[Dwight Schrute]

BERKELEY MAYOR CALLS FOR ANTIFA TO BE CLASSIFIED AS CRIME GANG AFTER CLASHES AT WEEKEND PROTEST

[IsaactheSyrian]

Basically, it sounds like a lot of the people in this thread have an overly-rosy and kind of idolatrous view of 'free speech', just because it's enshrined in American law.

Some speech shouldn't be free. And, indeed, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, and expression in Section 2, says the following immediately preceding in Section 1:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

I think this is a far better approach. Words have power and some words are very clearly beyond the pale.

[Giga Hertz]

I'm sure China started off the same way.

[Uptown Thrunk]

Originally Posted by Giga Hertz

I'm sure China started off the same way.

I wonder, how do you understand "freedom of speech" as it operates in many western countries?

Could you elaborate on this connection you are trying to make?

[Giga Hertz]

Originally Posted by Uptown Thrunk

I wonder, how do you understand "freedom of speech" as it operates in many western countries?

Could you elaborate on this connection you are trying to make?

It was a failed attempt at dry wit in the early morning. I apologise. Disregard and continue.

[Leboman]

A question for those who may believe that not all speech should be free, especially if it is considered "hate" speech.

What happens when governments decide that preaching certain truths of Scripture is "hateful" and bans it? Say I claim that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible and I am accused of hate speech.

Where do you draw the line? I'm sure there are those right now who would denounce the biblical stance on sexuality as hate speech.

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by Giga Hertz

It was a failed attempt at dry wit in the early morning. I apologise. Disregard and continue.

You mean late afternoon.

[jthomas1600]

You may have to be a little older to appreciate this, but there once was a time when people were desecrating religious symbols, burning flags and other symbols that people cherished, and making outrageous statements that the majority of Americans found offensive and....wait for it....the LEFT said WE HAVE FREE SPEECH. For the longest time "freedom of speech trumps all" has been a value of the left. Now that the left doesn't agree with the speech???? Well, now it's another story.

[jthomas1600]

Speaking of "free speech", over the last few years it has been more and more common for satanic groups to set up monuments and memorials in direct opposition to more traditional monuments/memorials. If you question this or are somehow unaware of the trend a quick google search will enlighten you. As this trend has gained momentum I have not seen a single thread or comment on CGR expressing the opinion that promoting satanism is so bad that free speech associated with it should not be protected. I'll reference again "pigs in a blanket it fry em like bacon" and "what do we want? dead cops/when do we want em? now". Again...no threads or comments stating that free speech should be stifled.

I guess free speech is king unless you don't agree with it.

[Dwight Schrute]

Timeline: a History of Free Speech

Wikipedia: Free Speech

[mtlmouth]

As one of CGR's resident lefty spokespeople, I again want to make a distinction regarding speech very clear:

1. As an American, I support freedom of speech as outlined in the 1st Amendment, meaning that I don't think the US government should punish you for speech except in narrow areas that we've carved out as exceptions to that right.

2. As a Christian and as a human being, I don't think that all speech is good speech, or that we should treat all speech as equally valid. I also don't think that speech should be free of other social consequences.

3. People should absolutely use their own freedom of speech to speak out boldly and loudly in favor of the principles they stand for, and against the ones that they oppose. Sometimes they will be in the majority. Sometimes they will be in the minority. The minority does not have their free speech somehow oppressed because they've been drowned out by the majority saying "we don't want that speech here."

Again, I do not think anyone should be punished by the US government for their speech, regardless of whether or not I agree with what they say. But I am totally fine with people shouting them down and letting them know that their opinions are not acceptable in a particular community.

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by mtlmouth

As one of CGR's resident lefty spokespeople, I again want to make a distinction regarding speech very clear:

1. As an American, I support freedom of speech as outlined in the 1st Amendment, meaning that I don't think the US government should punish you for speech except in narrow areas that we've carved out as exceptions to that right.

2. As a Christian and as a human being, I don't think that all speech is good speech, or that we should treat all speech as equally valid. I also don't think that speech should be free of other social consequences.

3. People should absolutely use their own freedom of speech to speak out boldly and loudly in favor of the principles they stand for, and against the ones that they oppose. Sometimes they will be in the majority. Sometimes they will be in the minority. The minority does not have their free speech somehow oppressed because they've been drowned out by the majority saying "we don't want that speech here."

Again, I do not think anyone should be punished by the US government for their speech, regardless of whether or not I agree with what they say. But I am totally fine with people shouting them down and letting them know that their opinions are not acceptable in a particular community.

As one of CGR's resident righty spokespeople () I agree with all three of these points. The only question I have is what exactly constitutes those "narrow areas carved out as exceptions" in your book?

I also believe in boldly proclaiming truth so long as it is in a loving manner. That is why I would hesitate to participate in any public demonstration regardless of the issue. There are usually too many people (on all sides) who are there to fight.

[mtlmouth]

Originally Posted by Leboman

As one of CGR's resident righty spokespeople () I agree with all three of these points. The only question I have is what exactly constitutes those "narrow areas carved out as exceptions" in your book?

Not my book. The US judiciary's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

[Leboman]

Originally Posted by mtlmouth

Not my book. The US judiciary's book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ech_exceptions

I understand that. My point is that the government is the one who periodically adds things to the list. Where is the line in your opinion? It seems they leave a LOT of room for exceptions especially under "Fighting Words and Offensive Speech".

I can honestly envision a time when a preacher won't be able to publicly say that homosexuality is wrong based upon some of the guidelines in that link you provided.


One legal commentator has suggested that, along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if the speaker intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.


That seems open to a broad range of interpretations.

[jthomas1600]

@mtlmouth

As an aside.....is your user name short hand for metal mouth as in you had braces? Probably been a few years.

As to your last post. It was well said. I have a few questions: You were very specific in your verbiage concerning the "US Government". How about institutions like colleges? Does it make a difference if they're 100% private or partially government funded? There have been numerous incidents of conservative voices being silenced on college campuses. What are your thoughts here?

How about the media? It's mostly privately funded, but do they have an obligation to honor free speech?

How about NPR? They're partially government funded and there have been specific incidents where they have been on the wrong side of this issue.