Free speech gone?

[CrAz3D]

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.

[DarkMinion]

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.

[Arta]

I think it's an odious law. Not as odious as hollocaust deniers, but still bad.

[CrAz3D]

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?

[Grok]

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.

[DarkMinion]

Screw the Dixie Chicks, it's bad enough they're from Lubbock and one of them went to my University. 

[MyndFyre]

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.

[CrAz3D]

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.

[iago]

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!"

[CrAz3D]

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

[MyndFyre]

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.

[iago]

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.

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". 

[CrAz3D]

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?

[MyndFyre]

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.

[CrAz3D]

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.