Khannie wrote: » preaching hatred You?
Rubat wrote: » libel.
Shenshen wrote: » I support freedom of speech al lthe way, as long as it's objective and non-violent. I draw the line where it descends into personal attacks, insults, bullying and preaching hatred and violence. Btw, I always found it fascinating that we make a difference between "violence" and "preaching violence"... word can be very violent indeed and have the capacity to hurt people deeply. Words can, over time, kill people.
Shenshen wrote: » I draw the line where it descends into personal attacks, insults, bullying and preaching hatred and violence.
Phoebas wrote: » Is that all religion banned?
Khannie wrote: » Just for clarity now (I'm not nitpicking).....you don't think it should be legal to insult someone?
Links234 wrote: » I'd say I'm even ok with westboro baptist, but people aren't free from the consequences of their speech either.
Shenshen wrote: » I think that would depend on the type and level of insult. Plain name-calling should not be illegal, but insults that go further and assasinate character (I believe that's the term?), should and are illegal.
Khannie wrote: » They're the most extreme example of freedom of speech that I'm aware of. I really, strongly dislike them. I haven't fully decided where I stand on their right to be assholes like that. It's a terrible conflict to believe that people should be free to express themselves, and just how horrible and awful those people are with that right.
Shenshen wrote: » *lol Do you have a map for that minefiled, by any chance? Strictly speaking, most religions can manage quite a civilised and in a way logical discussion about the tenets of their faith. They've set up schools and universities to teach such reasoning, over here we'd call it Theology, I believe.
Shenshen wrote: » I have actually had in the past rather interesting discussions about aspects and details of different faiths, without one side telling the other to convert or burn in hell.
Khannie wrote: » Can you give me an example of an insult that is not libelous, but is character assassination? (and that you therefore think should be illegal) You can fire ahead and level it at me. I'm genuinely curious here, so not trying to trap you or anything.
Phoebas wrote: » Maybe its a subjective thing, but I've never heard a logical explanation about the tenets of any of the major faiths. I'd have thought that one of the central purposes of organised religions is to convert others. And burning in hell is still a pretty mainstream idea in Catholicism.
Phoebas wrote: » I'd have thought that one of the central purposes of organised religions is to convert others.
Khannie wrote: » Every religion believes the others are wrong and to try and save people they should be converted to the "correct" way.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » In my opinion it shouldn't be limited at all, but I'm rather a fundamentalist when it comes to free speech so I don't expect many to agree with me Libel is problematic because of the downright insane way in which it's implemented. Anyone who's been around Boards for a while will remember the infamous MCD incident where because of a libel accusation, Boards had to ban all discussion of anything remotely related to MCD. This kind of thing is happening all the time these days, and to be honest if that's the way it's going to be, I'd prefer if there were no libel laws at all - the lesser of two evils, rather than allowing people to abuse those laws to silence dissent.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » Everyone has limitations, even the people who think they agree with free speech at all times actually don't. For example, when they say people shouldn't express offence, voila: they're restricting free speech.
