The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

I know ENTIRELY what they advocate. However, they're not doing any killing (in Westboro's case, I believe thats both as an organisation AND no members acting independently).
They ABSOLUTELY should be allowed to do this. Its their right specifically because of freedom of speech. Similarly, Muslim clerics just calling for generic action is also freedom of speech. If they are organising and planning how to do such acts, that is a seperate matter.

I would ask what you are referring to in saying that people are punished again and again for exercising freedom of speech.

 

This is a bit of a touchy subject so I apologize in advance. You push freedom of speech and yet moderate speech here on the forums. I could give specific examples but I'll only go as far with this as you want me to. Basically, how does being for freedom of speech while being in a role where you are called upon to limit it work?

 

Well, there is also a right that theforce.net has with what happens with bandwidth that they are paying for. Freedom of speech applies to restrictions that the government can put on speech, not the restrictions that someone can put on their own possessions.

Examples, I can't claim that a newspaper is violating my rights because it won't publish my letters to the editor, but if I were to decide to publish my own leaflets with those comments that the newspaper wouldn't publish then its my right to do so and the government can't stop me from simply printing my ideas. (Ok, so that one's freedom of the press, but same situation)

Someone that's pro-life can't barge into an abortion clinic and stay on the property protesting abortions calling them murder, but they can stand on the sidewalk (which is public property) and protest from there.

Anti-war activists can't charge into a military recruitment center and yell at the workers for the war in Iraq, but they can get a permit from the government to protest outside the recruitement center.

Westboro can't disrupt a funeral for a solider with their signs, but they can stand on public ground near the funeral and protest.

And in the case of here, there is no guarantee of absolute freedom on these boards specifically, however if someone has views they want to voice that are not allowed here, they can start their own website and the law will not prevent them from doing so.

 

Like the other poster, said. I cant add anything to lowie's comments.

 

I agree with this. There is a difference between saying and doing.

 

Freedom of speech is not limitless. In many states, for example, using vulgar language in public is against the law. Neither can one yell "Fire" in a public place, unless a fire actually exists. Heckling in theaters, scholastic auditoriums and comedy clubs is cause for lawful ejection. And so on. Regarding the question of limiting free speech in these forums: When we all received our membership here, we e-signed an agreement that we would abide by a set of posting rules and guidelines. This is in pursuit of a generally pleasant, non-vulgar, family-friendly atmosphere. If someone does not like the Terms of Service, s/he can decline to e-sign the agreement. But in its proper place, the espousal of any idea, even those the majority of persons might find objectionable, is and should be protected.

 

There was discussion somewhere on how threads such as 'All Democrats are stupid: discuss' would be locked, something I actually agree with as these sort of threads are not productive (as opposed to discussion on politics where a critical eye can be cast on the Democrats) yet they fly in the face of freedom of speech. Perhaps it's the way such a message is given. Might I redo a thread I did in another thread titled 'Should the Jews be wiped out?' in making a case against antisemitism? Flame wars quickly ignited and I think the same thing would occur were a similar thread to be written.

 

I'm not at all sure what you mean in the last two sentences there, but addressing the first sentence at least, freedom of speech is an issue of legal protection. There is nothing stopping you from having such a discussion on YOUR forum. Freedom of speech doesn't include being able to dictate to those that own the servers this forum is on how they should use their server and bandwidth.

 

nancy - freedom of speech limits government power it does not apply to private non-government entities such as TFN. TFN could ban all religious discussion, all political discussion and all Star Trek discussion if it wanted to. However, if the government were to pass laws restricting religious, political or ST discussion (in the press for example) it would offend against the right to freedom of speech.

 

It's not just that a putative "Dems are stupid" thread would be "unproductive", it would be insulting to members of this forum, some of which are Democrats. Part of the TOS states that we cannot make derogatory remarks about fellow members.

Lowbacca and LOH:

 

There will never be a 'utopia' where there is no intolerance of sex or beliefs.

By making this thread, you yourself are being intolerant towards the extremists and you are being a hypocrite by suggesting to fight against extremists.

 

Case and point right here.

You sound exactly like an extremist with this post. You are suggesting to hunt them down and they should be stopped. This is exactly what people like Hitler did with the jews, and the way any kind of extremist behaves.

Your post is counter productive

You don't get rid of something you don't like by wiping them out.

 

I invoke Godwin's Law. I win.

 

There is an irony here for all those "Hitler-Atheism" comments.

 

The reasoning behind that wasn't to portray atheists that way. Rather it was used as historical evidence of what happens when people's right to religion is infringed upon.

 

In any case screaming 'OM*G WT* NANCYALLEN IZ TEH HITLERZ LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' isn't productive discussion.

Watch the language

 

This thread isn't about productive discussion... But it is about you.

 

What, you think I need a thread about me or something? Well that's where you're wrong? I request this thread be closed as it has degenerated into insults and personal attacks.

 

nancy, you can lock it yourself since you are the one who started the thread. Just go to the first post and hit edit and then hit locked on the left side-bar.

 

Thanks, done.

 

For some reason it's still open. It should have worked (I just tried it on one of mine and it worked fine). If you still want it closed, you might want to PM a mod and ask them to close it.

 

nancy- there's no insults and personal attacks. You can lock it if you want, it's your thread, but let's be clear on why you want it locked?