People do not have a right to their own opinions.

[Southtown]

I think I heard it said that a person has rights until their liberty infringes on another's rights. If not I'll be happy to claim it. =P

[TheFaithfulStone]

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

 

Fair enough.

 

By this assertion you do not have the RIGHT to vote against certain things. You do not have the right to vote against civil rights legislation, for instance, or the ERA.

 

Unless the right to vote as you please actually DOES trump other's rights.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

I may have missed something, but I'm not seeing the difficulty.

 

1) All people have an absolute right to freedom of thought.

 

2) This is not the case for freedom of speech.

 

If you say or otherwise communicate repugnant opinions, you should expect to suffer the consequences, both legally, morally and socially.

 

 

And on a less relevant point...

 

The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

 

Not true. According to English law, assault is the immediate apprehension of unlawful force. No force actually needs to be applied.

 

So swing your fist at my face, then even if you stop just short of my nose, you will go to jail (and hopefully stay there).

 

And the relevance of this point to the thread cannot be overestimated.

[HydrogenBond]

I believe a person has the right to any opiinon they wish to hold. That is called freedom of speech. Political correctness is an opinion that attempts to limit other people's opinions. If we take political correctness to the nth degree then only one groups of opinions will be legal.

 

in my opinion, all opinions have a grain of truth. For example, all stero-types can point out at least one example, even though that opinion may not reflect the entire group. By allowing all opinions, one is able to collect enough data to fully characterize a group. For example, the Nazi saw themselves as the superior race. If the criteria of super race was the ability of a culture to pull themselves from post war depression into first world status in record time, this was true. If superior meant the ability to promote world peace it was false.

 

Another way I look at opinions, is that opinions often reflect what is going on inside a person's unconscious mind. In other words, it can provide insight into the hidden motivation behind the personna. For example, political correctness is an opinion that assumes that most people are wimps or bores. It comes across, superfisically as altruistic, but smells of self righteous elitism, i.e., big mama knows best.

 

For example, some people like to communicate with 4-letter words to express their opinions. According to the elitist, big mama, these people are not allowed to speak in public never mind have an opinion.

 

It is better to allow all opinions and then try to filter through them and them attempt to piece together something more inclusive. For example, one may beleive all politicians are crooks. One can find at least one crooked politians to back this. Another may say that polititians are patriots. One can also find at least one example to back this opinion. A more inclusive opinion would say polititian are composed of both crooks and patriots. A better opinion came from two narrow opinions.

[sebbysteiny]

I believe a person has the right to any opiinon they wish to hold. That is called freedom of speech.

 

Whooo shtopp. Your idea is not ready yet.

 

The human right to free thought is fundamentally different to that of the [qualified] human right to free speech. The two should never be confused.

 

Both The Universal Declaration of Human rights AND the European Convention on human rights make this distinction.

 

Perhaps you might like to rephrase.

[hallenrm]

Whooo shtopp. Your idea is not ready yet.

 

The human right to free thought is fundamentally different to that of the [qualified] human right to free speech. The two should never be confused.

 

Both The Universal Declaration of Human rights AND the European Convention on human rights make this distinction.

 

Perhaps you might like to rephrase.

 

No, not only the right to free speech, but also right to expressing publicly. For example, people from different countries have been using blogging to express their views freely. Today, I read a news report that the Malaysian Government is mulling a Law to limit the right of a Malaysian citizen to express his/her thoughts freely on a blogsite.:thumbs_do

 

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=30493

 

What is a thought worth, if not shared?

;)

[cwes99_03]

Don't think that any blog in the US is free either.

 

As public domain, these sites are often traceable. If you make rants about some person, public office, or one of many other various attacks, then you may find yourself looking down the barrel of a man with a search warrant.

 

China has likewise limited free speech, even on the web.

 

You last two posters have a good point though. Every person has a right to their own opinions, but in most if not all lands, no one has a right to public expression of "anything they want to say". They all have limited rights of public expression, including free speech, which limits are set by the governing bodies on the basis of protection of other's rights.

[sebbysteiny]

The human right to free thought is fundamentally different to that of the [qualified] human right to free speech. The two should never be confused.

No, not only the right to free speech, but also right to expressing publicly. For example, ... express[ing] thoughts freely on a blogsite.

 

Again, you have misunderstood the distinction.

 

Thre right to free speech is exactly the same as the right to 'expressing publicly'. Both are fundamentally different to the right to free thought.

[TheFaithfulStone]

As public domain, these sites are often traceable. If you make rants about some person, public office, or one of many other various attacks, then you may find yourself looking down the barrel of a man with a search warrant.

 

What? If you post it on a blog it's automatically copyrighted, but I don't really understand what you're getting at.

 

TFS

[moo]

What? If you post it on a blog it's automatically copyrighted, but I don't really understand what you're getting at.

He means you can be taken to court for false statements about someone, and even for true statements in some countries if you cannot prove it's "necessary to show a benefit to the public good". :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

 

Excerpts: "Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

---

For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech were not considered applicable to libel law. This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the Supreme Court of the United States modified the law of libel to be in accord with constitutional requirements.

---

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

---

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.

 

Underlining added by...

 

moo

[TheFaithfulStone]

Thanks, moo.

 

TFS

[cwes99_03]

Yah, probably not the right word to use "public domain". I meant publicly accessible.

[sebbysteiny]

He means you can be taken to court for false statements about someone, and even for true statements in some countries if you cannot prove it's "necessary to show a benefit to the public good".

 

True, but according to English law at least, there are other defences to lible.

 

If you did not say it out of malice, you can say it if you actually believed it to be true even if it turns out not to be. So a disgruntled employee may need to be more careful than a random person on a blog.

 

However, there are further restritions to freedom of speech (not thought). Insightment to racial hatred laws and speech designed to cause disrutpions to society can, at least according to human rights law, be legitimate reasons for 'search warrents'.

 

So a post saying 'Osama Bin Ladin is right and Islam commands us to kill all infidels' would quite rightly be a breach of freedom of speach rules which can and should result in prison.

[cwes99_03]

I'd say not true on the last statement. It's just gonna get you on a government watch list, not a prison term.

Also not really true on the "if you actually believed it to be true", part. A newspaper can't print something if it doesn't check the facts. There are honest mistakes, but it isn't an honest mistake if you print something without attempting to verify the facts. A layperson is held less responsible for their own actions than many organizations and businesses that recieve money for their opinions because of what moo stated above.

 

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

 

 

defense

libel

disruptions

warrants

restrictions

incitement

speech

 

Sorry seb, just want you to proofread your posts a bit.

[sebbysteiny]

Very well, tomorrow I'll look up the law on libel again.

[InfiniteNow]

Very well, tomorrow I'll look up the law on libel again.

I might suggest you simply wait to post until you have. Comments like the above waste bandwidth and decrease the readability of a thread.

 

Thanks. :cup:

[sebbysteiny]

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

 

I actually don't need to look up law to respond to most of this.

 

You have stated correctly what is prohibited.

 

However, you have not pointed out that there are about 5-6 defences in which you are allowed to commit 'libel'. One of which is if you honestly beliefed it to be true and the statement was not made with mallice.

 

[Question and suggestion deleted by iNow. PM if you wish to discuss]