Je suis Charlie

[stamper]

Breaking news.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts

And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Breaking news.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts

And before anybody objects the man has a point???

Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?

After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?

Guise? Are you suggesting that someone forced him to express what he did, or forced him to only tell halftruths as a disinformation strategy?

Cheers,
Bart

[stamper]

Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?

Guise? Are you suggesting that someone forced him to express what he did, or forced him to only tell halftruths as a disinformation strategy?

Cheers,
Bart

That is your expressed opinion. He expressed his. "free speech" ?

[graeme]

No, it wouldn't be interesting to see the response... because it's been done and there was... no response (other than, perhaps, shaking heads).

That's good to hear.

As for the "buttocks" reference, it shall be understood in its French context, as it was a reference and a direct quote from a Brigitte Bardot movie.

Before my time. Beatrice Dalle was my Gallic Screen Goddess of choice.

Graeme

[graeme]

Once again, it is someone else's fault. We are not paying them enough and we are not entertaining them enough. No matter how "dull" that provincial town is, and how low that job is paid, the overall quality of life is centuries (often literally) ahead of the places they (or their parents) left behind. Besides, if they despise western values so much, who's stopping them from returning to places where their preferred lifestyle flourishes. instead of trying to turn their hew homeland into a caliphate?

Totally agree I wasn't defending them, Slobodan. Just saying that for a a few nobodies this whole jihad thing is an opportunity to do something 'exciting'with their crappy lives.

Graeme

[PhotoEcosse]

I don't know about the USA but there are people in the UK who are getting jailed for trolling on the internet for practising "free speech"

You run the risk of misinterpreting the UK position here, Stamper.

The position in Britain is that there is a right to Free Speech, within the law.

In other words, there are laws that restrict Free Speech in specified conditions and circumstances. For example the laws of libel/slander, the laws on inciting racial hatred or the laws on behaviour likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

[stamper]

I find you post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speach with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That is your expressed opinion. He expressed his. "free speech" ?

I asked you two questions:"Which of the points he raises as his opinion are you referring to?" and "Guise?", I did not express an opinion.
Maybe if you could answer the questions, it then becomes possible to express an opinion about whatever you were specifically referring to, instead of having to guess.

Cheers,
Bart

[Chairman Bill]

I find you post contradictory. Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law. In reality that isn't possible and that is what I am trying to point out. You are stating Free Speach with restrictions which is imo an oxymoron. It can't be free and restricted at the same time?

Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, is the classic example of where free speech must have limits. You can't simply go around saying whatever you like & expect no come-backs. So you're free to say things that are slanderous, but the injured party is then free to sue you for damages. You're free to say things that might cause a breach of the peace, but the police are then free to arrest you & charge you accordingly.

[shawnino]

Breaking news.

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/10/392443/CIA-carried-out-Paris-attack-Roberts

And before anybody objects the man has a point??? After all he is entitled to state it in the guise of "free speech?

This guy is entitled to his opinion. Next week, instead of blaming the CIA, he'll probably blame aliens from the planet Mongo.

But here's the difference: neither the CIA, nor the FBI, nor the Tea Party, nor anybody else is going to send some uneducated slob with a suicide vest and the promise of virgins in the afterlife to this guy's house to blow him to pieces because he expressed his opinion.

Iran has had its own insurgents, including the MEK.
Try hanging out in Teheran and telling all and sundry that you think the latest MEK attack was actually a false-flag deal perpetrated by the government's Revolutionary Guard.
You might be wrong. You might be right. Either way, you'll be hanging from a crane.
 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Most people define free speech as to be able to say what they want without fear of restriction and law.

??

When it comes to Free Speech, "Most people" seem to understand that there are some forms of conduct that are not allowed by law:

Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.

The term "offense principle" is also used[1] to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.

As usual, differences of opinion can be submitted to a court of law for a judgement.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Don't you love it when the debate reaches new heights of "My Wikipedia quote has a bigger dick than your Wikipedia quote"?

[mezzoduomo]

Don't you love it when the debate reaches new heights of "My Wikipedia quote has a bigger dick than your Wikipedia quote"?

At this stage, the only missing ingredient is Isaac.
    Just a joke, Isaac....relax. 

[PhotoEcosse]

Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, is the classic example of where free speech must have limits. You can't simply go around saying whatever you like & expect no come-backs. So you're free to say things that are slanderous, but the injured party is then free to sue you for damages. You're free to say things that might cause a breach of the peace, but the police are then free to arrest you & charge you accordingly.

That is like saying "You are free to commit murder, but if you do and if you are caught, there will be legal consequences."

Not really a view that advances the debate very much.

I do appreciate that, here in UK, our "freedoms" tend to be more extensive than in USA or much of Europe (apart from Scandinavia) but our right to exercise those freedoms is still subject to the rule of law. So, perhaps we should be saying no more than "our laws in UK are less restrictive....".

Happily, given the location of this discussion, our freedoms (or should that be lack of restrictions) in relation to photography still seem to be favourable compared to many other countries.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In respect to the right to offend I think you have been practising it for years?  :)As to free speech it is in reality a myth. There are laws of defamation and punch in the mouth to deter people from free speech...

I imagine that if I said "Your blacks seem clipped" in a bar, you and any other Scot worth his salt (kilt?) would have punched me in the mouth after such an offensive statement? 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... here in UK, our "freedoms" tend to be more extensive than in USA...

Huh!?

[Gulag]

"Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?"

— Marx and Engels

In France,  I'm told, the fact is that Prisons Are Full of Muslims:

This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802560.html

[Chairman Bill]

That is like saying "You are free to commit murder, but if you do and if you are caught, there will be legal consequences."

Which was my point. Any freedom has to be set against the impact it has on other people's rights & freedoms. The idea that free speech is only free when you don't need to think about others, is nonsense.

[Chairman Bill]

Huh!?

Well we don't need permits to take photogrpahs in national parks 

[Ray]

I think the essential point here is that offensive and slanderous comments should be allowed in the interests of free speech, provided such comments have a factual basis. It is up to the person who feels offended to take action within the law if he/she knows the offensive comments to have no factual basis.

Human nature is such that people can be offended by the utterance of true comments about themselves, or others whom they highly regard, so to ban all comments on the basis they could or might be offensive is simply not rational and democratic.

The great Irish writer and poet, Oscar Wilde, represents an example. He was having a homosexual affair with the high-society Lord Alfred when homosexuality was illegal in Britain. Lord Alfred's father learned about the affair, got angry and called Oscar a Sodomite.

Oscar was extremely offended and no doubt worried about the effect such a comment would have on his reputation and success as a writer, so against good advice he initiated a private prosecution against Lord Alfred's father who was subsequently arrested and charged with criminal libel.

Unfortunately for Oscar, his lover's father had the resources to investigate Oscar's background and past activities. During the course of 3 trials it became clear that Oscar Wilde really was a Sodomite (or homosexual), so he was the one who was jailed.

For the confused, freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of behavior and activity. We are not, and certainly should not, be free to murder anyone, even if he happens to be guilty of committing a capital offense.