your lack of reading my full post

However there are other legistlations stopping people from saying what they want, freedom of speech is a myth

Dear oh dear Bahu

 

[Dukat]

Third options are the reason I look in poll-threads like this

 

[Mey]

Why didn't you just post the wikipedia article you have been reading, would be far easier to read.

 

[Bahumat]

which act are you refering to
they are all different depending on where you are at the time
for example the Universal Decleration of Human rights has stuff to protect your rights to certain liberties but restrictions are non-binding

If you are refering to the Europan Convention of Human Rights, again different standards

If you are refering to the United States First Ammendment, which you quoted the rules are again different

So really what you posted is meaningless

You also failed to read what you posted, the restrictions only apply if

In the UK they have added the additional rules for 'inciting religious hatred' and variosu other rules under the anti-terrorism laws

Furthermore adding to your lack of reading my full post


Dear oh dear Bahu

Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:

Defamation (slander and libel)
Swearing at someone or "abusive" statements to them

Does seem like this law has more loopholes than a pair of Ez's tights. But I think they should introduce a Forum Text law which prohibits people from saying every swear word under the sun, then trying to hide behind the Freedom of Speech law.

 

[Mey]

It is simple. A nice easy motto to live by: chant it as your mantra daily!

Freedom of speach is not freedom from responsibility.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You know me too well Bahu.

Now be a good boy, and write my answer too?

 

[Bahumat]

You know me too well Bahu.

Now be a good boy, and write my answer too?

ok here goes, but dont blame me if I pick the wrong one!

"ooh baby, keep rubbing that curry powder into my eyes, yeah I like the stinging sensation. Ok, now pour the vegetable oil into my mouth *gargle*"

uke:

 

[old.Tohtori]

ok here goes, but dont blame me if I pick the wrong one!

"ooh baby, keep rubbing that curry powder into my eyes, yeah I like the stinging sensation. Ok, now pour the vegetable oil into my mouth *gargle*"

uke:

....vegetable?

Bah, and i thought you knew me...

But, since you won't, here goes: "No i wouldn't kill anyone because blah blah blah, and furthermore blah blah, though -freedom- of speach isn't blah blah"

And so forth.

 

[Chronictank]

Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:

Defamation (slander and libel)
Swearing at someone or "abusive" statements to them

Think you are taking a very simplistic view of things, all of the above are subject to the circumstances in which they are invoked
It is not against the law to say Bhumat is a whore, however in the context of a newspaper printing bahumat is a whore it is regarded as libel

Does seem like this law has more loopholes than a pair of Ez's tights. But I think they should introduce a Forum Text law which prohibits people from saying every swear word under the sun, then trying to hide behind the Freedom of Speech law.

but what will the highly paid lawyers do then? think of the children!

 

[Rubric]

Now this thread has potential.

It could be the new Bugz pricing scandal thread.

 

[Bahumat]

Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:

Defamation (slander and libel)
Swearing at someone or "abusive" statements to them

Think you are taking a very simplistic view of things, all of the above are subject to the circumstances in which they are invoked
It is not against the law to say Bhumat is a whore, however in the context of a newspaper printing bahumat is a whore it is regarded as libel


but what will the highly paid lawyers do then? think of the children!

They could use identity theft to steal someone's life, then sue their ass woo!

Now this thread has potential.

It could be the new Bugz pricing scandal thread.

He was here 2 minutes ago eating snakes. Why? I have no idea.



This is what caused me to make the thread.

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/general-discussion18/225695-k-why.html

 

[kirennia]

Free speech is an illusion.....

 

[Levin]

Abuse of the freedom of speech such as the one Bahumat link shows should be kept in check by social reactions, not by legislation. I consider being banned from Freddyshouse a social reaction.

 

[Ezteq]

i tell you what/who really gets up the crack of my arse, its those ultra lefty liberals who are all like "people have the right to freedom of *insert cause* whenever they want, they can think, believe whatever they want!!

they get so passionate about it, but then if you happen to have a differing set of beliefs to them they turn in to total mad as a bag of squirrels nazis and condemn you for not thinking as they do....then and the hyppocrites like black people who hate racism but abuse (for example) asian people, or women that are anti sexism but are total man haters, religious people who want others to respect their beliefs then go and shit all over other peoples beliefs etc etc

so long as your not wanting to actually kill anyone (who doesnt deserve it...come on lets be honest here some people do actually deserve it) believe what the hell you want to...just dont try and make me believe it.

