Why is it nobody seems to want freedom of speech? Like, real freedom of speech? Do people just not know what it means? Freedom of Speech is exactly what it means, being able to say what you want. Yet most people don't seem to like freedom of speech, for instance in my history class we were talking about this billboard: Spoiler Spoiler Much to my shock(and dismay) I was the only one out of about 25 students that didn't demand the billboard be taken down, I brought up the fact that while I didn't necessarily agree with the billboard, these people have a natural born right to say whatever they want. To which, they replied that it didn't matter, that the billboard was offensive to Christians and shouldn't be allowed up. I've done some browsing on the internet, and I looked up some laws on freedom of speech and found that while many countries have little limits on speech, few if any have true freedom of speech, that is the freedom to say anything. For instance, in countries like Indonesia,Italy, and Malaysia, blasphemy is illegal, or even in Germany, where under the criminal code it is illegal to: Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law). Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193). Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism. Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3. Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86). Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a) as the Swastika. Disparagement of the Federal President (Section 90). the State and its Symbols (Section 90a). Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103). Rewarding and Approving Crimes (Section 140). Casting False Suspicion (Section 164). Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166) Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184). My question is, if people are so concerned with their freedom, why the hell does everybody want to limit freedom of speech? Virtually everywhere, there's limits on speech because it's ethier deemed "blasphemous" or "obscene" or "hate speech." Nobody seems to understand that you can't have freedom of speech, TRUE freedom of speech with limitations like this. I'd rather listen to idiot holocaust deniers and nutjobs and have the right to express my thoughts, then have my rights taken away. Wouldn't you? As Voltaire once said:""I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." /rant
The USA is very unique in it's defense of free speech. But even that was not really and finally made "official" until the 1960s. Crazy huh. It's damn depressing to read your post but I take some solace in that these attitude (despite your class's take) are diminishing I think. And Voltaire did not say that - it was written by Beatrice Hall as something that Voltaire would have said.
couldn't this have gone in the Germany thread ? Are Germans the new Muslims ...? The billboard was not illegal. It was up, no? My freedom of speech means I can denounce it. And I can boycott if I choose. da_juice does hideous things to small animals. He smells of elderberries and his mother is a hamster. And he wears Karl Malone underwear. Anything goes.
Yep, anything goes, because the beauty is, average people are somewhat intelligent enough to swift through the stupid stuff. The point wasn't that the billboard was taken down,the point is that this is another example of people wanting to limit freedom of speech.
I think people often confuse "free speech" with "consequence-free speech". For example: do you have the right to your religion? Absolutely. Do you have the right to preach your religion at work? Eh, well... See: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=176254
There you have the quandry, you nailed it....and who decides what does, it is a slippery slope for sure. DD
Too subjective. It's either free speech or not. It cannot be free speech*. * = Unless "we" deem what you say to incite violence.
Agreed.....I think the only thing you can do is whenever someone commits violence and was inspired or incited by another you hold them accountable too. DD
... which is what they do today, I think. I believe there's some charge you can give to people if they incite violence or can be proven to be a cause (if not the executor) of it. I think the problem addressed in the OP is that a lot of freedoms are being repressed today, and people just take it in the butt and enjoy it. If you're a Christian, yeah, you probably like an atheist billboard being taken down, but you don't look at the bigger picture nationally: that's obstruction of free speech. People don't seem to care that these freedoms are getting ignored as long as it propagates their agenda. WikiLeaks is an excellent example of this. You can argue the morality of WikiLeaks all you want, but you cannot argue that what they are doing is illegal because it's not. Period. Still, folks want it repressed and Assange even killed. Ridiculous ignorance, if you ask me. /rant
Wait - did they want the government to ban the billboard? Or did they just think it should be taken down? If it's the latter, I don't see the problem - their opinion is their own version of free speech. Nothing about free speech says that you can't criticize other people's speech or argue that the corporation who owns the billboard should or shouldn't have various standards of what they put up there. All it means is that government shouldn't get involved.
Just because speech is free doesn't mean it can't be offensive. People can demand and suggest that something is offensive and that it should be removed, but that is free speech in itself, and is not a directive that it should be forbidden legally, or removed for legal reasons.
How is the USA Unique in it's defense of free speech? I do not really see a difference with most western countries.
Speaking of freedom, Antonin Scalia doesn't believe women and gays have the same freedoms as everyone else. Very disturbing that this guy sits on the highest court in the land for life, in my opinion. Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior: .................. Question: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Scalia: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society. ..................... For the record, the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, called the justice's comments "shocking" and said he was essentially saying that if the government sanctions discrimination against women, the judiciary offers no recourse. "In these comments, Justice Scalia says if Congress wants to protect laws that prohibit sex discrimination, that's up to them," she said. "But what if they want to pass laws that discriminate? Then he says that there's nothing the court will do to protect women from government-sanctioned discrimination against them. And that's a pretty shocking position to take in 2011. It's especially shocking in light of the decades of precedents and the numbers of justices who have agreed that there is protection in the 14th Amendment against sex discrimination, and struck down many, many laws in many, many areas on the basis of that protection." Greenberger added that under Scalia's doctrine, women could be legally barred from juries, paid less by the government, receive fewer benefits in the armed forces, and be excluded from state-run schools -- all things that have happened in the past, before their rights to equal protection were enforced. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html
I think you are basically correct, but there are a few differences worthy of note. The OP focuses on Germany, but most European nations still allow several forms of censorship. Even the Dutch have some odd ideas as to when to or not to censor, e.g., the case of Gregorius Nekschot. France has all sorts of laws restricting various forms of speech, and the UK is not much better, particularly in regards to defamation suits and leaks of "Secrets" to the press (the UK is actually rather unique in this vague throwback to anti-sedition laws). That all being said the USA's history in this regard is hardly stellar either - in fact, it's the opposite I would argue (sedition acts and the Smith Act come to mind immediately). However since the 1960s the USA has reaffirmed these rights quite forcefully (Pentagon Papers in 1971 being the best case-in-point). Also, hate speech is not prohibited in the USA. It should be noted that this is distinct from Freedom of the Press, where the USA might be seen as more restrictive, either via law or corporate pressure.
Thanks that is interesting. You know a lot about this. In general in the Netherlands you cannot do hate speech. Altough there is seldom anybody convivted for such a thing. Even Wilders will not be convicted for this. Can you deny the holocaust in the USA?
