The limits of free speech

[wrc]

This whole thing about Computica makes me wonder where are the limits of free speech in some countries, actually do they exist and should they exist at all?
Laws differ from country to country but my question would also be how to determine where the line should be drawn when talking of sore subjects, without jeopardizing anyone's right to express his opinion?

In 17 European countries Holocaust denial is a bannable offense, the laws can be strict that in some countries (members of EU) denying communists' crimes is also a bannable offense, while in the US denying Holocaust isn't since its citizens are protected by constitution which grants them freedom of speech.
I certainly respect that but some limits must exist IMO.
Does prison sentence have more effect than letting someone to make a fool of himself in normal society, what will sooner make him change his mind if he actually ever change it?
This question can also be extend to some other things, for example in my country some kind of "which hunt" has lasted for 10 years, meaning all radical or nationalistic groups have been forbidden and denied from any appearing in public in any way, so I wonder should they be allowed in some future to express their opinion? I say **** them but then you turn on tv and see how some bold guy from Mississippi with his entire family is talking of his ancestors and how they have never loved black population and that his children modeled after his ancestors will be raised to see black people like second class citizens.
   

 

[AWdeV]

Banning the dumbest **** will just let it fester underground. Needs to be out in the open where it can wither under facts and mockery.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Legally speaking, speech should not be limited simply because it is "offensive". Free speech should only be limited when it can cause direct harm, like the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. But even then, what you'd be charged for wouldn't be for what you said, but the harm you caused.

As for a private forum like this, people can make the rules they want, and if you agree to the terms of use, you either follow them or suffer the consequences.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

Fire at what? The people in the Dark Knight screening?

 

[Magorian Aximand]

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

Classy, Burgess.
Classy.

 

[wrc]

Legally speaking, speech should not be limited simply because it is "offensive". Free speech should only be limited when it can cause direct harm, like the classic example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one. But even then, what you'd be charged for wouldn't be for what you said, but the harm you caused.

As for a private forum like this, people can make the rules they want, and if you agree to the terms of use, you either follow them or suffer the consequences.

Pretty simple really.

My questions are not connected in any kind with this forum, to make it clear.
Stating your opinion on tv could have larger effect than simple shouting in the street. Harm could be much bigger than just making panic among people.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Certainly, spreading misinformation can cause harm. But this is where we expect people to do fact checking. It's a little different in the theater example. It's tough to "fact check", and unwise to call bull**** if the person is being honest. Further, a system limiting what you can say, in general, is far too easily abused.

 

[Kevlar]

Banning the dumbest **** will just let it fester underground. Needs to be out in the open where it can wither under facts and mockery.

Such as...

Also,

Spoiler

 

[Goker]

In the case of Taleworlds Forums, Taleworlds decides the limits of Freedom of Speech. Rules stated here cover just about everything, although, for special cases, admins of the forum may debate on the issue and may allow or deny speech on the issue.

As for real life, I do agree with Magorian. Offense isn't given, it is taken. There shouldn't be laws on that. Reminds me of Steve Hughes.

Now I feel bad for being one of the guys who enforce the limitation of Freedom of Speech on the forum. Ah well, private company and all that stuff.

 

[Lord Brutus]

In the case of Taleworlds Forums, Taleworlds decides the limits of Freedom of Speech. Rules stated here cover just about everything, although, for special cases, admins of the forum may debate on the issue and may allow or deny speech on the issue.

As for real life, I do agree with Magorian. Offense isn't given, it is taken. There shouldn't be laws on that. Reminds me of Steve Hughes.

Now I feel bad for being one of the guys who enforce the limitation of Freedom of Speech on the forum. Ah well, private company and all that stuff.

No need to feel bad for enforcing reasonable limits.  Please continue.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

No need to feel bad. A business has many things it needs to consider in order to keep running as a business. Not looking like a place that harbors racists is one of them. People are given the terms of service when they sign up for a reason, and if they don't want to abide by them, they're welcome to cancel their registration. When working as an RA in my undergrad, I didn't agree with every rule I had to enforce, but I understood why they were there, I knew that they were clearly presented to every resident, I knew that every resident had to sign a legal document agreeing to follow them, and I enforced them in light of this. If they didn't want to follow certain rules, they were welcome to find another place to live.

