Freedom of Speech

[Kaiserin]

Freedom of speech is a two-way street.

You have the right to say what you want, and people have the right to react accordingly. It's not right to stifle either one in favor of the other.

 

[manaphy72]

If you want to honestly ask me, Freedom of Speech is Something People have taken the meaning of that and put it to what they want it to mean.

My meaning is "Freedom of Speech" what does that mean actually?? it means you are allowed to stick up for what you believe in, You can disagree with the government. But some people in high school and even adults if they curse say "I have the freedom of Speech"

What people do is turn that into what they want to make it. And it wont work like that if we keep it up. It wasnt ever meant to come across where a 15 year old can say F*** in front of there teacher and they can say "Well I have the freedom of speech"

Do you get what I am saying

 

[Waterlover711]

if we had the right to say what we want when we want then america wouldnt be where it is today..example: fighting words, these are used to provoke violence in people..'nother example: defamation, this is spoken or witten slander against someone else..if we were allowed to do those things then there would be more violence in the us....now the thing that gets me is the limited vocabulary were allowed to use at school..example: curse words

 

[Ausgirl]

It sickens me when people use the whole freedom of speech thing as an excuse to express hate against certain groups of people.

The main problem with freedom of speech is that even if the majority of people support certain issues such as gay marriage (in Australia that's 60% of the population), the government will refuse to change the law because they don't want to offend the minority. Therefor freedom of speech will only take us so far -the rest is up to the government and their decissions -which are based not on what the majority of the public want but on what they think will keep them in power.

 

[randomspot555]

It sickens me when people use the whole freedom of speech thing as an excuse to express hate against certain groups of people.

But that's the whole point of "freedom" in "freedom of speech". It does nobody any good if one expresses views and societty or the government supports them. But when non-mainstream views are expressed, it's much more important that those views are allowd the same freedom.

The main problem with freedom of speech is that even if the majority of people support certain issues such as gay marriage (in Australia that's 60% of the population), the government will refuse to change the law because they don't want to offend the minority. Therefor freedom of speech will only take us so far -the rest is up to the government and their decissions -which are based not on what the majority of the public want but on what they think will keep them in power.

Freedom of speech and a legal/legislative issue are two completely separate issues.

 

[Ausgirl]

But that's the whole point of "freedom" in "freedom of speech". It does nobody any good if one expresses views and societty or the government supports them. But when non-mainstream views are expressed, it's much more important that those views are allowd the same freedom.



Freedom of speech and a legal/legislative issue are two completely separate issues.

There's a difference between expressing a view and expressing hatred.

Yes but the two issues are related.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Therefor freedom of speech will only take us so far -the rest is up to the government and their decissions -which are based not on what the majority of the public want but on what they think will keep them in power.

In a democratic system, isn't what the majority of the public wants the same thing as what will keep the government in power?

And if it doesn't keep the government in power, maybe it's not actually what the majority of the public wants. Sometimes your party wins, sometimes your party loses.

My belief is that emotional appeal is degrading our justice system. We are thriving on corporations that study our instincts and emotions and selling us what appeals to us most. The law is following suit. For instance, the term terrorism is obviously manufactured to evoke an emotional response from people (ironically, terror, when the precise definition is somebody who inflicts terror), but as a legal term, the word has been ruled as only dubiously applicable.

Even in the case of gay rights, I believe we should not have a concept of hate crimes. A crime is defined by an action, not be a thought or a feeling. It's not the law's job to tell people how to feel or what to believe. I believe the First Amendment in the U.S. Consitution is there precisely to protect bigots and people with likewise frowned upon viewpoints in order to treat everyone in a fair manner and thus protect our unity. If we can't learn to coexist with people who are truly different than us - not some tripe as in people of a different skin tone or nationality, I think we're over that - but if we can't learn to coexist with people who we honestly, in every bone of our body, disagree with, without trying to control what they say or burn their books in an effort to make them better, then we don't really stand for freedom of speech.

 

[randomspot555]

There's a difference between expressing a view and expressing hatred.

I never denied there's a difference. But they're allowed to express a "hatred" view. There's certain lines that, if crossed, can be criminally prosecuted or sued in civil court in cases such as hate speech, fighting words, and defamation (AKA slander and libel). But if those lines aren't crossed, so what? It's just their view. Feel free to not listen to them.

