Either we have freedom of speech, or we don't.
There's no such thing as freedom of speech (except hate speech). That's not freedom of speech.
Threats of violence, or inciting violence don't need to be protected, I can understand that because it involves potential physical actions. But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form. It's just such a fundamental liberty, that it's far better to take the good with the bad, suck it up and accept that you're not going to like everything everyone has to say.
But it's being eroded away.
So it's unfair and unless she was threatening or inciting violence, it really doesn't matter what she said.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from all consequence.
"unless she was threatening or inciting violence"
Not true at all. What about slander, libel, contractual agreements, obscenity, etc?
The OP never gave a source, context or anything rendering it impossible to say if this is fair or not. What if she signed a contract allowing for this fine? What if the law allows for it?
Shut your narrow minded rant. If so bothered why dont you look it up yourself like I did? Speaking of circumstances, what if it does no harm in some countries if some one post obscene pictures of "you" without your permission, that doesnt give tme them the right to do it, and you can seek international help. In that country it is definitely punishable, and she is not some special princess that prosecutors will waste their time bending rules for her.
If a man called you a bitch and he was fined you will be all so happy, but if a woman calls a man something and is penalized, its not fare? So much for Susan BA wanting equal punishment as men. You modern feminists who demand equality only want all the good things a man enjoys, but it gets unfair when you have to suffer what a man suffers, hypocrite! NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO INSULT ANYONE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!
You dont go calling fake and wanting links of women complaining about men using racial or hate speeches do you, you just go whining that those men deservs penalty even if those stories arent true. although the op cant post links, I can, I looked it up and here it is and this is 100% true:
Actually, I'm not going to comment on defamation, I just don't know enough about it.
But for this example at least, offensive "hate speech" is probably the best description, so I don't think it falls into that category.
I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech? Who decides what's offensive and what's not?
Would you feel differently if this was a black woman at the beach calling white people crackers or honkies?
"I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech?"
Uh, neither? I don't have a problem with hate speech.
Slander/libel is not a crime per se, it is a tort and the remedy is a civil suit. I support that.
I support exceptions for obscenity. Obscenity when referred to in this context generally means that you can't use a 'free speech' defense for illegal pornography (like child porn), sexual harrassment at work, etc. It doesn't mean making a simple lewd comment.
I support the right to enter into contracts limiting your 'free speech'. Examples... employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. And if you break the contract, it's completely fair for the injured party to penalize you as allowed in the contract.
Since the OP finally gave a source, now we know this happened in South Africa. Apparently hate speech is a crime there. Since what she did was against the law, fining her was 'fair' in the sense that it is the legal consequence for what she did. Is the law itself fair? From my American perspective, I'd say no. But I don't know much at all about South Africa...it's entirely possible that there is sound reason behind the law as racism is a huge problem there. I just don't know enough about it to say.
I just mentioned inciting violence because it was the only exception I could think of that seemed like it could possibly apply in this case. I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop.
But my feeling is also that the law is unfair in this case. In fact I'd go further, I don't think there is ever a sound reason for a law that results in an outcome like this, even in a place as complicated as SA. Just an opinion.
I don't think there should be criminal sanctions for verbal speech.
I'm confused by what your point is tbh. But I'll try - you've given some *superb* examples where FOS is not protected.
None of them provide criminal restrictions on verbal speech though (ex eobscenity?). And even if they did - I just happen not to agree with laws like that.
So, just to make sure I was clear enough with the two statements above,
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop" - aka Yes, in reality there are exceptions to the right to FOS, where it's not protected. I hinted that I disagree with most of these. But in reality/practice, yes these certainly exist as you pointed out.
"But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form" - I guess I've explained above. This is *my opinion* - it's not a description of the actual reality, just to be crystal.
So, those two statements don't negate or disagree with each other. One is describing reality. One is a general ideal.
They can be the complete opposite. Seeing as I'm not responsible for reality, it wouldn't be hypocritical of me to hold that ideal of the second statement.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from all consequence".
- If the consequence is legal punishment, then it is NOT freedom of speech.
So, actually, YES it does. Freedom of speech DOES mean you are free from legal consequences. Not all consequences, though (eg. you use racist slang and your friends disown you).
But in this case the consequence was legal.
Slander, libel, obscenity - again, in practice they all hinder free speech. IMO.
is it fair or not?
← View full post
Either we have freedom of speech, or we don't.
There's no such thing as freedom of speech (except hate speech). That's not freedom of speech.
Threats of violence, or inciting violence don't need to be protected, I can understand that because it involves potential physical actions. But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form. It's just such a fundamental liberty, that it's far better to take the good with the bad, suck it up and accept that you're not going to like everything everyone has to say.
