Question about free speech : Othor Games

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:00 am

Sounds reasonable, if it's regarding stereotypes.

I'd imagine you're protected under free speech to say something like "I hate black people" but not something like "I hate black people because they're stupid". Generalizing an entire race like that could be considered slander, I don't know.

To make everything 100% perfectly clear, I don't condone either of the above statements.

Unless that statement is proven by psychological research? There is a funny distinction regarding truth and right. Just because something is technically correct, doesn't make it morally justified. As proven by this example I guess.

I guess there must be seperate laws distinguishing racism from freedom of speech, as it's obviously illegal and justifiably so.

» Sat May 12, 2012 5:25 pm

Unless that statement is proven by psychological research? There is a funny distinction regarding truth and right. Just because something is technically correct, doesn't make it morally justified. As proven by this example I guess.

I guess there must be seperate laws distinguishing racism from freedom of speech, as it's obviously illegal and justifiably so.

Racist actions are illegal, but saying racist things is not.

It's interesting how european countries have such large restrictions on speech and what one can say. It's a crime to deny the Holocaust in many countries, as well as many other "obscenities" that are protected in America. I'm not advocating that people say such things, but silencing those who speak them isn't really going to change their way of thinking. Guess it's easier just to criminalize it. :shrug:

» Sat May 12, 2012 9:26 am

Racist actions are illegal, but saying racist things is not.

It's interesting how european countries have such large restrictions on speech and what one can say. It's a crime to deny the Holocaust in many countries, as well as many other "obscenities" that are protected in America. I'm not advocating that people say such things, but silencing those who speak them isn't really going to change their way of thinking. Guess it's easier just to criminalize it. :shrug:

Not only that but banning racist words outright allows a slippery slope of language control.

As far as defamation is concerned in the OP who mentioned a US city I'm pretty sure those in trouble with defamation are making pointed accusations against others that cover libel or slander, for example false claims of: "John is a murderer", or "John has herpes!", or "John is a fraud and a thief!" -- that's defamation. However, "John is an a-hole" or an "sob" or "mf'er" are expressed opinions and not to be construed as facts therefore rightfully not defamation. The latter mentioned type of expressed opinions about someone else or something else, however another may find them objectionable, deserve to be protected.

» Sat May 12, 2012 3:32 am

Yeah, Casey Anthony is getting sued for defamation of the meter maid, and Zanny the "Nanny". Maybe that's what was in the news to start this thread idea?

I'm not picking apart the topic, just curious if that was what got the ball rolling for this thread.

» Sat May 12, 2012 7:10 am

Free speech is only applicable when you are speaking out against an entity such as the Goverment or a corporation but not so an individual..When talking about an individual you need to have proof that what you are saying is true,okay even a corporation you still need proof..besides that run your mouth to your hearts content.

Your best bet is to run your mouth on the goverment..Be they Conservative or Liberals in power.The Constitution not only gives you that but also allows you to make stuff up without repurcussions as long as you don't threaten anyone..doesn't mean you don't go on a watch list though