RoR: Forum

Just as free speech doesn't protect your right to yell, "Fire" in a crowded theatre, so it shouldn't protect some 'right' to incite violent crime or revolution. What about going after those who advocate the government seizure of private property (progressive tax rates, emminent domain, etc.)? In a perfect world, perhaps.

Post 1

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:33pm

Yes, but words don't hurt people, only people hurt people. They may be leading to hurt, those words, but they are not inflicting them per se. There would be a lot more books, movies and so on burned or banned if this applied. Who exactly would tell which works are dangerous and which are not? A comittee?

The thing with the theater is utterly different, because it leads to and aggitates a desaster or at least a potential negative for the owner of the theater.

I think that freedom of speech should even protect such utterly dangerous "Theories". However, this doesn't command newspapers or any other medium to make such BS available.
I wouldn't dream to forbid NAZI or Communist propaganda (the oppression of both only leads to increase of those forces in the backlash). Still, I would cry out against it when ever I have a chance. I think you must not endorse certain things if you are pro-freedom of speech. And you should use that right to defame these wicked theories/ideologies whenever you have the time. Still, a Censorship on such material is dangerous and easily can run out of hand, as it has happened (f.e.) in Germany about the Jugendschutz (Protection of Youth) or in the US on the same issue (bare breasts on TV).

Post 2

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:40pm

This kind of propaganda will be spread even if prohibited, through mosques, madrassas etc. It is better to keep it open and visible, so that the rest of us can see it, identify its content, and be aware of the danger.

Post 3

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:53pm

Yes, that's another fine point, Adam :)

What's the point in saying you are better than the NAZI and then you forbid the NAZI propaganda the same way the NAZI forbid any other ideology.

Post 4

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:00pm

This stuff is truly vile. I do not agree with censorship, and in fact I am proud to live in a country whereby (so far) there have been no screaming protests to ban this material.

However, with comments like:

�Martyrdom operations are permissible, and in fact the Mujahid who is killed in them is better than one who is killed fighting in the ranks.�

and...

�...terror works and that is why the believers are commanded to enforce it by Allah�.

I have to wonder if the line has been crossed between free speech and incitement to commit murder?
Even if it has not legally crossed the line, the other question is: should this stuff be permissible during a war? Especially since these terrorists believe themselves to be at war with us and we civilians to be valid targets.

In the UK, Mein Kampf was banned during WWII. The leader of an English fascist party identifying himself with Hitler and the NAZI paty was also put in jail.

How tolerant should Government be towards evil ideologues that promote the ambition to overthrow the state or murder civilians?

Post 5

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:05pm

One does have a right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater — provided there is in fact a fire.

One always has the right to advocate revolution.

What no one has the right to do is to violate the rights of another.

Post 6

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:52pm

"One does have a right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater � provided there is in fact a fire."

Or it's your theatre. Or belongs to someone else who doesn't care if you yell it, etc. Nitpicking, yes, but that Oliver Wendell Holmes' catchphrase deserves to be attacked if only because it's been used to rationalize every call for censorship since.

Post 7

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:34pm

Doesn't matter, if I EVER see someone wearing a bin laden teeshirt, I'm going to kick his ass, right there on the street. Considering I'm from the South I'm pretty sure other people would join me. I seen this dude getting the crap beat out of him on Northwestern's campus a few years back just for wearing one of them damn che teeshirts. I had a good laugh on that one but I was late for class so I didn't join it. It was a good brawl too, that guy was part of a protest against coffee or something like that and they were in the face of people just trying to eat some lunch. They had it coming but that guy with the shirt got it the worst.

Post 8

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:32pm

Aaron, Holmes, for all his faults, included the word 'falsely'. It is the misquoters who err.

Post 9

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:33pm

Clarence, remind me never to consider you to be civilized.

Post 10

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:47pm

I'd be tempted to quote the initiation of force line from Galt's speech here... but it just kind of seems wasted.

---Landon

Post 11

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:03pm

Mr. Pasotto, yeah I get that a lot from northerners, and liberals.

What? you consider it a sign of 'civilization' to respect your enemy? Cause whoever would show a sign of support like that is mine, at best worthy to be the scum on the bottom of my shoe and at worst fit enough to be ground under. At least I'm honest about it, the supporters of evil lost their rights a long time ago so there is nothing left to respect about them.

If letting the supporters of people who want you dead do what they want under "freedom of speech" is part of civilization, I want nothing of it. Ask the Dutch what they think about that, ask British, hell ask your own people. The little son of a bitch wearing that shirt made his choice, and if he runs by me he'll have to deal with it.

Post 12

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 9:23pm

Clarence, you need to learn the difference between words and actions. You need to learn that force is acceptable only in retaliation and that wearing a t-shirt (or not) does not initiate force, does not violate anyone's rights.

Your only legitimate responses to what you don't like or disagree with are scorn, criticism, and avoidance.

Post 13

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:54pm

So a guy gets up and tells the world he wants to kill you. Another person goes around telling people this is the greatest guy in the world. So you're saying you have no beef with them?

I don't know how you're thinking. The enemy of your enemy is sometimes just another enemy but the friend of you enemy is always one, period.

Post 14

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:30am

Freedom of speech should be unbridled. That includes the freedom to advocate the initiation of force. Communists, Nazis, Islamo-fascist filth, anarcho-Saddamites, even pedophiles should all be free to publish their verminous advocacy. But not to act on it.

If the publications cited here are closed down, one of the core reasons we fight terrorists in the first place will have been negated.

Linz

Post 15

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:25am

It's nice to occasionally be able to say "hear, hear" when Lindsay weighs in.

Adam has it right,of course -- the advocacy of evil is going to occur, whether it occurs aboveground or underground.

Better that the evil ones expose themselves publicly for what they are, and better that everyone else know what they think so as to determine for themselves that their ideas are, in fact, evil, than to suppress it -- especially since that kind of suppression is almost certain to be abused and to eventually spread from the suppression of evil to the suppression of dissent.

Tom Knapp

Post 16

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:48am

Indeed, it is the first time I agree with Linz OO. Is this a time of celebration? :P

Post 17

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:56am

Where did I go wrong?

Post 18

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:07am

Thanks for your feedback. I agree with the comments made against censorship. Censorship will not solve the problem with the spread of evil, but probably make it worse.

However, can the line be crossed between encouraging a specific "murder" to take place and just encouraging "murder" in general? Is it your opinion that the former should be illegal and later legal? How do you differentiate? Is that just for courts to decide on a case by case basis?

Also, no one has addressed the point yet whether the deportation of Muslim clerics is justified - the UK Government plans to do this - if they are preaching that terrorism against the western world is appropriate to achieve their goals.

I personally think that to deport these Muslim clerics is the wrong thing to do for the practical reason that at least in this country we can keep an eye on their activities and put them in jail if need be. To send them overseas to their terrorist buddies is insanity.

Post 19

Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:35am