$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 's')imilarly the neo-christian Pat Buchanan has yet even to be cautioned by police for remarking on the adviseability of the murder of President Chavez -
PeakOil is You
David Irving
The government will think of something
-
Chuck - Peat
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat 30 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Holland
Re: David Irving
by entropyfails » Wed 22 Feb 2006, 20:18:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')EF -
Perhaps I should have made clearer that I was responding to Chomsky's absolutist statetment - and was not attacking either you or your post.
')EF -
Perhaps I should have made clearer that I was responding to Chomsky's absolutist statetment - and was not attacking either you or your post.
*nod* I understand. I didn’t feel attacked. Everyone knows you are a stand up sort of person! *smile*
I think you do twist what Chomsky meant by “freedom of expression” though. From everything I read, he seems to think along the logic from my above posts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'W')hile the three cases I posted might attract attempts at prosecutions in some states,
no threats are needed to verbally torture a child, just vicious and quite legal verbal abuse -
From what I have seen, courts tend to take the line of “causing harm.” If you get a psychologist that can prove that a parents statements cause harm to the child, you can revoke their parental rights. I have no problem with that standard and I think it falls well within the “criminal harm” area of speech as it does not count as free expression. Questionable theories about what happened in the 1940’s doesn’t seem to meet that standard. In my eyes, it doesn’t even come close.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 's')imilarly a class of schoolchildren given a daily dose of hatred for some creed may never even once have been told to riot -
Any teacher around here that decided to delve into holocaust denial would find themselves quickly fired. They could perhaps be prosecuted for malicious negligence in their certified duties as educators. But when they go home and post the stuff on the internet, then they just express their opinion. Hopefully, parents would complain about that teacher’s presence as well and perhaps the school board would make a judgment based on that teacher’s character, but I see no reason for the legal process to get involved in the second case of “closet Nazi teacher.”
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 's')imilarly the neo-christian Pat Buchanan has yet even to be cautioned by police for remarking on the adviseability of the murder of President Chavez -
Exactly. What he said crosses that line, doubles back, crosses the line again, then spits on the line! *grin*
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')The fact that we pass laws to constrain the freedom of speech that causes harm to people surely rather affirms the point that we do not, and clearly should not, consider freedom of speech as an absolute right ?
Well, as far as I can tell, the US has come the farthest in the support of this fundamental freedom and has the fewest restrictions on it. It also has a history of trying to legislate speech which invariably gets overturned in the courtroom. The fact that people have passed laws about it really doesn’t enter into the fundamental discussion of its place as a natural right.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')I suggest itt is always, whether legally or morally, balanced by a duty of care for the listeners -
I simply completely disagree with this idea. I feel you have a fundamental right to express yourself without any regard for the reader. The only time you cannot do this comes when you wish to “express yourself” in the form of a criminal conspiracy. I still don’t see why “care for the listeners” enters into the equation of self expression at all.
