|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| There should be no limits on free speech beyond that of common law. |
| A. Yes |
|
56% |
[ 9 ] |
| B. No |
|
31% |
[ 5 ] |
| C. Well, lets have a look at this more closely. |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
| D. Freedom with responsiblity. |
|
6% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| harlowethrombey wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| America does Free Speech exactly right. We should be proud of that, if nothing else. |
It's how we defeated Slavery and invented democracy and stopped racism. |
You know what they say: The strawman is the last resort of a douchebag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robot_Teacher
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Location: Robotting Around the World
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Free speech?
What is that? Did a society with free speech ever exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's pretty easy to argue for free speech in the abstract. It's when it gets to real cases that the problems start. For example:
I think pretty much everyone agrees that I have the right to say the OP is a dork, a fool and a douchebag.
But: Do I have the right to post that I heard a rumor that he diddles little boys?
Even better: Do I have the right to make sure his boss hears that 'rumor' that I made up? Would my right to free speech be protected in that scenario? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think pretty much everyone agrees that I have the right to say the OP is a dork, a fool and a douchebag |
Wow....big words coming from you.
Again YTB...talk all the trash you wish. We all know you are unable to man up and say anything like that to a live human being.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I think pretty much everyone agrees that I have the right to say the OP is a dork, a fool and a douchebag.
But: Do I have the right to post that I heard a rumor that he diddles little boys?
Even better: Do I have the right to make sure his boss hears that 'rumor' that I made up? Would my right to free speech be protected in that scenario? |
Careful, YTB.....you are crossing the line. Remember, Korea is a small country and we may run into each other at some point.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Young punk bullies old man.
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think pretty much everyone agrees that I have the right to say the OP is a dork, a fool and a douchebag |
Wow....big words coming from you.
Again YTB...talk all the trash you wish. We all know you are unable to man up and say anything like that to a live human being.
dmbfan |
Please, buy that vowel already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, dmb, are you saying there are limits to free speech? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yataboy wrote
| Quote: |
But: Do I have the right to post that I heard a rumor that he diddles little boys?
Even better: Do I have the right to make sure his boss hears that 'rumor' that I made up? Would my right to free speech be protected in that scenario? |
You need some work on your editing skills b-casper.
YTB......I repeat.............you are crossing the line. Think about it.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, dmb, are you saying there are limits to free speech? |
I guess you require visual aids for this, eh?
What I'm saying is, you are crossing the line. I suggest you think about it and decide if you REALLY want to push this further.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So, dmb, are you saying there are limits to free speech? |
I guess you require visual aids for this, eh?
What I'm saying is, you are crossing the line. I suggest you think about it and decide if you REALLY want to push this further.
dmbfan |
calm yourself governor. it seems to me yataboy was just trying to make a point. at most he was guilty of indelicacy, which is a vice no better or worse than oversensitivity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| calm yourself governor. it seems to me yataboy was just trying to make a point. at most he was guilty of indelicacy, which is a vice no better or worse than oversensitivity. |
Oh, I understand. But, also he is manipulating the situation.
I think reducing my reaction (it was objective) to be oversensative is a bit off mark.
Also, perhaps I was making a point as well....?
Freedom with responsability.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Honestly I'm even fairly wary of laws against things like people screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded room; if someone is trampled or harmed in such a situation, it's the fault of the idiot who trampled or harmed them. What if there really had been a fire? The people would have behaved the same way, and whoever got hurt still would have been hurt. Individuals who harm others out of panic need to be held accountable, regardless of why they panicked. |
I disagree.
I think people should be held accountable for both their actions and their words. You hint at that in your post about 'defamation', but as we know living in Korea, defamation is not a universal standard. |
I think people should be held accountable for their words as well. In cases where the words themselves are what damages other individuals (such as in cases of defamation), that accountability should be legal; you directly harmed someone, even if it was with words.
However, in cases where it's not the words but rather the stupid, panicky behavior of others that damages other people, that accountability should be social rather than legal in my estimation. Shouting, "Fire!" might not be nice, but it's stupid, dangerous behavior from others that did harm, not your words. Swearing in public might be rude, but it harms no one. Hate speech might be vile and distasteful, but illegalizing it would be even more distasteful, and so on. |
What about when it calls on others to do violence? What if it supplies them with the specific means to do so? - such as specifics as to how to find XXX at home alone and kill them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
What about when it calls on others to do violence? What if it supplies them with the specific means to do so? - such as specifics as to how to find XXX at home alone and kill them. |
My opinion is that this falls under the province of other laws. For example:
-If you say, "I think you should kill John, because he's gay, and we all hate gays. His home is at <address>, and he'll be there at <time>," I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
-If you say, "I think Sara needs to die, and I'll pay to have her killed," again, I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
In both cases, it's not merely the expression of ideas, it is essentially plotting to kill someone. If, by comparison, a man is speaking at an anti-semitic rally and expresses hate for the Jews with exceptional articulation, and his words impassion someone, following which they go and kill a Jew, I don't think the speaker should be prosecuted.
There are going to be cases that aren't as clear cut, but I feel it's better to error on the side of too little regulation of freedom of speech than too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
My opinion is that this falls under the province of other laws. For example:
-If you say, "I think you should kill John, because he's gay, and we all hate gays. His home is at <address>, and he'll be there at <time>," I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
-If you say, "I think Sara needs to die, and I'll pay to have her killed," again, I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
In both cases, it's not merely the expression of ideas, it is essentially plotting to kill someone. If, by comparison, a man is speaking at an anti-semitic rally and expresses hate for the Jews with exceptional articulation, and his words impassion someone, following which they go and kill a Jew, I don't think the speaker should be prosecuted.
There are going to be cases that aren't as clear cut, but I feel it's better to error on the side of too little regulation of freedom of speech than too much. |
There is a vast gulf between telling and paying someone to kill. One is mere words, the other an act. Mere words should be free; acts, prosecutable. Why should I be held accountable if I tell you to kill someone, and you then do it, assuming I didn't hold a gun to your head or otherwise threaten you. You could have said no or not done it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
My opinion is that this falls under the province of other laws. For example:
-If you say, "I think you should kill John, because he's gay, and we all hate gays. His home is at <address>, and he'll be there at <time>," I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
-If you say, "I think Sara needs to die, and I'll pay to have her killed," again, I'd say you're guilty of conspiracy to murder.
In both cases, it's not merely the expression of ideas, it is essentially plotting to kill someone. If, by comparison, a man is speaking at an anti-semitic rally and expresses hate for the Jews with exceptional articulation, and his words impassion someone, following which they go and kill a Jew, I don't think the speaker should be prosecuted.
There are going to be cases that aren't as clear cut, but I feel it's better to error on the side of too little regulation of freedom of speech than too much. |
There is a vast gulf between telling and paying someone to kill. One is mere words, the other an act. Mere words should be free; acts, prosecutable. Why should I be held accountable if I tell you to kill someone, and you then do it, assuming I didn't hold a gun to your head or otherwise threaten you. You could have said no or not done it. |
What about a person who uses something other than money to coerce?
What about someone who tells state secrets to the enemy - enabling them to kill millions?
What about someone who gives away your PIN number to overseas gangsters?
There are lots of limits on the Freedom of Speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
