OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Jonathan Jarrett writes:

> > > > Try me.  I'll certainly give it a go.  Just hold people responsible
> > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or
> > > > harmful.
>
>         If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any
> cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a
> predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the
> notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that
> idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel
> is still safe there for now.

Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would be
expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their exercise of
free speech then those consequences are forseeable. As always the jury
gets to decide the capabilities of a reasonable man.

> > Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one
> > can't speed where there's no speed limit.

>         Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are you
> suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should be enough to cover
> speeding without limits being required?

Nah, I was just trying to be humourous. I note that some people at least
detected this.

> > > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far the
> > > opposition has its arguments better marshalled.

> > Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent.

> Actions speak louder than words, they say...

Indeed and their actions tell us that they're retards.

> But The opposition to free speech doesn't all do that.  If we're
> talking about opposition that have any arguments at all marshalled, at
> least.  If someone is burning down embassies they're probably not
> susceptible to a well-turned point of debate.

Seems that many if not most of the halfwits burning flags (do they
really think we're bothered by that?) haven't even seen the 12 cartoons
published in the European newspapers. This despite the fact that they
were *all* published in a national Egyptian newspaper in October with
not even one letter to the editor to follow.

Throw in that it was Imams (teachers of Islam; wise men whose divine
examples must be followed according to my dictionary) who produced the
three fake, and considerably more upsetting, pictures and it seems to me
that the problem lies more in the Islam religion than in the European
press.

Our main problem is that we have cowards like Straw and Chirac who are
too damn ready to sell our hard-won freedoms to a bunch of halfwits who
can't find the exit from the Middle-Ages.

FoFP

Next Up: Death threats over cartoons and why this means you can't have nukes.