Yes but the two issues are related.

No, they really aren't. Sometimes in the legislative process, you lose, and it can be for a variety of different reasons (just because something is supported by a majority of a population doesn't mean it'll make it through the legislative process). Life isn't fair. Pick up your pieces and live to fight another day.

Even in the case of gay rights, I believe we should not have a concept of hate crimes. A crime is defined by an action, not be a thought or a feeling. It's not the law's job to tell people how to feel or what to believe. I believe the First Amendment in the U.S. Consitution is there precisely to protect bigots and people with likewise frowned upon viewpoints in order to treat everyone in a fair manner and thus protect our unity. If we can't learn to coexist with people who are truly different than us - not some tripe as in people of a different skin tone or nationality, I think we're over that - but if we can't learn to coexist with people who we honestly, in every bone of our body, disagree with, without trying to control what they say or burn their books in an effort to make them better, then we don't really stand for freedom of speech.

Any prosecutor worth their salt will tell you that intent factors in greatly when prosecuting crimes. That's why there are different sentencing requirements for involuntary vehicular manslaughter and a third degree homicide. Even though both charges stem from someone dying due to the actions of another party, the intents behind those actions are completely different. Involuntary vehicular manslaughter means it was an accident and the driver of the vehicle had no malicious intent to even harm the person. They might get off completely because a judge might figure the act of taking a life accidentally, and having to live with it, is punishment enough. COmpare that to a third degree homicide, meaning someone intentionally killed a specific person, which is a life-in-prison or death penalty type of sentencing.

Something like 45/50 states have hate crimes legislation, and for good reasoning. When crimes have "passion" behind them, they often get prosecuted more harshly. If I drunkenly hit someone in a fit of rage for no reason, I'd likely be charged and sentenced differently than if I drunkenly and purposefully hit my spouse. Similarly, randomly killing a guy for no reason and killing him for a specific reason (race, age, sexual orientation, etc...) would get sentenced differently.

And finally, crimes of passion, especially in the case of hate crimes, can be very difficult to prosecute in criminal court. Often, there isn't enough evidence for that charge so it gets knocked down to something lesser. But when there is ample evidence to convict, that option should be available for prosecutors, juries, and judges.

 

[Ausgirl]

In a democratic system, isn't what the majority of the public wants the same thing as what will keep the government in power?

In an ideal society, perhaps. In reality though the government will try to avoid dealing with important issues by comprimising i.e. civil unions for gays.

I never denied there's a difference. But they're allowed to express a "hatred" view. There's certain lines that, if crossed, can be criminally prosecuted or sued in civil court in cases such as hate speech, fighting words, and defamation (AKA slander and libel). But if those lines aren't crossed, so what? It's just their view. Feel free to not listen to them.



No, they really aren't. Sometimes in the legislative process, you lose, and it can be for a variety of different reasons (just because something is supported by a majority of a population doesn't mean it'll make it through the legislative process). Life isn't fair. Pick up your pieces and live to fight another day.

We also have a right to feel safe.

Yes they are. Ordinary citizins can fight for change but it is only the government that are really capable of bringing about change.

 

[randomspot555]

In an ideal society, perhaps. In reality though the government will try to avoid dealing with important issues by comprimising i.e. civil unions for gays.

Then if it was that important, people wouldn't vote for these guys. But since they did get in power, they either need to be voted out if marriage equality proponents are as numerous as you claim they are in Australia, or your position (that marriage equality is the majority belief in every legislative district in Australia) is faulty.

 

[CSolarstorm]

We also have a right to feel safe.

No we don't. Feeling safe is entirely subjective. If a racist found themselves living between two African-American families, and they were scared of them because of the color of their skin, but didn't have the money to move, how would their right to feel safe be enforced?

In an ideal society, perhaps. In reality though the government will try to avoid dealing with important issues by comprimising i.e. civil unions for gays.

Like randomspot555 said, the answer would be to not vote for people who have a history of compromise. Although in a government with more than one party, compromise is often the only way to deliver results.

