Pain_Man Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 (edited) Here's a very interesting article published in the New York Times on the different ways the United States & Canada (as well as some other countries) handle "offensive" speech; we've protected it, they've criminalized. I found it quite fascinating and another reason why, despite all its defects, I wouldn't live in any other country. Article Title: American Exception Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech An excellent comment from a reader (imo): "The First Amendment is a gift, like the article says, that nobody else has. Once you start making exceptions, it will never stop." (Which is precisely my objection to "hate" crime laws. They criminalize thought which an obscure writer named Eric Blair once warned us about in a little known, little read novel. I think it had numbers in the title(??). Edited June 13, 2008 by Pain_Man
blutach Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 Post is too long to read, much lesss consider and think about! A link would have been better rather than a cut and paste of the Times' article (complete with their offer to subscribe). Regards
Pain_Man Posted June 13, 2008 Author Posted June 13, 2008 It is long, no doubt. But I thought that more people would read it rather than tap a link and have to register for the Times' site and then. Too bad. Your thoughts on the article were some of the ones I'm most especially interested in. OK, point taken. I'll remove the text and leave the link. I suppose the truly interested won't mind taken a couple of minutes to go thru the Gray Lady's registration process. Post is too long to read, much lesss consider and think about! A link would have been better rather than a cut and paste of the Times' article (complete with their offer to subscribe). Regards
blutach Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 The difference between writing an opinion about how a group of people (mostly based on race, relgion or colour) going about their business behave and live their lives (allowed) and inciting people to hate (disallowed) is a fine line. Freedom of speech or not, inciting hatred is wrong. Certain countries, including my own, have (quite rightly in my view) enacted anti-hate laws. Let the courts decide what is incitement to hate and what is purely an opinion about a group of people. Regards
Cynthia Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 More bloggers than ever face arrest for exposing human rights abuses or criticising governments, says a report. In 2007 three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues than in 2006, it revealed. The report pointed out that it is not just governments in the Middle East and East Asia that have taken steps against those publishing their opinions online. In the last four years, British, French, Canadian and American bloggers have also been arrested. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7456357.stm Zero persons were arrested in Sweden during that time for blogging about political issues and we do blogg heavily with political issues. Perhaps our government is to lazy to arrest us...
Cynthia Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Well, we have a law about electronic bulletin-boards. It's up to the one that runs such a blogg to remove posted material from other users that is abettal, persecution against ethnic groups, child pornography or if it's violating copyrights. If the owner of the bulletin-board doesn't remove it - he is the one committing the crime, even if it was somebody else that posted it. I guess this law is only used if the bulletin-board is hosted on a server in Sweden.
volvofl10 Posted June 18, 2008 Posted June 18, 2008 Let the courts decide what is incitement to hate and what is purely an opinion about a group of people. Regards Problem i have Blu, is that i HATE the courts and the group of people that run them
Recommended Posts