Internet gag order

Remove all ads!

What is criminal varies from country to country and from time to time. Very few - perhaps close to none, what do I know? - acts are and have always been globally criminal.
It's extremely important to allow the greatest possible freedom of speech to avoid a stagnating society.

People and religions may continue to have prejudicial views about race, nationalities or sexual orientations like homosexuality or pedophilia or what have you, but if an open discussion can be held, which I admit is, for various reasons, not possible at times, opinions will have a chance to change.
Taboos and superstitions will eventually fall before the onslaught of reason.

 

In the U.S. the line is drawn by immediacy. If the speech is of the nature and character (both by its content and given the manner and place in which it is given) that it gives others the chance to stop and think prior to performing any action, it is ok. The "Fire!" example is famous and notice how it demands immediate action. To make a hate speech type example, imagine a group walking down the street and seeing an African-American. A member of the group then starts spitting out proto-typical hate speech encouraging an attack and then ordering one. That won't be protected speech, and when the prosecution comes after him as well as his cohorts, he is in trouble.

Compare those examples to a typical KKK rally filled with hate speech. If the people listening are to act upon it they have to get in their cars, drive away, find a minority etc. In short, it takes so much time it isn't immediate which means there is time for those people to stop and think about what they're doing. So, the idea is that people are typically responsible for their own actions and the former example was an exception because it provoked an immediate response without the time to analyze and think for themselves.

It's hard to take seriously any appeal to authority when that appeal is to Ann Coulter. Kinda like me making an appeal to authority when my authority is Michael Moore.

A couple of quotes from Coulter on dealing with the new "war on terror."

Here is a Salon article which reviews the book Shralp espouses. It briefly exposes some of the blatant lies in the book, (she makes it look as if she is quoting the New York Times who she is attacking at the time when in fact if you check the notes they come from a Playboy interview and the SOuthern Christian Leadership Conference)just the tip of the iceberg of her hypocrisy, and her inability to engage in reasoned debate.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/06/27/coulter/index2.html

Oh, by the way it was written by a conservative who concluded(in a manner that would have made Coulter proud, he actually falls into doing precisely what she wants as well as precisely what she always does herself):

[ November 13, 2002, 16:10: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Heh. By no means was I citing Coulter as an authority. I was referring to a truth she hit on.

I've read most of the big-name reviews of the book, but only sections of the book itself. The Salon article is thoroughly unconvincing, as the section in question is not misleading at all.

In any event, I like her style and read her Thursday columns. Sure, she overstates things, and her generalizations of modern liberals are totalizing. But she hits on a lot of truths. The editorials of the New York times are, in fact, girly. We should, in fact, take her advice to invade, kill, and convert (the first two of which became official U.S. policy within two weeks of her saying it).

The woman's a *****. And she enjoys it. But she's no dumb cookie.

 

Convert? Some good ole fashioned god or the sword policy? Well as you say it is not far away from the other two current policys of the states.

[ November 13, 2002, 16:45: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

Come on guys!

This topic isn't about this or that US political persona or about if the US should invade, kill and convert the rest of the world.
Please stay on topic or make a new topic.

 

Sure thing Shralp, I can be a sarcastic bastard. Lowest form of wit, I know. I usually use it when I'm being patronised.

The reason for the list was only to establish whether you believed in so much freedom of choice, speech and expression that we needed to actually have anarchy to accommodate it. Clearly not, fair enough.

Personally I would draw it the point where it could reasonably be construed as conspiracy. If you apply the immediacy concept a good lawyer no, change that to competent lawyer, shouldn't have too much trouble getting Osama Bin Laden off responsibility for the 9/11 atrocity. No real proof that he personally planned it (last I saw most of the planning was done in Hamburg). Funding? I doubt he funded any of it directly? Does this make him less culpable? Well, clearly not.

[Edit] In other words, where there is reasonable linkage to construe cause and effect. Where it is very unlikely or not at all that the action would have been undertaken without such encouragement.[Edit - (I deleted some stuff accidentally)]

And of course I do not consider speeding the type of offence in question. I consider rioting, terrorism, and murder the types of offence where it matters.

I do get annoyed when a) You take taking things said and written out of context to back up your own personal opinions, b) you degrade other people's opinions by assigning them with ridiculous extremes, and c) you patronise, which you can be very good at if I may say so.

I do however try to stick to attacking your arguments, not you personally as such.

Sarcastic and patronising, now who's playing games?

ANYWAY! enough of this silly tittle tattle between us, unless you feel hurt by the above we should perhaps leave it there. If you do, my apologies will be forwarded immediately publicly or by private mail as you may request, though I do draw the line at this board should the public one be required. [That is a sincere offer by the way, I was perhaps having a bad hair day when I started this].

My answer to your question is up there somewhere, and it is only an opinion. No absolute truth or any such claim.

Yours sincerely etc, etc

[ November 14, 2002, 12:07: Message edited by: Viking ]

 

Back on topic:

A relevant situation in England.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/20/npage20.xml

 

He's been arrested under the Public Order Act 1986, so hardly new legislation. Right or wrong, stirring up racial hatred is a criminal offence in this country. [Link in an earlier post to the relevant UK legislation]

I think he's probably got a point in that the more likely source of complaints made regarding his speach are likely to be people who do not agree with his views regarding fox hunting with dogs, which has become rather emotive here of late.