 

[wrc]

Problem is, electronic media are very powerful today, every information could be lecture for some kid or maybe for someone who's just ignorant or not interested in many things, they can easily accept someone's opinion that Holocaust was never happened or similar things.

Further, a system limiting what you can say, in general, is far too easily abused.

I agree with this, but you're, I mean system, not limiting anything useful but just crap.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

They can easily come to that conclusion on their own, too. And if you're just limiting crap, who decides what constitutes "crap"? Therein lies the problem.

Free dissemination of ideas is absolutely necessary for progress. No matter how annoying some people can be.

 

[rejenorst]

In 17 European countries Holocaust denial is a bannable offense, the laws can be strict that in some countries (members of EU) denying communists' crimes is also a bannable offense, while in the US denying Holocaust isn't since its citizens are protected by constitution which grants them freedom of speech.

Holocaust denial as far as I know is a prison-able offense in many countries while denying it happened in other countries could be found within the sphere of anti semetic 'hate speech'. Denying communist attrocities is also a prisonable offense in countries like Poland and Czech Republic I believe.

In regards to the Holocaust;
this also extends to the so called revisionists who claim to not deny the holocaust happened but who claim to want to separate fact from fiction such as the  existence of gas chambers to kill millions during the second world war.

I like the idea that truth and true values will prevail over false values in a society that has free speech, but  I don't agree that this is always the case. However the lack of free speech is probably worse since truth is sometimes an unpopular thing in its early beginnings. (Particularly in regards to governments or institutions.)

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

I just noticed these rules contradict each other:

Be Polite. Like your mother told you, treat people how you want to be treated. If you post a polite, well thought out post then you are more likely to get a polite, well thought out response.

Internet slang. Don't use chatroom abbreviations, l33t sp34k or similar. If you can't be bothered to type out a coherent, intelligent post then don't expect anyone to type out a coherent, intelligent response.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Not really. They're both phrased in the context of what your actions are likely to bring about. The "be polite" rule could be easily phrased the same way as the slang rule.

"Don't be rude. Like your mother told you, treat people how you want to be treated. If you can't be bothered to type out a polite, intelligent post then don't expect anyone to type out a polite, intelligent response."

Same thing, really.

 

[Wheem]

I agree with what I once heard comedian D.L. Hughley say, "Freedom of speech is a zero sum proposition, either you believe in it or you don't."

It's hypocritical to claim that one favors free speech, except in the case of words X, Y, and Z, and topics A, B, and C. The overwhelming majority of people throughout the "western world" would claim to be in favor of free speech, but many of them are liars; they're actually in favor of regulated speech, as long as it's regulated in ways that they approve of (ie, no holocaust denials, no "f bombs" on TV, etc...) I see it as not that different from punishing someone for believing in the "wrong" religion, political philosophy, etc...and I'm infinitely more offended by calls for government regulation/banning of speech than I am by any word, phrase, or idea that has ever been uttered by any human being who has ever lived.

'Course - as others have pointed out - private settings are a bit different. The owners of internet forums, radio stations, TV networks, newspapers, publishing companies, etc...should be able to decide what speech is or isn't allowed in their media. If one doesn't like it, they can always revert to the stage that they were in prior to logging onto that website, picking up that newspaper, etc...

 

[kurczak]

The free speech dilemma is not limited to talking about stuff that had already happened. Much more complicated (imo) is setting the limits for talking about what you are going to do or what you think ought to happen.

From good old: "Imma kill you, *****." to "The Shoa thing was awesome, we should totally do that again." or "Niggers should not be allowed to vote. Or on golf courses."

 

[LordOfShadows]

Completely off topic, kurczak, why do you call yourself chicken?

You polski?