Any prosecutor worth their salt will tell you that intent factors in greatly when prosecuting crimes. That's why there are different sentencing requirements for involuntary vehicular manslaughter and a third degree homicide. Even though both charges stem from someone dying due to the actions of another party, the intents behind those actions are completely different. Involuntary vehicular manslaughter means it was an accident and the driver of the vehicle had no malicious intent to even harm the person. They might get off completely because a judge might figure the act of taking a life accidentally, and having to live with it, is punishment enough. COmpare that to a third degree homicide, meaning someone intentionally killed a specific person, which is a life-in-prison or death penalty type of sentencing.

Something like 45/50 states have hate crimes legislation, and for good reasoning. When crimes have "passion" behind them, they often get prosecuted more harshly. If I drunkenly hit someone in a fit of rage for no reason, I'd likely be charged and sentenced differently than if I drunkenly and purposefully hit my spouse. Similarly, randomly killing a guy for no reason and killing him for a specific reason (race, age, sexual orientation, etc...) would get sentenced differently.

And finally, crimes of passion, especially in the case of hate crimes, can be very difficult to prosecute in criminal court. Often, there isn't enough evidence for that charge so it gets knocked down to something lesser. But when there is ample evidence to convict, that option should be available for prosecutors, juries, and judges.

That makes sense. Hate crimes don't depend on the reason, but that fact that there was a reason, which means that it was deliberate and thought out, like a premeditated crime.

 

[PokeJustice]

Any prosecutor worth their salt will tell you that intent factors in greatly when prosecuting crimes. That's why there are different sentencing requirements for involuntary vehicular manslaughter and a third degree homicide. Even though both charges stem from someone dying due to the actions of another party, the intents behind those actions are completely different. Involuntary vehicular manslaughter means it was an accident and the driver of the vehicle had no malicious intent to even harm the person. They might get off completely because a judge might figure the act of taking a life accidentally, and having to live with it, is punishment enough. Compare that to a third degree homicide, meaning someone intentionally killed a specific person, which is a life-in-prison or death penalty type of sentencing.

You are, here, conflating "intent" with "motivation." Say I kill a man. Moreover, say I kill a man because of his ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. My intent was to end his life, the rationale behind it notwithstanding. What drove me to do it may well have been my bigotry, but, all else being equal, your intent when you designedly kill someone is always the same.

Something like 45/50 states have hate crimes legislation, and for good reasoning. When crimes have "passion" behind them, they often get prosecuted more harshly. If I drunkenly hit someone in a fit of rage for no reason, I'd likely be charged and sentenced differently than if I drunkenly and purposefully hit my spouse. Similarly, randomly killing a guy for no reason and killing him for a specific reason (race, age, sexual orientation, etc...) would get sentenced differently.

Imagine that, upon arriving home early, I find my wife and a strange fellow in congress in my bed. I then proceed to interrupt the dance by strangling him to death.

It would be difficult, off-hand, to think of a crime more "passionate" than the one I just described. But I doubt that I would be sentenced more firmly just because my crime was thoroughly packed with "passion." No, it is not crimes belying "passion" you wish to see punished more firmly; no, it is crimes with unsavory motivating factors. But motivation is a comparatively dispensable aspect of any given crime. What if I killed for money, or power, or fame, or even because I found it pleasurable? Murder for any such reason might seem especially reprehensible. But what, tangibly speaking, makes any driving force behind the infliction of violence so profound as to be legally actionable in and of itself?

I can't help but think that we're missing the point.

We also have a right to feel safe.

No, you don't.

 

[randomspot555]

You are, here, conflating "intent" with "motivation." Say I kill a man. Moreover, say I kill a man because of his ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. My intent was to end his life, the rationale behind it notwithstanding. What drove me to do it may well have been my bigotry, but, all else being equal, your intent when you designedly kill someone is always the same.Imagine that, upon arriving home early, I find my wife and a strange fellow in congress in my bed. I then proceed to interrupt the dance by strangling him to death.

Okay, but you seem to have understood what I meant.

It would be difficult, off-hand, to think of a crime more "passionate" than the one I just described. But I doubt that I would be sentenced more firmly just because my crime was thoroughly packed with "passion." No, it is not crimes belying "passion" you wish to see punished more firmly; no, it is crimes with unsavory motivating factors. But motivation is a comparatively dispensable aspect of any given crime. What if I killed for money, or power, or fame, or even because I found it pleasurable? Murder for any such reason might seem especially reprehensible. But what, tangibly speaking, makes any driving force behind the infliction of violence so profound as to be legally actionable in and of itself?

