http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/20/austria.irving.trial.ap/index.html
Should he be punished for saying that the Holocaust never happened?
Is it his right to say that or is it his duty as a historian to not distort facts?
I think if he was in a position of authority & taught people he should be reprimanded, maybe not imprisoned though.
If he was just writing...pfft, so he's an idiot...let it be, just like all them crazy Muslims burning crap, people need to accept other viewpoints & get over it.
Free speech isn't gone, but what most people who scream "Free Speech" don't realize is that other people have the right to hold you accountable for what you say.
I think it's an odious law. Not as odious as hollocaust deniers, but still bad.
Quote from: DarkMinion on February 21, 2006, 01:29 AM
Free speech isn't gone, but what most people who scream "Free Speech" don't realize is that other people have the right to hold you accountable for what you say.
Thats true if your speech infringes upon someone else's rights. Like if its a threat or defamation or something, not if you just don't agree with what the guy said, correct?
Right and wrong. Free speech implies no consequences. Depending on where you live, you may or not have free speech relative to your government's prosecution of you. In the United States, we have freedom of speech which protects us in that manner, for most speech.
However, this does not apply to how individuals may treat you. I can say "I think Bob is a butthead" and while my government cannot prosecute me for it, Bob can take any number of retaliations against me, as long as he is within the law. He can use his free speech against me. He can deny me the use of his business. He can refuse to hire me for a job. Bob can call me a pootyface.
The Dixie Chicks were a classic example. When they were just singing, we the consumers judged them on their music. But then they decided to exercise their free speech and speak their political minds. Many people ridiculed them for their opinions, stopped attending their concerts, and stopped buying their music. The Dixie Chicks protested, "where is our right to free speech?" What they failed to realize is they are not the only ones free to speak. The consumers exercised their right to free speech and spoke with their feet and their money.
Screw the Dixie Chicks, it's bad enough they're from Lubbock and one of them went to my University. >:(
Quote from: Grok on February 21, 2006, 09:44 AM
However, this does not apply to how individuals may treat you. I can say "I think Bob is a butthead" and while my government cannot prosecute me for it, Bob can take any number of retaliations against me, as long as he is within the law. He can use his free speech against me. He can deny me the use of his business. He can refuse to hire me for a job. Bob can call me a pootyface.
That depends on whom you ask. According to the ACLU, being offended == being injured.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 04:40 PM
Quote from: Grok on February 21, 2006, 09:44 AM
However, this does not apply to how individuals may treat you. I can say "I think Bob is a butthead" and while my government cannot prosecute me for it, Bob can take any number of retaliations against me, as long as he is within the law. He can use his free speech against me. He can deny me the use of his business. He can refuse to hire me for a job. Bob can call me a pootyface.
That depends on whom you ask. According to the ACLU, being offended == being injured.
I spose it could be harmful.
If someone takes offense to something they could get caught up in that and suffer mental anguish and their job performance could fall. They get fired and then they have no money.
But I think you'd have to look at the actual intent of the offender before saying whether or not the damages are real.
Stupid civil cases, they should up the burden of proof for them.
I like how my Ethics prof puts it: you are free to preach your ideas or principles without fear of persecution, but that doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!"
I believe some of the limitations on speech in the US are:
-can't make serious threats
-defamation
-obscenity
-clear and present danger
I think there are a few more, I can't remember them now
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 05:35 PM
I like how my Ethics prof puts it: you are free to preach your ideas or principles without fear of persecution, but that doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!"
fear of persecution *by the state.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 06:27 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 05:35 PM
I like how my Ethics prof puts it: you are free to preach your ideas or principles without fear of persecution, but that doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!"
fear of persecution *by the state.
