Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 90577" data-attributes="member: 158">I don't know if this crosses the "no politics" rule, but since this has to do with the value of civil debate, rather than how good or bad the president is doing, I'll speak my mind and risk it.There is a strong danger of limiting free speech in a free society. NOTE: My comments apply to the United States of America, a country for which I am familiar with its constitution and basic premises upon which it was founded. This may or may not apply to your country of origin.For good or ill, when you limit someone's freedom to represent their ideas in a coherent form in public, you limit your own ability to speak your mind as well. This is because you have set a precedent for removing someone's right to say whatever they wish in a public venue.The issue is quite different when the medium does not belong to you. If you follow a terms of service agreement, whether written or merely verbal, you agree to abide by the restrictions put in place upon you by a PRIVATE individual. Very few people would argue a private individual's (and by extension, a corporation's) right to censor the material that they wish to be made public. If you don't own the medium of publicity, then you submit to someone else's terms of use.The issue gets very dicey when a GOVERNMENT enacts laws that limit public freedom of expression in any form. As much as we accept as a society certain standards (for instance, laws against public nudity in downtown Manhattan, NY) of conduct that are codified into law for public behavior, the MINUTE you enact a law that prohibits someone from making their thoughts known in a public forum, you take a course of action that limits free speech, and thereby starts you down a path of further encroachments on a concept that is founded in the very framework of government of the sovereign government.When someone is arrested for public speaking, it is often not for public speaking - it is for loitering on private property, or for physical action in combination with their speech expression, etc. The danger of HATE CRIME LAWS (yes, I know the U.S. has them, and I disagree with them for the reason above) is that, as hateful, derogatory, and against the public ethical code is, it is far more dangerous as a society to curtail someone's expression of ideals in a public forum (such as the internet) because any encroachment of freedom, necessary or not, leads to further encroachment on these freedoms at a future date. It is far easier in our society to enact legislation than repeal it, so the dangers of "rules creep" is all too common. It is far more productive to combat these ideals with truth and refuting evidence, than to shut them down through the enactment of legislation that makes the very act of speaking your mind a crime.Many countries that have enacted Hate Crime laws already can see the negative fruits of this legislation in situations such as this. Through no fault of their own, this Swedish newspaper is facing what amounts to criminal charges for allowing someone to speak their mind on their services. No matter what a free citizen feels about someone's ideals, I imagine they would value their right to speak their own minds enough to defend another's right to say what they believe without facing criminal charges. The simple act of disagreement is one of the most essential freedoms upon which we on this board disseminate new game rules, new ideas, and contrary opinions.I'll close by saying that if it's legal, then it's legal - but it doesn't make it not dangerous to the free spread of dissenting opinions.</blockquote>

Verification