[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

This bastard did the equivalent of yelling out "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre as far as I'm concerned, so I guess the age-old common wisdom that free speech protection doesn't apply if someone else ends up getting killed as a byproduct of it has been scrap-heaped along with most everything else of our old common sense.

Is that what we should be going towards? Free speech will be limited if you have enough people rioting/killing over it? People getting angry at what you say is fine and dandy, but somehow going around and killing people because of what you said, (instead of causing a panic and leading to accidental deaths, like the "Fire" situation) will create a major double standard.

To use another example. Neo-Nazis are legally allowed to do their bullshit within minority neighborhoods. The next time Neo-Nazis propose a march, should the various minority communities start killing people to have it stopped?

[Gunnair]

I find it curious that some of the same poeple who support this person's freedom of speech (against Islam) support the removal of freedom expression for burka wearing women.

Why is that?

[Brenda]

There is no such thing as free speech. There is only free speech if you agree with the masses.

[commanderkai]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I find it curious that some of the same poeple who support this person's freedom of speech (against Islam) support the removal of freedom expression for burka wearing women.

Why is that?

Depends on the situation? Are you talking about a complete ban (which is silly, and wrong) or not allowing exceptions for the burka when relating to identity issues (like with voting)?

[Gunnair]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I find it curious that some of the same poeple who support this person's freedom of speech (against Islam) support the removal of freedom expression for burka wearing women.

Why is that?

Depends on the situation? Are you talking about a complete ban (which is silly, and wrong) or not allowing exceptions for the burka when relating to identity issues (like with voting)?

Complete ban. I'm all for exceptions relating to identity, but I find many of the hard over rights types are only hard over for those rights in certain situations.

[martin14]

Gunnair Gunnair:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I find it curious that some of the same poeple who support this person's freedom of speech (against Islam) support the removal of freedom expression for burka wearing women.

Why is that?

Depends on the situation? Are you talking about a complete ban (which is silly, and wrong) or not allowing exceptions for the burka when relating to identity issues (like with voting)?

Complete ban. I'm all for exceptions relating to identity, but I find many of the hard over rights types are only hard over for those rights in certain situations.

The bans in France were made for public security.
Islam, hajib, women, never mentioned in the law.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

Gunnair Gunnair:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Depends on the situation? Are you talking about a complete ban (which is silly, and wrong) or not allowing exceptions for the burka when relating to identity issues (like with voting)?

Complete ban. I'm all for exceptions relating to identity, but I find many of the hard over rights types are only hard over for those rights in certain situations.

The bans in France were made for public security.
Islam, hajib, women, never mentioned in the law.

Of course they were.

There's more threat of being nailed by a drunk driver than a terrorist.

Let's ban alcohol and vehicles too for the sake of the nanny state and the collective timidness of some.

[commanderkai]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Complete ban. I'm all for exceptions relating to identity, but I find many of the hard over rights types are only hard over for those rights in certain situations.

If a woman willingly wears a burka, then I don't care. A complete ban would be unconstitutional in my view. Sorry I can't help address the issue.

[EyeBrock]

Freedom of speech has limits. In Canada those limits extend to racist/sexist/gender levels. As in you can’t say racist, gay-hating anti women stuff.

But in places like the UK and US, free speech includes burning poppies and chanting abuse at the funerals of soldiers.

Free speech also withers on subjects to do with challenging Islam, as in cartoons of Allah (peace be upon him) but piss-Christ is fine.

What a great, hypocritical world we live in.

We can’t even protect our own culture or deal with boorish behaviour anymore and we turn a blind-eye to those who crap on our symbols of rememberance.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We can’t even protect our own culture or deal with boorish behaviour anymore and we turn a blind-eye to those who crap on our symbols of rememberance.

I guess the lesson here is that veterans/Christians/etc need to go out rioting and murdering more when people do things that they don't like, or something.

[EyeBrock]

That's not what soldiers do CK. We expect our leaders to defend our culture and laws. The Legions have no place making laws.

[commanderkai]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

That's not what soldiers do CK. We expect our leaders to defend our culture and laws. The Legions have no place making laws.

Oh I agree, but that's the conclusions that seem to be coming up. It's just sad. Not sure if my whole disgust and contempt about how freedom of speech can be curtailed to try to not offend groups who get violent for anything.

[EyeBrock]

Yep, as Shep said. Some animals are more equal than others.

[andyt]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Thanos Thanos:

This bastard did the equivalent of yelling out "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre as far as I'm concerned, so I guess the age-old common wisdom that free speech protection doesn't apply if someone else ends up getting killed as a byproduct of it has been scrap-heaped along with most everything else of our old common sense.

Is that what we should be going towards? Free speech will be limited if you have enough people rioting/killing over it? People getting angry at what you say is fine and dandy, but somehow going around and killing people because of what you said, (instead of causing a panic and leading to accidental deaths, like the "Fire" situation) will create a major double standard.

To use another example. Neo-Nazis are legally allowed to do their bullshit within minority neighborhoods. The next time Neo-Nazis propose a march, should the various minority communities start killing people to have it stopped?

My thoughts exactly. But, if he's allowed to do what he wants and people do get hurt, do we just shrug our shoulders? I see this as a real dilemma. And what if Neo-Nazis attack people demonstrating for racial harmony? Are we going to ban that too? Hate to be the judge in this case.

[commanderkai]

andyt andyt:

My thoughts exactly. But, if he's allowed to do what he wants and people do get hurt, do we just shrug our shoulders? I see this as a real dilemma. And what if Neo-Nazis attack people demonstrating for racial harmony? Are we going to ban that too? Hate to be the judge in this case.

See, if we have Neo-Nazis attacking people for voicing their opinion...the Neo-Nazis go to jail!

In the end, the people responsible for the violence are the people causing the violence. Cowering to assholes who threaten violence when their views are challenged or offended, then what's stopping other groups from acting in the same way?

People, even douchefucks like the Westboro Baptist Church, or this guy, or Neo-Nazis should have the right to voice their opinion, even if it's idiotic, and they should have the right to do so without being oppressed by the state.