Well, we were talking about our class, where it applies globally. But you're right.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
I believe some of the limitations on speech in the US are:
-can't make serious threats
-defamation
-obscenity
-clear and present danger
I think there are a few more, I can't remember them now
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
I believe some of the limitations on speech in the US are:
-can't make serious threats
-defamation
-obscenity
-clear and present danger
I think there are a few more, I can't remember them now
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
I believe some of the limitations on speech in the US are:
-can't make serious threats
-defamation
-obscenity
-clear and present danger
I think there are a few more, I can't remember them now
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
People need to get over being pussies and deal with the fact that not everyone likes or agrees with them. People are mean. Other people need to deal with it.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 08:56 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
I believe some of the limitations on speech in the US are:
-can't make serious threats
-defamation
-obscenity
-clear and present danger
I think there are a few more, I can't remember them now
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
People need to get over being pussies and deal with the fact that not everyone likes or agrees with them. People are mean. Other people need to deal with it.
All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial? Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him. That could bring up some mega trauma.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 09:17 PM
All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial? Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him. That could bring up some mega trauma.
That sucks. Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity. You have a choice to do one or the other. The right choice? Suck it up, bitch.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 09:23 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 09:17 PM
All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial? Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him. That could bring up some mega trauma.
That sucks. Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity. You have a choice to do one or the other. The right choice? Suck it up, bitch.
The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what? Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 12:08 AM
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 09:23 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 09:17 PM
All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial? Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him. That could bring up some mega trauma.
That sucks. Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity. You have a choice to do one or the other. The right choice? Suck it up, bitch.
The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what? Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?
Are you
seriously advocating that we repeal free speech on the pretext that it could hurt someone?
If someone kills someone else, it's 99% of the time not the weapon's fault (I'll leave 1% in there for accidental gun deaths or vehicle accidents).
Should we hold vehicle makers responsible because they make cars that can go 120 miles per hour?
Should we hold alcohol makers responsible because some people drive drunk?
No. We hold the person acting in these ways responsible.
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 22, 2006, 01:26 AM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 12:08 AM
Quote from: MyndFyre on February 21, 2006, 09:23 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 09:17 PM
All very true, but what if the "mental anguish" is substantial? Like if it brings up an old psychological thing you had been repressing & all of a sudden it surfaces & you snap because someone called you mom a whore, then you recalled when you were 4 your mom was banging the milkman until your dad killed him. That could bring up some mega trauma.
That sucks. Then you have a choice: you can either get on with your life and deal with it or you can wallow in self-pity. You have a choice to do one or the other. The right choice? Suck it up, bitch.
The right choice may not always be the prevailing choice though.
What if a comment that seems harmless but offensive actually DOES cause the person extreme mental anguish then said person commits a crime, then what? Its a perfectly possible scenario & could result in the harm of a 3rd person.
Should the 1st person be punished for the harm caused to the 3rd person because they instigated person #2 whom lost self control & became mad or should the problem have been "nipped in the bud" with person #1 originally?
Are you seriously advocating that we repeal free speech on the pretext that it could hurt someone?
If someone kills someone else, it's 99% of the time not the weapon's fault (I'll leave 1% in there for accidental gun deaths or vehicle accidents).
Should we hold vehicle makers responsible because they make cars that can go 120 miles per hour?
Should we hold alcohol makers responsible because some people drive drunk?
No. We hold the person acting in these ways responsible.
No, but we holder automakers responsible when something fails & bartenders responsible when they over serve people.
they contribute/enable the harm of whom ever.
I'm beginning to think Crazed is a troll.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again.
"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want." "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state). So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody. Those aren't ideas or principles.
If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty). He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency. His argument is quite good.
(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century. So he was pretty far ahead of his time. He was very bright.)
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 12:28 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again.
"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want." "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state). So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody. Those aren't ideas or principles.
If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty). He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency. His argument is quite good.
(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century. So he was pretty far ahead of his time. He was very bright.)
You may even look at John Locke (The Treatises of Civil Government). But yes, iago hit the nail on the head about what free speech is.
