Burn a koran, go to jail for 70 days.. UK!

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
We have the freedom to say anything as long as we are not spreading hate or in sighting violence. America has a similar system but only for in sighting violence.

I've no idea why america is so pro-hate speech.

Because freedom of speech is the very concept of protecting the very speech that you hate so very much. Otherwise it is just lip service and not truly free.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
You don't get it. I'm sure a couple hundred years ago, your King and parliament thought the colonists were hating on them too. Were they right?

You are asking me what people thought a couple of hundred years ago? And to comment on whether they were right?
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Hate speech isn't speech worth protecting.

"Jews aren't worth protecting."
"Blacks aren't worth protecting."
"Speech against liberals isn't worth protecting."
"Speech against conservatives isn't worth protecting."
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
You are asking me what people thought a couple of hundred years ago? And to comment on whether they were right?

You're missing my point, and I really wish I could say it was a simple misunderstanding and not something else.

The point that you're missing is regarding who defines what constitutes things like "hate" speech. For example, read up on the Nazi book burnings. The logic for those was to burn literature deemed "un-German" and the books represented "decadent and corrupt" ideas. So in other words, Hitler probably would've said those books were exercising a form of hate speech. Do you think Hitler's judgment was right on that point?

Unpopular ideas, throughout history, have eventually sparked revolutionary changes in thought or society. The most prominent examples were the church vs. scientists in the high Middle Ages/early Renaissance. "The sun is in the center of the solar system with earth revolving around it" was considered heretical and by definition, that would be considered hate speech against God. Was the church right?

At the end of the day, people need to quit being babies and learn to ignore ignorant people whose views they don't agree with. I'll leave you with this:

Voltaire said:
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.




 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Just another taste of the weirdness of the uk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3C8J2YQneQ
Young voters question time, they stack the panel with two far leftists who don't respect legitimate debate and reasoning. It is the equivalent if we had the same show and stacked it with right wing talk show hosts...
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
You're missing my point, and I really wish I could say it was a simple misunderstanding and not something else.

The point that you're missing is regarding who defines what constitutes things like "hate" speech. For example, read up on the Nazi book burnings. The logic for those was to burn literature deemed "un-German" and the books represented "decadent and corrupt" ideas. So in other words, Hitler probably would've said those books were exercising a form of hate speech. Do you think Hitler's judgment was right on that point?

Unpopular ideas, throughout history, have eventually sparked revolutionary changes in thought or society. The most prominent examples were the church vs. scientists in the high Middle Ages/early Renaissance. "The sun is in the center of the solar system with earth revolving around it" was considered heretical and by definition, that would be considered hate speech against God. Was the church right?

At the end of the day, people need to quit being babies and learn to ignore ignorant people whose views they don't agree with. I'll leave you with this:

Some people can't be ignored, it needs to be stopped before it spreads. The church were wrong. There is a difference between saying "I think the church is wrong, and here is a counter argument" and "Christians are cunts" Hitler was wrong as well.

Morality is defined for a democratic society by the majority, that's what we do.
 

Robsasman

Senior member
Dec 7, 2008
565
0
76
Let me explain: you do NOT have freedom of speech. Being allowed to talk doesn't mean you have freedom of speech. Being allowed to say things that are unpopular, offensive, or speak your opinion on any matter IS freedom of speech. You restrict people from expressing their opinion.

Didn't Arizona pass a law stopping WBC from protesting those funerals awhile ago.
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Didn't Arizona pass a law stopping WBC from protesting those funerals awhile ago.

I believe those laws were overturned by the court system. I could be mistaken though, as they could currently be making their way through the courts.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Some people can't be ignored, it needs to be stopped before it spreads.

Excellent, comrade. Please take these individuals to the "re-education" camp.

The church were wrong. There is a difference between saying "I think the church is wrong, and here is a counter argument" and "Christians are cunts" Hitler was wrong as well.

So if little Jimmy calls little Jane and her family "Poopheads," does that constitute hate speech as well?

Morality is defined for a democratic society by the majority, that's what we do.

Well, Hitler became ruler of Germany through a legal process in Germany, being appointed by a democratically elected leader (Hindenburg). So that makes his book burnings OK? After all, he was apparently exercising the will of the "majority," right?
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Excellent, comrade. Please take these individuals to the "re-education" camp.

OK

So if little Jimmy calls little Jane and her family "Poopheads," does that constitute hate speech as well?

No it does not.


Well, Hitler became ruler of Germany through a legal process in Germany, being appointed by a democratically elected leader (Hindenburg). So that makes his book burnings OK? After all, he was apparently exercising the will of the "majority," right?

That's true, but based on my morality, and the morality of the UK (as I understand it) he was wrong.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
True. Morality is subjective. Based on different peoples moral principles different things are considered right or wrong.

And I'd like to be the one to make my own decision on what is right or wrong rather than the government, thank you very much.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
You don't get it. I'm sure a couple hundred years ago, your King and parliament thought the colonists were hating on them too. Were they right?
You are asking me what people thought a couple of hundred years ago? And to comment on whether they were right?

UK English to US English translation of HAL9000's comment: "Excellent point IndyColtsFan, I now realize I don't understand free speech!"
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
UK English to US English translation: "Excellent point IndyColtsFan, I now realize I don't understand free speech!"

That's a very poor translation, although you got the word "realize" right for the American audience.