Free Speech: Is It Fine to Say Something Offensive?

I do not see anyone overthrowing the Chinese government any time soon - there is much greater danger of the US government being overthrown and the reason is that US society encourages US citizens to think that they are the masters and the government is the enemy. Plus democracy causes constant conflict and ensures a state of permanent revolution. And we consider our anti-vilification laws to be civilized, and we understand that our rights come from the state.

 

We elect our government representatives - the government does not 'rule over' anyone - it represents us and is us. You Americans see your government as the enemy because your crazy Founding Fathers had just fought a war against the English and all their propaganda was anti-government and anti-royalty. Your elected government representatives are not your 'rulers' they are members of your society that you have elected to represent you. England was the enemy remember - not your own government. The Founding Fathers didnt give s stuff about how difficult their nonsense was going to make it for future US governments - they only cared about themselves.

And International Law is International Law. If USA considers its domestic law to be above international law then of course every other nation will too. And that is what has happened and that is why you cant get China to obey International Law on the South China Sea ruling. All other nations know that USA ignores International Law - and just because you Americans seem to think that your government is global government does not mean the rest of us do.

And no, being racist is offensive and unacceptable and it is not a choice to be offended by racism - it is just offensive. And it is your selfish US mentality that makes you think that it is all about the individual and people being personally offended - in other civilized places we care about protecting others from being offended - especially children.

There is a heck of a lot of difference between US society and Australian society. It is more than our ideas on free speech. We actually believe that universal health care is a right for example. See your 'liberty' nonsense is used to prevent civilized right more than ensure them - you have the right to bear arms... and the right to be offensive, and you seem to think that covers your 'liberty'. Here in Australia we get things like the right to universal healthcare and the right to pre-K early education for all children, the right to generous maternity leave etc etc USA uses this 'liberty' nonsense to promote the idea that the state has the right to allow citizens to go without things like universal healthcare, universal pre-K for all children and decent maternity leave.

Our state makes sure that poor children can attend pre-school. Look how terrible your early childhood education is in USA. Why dont US children have a right to pre-K?

 

As long as it is private institutions that are creating the safe spaces, it is not against the First Amendment.

 

"If..the freedom of speech may be taken away..dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter"- George Washington
https://waquote.wordpress.com/

 

The invasion of Iraq and our presence in Syria are both legal. Kofi Annon is not the law and the us Constitution trumps international law.

Once again no one is expecting or demanding other nations follow some wisful idea of our law.

You are dead wrong the un was Always worthless and meaningless long before idea we did nothing to make it so.

What you mean by not responding is you cannot.


The right to bear arms is a basic human right it comes from no where and no one.

- - - Updated - - -

Very foolish.

Any thing the state can grant it can take away which defeats the very concept of human rights which is why your view is idiotic and uncivilised

 

Can you tell us more? I am very interested in this. Would like to learn more.

 

Whenever I ask a creationist "who created God?", the answer, inevitably, is that GOd is the "Alpha and Omega" yadda yadda. They give this answer because that's what the Bible tells you.

All of your life, your government and your media mouthpieces and state-paid teachers tell you that government is "The People" and you believe because that's what you are told to believe. You have no objective evidence that this is true. The government is the people, the people are the government is the circular argument and questioning that is frowned upon. Your response is basically the statist version of creationism.

So only Americans can be anti-state? That's like saying only Americans can be Protestant while the rest of the world is Catholic. That you claim to speak for everyone else in the world is downright arrogant. But only Americans can be arrogant, right?
Anyway, these attacks are what I expect from the statist faithful. You have no argument for the legitimacy of what your government does, only faith. And questioning your faith makes you really angry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

I don't consider the US government to be a "global government." I don't even consider it to be "my" government. I don't run it, and it doesn't own me, so there's no possession in either direction.

It's not offensive to racists. Oh wait, you are one of those morally superior types, right? Your morality justifies violence against peaceful people who disagree with you. That's why you worship the state and believe you and it are the same. If they were shoveling Jews into ovens, you'd be in support of it because you would accept whatever reason your government gave you for it. Like a good subject, you don't think, you just believe what your government tells you to believe. That's common in the United States, too.