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 12:28 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quote from: iago on February 21, 2006, 06:35 PM
In general, I don't think that those are ways of expressing ideas or principles, so they don't really fall under what many consider to be "free speech".
yeah, that's what I meant/was getting at.
Speech that harms isn't free.
But what harms? Where does "mental anguish" come into play?
That's not what I said, so I'm going to explain it again.
"Free speech" does NOT mean "you can say anything you want." "Free speech" is the freedom to express your ideas and principles without fear of persecution (by the state). So that does NOT mean you can yell "FIRE!", and it does NOT mean you can tell your friend to kill somebody. Those aren't ideas or principles.
If you want to learn about the fundamentals of free speech, I believe John Stuart Mill is the author you're going to want to look into (I believe the essay/book was On Liberty). He started the idea, and he accounted for pretty much every contigency. His argument is quite good.
(incidentally, Mill also write about the oppression of women back in the 17th century. So he was pretty far ahead of his time. He was very bright.)
No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:46 PM
No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?
Here's the problem with ever saying that mental anguish is ever someone else's responsibility:
You can't reliably measure mental anguish.
There are lots of things that you *can* measure, like stress, through many means, including muscle tension, elecrtolytes in muscles, and hormonal balance. These are physiological, quantitative, objective measurements.
However, "anguish" is subjective. Sticking your hand in a cooler with icewater in it to get the last beer might be "anguish," but later it might have been worth it (if you got the beer). When you reflect on it later, it might not have been "anguish" at all, although I'm sure the pain was extreme.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 06:01 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:46 PM
No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?
Here's the problem with ever saying that mental anguish is ever someone else's responsibility:
You can't reliably measure mental anguish.
There are lots of things that you *can* measure, like stress, through many means, including muscle tension, elecrtolytes in muscles, and hormonal balance. These are physiological, quantitative, objective measurements.
However, "anguish" is subjective. Sticking your hand in a cooler with icewater in it to get the last beer might be "anguish," but later it might have been worth it (if you got the beer). When you reflect on it later, it might not have been "anguish" at all, although I'm sure the pain was extreme.
I'm not saying the mental anguish should be measured, just what happens with what results from the anguish?
It's like pulling the pin on a grenade, the pin does nothing, but it triggers the beginning of whatever explosion.
You call someone's mom a whore. If that someone is unstable they might go off & 'explode' too.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 04:46 PM
No, I totally understand what you meant, there are & must be restrictions on speech otherwise chaos would erupt.
I was just asking how do we know where to draw the line at what causes harm?
No, that's not what I'm saying!
Those aren't restrictions on free speech. Free speech doesn't even cover what you're talking about, now or ever. Free speech is the free exchange of ideas and principles. Nothing else. Not being allowed to say "fuck you" on TV isn't a free speech issue. Saying "Bush sucks" on TV is.
I don't think there's a line to be drawn here. And I've seen no evidence that there needs to be one. The core issue is that most people misunderstand what "free speech" is.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 06:54 PM
I'm not saying the mental anguish should be measured, just what happens with what results from the anguish?
It's like pulling the pin on a grenade, the pin does nothing, but it triggers the beginning of whatever explosion.
You call someone's mom a whore. If that someone is unstable they might go off & 'explode' too.
How can you hold someone responsible for something we can't measure?
You rob a bank? The bank can measure how much money you stole!
You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions? The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."
Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:13 PM
You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions? The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."
Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.
no,that's what I'm asking, not what I'm saying.
Like a physical "chain reaction" example of what I'm think would be something like...
I push you, you fall into a dude that was standing on a cliff & he dies.
You weren't into control of yourself & maybe you couldn't help but make the other guy fall.
Same SORT OF idea, just instigated differently.
Some mental patients don't have control over themselves. If you "mentally"(?) push them & they push someone off a cliff physically would it be your ault because you started the chain?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:30 PM
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:13 PM
You cause someone "mental anguish," how are we supposed to determine to what extent you are responsible for that person's actions? The simple fact is, we can't, because we can't measure "mental anguish."