 

[Iceforge]

What a lousy poll, as you are not actually polling and you are going out from 1 viewpoint in 1 locations from 1 closeminded person (yourself, Bahu). Your options clearly show you already made up your mind about what the results should be and insult those who actually understand their rights as they are and don't stand for restrictions which are unlawfull to the born rights of every human on this planet. Some countries government takes those rights away from the people, but that does not mean they should be born with those rights.

Libel and slander only applies to printings and publications of public display when show as FACTS!
I.e. a newspaper is not allowed to say person X is Y, implying it to be a fact and misinforming people.
The newspaper can print, that it is the opinion of the writer of the article (or of the newspaper itself) that person X is Y, as it is then opinions which is free from any restrictions.

Insulting someone on forums are always allowed under Freedom of Speech, as it is never a case of displaying your viewpoints as facts when you partake in a DISCUSSION which all forums basicly are.

So actually, the one misinterpreting the right refered to as "Freedom of Speech" is You, Bahumat and according to your own wording you like looking like a R-tard

 

[Iceforge]

Oh, forgot to adress something. A owner of a forum can set surely set his own rules for usage of the service provided and can hence forbid certain acts and put down rules of behaviour while using the service being provided.
This is a volunteer act of giving up one of your rights in the exchange of being able to use a service.

Reason for above post is that you did not say "on forums", but only "mostly on forums" and anyone insulting you in real life or express other opinions in other ways in real life, will always be protected by freedom of speech, as they have not given up their right in exchange of a service (in most situations)

 

[Bahumat]

Iceforge I just dont think people should go round insulting people (Whether they display their viewpoint as fact or not) on forums. The odd joke is fine, but when you write things like this,

Apparently i can't be obscene, vulgar or rude, so i guess calling you a bunch of fat useless ***** is out the window yes? It's a shame people have to try and crush freedom of speech and restrict what people can do, in case someone offends someone else.

I see it as blatant abuse of the so called "Freedom of Speech".

 

[Bahumat]

What a lousy poll, as you are not actually polling and you are going out from 1 viewpoint in 1 locations from 1 closeminded person (yourself, Bahu).

You call me a closeminded person, but you dont even know me? You dont know if I have any religous beliefs, or if i'm a racist/facist/pacifist. You dont know my political views nor what my favourite football team is.
So why not drop the slander in future. I am not actually going to kill anybody, I merely hate it when someone makes a post like the one I included further up the thread.

 

[Rookiescot]

I demand that ALL polls from now on have a final option of "Don't give a rats arse".

 

[Iceforge]

You call me a closeminded person, but you dont even know me? You dont know if I have any religous beliefs, or if i'm a racist/facist/pacifist. You dont know my political views nor what my favourite football team is.
So why not drop the slander in future. I am not actually going to kill anybody, I merely hate it when someone makes a post like the one I included further up the thread.

I know you got absolutely no idea to make a poll that is objective and is not highly influenced by your opinion!
If you took closeminded as being fanatical religous, a racist, a facist og pacifist and found that offensive, I am sorry.


Definition of close-minded:

not ready to receive to new ideas

Source: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

By putting opponont views in bad light in advance and putting that attitude into the poll, you are displaying and intimidating people into taking your view or just drop it, which means you are not ready to receive new ideas.
Close-minded does not necessarily mean any of the things you listed.
I don't know you personally, correct, which means I can only judge you by your actions here, and those actions was closeminded.

You now refer to this debate as if it was only about forums. It might have been your intention, but you did say in your first post, and I quote:

If you could kill all the people (mostly on forums) who quote the "Freedom of Speech" act, but without actually realising you cant use it to insult/bash people, would you?