But it's being eroded away.
So it's unfair and unless she was threatening or inciting violence, it really doesn't matter what she said.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from all consequence.
"unless she was threatening or inciting violence"
Not true at all. What about slander, libel, contractual agreements, obscenity, etc?
The OP never gave a source, context or anything rendering it impossible to say if this is fair or not. What if she signed a contract allowing for this fine? What if the law allows for it?
--
Joey3
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Shut your narrow minded rant. If so bothered why dont you look it up yourself like I did? Speaking of circumstances, what if it does no harm in some countries if some one post obscene pictures of "you" without your permission, that doesnt give tme them the right to do it, and you can seek international help. In that country it is definitely punishable, and she is not some special princess that prosecutors will waste their time bending rules for her.
If a man called you a bitch and he was fined you will be all so happy, but if a woman calls a man something and is penalized, its not fare? So much for Susan BA wanting equal punishment as men. You modern feminists who demand equality only want all the good things a man enjoys, but it gets unfair when you have to suffer what a man suffers, hypocrite! NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO INSULT ANYONE THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM!
You dont go calling fake and wanting links of women complaining about men using racial or hate speeches do you, you just go whining that those men deservs penalty even if those stories arent true. although the op cant post links, I can, I looked it up and here it is and this is 100% true:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/woman-fined-10000-for-calling-blacks-monkeys/
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I did try to google it but since the OP didn't provide enough information I didn't find what he was talking about. Thank you for posting the link.
As for the rest of your post...what?? I simply asked for more information so I could answer the question. Chill out.
Actually, I'm not going to comment on defamation, I just don't know enough about it.
But for this example at least, offensive "hate speech" is probably the best description, so I don't think it falls into that category.
I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech? Who decides what's offensive and what's not?
Would you feel differently if this was a black woman at the beach calling white people crackers or honkies?
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I'm just curious if you think all offensive speech should be banned, or just racially-based speech?"
Uh, neither? I don't have a problem with hate speech.
Slander/libel is not a crime per se, it is a tort and the remedy is a civil suit. I support that.
I support exceptions for obscenity. Obscenity when referred to in this context generally means that you can't use a 'free speech' defense for illegal pornography (like child porn), sexual harrassment at work, etc. It doesn't mean making a simple lewd comment.
I support the right to enter into contracts limiting your 'free speech'. Examples... employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. And if you break the contract, it's completely fair for the injured party to penalize you as allowed in the contract.
Since the OP finally gave a source, now we know this happened in South Africa. Apparently hate speech is a crime there. Since what she did was against the law, fining her was 'fair' in the sense that it is the legal consequence for what she did. Is the law itself fair? From my American perspective, I'd say no. But I don't know much at all about South Africa...it's entirely possible that there is sound reason behind the law as racism is a huge problem there. I just don't know enough about it to say.
--
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ah ok, I jumped the gun there, I'm sorry.
I just mentioned inciting violence because it was the only exception I could think of that seemed like it could possibly apply in this case. I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop.
But my feeling is also that the law is unfair in this case. In fact I'd go further, I don't think there is ever a sound reason for a law that results in an outcome like this, even in a place as complicated as SA. Just an opinion.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop."
Uh, no. You also said "But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form"
--
DuHast
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
That's because I don't think it should.
I don't think there should be criminal sanctions for verbal speech.
I'm confused by what your point is tbh. But I'll try - you've given some *superb* examples where FOS is not protected.
None of them provide criminal restrictions on verbal speech though (ex eobscenity?). And even if they did - I just happen not to agree with laws like that.
So, just to make sure I was clear enough with the two statements above,
"I didn't mean that it was the only exception, full-stop" - aka Yes, in reality there are exceptions to the right to FOS, where it's not protected. I hinted that I disagree with most of these. But in reality/practice, yes these certainly exist as you pointed out.
"But speech, verbal communication, should not be outlawed in any form" - I guess I've explained above. This is *my opinion* - it's not a description of the actual reality, just to be crystal.
So, those two statements don't negate or disagree with each other. One is describing reality. One is a general ideal.
They can be the complete opposite. Seeing as I'm not responsible for reality, it wouldn't be hypocritical of me to hold that ideal of the second statement.
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free from all consequence".
- If the consequence is legal punishment, then it is NOT freedom of speech.
So, actually, YES it does. Freedom of speech DOES mean you are free from legal consequences. Not all consequences, though (eg. you use racist slang and your friends disown you).
But in this case the consequence was legal.
Slander, libel, obscenity - again, in practice they all hinder free speech. IMO.