<font color=orange>This is a spin off topic from the GUNS topic. We ambled into some freedom of speech topics and were chastized by the mods for getting off topic. So I thought I'd start one here.

Should any Government by allowed to curb what people say and think, (I'm not talking about weither the government should have the right to say someone can't yell fire in a movie theater) just because they don't like or agree with the message?

A rule before we get started. KEEP IT NICE. If you get mad at a commit, walk away from the computer for a while, formulate your reply and then come back.</font>

It depends on what they are restricting. Epona was saying in England its illegal to publish an incitement to racial hatred or holocaust denial.Things like that dont seem that bad. If a government knows it can not be questioned though it could lead to corruption.

[ 05-27-2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

<font color=Red>

*big head mode on*

[an extract from one of my essays]

It is well to remember that in spite of the valid criticisms which can be made of the way western societies have allowed governments to place restrictions upon freedom of speech, it virtually pales into insignificance when a comparison is made with the countries which lie between the Elbe and the China Sea. One vivid example is the care which the leader of the Polish trade union Solidarity, Lech Walesa, has had to employ in any "statement" which he makes about the problems confronting that country. It is all the more of concern because it seems clear that it is only the threat of criticism from the international media which has prevented this episode from being dealt with in the usual way. A similar problem has been shown recently in the USSR by the controversy surrounding the health of the Soviet dissident, Sakharov.

This association of restrictions with socialism and freedom with capitalism, is no matter of chance. Capitalism is, with all its faults, a pluralist system. Power within it is dispersed and various, and it is this pluralism which is the necessary though not sufficient condition for freedom's existence and continuance. Socialism, on the other hand, is a highly centralized system, with political and economic power concentrated in very few hands. Freedom of speech in the Socialist bloc is all the more restricted where all causes must bend to the Communist doctrine.

*big head mode off*

Well thats my 2c

Could?? Name at least one governemnt that doesnt have at least a little bit of corruption and I'll say "Wake up Dorothy. Youre back in Kansas now"

I think an individual should be able to say what they want without fear of persecution from the government, or, the person they insulted through judicial means. For example (and this is just an exaple not intended to be a flame or anything) if I were to say "Caleb you're a swine, you stink. Go take a bath." Of course Caleb I hope you DIDNT take that personally and sue me for it [img]smile.gif[/img]

You can sue me for that???? How rediculous. Thats not much freedom if I can be sued for something that was pretty insignificant. I realise what slander and deformation of character are but thats a pretty weak excuse for a lawsuit. Friends cut eachother down all the time. People get in bar fights because one insults another. Only the truly wimpy sue someone else for name calling.

uh very interesting debate,in order for any society to work you must have a degree of control,not a death grip but some control.common sense and curtisee(?) should dictate the rest,i mean like how you feel at the moment your about to do something,and it bothers your,than chances are its wrong,maybe just moralely or judically,you should know the right times a government body doesn't have to control your way of thinking,but you should

I think that the government should have the right to put some restrictions on the freedom of speech.

for instance - the banning of internet sites which suppurts the killing of people (f.x. abortion doctors, anti-nazi's, jews)

And I also that you should be punished for making untrue (for lack of a better word) comments about others. (the PIG example above is relatively minor - how about "thief, drug-addict, rapist etc)

i think i know in which direction this thread is going.

Speech is only free as long as you say what people want to hear. Even if there are no governmental controls there are definately societal pressures.I can use this forum as an example. Look at the "should you smack your children" thread in this forum. Almost the entire first page was people posting that you should never hit your kids. Now there were some people who posted a counter opinion but I am sure that some people felt a little bit of pressure to go allong with the group. The point I am trying to make is, that even though the government may not restrict speech your peer group does.I will say though that here at IW its a LOT more polite than the real world , mostly thanx to the mods. I can say that I am pro abortion,pro death penalty,anti religeous or anything else I want to according to the government , but if I do that here I might get banned by a mod or chastized by other IW members. If I do it in my daily life I could get fired from my job or someone could take it personal and try to beat me up. With that hanging over my head , I have to ask , is my speech realy free?

<font color=Orange>I agree with you, Hunter. Theres nothing really left to say.</font>

In the USA (and many other countries Im sure) if I created a website that incited someone to murder another person I would be held responsible and accountable. If I said something like "Whites should go out and kill ____ (fill in the blank with Whites, Jews, Blacks, Polish, use your imagination) because they dont have the same views that WE do..... blah blah blah...

I would be charged with Accessory to Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Murder. If I had offered, say, $50 for every person they killed .. "send me the ears of your kills and Ill send you a money order"

Id be charged With Accessory to Capitol Murder and Conspiracy to Commit Capitol Murder.

Rightly so.