I can't help but think that we're missing the point.No, you don't.

The last push for hate crimes legislation in my state of Indiana, back in 2007, was by the prosecutor of the largest county in Indiana, a Republican, and at the time was seen as a rising star within the party.

And criminal prosecution is just as much about sending a message about what we as a society stand for as it is for punishing a crime. Again, back to spousal abuse, I can almost guarantee that physical violence against a spouse or other family member will be different than physical violence against a relative stranger. The action might be the same, the level of abuse might be the same, but spousal abuse is prosecuted differently (and I'd argue, more harshly) than violence against a random stranger for a reason.

 

[7 tyranitars]

No we don't. Feeling safe is entirely subjective. If a racist found themselves living between two African-American families, and they were scared of them because of the color of their skin, but didn't have the money to move, how would their right to feel safe be enforced?

By not being a racist .

Anyway freedoms, including freedom of speech is valid to the point it obstructs an other persons freedom.

 

[PokeJustice]

The last push for hate crimes legislation in my state of Indiana, back in 2007, was by the prosecutor of the largest county in Indiana, a Republican, and at the time was seen as a rising star within the party.

Um... okay? That's cool...

And criminal prosecution is just as much about sending a message about what we as a society stand for as it is for punishing a crime. Again, back to spousal abuse, I can almost guarantee that physical violence against a spouse or other family member will be different than physical violence against a relative stranger. The action might be the same, the level of abuse might be the same, but spousal abuse is prosecuted differently (and I'd argue, more harshly) than violence against a random stranger for a reason.

Criminal prosecution, ideally, I think, should be about the restoration of damages. That aside, it should be about the punishment of aggression and the incapacitation of the aggressor. "Sending a message" by punishing some catalysts for violent action more than others seems unfair at best.

I can't really see what hate crime has in common with domestic abuse.

 

[Manafi's Dream]

In my honest opinion, there is a distinctly human right to be able to say as you please, but there is also a limit to how far you can go with it.

One cannot just go about saying *** and ***** whenever they want. This is a civilized world, and frankly, it doesn't make you cool to cuss. No one wants to hear trash pouring out of your mouth more than necessary. Savvy?

Even further to the point, one cannot just abuse their freedom and spread harmful information about another person, especially if it is false. When the information itself is delivered 100% accurately, then you are basically just declaring a true statement to the public, protecting you from possible libel charges. However, if you were spouting blatant lies to the public that are damaging to another person's reputation, then yes, you are up for libel charges.

This was just a quick response, but to summarize:

It is important that humans be granted their freedom of speech, but you must have regulations and rules in order to keep the peace. The pen is mightier than the sword.

 

[randomspot555]

Um... okay? That's cool...

It's to demonstrate that this isn't just some PC move. hate crimes legislation exist in 45/50 states spanning across the American political spectrum. It's not just some PC move.

Criminal prosecution, ideally, I think, should be about the restoration of damages.

I personally believe that it should be about rehabilitation in most cases, with worst case scenario being to throw away the key.

But you can't really restore damages when you can't really put a financial figure on it. A death threat doesn't really directly cost any money. You can't throw death threats into a formula like you can an injury and say "Well, you were injured for X amount of time meaning you earned Y less amount of income and so the damages should be Z".

I can't really see what hate crime has in common with domestic abuse.

It's an example where, if you commit the same act of violence on a non-family member, you'll be charged differently, prosecuted differently, and sentenced differently. Unless you live in a jurisdiction which doesn't have domestic abuse laws.

Indiana code differntiates between battery and domestic battery. Battery, defined as "knowingly or intentionally touching someone in a rude, insolent, or angry manner" (IC 35-42-2-1) and is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and up to 180 days in prison. Domestic battery, defined as "A person who commits battery involving bodily injury against a person who is or was a spouse of the offender, who is or was living as if a spouse of the offender, or has a child in common with the offender" (IC 35-42-2-1.3) is punishable by up to $5,000 in fines and up to 365 days in jail. Again, the only difference is who it's committed against.