2 ms·

Regarding the anti-hate speech laws, France, Canada, and other countries also have some pretty strict laws against the kind of hate speech you can utter. It's

Regarding the anti-hate speech laws, France, Canada, and other countries also have some pretty strict laws against the kind of hate speech you can utter. It's interesting that Americans just assume that you should be legally allowed to spout whatever kind of vile suits your fancy, without any legal implications. I don't think there is any "absolute" right or wrong way of regulating speech (even Americans have laws against defamation, libel, and shouting"fire" in a crowded theater) - but, it's important to recognize that just because other people approach it differently - it doesn't mean that they are doing it the "wrong" way. It's useful to look at how American Laws (and attitudes) have changed over the last century or so around homosexuality, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, prohibition, heck, even the right for women to vote - to see how that even in a single country, the "Right" and the "Wrong" can evolve/change in a very short period of time.

dbcooper 12y ago
Those changes you mention have all been in the direction of increasing freedom. Please refrain from the lazy "fire in a crowded theatre" censorship apologia in future. It doesn't add anything to an argument for censorship. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I'm not actually arguing for, or against, censorship. My entire point was to point out that different countries have different laws, each of whom (for the most part) believe they are "right" at the time they have them. And, that when evaluating some other country's laws, don't believe that they are "wrong" just because they are different. And the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase is a short-hand to refer to the Supreme Court Argument, which forms the foundation of american attitudes towards free speech. It's faster than copy and pasting the entire precedent. I'm sorry if it offended you.
  - dbcooper 12y ago
    Read the link I posted. The quote comes from a 1919 decision against Charles Schenck's criticism of conscription. That is now clearly protected speech, and those writings from Holmes certainly do not form any "foundation of American attitudes towards free speech." It's a lazy trick to try to appeal to authority, when all you are saying is that you think that "some speech should not be protected."
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      I disagree with your statement that "You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater" does not underly american attitudes towards free speech. It most certainly does - every discussion I've ever heard regarding free speech and its limitations typically references it. Now, whether it should be part of the foundation is another question.
rodgerd 12y ago
> even Americans have laws against defamation, libel, and shouting"fire" in a crowded theater And pornongraphy and state secrets and so on.
Sambdala 12y ago
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time... > But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. > First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience." > In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."

dbcooper 12y ago

Those changes you mention have all been in the direction of increasing freedom. Please refrain from the lazy "fire in a crowded theatre" censorship apologia in future. It doesn't add anything to an argument for censorship. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...

ghshephard 12y ago
I'm not actually arguing for, or against, censorship. My entire point was to point out that different countries have different laws, each of whom (for the most part) believe they are "right" at the time they have them. And, that when evaluating some other country's laws, don't believe that they are "wrong" just because they are different. And the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase is a short-hand to refer to the Supreme Court Argument, which forms the foundation of american attitudes towards free speech. It's faster than copy and pasting the entire precedent. I'm sorry if it offended you.
- dbcooper 12y ago
  Read the link I posted. The quote comes from a 1919 decision against Charles Schenck's criticism of conscription. That is now clearly protected speech, and those writings from Holmes certainly do not form any "foundation of American attitudes towards free speech." It's a lazy trick to try to appeal to authority, when all you are saying is that you think that "some speech should not be protected."
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    I disagree with your statement that "You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater" does not underly american attitudes towards free speech. It most certainly does - every discussion I've ever heard regarding free speech and its limitations typically references it. Now, whether it should be part of the foundation is another question.

rodgerd 12y ago

> even Americans have laws against defamation, libel, and shouting"fire" in a crowded theater And pornongraphy and state secrets and so on.

Sambdala 12y ago

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time... > But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. > First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience." > In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."