What is a "US mentality"? You mean, I think for myself rather than go along with the holy writ that legislators hand down? Well, color me free then, slave.

Not much difference. You are just as arrogant and self-assuming as anyone in the US. You speak for everyone when you use nationalist language lie "our ideas." Americans do that too. To think you are different is laughable.

 

Wrong thread

 

I'm not a teacher, but here are some links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

 

If an international law conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution wins. If the international community thinks otherwise, they can try to send troops into the U.S. to enforce international law.

Good luck with that.

 

Yes you have the right to say something offensive, and those that disagree have every right to voice their opinion against you and even offend you in return. Thats freedom of speech, and in many cases your free speech has consequences.

But nobody has any right to silence your free speech, or become physical unless your words are truly threatening.

 

No one grants rights individuals are born with them. Most of that censorship you refer to is not censorship at all it is self regulation which is not the same thing. For example the government does not tell movie makers what they can and cannot put in movies. The industry regulates itself with a rating system ( PG13 R etc ). Television networks also establish their own rules about what they show and do not show, The example you gave of the prison show OZ proves this. It was not made to be shown on network TV but on paid TV such as cable.

The state and courts never decide what constitutes hate speech they simple favor one speech over another. Once again this is because hate speech IS SUBJECTIVE.

Sorry but that is in fact a false equivalence which is apples and oranges and fails to prove your point.

Yes hate speech is subjective. That is the one absolute fact you willfully ignore and since it is subjective any speech is hate speech to someone.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it is a choice to be offended by racism. Your standard that it is simple offensive applies strictly to you and to those who CHOOSE to agree with you.

All hate speech is subjective meaning in the ear of the listener,

 

The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees us free speech. If someone doesnt like what I say, that is their problem. As far as being "offended" there are far too many whiny offended snot nosed children in society to day. If they are offended, let them go home to mommies house, go to the basement, crawl under their bed with their favorite blankie or teddy, and cry themselves to sleep, till its all better.

 

I am offended by most all the lies that Hillary spews out. But I can handle them by going to the voting booth and voting for Trump.

Unlike the sniviling whiny snot nosed liberal children, I live in the real world and wear big boy pants at all times.

 

Is it fine to say something that is offensive? Yes it is you moron!!!

 

None of you people are worth responding to. You are a waste of time.

"No one grants rights individuals are born with them." ......

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts

edit "I know it when I see it".... Only in America. Even your judges are stupid.

Is that a 'precedent'? The 'I know it when I see it' precedent?

 

That is not the only thing we can do. And when was the last time you sent troops to make Russians be gay? Why dont you send troops to make China obey International Law on South China Sea tough guy? What we can do is hurt your image - which is happening and is ongoing. And other nations can ignore international law too. The stupid thing with USA ignoring international law is that it is your international law and global systems that you set up after WW2 - but you have lost control.

[video=youtube;rgyM8edUIQI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgyM8edUIQI[/video]

 

this forum cant use some free speach...in here i cant even call out people on racism when claim slavery was good for blacks...well all mods here are racist too so go figure

 

I find your speech offensive. Can we ban it please?

 

The left sound more like social conservatives every day.

 

well said.

 

that's just it. they can't define 'hate speech'. at present, it's simply "stuff I don't like". regardless of the convoluted mockery of a law describing same, it's a complete nebulous term. the virtue of speech is in the ear of the beholder, so subjective. you cannot legislate for subjective feelings.

 

It's irrelevant (my bold). HOW WE FEEL is not the decider, and should never be the decider. It's entirely subjective, as well as a choice. I find many things deeply objectionable, but that's my burden, not the worlds'. Obviously.

 

There's an old adage which goes something like this:

Offense is taken, not given. I agree.

 

I think you misunderstand me. The article claimed people support free speech because effectively, when someone asked them if they support free speech they said "yes". Few people would say they don't support free speech but how we respond to the complex problems of real life, our actual reactions will be a little more nuanced at best. Judging how free a country is based on what people say they believe rather than what they actually do is flawed.