"(mostly on forums)" which means you wanted this debate to be about ALL people who use the Freedom of Speech act, without actually realising you can't use it to insult/bash people, not just on forums.
That is not the case, as I said previously, if you actually think Freedom of Speech does not allow a person to stand on the town square and shout out insulting things about other people and bashing their opinions/believes, you are wrong. Anyone is entitled to do so on public grounds.
A forum is a private area and is hence bound by completely other sets of rules than if you are in a private area.
Private areas can by their owners has a set of rules which you have to follow. By going to the private area (in this case, coming online to this forum), you automaticly agree to consent to waver your rights and obey the rules in function in the private area.

You did not adress the post in question which you are quoting, which the morron who did not understand going to this forum included consenting giving up aspects of his freedom of speech, and I strongly agree with you that people like that is just anoying and frustrating, but your first post and your poll is still adressing another issue.

If it was not your intention to adress the larger issue that you actually did, then you should express yourself in a more clear fashing, for instance you first post could have been:

If you could kill all the people on forums who quote the "Freedom of Speech" act, but without actually realising you cant use it to insult/bash people on forums, would you?

See? Then you was absolutely correct. As long as the TOS limits them from insulting/bashing people.

Or you could have done it like this:

If you could kill all the people who quote the "Freedom of Speech" act so they can insult/bash people instead of actually using the "Freedom of Speech" act to express construtive opinions rather than being anti-social, would you?

Then I would also agree, as I hate people who use the Freedom of Speech act to insult and bash people without any reason for their acts, who only quote it to be assholes. Being polite and civilized in debates and when speaking with other people is a nice thing to be doing. But they DO have the right to do so under the Freedom of Speech act.
The fact they have the right to be unpolite and uncivilized is actually the fact that makes it nice when people are polite and civilized, because they CHOOSE to do so, not because freedom of speech is in anyway limited so they are FORCED to do so, because it isn't, like you actually said in your first post.

Why I am bothering to write all this, is because I hate people who try to limit the right or misinterpret the rights given to all people more than I hate people who misuse their rights.
The human rights (including Freedom of Speech) are a keystone to the real glory of our civilization.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

I wouldn't kill them, i'd just make a president to have them sued. That way, people woul dbe forced to make constructive critisism, rather than uninformed bad mouthing for the sake of belittling someone.

For example, If i was to call Dukat a twat, i'd have to back it up with some pretty compelling reasons, or pay a fine. This wors vice versa too. Otherwise, we'd have to pay a fine.

Simple and effective.

 

[Bahumat]

Iceforge I agree that my original thread should have been something more like the examples you gave.

I am not closeminded, but admit to writing a close minded thread. You're a clever guy so I hope you dont base your opinion of me from 1 thread.

Was my poll biased? Yes it was. I'd be the first to admit that.
My poll was not technically a poll (no shit!). It was me getting on my soap box saying how angry I get when people make posts like the one I quoted.

I was lead to believe the Freedom of Speech act could not be used if you're spreading lies about someone, or if you're using it in an attacking manner. From what you wrote i'm probably wrong, but as it's such a strange law i'll never truly know.

Sorry for the brief reply, I dont have anywhere near the amount of free time I used to (and no, i'm not implying you sit at home spamming forums all day).

 

[Bahumat]

I wouldn't kill them, i'd just make a president to have them sued. That way, people woul dbe forced to make constructive critisism, rather than uninformed bad mouthing for the sake of belittling someone.

For example, If i was to call Dukat a twat, i'd have to back it up with some pretty compelling reasons, or pay a fine. This wors vice versa too. Otherwise, we'd have to pay a fine.

Simple and effective.

If you check Deed Poll it shows he changed his name in 1998 to Twat. He soon changed it back, but his bank account was empty and the cheque bounced....just dont tell him to his face...

 

[tris-]

i didnt think such a thing existed called "the freedom of speech act"

we have the human rights act though.

 

[Rubric]

You know if you go into a shop and something is priced up at 3.99 and you get to the till and they ring it up as 4.99 then you............


oops wrong thread.

 

[Chronictank]

i didnt think such a thing existed called "the freedom of speech act"

we have the human rights act though.

it doesn't as far as i am aware, but the topic appears in loads of different ones