Your argument has been that we need to be able to hold people responsible for what others do when they are suffering from "mental anguish" caused by the first people.
no,that's what I'm asking, not what I'm saying.
Like a physical "chain reaction" example of what I'm think would be something like...
I push you, you fall into a dude that was standing on a cliff & he dies.
You weren't into control of yourself & maybe you couldn't help but make the other guy fall.
Same SORT OF idea, just instigated differently.
Some mental patients don't have control over themselves. If you "mentally"(?) push them & they push someone off a cliff physically would it be your ault because you started the chain?
Person A: Verbal remark denegrating Person B.
Person B: Kills Person C
Is Person A responsible for Person C's death in any way?
You CANNOT ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH that Person A's remarks created any kind of mental trauma or "anguish" that
caused Person B to go over the edge and kill a third party. Why?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEASURE "MENTAL ANGUISH"!!!!!!!!!!!Why don't you take the time to read the goddamn posts before you troll another response?
You can relate two events though.
Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.
There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:39 PM
You can relate two events though.
Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.
There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.
...and every scientist in the world will tell you that correlation != causation.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:42 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:39 PM
You can relate two events though.
Example:
You call me a troll, I flip my lid.
There was no other factor in my losing control, its not a measure of how distraught you made me, its whether or not you set me off.
...and every scientist in the world will tell you that correlation != causation.
Yes, but when something triggers something else is that not causation?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 07:44 PM
Yes, but when something triggers something else is that not causation?
Okay. I know this is difficult and I'm using big words like "correlation" and "causation." Let me slow down for you so that you understand everything.
When a scientists observes two events, (s)he often wants to determine whether they're related. The first thing we can do is a correlational test: without actually causing the first event (we'll call this the stimulus), we watch to see how frequently the second event happens with the first event.
Correlation is typically expressed as "Pearson's
r," a ratio measure from -1.0 to 1.0, inclusive. Values farther from 0 indicate a stronger co-variance.
As you can see, correlation measures:
1.) how frequently two events occur together.
However, we cannot make an inference that Event 1, which preceeded Event 2, is that
cause of Event 2, even if
r = 1.0. Why? Because we did not
cause Event 1 to happen.
This is why we conduct experiments, as scientists.
We conduct experiments so that we can control when Event 1 takes place, to see if it prompts Event 2.
Like I just got REALLY pissed off about your ignorance of what I'm saying. Arguably, you could say that the "mental anguish" you've caused me by repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying set me off. What you couldn't, or didn't measure, was the stress I've been going through all day. I didn't sleep, I got to school late, I don't feel good, I've had a rather crazy night at work, and you seem to continue to blindly flail about in ignorance. Would you want to be the person responsible after I kill someone just because a remark you made just tipped the scales? Would it even be right to say so?
No. Because we cannot measure mental anguish.
You don't even know in a situation of N = 1 (one instance) whether a supposed stimulus is what triggered an effect. You cannot determine causation from a correlation, particularly one composed of a sample of ONE INCIDENT.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 08:07 PM
Arguably, you could say that the "mental anguish" you've caused me by repeatedly ignoring what I'm saying set me off. What you couldn't, or didn't measure, was the stress I've been going through all day.
Just thought I'd place emphasis on this short bit of MyndFyre's post.
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.
I know what he's talking about. I just don't see why it can't be rather probably that one thing is caused by another.
Why is it illegal to instigate a riot? Because bad things come from it.
Why COULD it be illegal to instigate a mad man? Because bad things come from it.
I understand that you can't measure how a statement might effect someone, but you can measure what the individual does after being "poked & prodded".
If it wasn't for the first event1 why would've event2 happened? I don't think event2 would happen at all, unless some other circumstances existed.
Quote from: Explicit[nK] on February 22, 2006, 08:47 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.
If you observe that the man is calm & quiet until confronted you ought to be able to observe that the confrontation by another individual is what caused man1 to snap, correct?
