freedom of speech?

http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html

these guys go around protesting anything and everything that has to do with America,

When a military member dies, they protests funerals saying "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers"; etc...

When the bus accident killed the kids in Alabama; they protested saying "You[the parents] killed your kids" and "God Hates you"

Now most of you already know that I believe these guys are focking lunatics and are worthy of defilement by Wingy but a greater question comes to my mind...

Is this a case of them abusing their right of Freedom of Speech?
Should it be "liscense to speak" and not freedom of speech?

I don't know...any thoughts anyone?

yeah i agree about not giving up rights to anyone;

the problem comes along with abusing rights...

when should there be a line drawn in the sand?

i mean towns across america are banning such items as mangers and christmasy stuff in order to not violate anyones right of freedom of religion.

but arent these guys kinda doing that?

These people are vulgar and insane. They're violating humanity.

no i only carry one, heheh.

Ohh I dunno' Phucky, A "Bamma" Boy with a Pickem up with the rebel flag on the tailgate & a mounted 50 cal in the bed could make short work of these as[b][/b]sholes.

Yeah Cam, I have a few strong ethical beliefs regarding freedom of speech, and I believe we're on common ground with our thoughts.

"License to speak" is a good way of putting it, mate. Frankly, "freedom of speech", in my view, is not being tempered enough by rational viewpoints. Extremism of view, regardless of the topic, is unacceptable in a civil society; at least, that is the way it should be.

I strenuously disagree with the notion that a person who holds an extremist view point (racist for example; anti-semite is another, etc..), has the right to express his/her view publicly via speech or written text. I believe that there should be laws limiting extremist views and that a civil society should have the right to limit what an individual says and does in this regard.

I cant abide the notion that "anything goes" when it comes to freedom of speech. When a society develops and grows in a positive way, and when its people agree that past wrongs cannot be allowed to be repeated (Nazism for example), then that society/people should be able to say no! Its against the law of the land to say that anti-semitism is right; its against the law to say that pack rape by Muslim men of non-Muslim women is ok.

Those are but two examples. Overall, what I'm suggesting is that people should cherish the right to talk freely, but that this must be tempered by an individual's responsibility to the overall good nature of his/her respected civic society. And, most importantly, that the rule of law applies to those who dont contribute in such a manner.

You need a license to own a gun, and hasn't it been said that the pen (or in this case tongue) is mightier than the sword? It would get rid of many issues, but wouldn't it raise many more? Maybe I'm just too young and idealistic to know.

Would Voltaire Die that This could be written?

man, unlike any post the verndewd is in; sadly, there is no ignore button in life...

oh btw, they have a life mute button already...


its called a springfield armory 1911 A-1...

howd you guess?

Howard Stern used to have a woman on from that group from time-to-time.
It was sad, actually. Her kids had drank the koolaid and spouted all that hate
off without missing a beat. It's a small church of mostly family members with
a large voice.

He stopped having them on, they were to much for even him... 8O

Freedom of speech, or freedom to make oneself look like a retarded loon?

Unfortunately, thanks to the power of mass hysteria and various other annoying little facets of the human psyche, the moment insanity or outright garbage is dressed up as 'religion', someone is going to take it up, make it their creed and take it entirely too far. Stick it in the media, it becomes 'truth'.

Juan, here, you don't need a license to own a gun (just a license to carry concealed). Gun ownership is a right ... and so is speech.

I don't expect (or care) that people in other countries object or seek to somehow limit these rights - they have their governments and countries, we have our - period.

People always take the most extreme example (like these idiots) and start the slippery slope argument about tempering rights - well, I don't buy that logic one bit.

You'll never take my weapons (I have a concealed weapons permit/license) ... you'll never muzzle me when I want to speak up.

I'm always disappointed when non-Americans want to tell us how we should run our country.

I beg your focking pardon, JB. Did I stipulate on how America should behave? Are you talking to me, mate?

I focking tell ya mate, you missed my point wholeheartedly if you're pointing the finger at me about "non-Americans telling you" how to behave.

Honestly mate, I think you've misinterpreted me there.

Thats bullshit, JB. At no stage did I suggest America should behave thusly.

Anyways, maybe I misread you there.

You will find that that sentiment is shared around the world, also in those parts where people feel that it is Americans that want to tell them how they should run their country.

When people make comments on how you run your country, and that they would do it differently, that does not automatically mean that they disagree with your right on how to run your country. Does your disappointment mean that mean you're not in favor of free speech for non-US citizens regarding US domestic matters?

Should the sharing of opinions on how the world should be run, stop at the borders of each nation?

