It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Concerning recent attacks on free speech, Gaffney said: “The insinuation of Shariah legal codes and practices into Free World societies includes the effort to impose Shariah blasphemy, slander and libel laws in the West. According to Shariah, it is impermissible to engage in speech or writings that ‘defame’ Islam or otherwise offend its followers. We must oppose all these efforts.”
Lars Hedegaard, President of the International Free Press Society, will introduce Mr. Wilders and outline the IFPS 2009 campaign to ban hate speech laws and to work for an “International First Amendment.” Hedegaard said:
The hate speech and blasphemy laws that are now common in many European countries lack clarity as to precisely what they aim to criminalize. Recent experience with their implementation further shows that they are unequally applied. This state of affairs is intolerable and the IFPS must therefore demand that all such laws be repealed. The way to deal with controversial, offensive or even hateful statements – unless they are directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action – is to expose them to public debate and criticism.
Originally posted by ItsAgentScully
There is a difference between saying something and acting upon it. I don't think we should have to be paranoid about what we say in worry we may "offend someone". If it offends them, discuss why it does and learn something i guess.
Originally posted by hinky
The people who want to silence the Westboro Baptist Church actually need to defend their right for free speech.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
When we assail the First Amendment and start labeling DISSENT as "hate speech," we're already waaay past the "slippery slope" to a Totalitarian State... We're up to our asses in the filthy socialist muck at the bottom of the slope.
— Doc Velocity
[edit on 4/25/2010 by Doc Velocity]
Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
The average European is left with two choices- to follow political correctness or support the underground radicals. Many Europeans go with the second choice. They support racist radicals like Neo Nazi parties.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
I disagree. Government may NOT interfere with speech regardless of how it's used. While I'd agree that being responsible is a good ideal, it is a relative term.
The founding fathers were grossly irresponsible in some people's eyes (there were a great many royalists here before, during, and after the revolution).
Speech is a right that may not be stymied or interfered with by government.