Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

No I just recognise that the right to free speech is not an absolute any more than the right bear arms let's people own nuclear weapons.

Rights are not with out limits. Your position is so absurd you will actually defend child abuse rather than deviate from it.

Free speech is a principle. You either believe in or you don't. You're position is so timid you have to invent child abuse scenarios to talk yourself out of it.

Again with your strange belief that child abuse is made up. And you accuse others of magical thinking.

You do not need to believe in your stupid extreme position to support a right.

I have already offered to discuss other scenarios that demonstrate how spectacularly wrong you are.

Do you support peoples free speech to make threats?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Again with your strange belief that child abuse is made up. And you accuse others of magical thinking.

You do not need to believe in your stupid extreme position to support a right.

I have already offered to discuss other scenarios that demonstrate how spectacularly wrong you are.

Do you support peoples free speech to make threats?

I clearly said your scenario was made up. Straw man.

You don't support a principle when you support restrictions on it.

I've responded to your scenarios, all of them lifted from your fevered imagination.

I support everyone's right to speak. I also support everyone's right to respond to threat as they see fit.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Again with your strange belief that child abuse is made up. And you accuse others of magical thinking.

You do not need to believe in your stupid extreme position to support a right.

I have already offered to discuss other scenarios that demonstrate how spectacularly wrong you are.

Do you support peoples free speech to make threats?

I clearly said your scenario was made up. Straw man.

You don't support a principle when you support restrictions on it.

I've responded to your scenarios, all of them lifted from your fevered imagination.

I support everyone's right to speak. I also support everyone's right to respond to threat as they see fit.

They are not strawman they are examples of how stupid your position is.

You are really claiming making threats should have no legal consequences? You actually can't get why that is wrong?

a reply to: ScepticScot

They are not strawman they are examples of how stupid your position is.

You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying, which is an act of bad faith on your fault. You keep saying I support child abuse or believe it is made up. Complete lie. That's the strawmen I'm talking about.

You are really claiming making threats should have no legal consequences? You actually can't get why that is wrong?

Oh is that what I claimed?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

They are not strawman they are examples of how stupid your position is.

You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying, which is an act of bad faith on your fault. You keep saying I support child abuse or believe it is made up. Complete lie. That's the strawmen I'm talking about.

You are really claiming making threats should have no legal consequences? You actually can't get why that is wrong?

Oh is that what I claimed?

If that's not why you mean perhaps you would actually answer the question then.

Straight forward question. Should people be able to make threats free from legal consequence?

Your straightforward answer would be appreciated.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you defend everything that is said online?.
Would you cry freedom of speech in a pedo forum?.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Straight forward question. Should people be able to make threats free from legal consequence?

Your straightforward answer would be appreciated.

It depends on the nature of the threat. I think that the best precedent is the "fighting words" doctrine in US law. If the threat doesn't precede "immanent lawless action", it has no legal consequence.

a reply to: testingtesting

Do you defend everything that is said online?.

I defend the right to speak everything online, yes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You may of missed my edit.
Even a bunch of pedos talking about child abuse?.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Straight forward question. Should people be able to make threats free from legal consequence?

Your straightforward answer would be appreciated.

It depends on the nature of the threat. I think that the best precedent is the "fighting words" doctrine in US law. If the threat doesn't precede "immanent lawless action", it has no legal consequence.

My understanding of the fighting words doctrine is it refers more to peoples reactions to free speech than the speech it's self however no expert US law.

I know you have an aversion to hypothetical situations but bear with me on this one as I would like to see your opinion.

If I call in to the police and falsely claim that there is a bomb at a major sporting event should there be legal consequences. I have not actually left a bomb nor have I even made a threat that I have left a bomb. I have merely told a deliberate lie that will have very real consequences. How does free speech absolutism deal with that?

originally posted by: testingtesting

I defend the right to speak everything online about whatever they want.

a reply to: ScepticScot

My understanding of the fighting words doctrine is it refers more to peoples reactions to free speech than the speech it's self however no expert US law.

I know you have an aversion to hypothetical situations but bear with me on this one as I would like to see your opinion.

If I call in to the police and falsely claim that there is a bomb at a major sporting event should there be legal consequences. I have not actually left a bomb nor have I even made a threat that I have left a bomb. I have merely told a deliberate lie that will have very real consequences. How does free speech absolutism deal with that?

Any threat must precede "immanent lawless action". The precedent is Bradenburg v. Ohio, where a KKK member threatened violence against the US government, but since he was speaking abstractly, and none of it lead to any actual violence or "lawless action", his speech was protected.

Taking advantage of emergency infrastructure for the purpose of creating fear and chaos is not really about free speech. But these types of scenarios must be examined on an individual, case-by-case basis. That's why I prefer real-life examples.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Its simply words. How people react to those words is up to them. How is that not a free speech issue.

In general would you accept the principle that there are circumstances where someone speaking has direct consequences and that legal consequences may be appropriate?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To whoever they want also?.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Its simply words. How people react to those words is up to them. How is that not a free speech issue.

In general would you accept the principle that there are circumstances where someone speaking has direct consequences and that legal consequences may be appropriate?

Because it isn’t just speech to exploit emergency response systems for the purpose of spreading fear and chaos. There are several other factors at work here besides just speech.

I do not except that principle.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To whoever they want also?.

What would you suggest? Imprisonment?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Its simply words. How people react to those words is up to them. How is that not a free speech issue.

In general would you accept the principle that there are circumstances where someone speaking has direct consequences and that legal consequences may be appropriate?

Because it isn’t just speech to exploit emergency response systems for the purpose of spreading fear and chaos. There are several other factors at work here besides just speech.

I do not except that principle.

There are potentially other factors in any speech. It's the absolutist view that there isn't.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well yes if pedos are talking to kids online.
Or pedos making you tube videos discussing child abuse.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

It's the words spoken that cause the war.

Sorcery.

I gave you examples of how words and language start wars, you seem to like dancing around any question that differs from your perception of the truth.

More "magic words" from people in history.

Words are also actions, and actions are a kind of words.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.
Rudyard Kipling

Of all the weapons of destruction that man could invent, the most terrible-and the most powerful-was the word. Daggers and spears left traces of blood; arrows could be seen at a distance. Poisons were detected in the end and avoided. But the word managed to destroy without leaving clues.
Paulo Coelho

Some food for thought.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Its simply words. How people react to those words is up to them. How is that not a free speech issue.

In general would you accept the principle that there are circumstances where someone speaking has direct consequences and that legal consequences may be appropriate?

Because it isn’t just speech to exploit emergency response systems for the purpose of spreading fear and chaos. There are several other factors at work here besides just speech.

I do not except that principle.

There are potentially other factors in any speech. It's the absolutist view that there isn't.

That’s not my own view, and I’m not sure where you got that idea. I think it’s the opposite: the would-be censor refuse to consider other factors.