so much for free speech

danniemcq

link

MorningStar

Free speach has never existed really. You can't incite a riot or racial hatred. Just because you hear it on a US TV show doesn't mean the law applies here or there

Mossy Monk

free speach? only when it suits the machine

joejoem

too right they should be banned, they are inciting violence and hatred. Im not a fan of the "machine" myself but these ****ers cant be allowed have a complete freedom.

danniemcq

joejoem wrote:

too right they should be banned, they are inciting violence and hatred. Im not a fan of the "machine" myself but these ****ers cant be allowed have a complete freedom.

what about the violence and hatred that is brought up in people in the middle east when bush talks or says somthing. should he be banned? and i suppose as George W Bush (ya know the leader of the THE FREE WORLD) has said (and i have this on mp3 "there should be a limit to freedom"

LegacyUser

Free speech is still an entitlement, but inciting (a) religious agression on the basis that one is better than the other, and (b) a religious state or country which would discriminate against others based on their beliefs is not free speech.

There is no such thing as you having free speech if you believe that others are not allowed the same rights of free speech or expression because they dont believe in the same things as you...

Flukey

We are often told that we should be grateful to certain parties, like Mr. Bush, for our free speech, but are criticised when we use it to criticise them. A case of "Be grateful for your free speech, but don't you dare go and use it!"

segadreamcast

danniemcq wrote:

"there should be a limit to freedom"

Anyone with an iota of sense realises that, due to human nature, total freedom is impossible and, thus, we must place restrictions on our freedom in order to preserve freedom and the principles which it stands for. How many restrictions? that's the question. However, it's beyond question that there should be a limit to freedom - not necessarily of speech - and, whatever your views on Mr. Bush, anybody who disagrees with that is foolish in the extreme.

steviec

Flukey wrote:

We are often told that we should be grateful to certain parties, like Mr. Bush, for our free speech, but are criticised when we use it to criticise them. A case of "Be grateful for your free speech, but don't you dare go and use it!"

I love how people use their free speech to claim that they don't have free speech and complain that they don't have the right to complain while they do it constantly.

Hobbes

Can you expand on the free speech part? As far as I can see both are radical muslim groups. The first one for example has been known about as back as 2003 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm )

Eoin

danniemcq wrote:

as George W Bush (ya know the leader of the THE FREE WORLD) has said (and i have this on mp3 "there should be a limit to freedom"

He is right too.

What is more important - Someone's freedom to incite hatred, or peoples' freedom to live peacefully? There will always have to be some kind of trade off.

BTW, maybe better suited to humanities?

<edit>
Just noticed that NoelRock responded just before me, and put it much better than I did...
</edit>

Wertz

Banning....deportation....why bother? Since most of these hate mongers do most of their preaching on the Net anyhow, it's a bit tough to really silence them. Deportation confines the problem somewhat but you can't deport ideologies or mindsets.
It's like watching a train wreck, seeing how the UK has responded to the London bombings...a few months ago many brits were laughing at alarmist Americans and their attitudes to Islamic fundamentalists; now they seem to be trying to outdo the yanks in terms of reactionary measures...

Flukey

Steviec, what I am saying is that we do have free speech, but those that tell us we should be grateful for it often don't like how we use it.