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.
By outlawed in any form, does that mean, for instance, that you don't think people injured by slander should have any recourse whatsoever? I can agree that slander shouldn't be an arrestable offense but I disagree that the injured party should have no way to recoup damages.
is it fair or not?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
wigz
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
By outlawed in any form, does that mean, for instance, that you don't think people injured by slander should have any recourse whatsoever? I can agree that slander shouldn't be an arrestable offense but I disagree that the injured party should have no way to recoup damages.