The Westboro Baptist Church

Don't worry, Viking. I don't hate Catholics. Not by a long shot. Like what Giggle said, I don't like priests that do it and the efforts of the Church to cover it up.

But all this is completely off the topic. Who here doesn't like this guy?



I sure as hell don't.

Boo fucking hoo they were offended. You know what being offended means? You know what value it has ? Nothing. Grow up people will not like you no matter who you are or who your affiliated with. They do not owe you anything because of that and are entitled to their opinion. They should not be persecuted for not hurting you in anyway.

For instance, I think the westboro baptist church are a bunch of scumbags. I think they should all be put to work scrubing the inside of hospital toilets while we all laugh till the day they die. I do not think however that they should be stopped for saying what they believe, because that would be akin to stopping me from saying what I believe. Put up with it, your taking away your own rights as well.

It's term used to describe a logical fallacy. In this case, that Hitler would come to power in the US because we don't censor speech. And no, I wouldn't feel differently. I wouldn't exist. The only me that matters is the one that actually exists, and quite frankly I'm not a fan of brutish authoritarian censorship.

Good argument.

If you want to claim that free speech isn't a fundamental human right, you're going to have to do better than "that's your opinion."

Again with the Orwellian attitudes. Rights do not come from the state. The state is charged with protecting rights, but it doesn't create them.

Because human beings are intelligences, minds, and agents they automatically have certain rights. To take away or otherwise limit those rights is the greatest injustice possible. Chief among all human rights is the right to expression.

While I could give tangible benefits that speech can provide, it really doesn't matter whether or not it does. It's inherently valuable. To deny it is inherently unjust.

Aside from the previously cited criminal situations, where speech coaxes people (either speaker or audience) into immediate criminal action or has that intent, or else is both false and damaging to someone's life, property, or livelihood, people have the right to say whatever they want. It doesn't matter what kind of consequence it produces, so long as it's not one of the aforementioned examples, because we cannot and should not criminalize viewpoints.

Hitler has the right to expression just as much as the Pope, Charlie Manson, and Gandhi do. We can't, and shouldn't, try to ban people from holding and expressing their own opinions. No one has the right to make the call on what is and what isn't acceptable speech.

So in that case you admit that speech censorship is both reactionary and inequitable?

That's impossible. There is no 'con' that can merit the denial of our most fundamental of rights. Nothing can possibly justify speech censorship.

Well I thought we were done with this but okay:
1. Moving away from rights vs privileges.(meaning I don't think it's part of the discussion)
2. I merely used Hitler to describe why many Europeans feel that freedom of speech needs to be restricted somewhat.
3. Speech is valuable, but not when it produces hate, discrimination and violence.
4. You're still ignoring the point I made. What can Hate speech possibly contribute to a society that is positive?
5. So you're simply going to turn the blind eye to something that incites hate and thus violence just because the people who say it don't openly say "oh and by the way if you see a black person could you beat them up?" Just because something doesn't directly incite to violence doesn't mean it can't do it indirectly.(and that is almost as bad)
6. I don't think xenophobia is a viable viewpoint.
7. "Speech censorship" as you call it is forwardlooking and nessesary.
8. Speech censorship is preferable to genocide.

You can't be serious. You're going to sit here and tell me that a discussion about free expression has nothing to do with fundamental human rights? What else could it possibly be about?

And I merely explained why that is a worthless argument.

Speech is speech. There is no distinction to be made about it based on the popularity or offensiveness of its content. All speech is inherently valuable and good. Whether or not it produces a tangible benefit doesn't matter, because the fact remains that speech is a fundamental right of all humans.

So you're simply going to turn the blind eye to something that induces life and thus death just because parents don't openly say that they want their children to die when they're born? Just because birth doesn't directly lead to death doesn't mean it can't do it indirectly (and that is almost as bad).

Okay. Your point?

Your use of the word 'forwardlooking' bears a ridiculously sharp resemblance to Newspeak. Are you deliberately making yourself out to be a dystopian archetype here?

And no, it is neither necessary nor 'forwardlooking.' Preventing people from expressing themselves is terribly authoritarian (though that seems to be synonymous with your vision of 'forward') and entirely unnecessary.

The hell it is.

"Give me liberty or give me death."

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

And incidentally, speech does not have a causal relationship with genocide. Genocide occurs in places that censor speech, and places that don't censor speech are not rife with genocide.

I didn't say that. I don't think I made myself clear, but freedom of expression is alright as long as it doesn't attack a group of people.(race, gender, sexuality etc)

Your attitude is my point excactly.

Of course there is difference in speech. You apparently don't think speech that directly encourages to violence is good. You still didn't answer my question... again.

Wtf?! You can't even compare those two... Here the pros outweigh the cons. Even though the child will eventually die, it will have a life and that is the greatest gift in the world. And once again you fail to answer me, but instead attacked. You really don't seem to be able to produce a real answer.

My point is that it shouldn't be part of any political debate.

I don't really care what it resemble... and don't make assumptions about me. People can still express themselves in private. It's not unnecessary.(see below)
Moving on...

I really don't care about quotes from famous people...(and I would prefer to live)
But hate speech can and will eventually lead to genocide somewhere(as it has so often) and thus they are connected. You can have it with or without censorship, but you will reduce the risk if you do not allow people to use hate speech. One word: Yugoslavia.(not that I agreed with Tito)

Look at all the countries that have not had censored speech. None of them had a massive genocidal ruler. The only ones that did were countries that restricted speech. Hitler restricted speech and then proceeded to exterminate Jews. Stalin restricted speech and massacred millions. Syria has restricted free speech and they are slaughtering civilians. Libya had restricted speech and they dropped bombs on their people. Imperial Japan restricted speech and they committed a genocide against the Chinese.

If you noticed, all of those countries had censored speech.

In the european country the people have chosen it though, it was never forced upon them by a dictator.

The Weimar Republic did have free speech... Hitler rose to power because they didn't restrict him.(among others)
I know about those countries... Syria and Libya haven't had genocides.(or mabye you don't understand the meaning)