What's new

Freedom of speech. Free press.

AND NOW. . . GETTING BACK TO FREE SPEECH. . . and such. . . I would say that there would be some natural barriers in a sense, to some degree, according to the generally accepted concept of politeness within a given social group, that would yet not be considered as censorship, but (within and across that general social group) as simply common sense.

Such matters even cross social groups at times, to varying degrees. For example, whether here in Japan, the US, France, or Bangladesh, one wouldn't likely just go up to a total stranger and start talking about how foolish they looked for wearing a certain type of garb, or clothing. This would be classified as taboo, more likely, therefore we could assert that taboos are socially constructed, (to that degree)-natural censorship particles.

I recall once about a trial in Ohio (USA) over a charge against some man for saying a curse word to himself (but, unfortunately, kind of in front of other people). In that there was an actually law against profanity, I would think that it would then cross over the line of simply being taboo, to being censorship, and thus, by extension, non-freedom of speech. Do we have other examples like that in the world?

HINT, HINT, HINT...please do notice the bold orange words at the top !
I agree MM. There is a big difference between social censorship through various mechanisms (self awareness, shaming, etc) and legal. IMHO, bringing the coercive force of the government against a private citizen should only be done in dire circumstances. Merely insulting or rude speech does not meet that criteria. For a criminal act of speech, I would say that there must be an immediate and credible threat present within the speech act.
AND NOW. . . GETTING BACK TO FREE SPEECH. . . and such. . .

HINT, HINT, HINT...please do notice the bold orange words at the top !

I guess the size and color had not been outstanding enough. Sorry for the repeat, it's just that...well. This is also an exercise of free speech. Also it is censorship...due to a template that JREF uses. We have a certain guide line (rule, if you will...or maybe we could say LAW !!?) that we go by here, and that is we are free to say whatever we want, within certain limits (due usually to age groups who are members, and the set-up conception of what JREF is) and we have catagories. (meaning theme/topic headings [per forum, thread])

This particular thread is about Freedom of PRESS/SPEECH.

ps of course there is some margin given for off-topicness, but to go off and stay off, or to repeatedly drag a thread off-topic is a NO NO...
On the subject of a free press the BBC has commisioned a poll from around the world on free speech.
Makes interesting reading.
I dont recall anyone promoting "absolute" freedom of speech. You are making a straw man argument, and a poor one at that. In any case, you have no proof that any of what you speculate would actually happen.
Mycernius said; 60 plus years later, it is a pretty sh!tty way to deal with the past. By driving neonazis underground, you give them cachet and "cool" factors that exposing them in public would not do.
A government facing up to its past has nothing to do with restricting the speech of its citizens. They are different issues.

If you aren't promoting absolute freedom of speech, then what is your point?

And looking at the evidence, by punishing nazi's i do not think it is making their image cooler- do you see lots of young easily influenced teenagers walking around saying "hey i'm going to be a nazi 'cos its against the law!"? Do you really think people act like dumb sheep that much?

Tell me, what positive can come from letting someone try to rally people to the nazi cause?
You said you didn't agree with germanys "lack" of freedom of speech, you gave an example for believing this and choose its anti-nazi laws as an example. By doing so, you are essentially saying you agree with people spreading nazi extremist views, which would do nothing positive for anyone that actually cared about their communities and society.
I am not one of those people that would encourage absolute freedom of speech with no consequences if doing such a thing would do nothing good.
Well you have absolute freedom of speech in your house or room right? So say everything you wish there, once finished come out, and spare the people of radical ideas, thats my opinion. Nazism isn't a debated philosophical view, its complete BS, equal human rights is not something you argue about, and anyone who goes against this obvious rule is dumb, so dumb that he should be put on a display like a rare kind of monkey.
Tokis-Phoenix is absolutely right, people turn nazi because they are influenced by other nazi morons, and not because they are not. First make them legit, as a second step let them form a party and who knows what else. Nazism isn't even an organized "view" or "philosophy" or call it whatever. Imagine an international nazi world meeting, they'd just jump at each others throats and own each other up. They simple rabid dogs, and rabid dogs need to be tied.
I find that list a little hard to believe. How can Germany rank so high when simply questioning the Holocaust can get you thrown in jail?

Exactly! Freedom of speech applies only to those that don't think outside the box, to those that never question their authorities.

Like... anti facists/nazis can have their protests, but facists/nazis can't? That is absolutely ridicilous! You may not like what someone is saying or supporting, but it is (or should be) their right to express their opinion and their views.
The hell with all that hypocrisy.
Top Bottom