From the article I would guess it's unlikely he will be charged. I haven't looked up the application of the Act in relation to incitement to racial hatred in case law, but it would seem rather unlikely that a local country fair would be a hotbed of racial hatred to be stirred up!

I have to say that his treatment at the hands of the police would appear rather heavy handed to say the least, and he could well have just cause for complaint. I'm sure his newspaper column will reflect his thoughts on the matter soon enough.

 

Yeah, I realize it was old legislation. Just posting it as another a "what the heck?" link.

So basically if someone accuses you of racism in England you can be arrested if you don't agree to answer questions without your lawyer. Yeesh.

Or is this an anomaly?

 

My guess would be that they didn't *really* think he was a racist, they just had a chip on their shoulders because he defended hunting and were looking for any excuse to lock him up. Either that or the article wildly misconstrued what he actually said, since as described it cannot possibly be interpreted as "racism" by any reasonable person. People get *really* heated up about hunting, more so I think than a lot of them do about racism.

But... relevance to internet censorship topic? Or do you see it as just a general "Europe is too politically correct" topic?

[Edit: Ah. Viking beat me to it. No one had responded yet when I started to write. Sorry!]

[ November 21, 2002, 16:58: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

Shralp,

I certainly *hope* this is an anomaly, but best practice within our police force does seem to vary somewhat at times!

You are indeed entitled to legal representation when questioned by the police. Normal procedure I believe in cases like this (lawyer unable to attend), would be to make an appointment to attend the police station at a later date with your lawyer.

The only offences that are treated differently are offences under The Terrorism Act (or whatever they replaced that with after 9/11). Potentially indefinite detention without trial. Great for our human rights record....

 

The hunter said nothing that could be interpreted as racism, he only spoke for his minority. He has as much of a right to do this as a gay man, a black man, an asian man or an african man. This is clearly either a misunderstanding, or the police had it in for him already.

 

As I said above, the hunting issue has become very emotive. Chances are that a bill to ban it [hunting with dogs], will pass through parliament within 2 years. There is only so long that stalling tactics will work.

If it goes to vote it will be passed.

People are getting very agitated on both sides, so quite likely the accusations are both out of context and fairly malicious in nature by people who disagree with his stance on the subject.

 

Interesting argument, Laches. I like to stay updated on all these controversial things, and I never came across/thought of anything about computer generated porn. I bet the courts will come up with some stupid reason to make that illegal, too. Remember kids! You have the right to free speech and freedom to do as you want, unless we don't like what you're doing!

Jeez, the way that was written sounds a LOT like the way we post on SP about games we don't like. Here's hoping we don't get charged for insulting Black Isle's games or something.

 

Yes. I believe the "stupid reason" they came up with was:

It's child porn, stupid!

[ November 25, 2002, 16:27: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Well, how much more free is the U.S. really?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20021121/en_nm/media_indecency_fcc_dc_2

And how can you want to make the Victoria Secret show illegal, sheesh.

Shralp, this isn't really a thread on child porn but your reasoning is circular: Child porn should be illegal because it is child porn, maybe a new thread? It could be more general and be about when speech should be proscribed in general.

 

Hmmm. I believe I worded that badly. I don't mean to sound like a pedophile. But you have to admit, I do have a point. By the current standards, computer generated images are not actually "child pornography", because there aren't really any children involved. And, Shralp's insult slinging aside, the governement will just make up a bunch of jargon because they were outsmarted, and don't want that out there either.

Damn. I still sound like a pedophile.

Note to self: learn to defend a point without sounding like you are part of it.

 

What about that case in BC where the pedophile who'd been convicted and served his time was later up for child pornography charges based on material he'd written in his diary for his own use only? No actual children were involved in the production of the pornography, except presumably his memories of the children he'd injured all those years ago and already been punished for. Yet, he was convicted of kiddie porn, and it was only overturned after a lengthy and expensive appeal process other defendants might not have been able to afford. So I think that computer-generated pornography would definitely be considered "real" child pornography and punished exactly the same way as if real children had been involved. I don't understand why the government doesn't just inspect every house in the country, read everyone's diary, and charge them with murder if they write, "My boss was such a jerk today I wanted to kill him!".

PS: I'd like to add that, like the Soul Seeking Forever, I'm not a pedophile either. Whether this guy should have been locked up forever on the grounds of being a monster is another question entirely and I'd personally vote for it. I'm just interested in the freedom of speech aspect.

 

Sprite wrote

The reasoning behind forbidding CP is that it supposedly hurts the child depicted.
I strongly disagree with the idea of forbidding computer generated images depicting sex with people of a certain (arbitrary) age.

 

Whether you like it or not, laws are merely legislated morality (usually tempered by political compromise).

We outlaw child porn because it is outrageous to our moral senses. Sometimes it hurts the child, yes.

But surreptitiously photographing a child's crotch and developing it for your own use doesn't hurt the child in the least. Yet we outlaw it.

Perhaps it cannot be a Federal crime because of Constitutional issues, but it can and should be a felony at the state level. "Congress shall make no law...."