That is a tremendous post, Mac. Best I've seen from you since you told me how much you like to have stoned sex with Amsterdam strippers.

The "issue" that was the geneses of this thread dealt with a small, local "wacko" church group that engaged in inappropriate, vulgar behavior based on a fu[b][/b]cked up set of religious beliefs. Seems to be a lot of that going on around the world nowadays.

I'm well aware that many in this world like to take issue with almost anything the US does - and many feel, as you seem to, that the US tries to tell too many other countries what to do. I suspose the US govenment does try to influence international affairs when it feels appropiate (in it's best interest) - but that's hardly new. When your country was in a position to do so - it did too.

My comments had to do with all the "non-Americans" taking this localized situation and then extrapolating and blowing it up in an effort to generalize about US fredoms and possible limits, etc. This isn't even a national issue - it's, at best, just a local, and hopefully, a temporary vulgarity. In this sense, yeah, I do think that debate on this issue best belongs locally. Certanly not a world-wide debate. Hell, it shouldn't have gotten beyond our borders in the 1st place - but this is an international forum, limited as it is, and many here take these opportunities to generalize and pontificate on anything remotely embarrassing to the US.

Some posts/comments here, I believe, are just a bit pompous and ostentatious. My opinion and I'm damned entitled to it.

Sorry for the late entrance.

I'd call up the News, have them come out and film it.

Then I'd file charges against them all for slander, mental anguish, and whatever else that nice lawyer of mine could conjure up.

Going public and on the news calling one a homo without proof or in this case, would be slander and I'm sure nice law suits popping up would cause the group to shut up, slow down, or have some other ill effect against them.

yeah thats what I was thinking, but also feeling a little anger towards the group.

but its all good; thats why soldiers/airmen/marines/navy dies...

so that these guys can talk sh!t...

I'm glad you brought him up.
I try not to just be a one line wonder. It seemed like the quote to use.

Really? Are you seriously saying that law has done more to advance society than free thinking individuals? Or more inportantly free thinking groups?? I put it to you that some of the greatest advances in society have come from 'radical' or extreamist communications.

Where do we draw the line?? Take your own situation. You enjoy a few of the finer pharmacuticals life has to offer and you bestow there virtues to us all. There are laws that goven promotion or incitement of illigal acts. Are you an extreamist in terms of free speach?

Now the buch of hate merchants in the artice of the OP are deserving of horible and painful deaths. I'm not going to defend them but using them as an excue for the views expressed here is equaly dangerous and distasteful. Its heading in the direction of 'oh.. Won't somebody please think of the children!'

In the UK it would be covered by race law and dealt with accordingly. On this I have no issue and see it as the right thing to do. However to say that there should be no exceptions is bloody extream in itself.[/quote]

** 1 edit to sort out quotes

good answer, and your welcome

lol

Mate, let's just refresh the context there: "a civil society". I was being very specific about what makes for a civil society.

Yes, otherwise, you're absolutely right about the progressive development of mankind being pushed forward by both radicals and conservatives (just as many conservatives have contributed as radicals).

That's a fair point too, except that in all seriousness, I would never hand drugs over to a person who didn't freely want them. I would never argue that drugs dont harm. I would never argue that "this is the way it is", and that all people should drop pills and have sex in the parks. You know what I mean? I do think there's a difference between a guy publicly acknowledging that he enjoys a wild time, and a guy who incites racial hatred. But yes, your point about "where do we draw the line" is an excellent one and its one I dont think I can have a full answer for.

See, thats interesting too (I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread); in this country there are no legal wrongs for being a racist unless that racist has committed a crime found under federal or state statutes (murder, for example; assault, etc..)

What I'm saying, AV, is that there should be no exceptions when the law is applied to those who are inciting violence against their fellow countrymen through their demagoguery or "speech". I'm stipulating that those who choose to talk both publicly and privately have a serious responsibility to their fellow citizens when they do so -- all citizens -- and that this responsibility should be governed by laws that stipulate: No! its not alright for a person to incite racial hatred; its not alright for an individual or group to incite violence against another within this secular society because we dont agree with their religious views.

The crux of my argument is this: that the rights of those who are not speaking publicly/privately are just as valuable as those who are doing all the talking and that those who are publicly speaking have a legal responsibility to all people -- regardless of their viewpoint.

Like I said to JB, its grey, and I cant adequately go on to describe it further without plastering the forum.

Bomber mate thanks for your clarifications. I suspected that was where you were aiming but its more fun to discuss the points. Like you say it could take volumes of discussion to come to any conclusions on a topic like this but I think WW quote captures it nicely.