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
No. That's why the entire scientific method is a theory. The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc. No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively. That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens.
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:54 PM
Quote from: Explicit[nK] on February 22, 2006, 08:47 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
You'd have to control every aspect both internal and external of the subject to achieve that, which is impossible.
If you observe that the man is calm & quiet until confronted you ought to be able to observe that the confrontation by another individual is what caused man1 to snap, correct?
Initially, the man could be in deep contemplation of some conflict going on in his life, making that observation an invalid one. This goes back to MyndFyre's post and the portion I placed emphasis on; you just can't assume.
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
No. That's why the entire scientific method is a theory. The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc. No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively. That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens.
I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.
Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time. Nothing is "always"
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 10:15 PM
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
No. That's why the entire scientific method is a theory. The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc. No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively. That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens.
I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.
Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time. Nothing is "always"
But the emphasis of the law is "to prove beyond all reasonable doubt."
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 10:15 PM
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
Quote from: CrAz3D on February 22, 2006, 08:40 PM
Couldn't it be tested to the point where one could be quite sure that the same result would happen always?
No. That's why the entire scientific method is a theory. The theory of gravity, relativity, motion, evolution, etc. No matter how much evidence you get in favor of something, you can never prove it conclusively. That's what sucks about science: nothing is certain no matter how many times it happens.
I wasn't saying it PROVES it happens, I'm just saying that it is quite probable that it would happenalmost always, much like the gravity you gave.
Explicit, but if this happens over & over couldn't you conclue it would most likely always occur?
I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most the time. Nothing is "always"
The fact of the matter is that it won't happen over and over again. You wouldn't be able to go up to every single person who's calm and quiet and expect them to all respond in the exact same way.
Quote from: MyndFyre[vL] on February 22, 2006, 07:34 PM
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T MEASURE "MENTAL ANGUISH"!!!!!!!!!!!
This gave me a good laugh, but nonetheless is true.
I know it wouldn't be the same for every person, nothing is the same for every person.
I'm just asking whether or not restriction on speech should extend to something that "plays with someone's mind".
In civil law they are able to "measure" mental anguish, why not apply the same principle to criminal law.
Quote from: iago on February 22, 2006, 06:57 PM
Those aren't restrictions on free speech. Free speech doesn't even cover what you're talking about, now or ever. Free speech is the free exchange of ideas and principles. Nothing else. Not being allowed to say "fuck you" on TV isn't a free speech issue. Saying "Bush sucks" on TV is.
I don't think there's a line to be drawn here. And I've seen no evidence that there needs to be one. The core issue is that most people misunderstand what "free speech" is.
Just to return to the original topic... I'm assuming everyone agrees that the limitation of not being allowed to express the idea that the holocaust did not happen means that speech is not free in Austria?
Quote from: Adron on February 23, 2006, 10:51 AM
Just to return to the original topic... I'm assuming everyone agrees that the limitation of not being allowed to express the idea that the holocaust did not happen means that speech is not free in Austria?
I would agree.
If I come up to a police officer and tell him that I am going to kill him I will get arrested. Does this mean that speech is not free in the United States?
There is free speech everywhere in the world. It's the consequence of expressing the free speech that differs around the world. Some countries are more lenient than others.
Now when it comes to this particular case being Jewish I would have to say that if he was not harming anyone with his belief or disbelief in his case then he should not be arrested or jailed.
Quote from: Invert on February 23, 2006, 02:48 PM
If I come up to a police officer and tell him that I am going to kill him I will get arrested. Does this mean that speech is not free in the United States?
There is free speech everywhere in the world. It's the consequence of expressing the free speech that differs around the world. Some countries are more lenient than others.
Now when it comes to this particular case being Jewish I would have to say that if he was not harming anyone with his belief or disbelief in his case then he should not be arrested or jailed.
I think, then, we should just call it speech & omit the free since everyone has speech to a certain degree.