Free Speech - Is There a Limit?

The freedom of my fist ends exactly at the tip of my opponents nose.
or
My freedom ends where the others' freedom begins.

I guess these two statements could be also applied to free speech. Say everything you want, but don't harm, offend or destroy other poeples' privacy. Or at least be ready to take responsibility for your words. I guess this is the line to free speech.
And if I understand that hooker part (hooker=whore?), why should anyone be concerned about that? You tried and what? Sometimes I just don't get you Americans (no offense).

Each person has to make their own choices, the major difference between yours and mine seem to be that you feel that you have the right to infringe other people's freedoms in order to protect your own. You call me a bastard? :P It is that kind of selfishness that has the world in it's current state, why are some rules right for you but not for others? Just because I am not willing to kill for them, does not mean that I do not believe in my causes, in fact if I was willing to kill for them then they would be meaningless.

lol - you have no idea who I am or what I do with my life. I don't advocate corrupt systems but at the same time I do what I can to help people. Within my own belief system. I actually have limits to what I would do for the sake of "freedom". My philosophy actually has ethical merit if everyone followed it, if everyone had the same views as you, the killing would go on and on, how can you claim to be in favor of free speech when you are willing to kill those who have a differing view?.

It will never come to pass, but I won't stop setting a good example. If I can dissuade a few people from becoming like you then, that IS something to smile at.

Is there any real point in arguing with you when you openly admit to being a hypocrite and then attempt to justify it by saying: hey, look at what this person has achieved by being a hypocrite. I say they have achieved precisely nothing. I say that they knowingly followed an unjust path in order to get a result, that is wrong. Do you even pursue justice at all? Do you care about fairness and equality? Or do you only care about preserving your selfish existence?

Protests? Local representatives and rallies, phew! You really do a lot for your views don't you! :P I mean it's not as if 75% of intelligent, politically minded people in my class, did and still do the same. Whenever anyone smiles, they smile when suffering is going on, but people's suffering does not delight me in the least. Does it delight you? When you've wiped out all the opposition to your "freedom" - will you smile?

I wasn't suggesting you advocated indiscriminate butchery. I was merely stating my own opinion and trying to point out that it is difficult to avoid civilian casualties while also making an impact. With IEDs especially, it's difficult to predict who will set them off. Plenty of civilians are killed by IEDs in Iraq.



I have to call you on this one. This is just ridiculous. Isn't the whole point of socialism, as you have been strongly arguing for throughout this thread that peoples' freedoms are taken away in order to make everyone more equal? The ability to own property and spend money how one sees fit are freedoms, freedoms that full on socialism deems less important than making sure that everyone is economically exactly equal.

Socialism in a voluntary commune where everyone agrees to it? Alright, well then no one is losing their freedoms involuntarily. However, many people wouldn't want to live like this. Personally I wouldn't. Is it because I'm a greedy capitalistic bastard? You can think so if you want, but I think the idea of ownership is important because it allows people to take pride in what they achieve and build on it.

So no one should kill because war is immoral? Unfortunately, killing remains an effective way of solving problems and always will. If two groups have a disagreement or want the same thing, one group can kill the other and end the conflict in its favor. Is this a good solution for the world? Of course not, but some groups are very willing to do it anyways. Part of the reason for armies is to prevent this.

Even if you believe all killing is immoral, there is a still a difference between killing soldiers and killing civilians. Soldiers are in some sense proxies for the organization they fight for. Killing a soldier fighting for an oppressive government in the name of free speech is very different than killing a citizen who is against free speech but does not try to impose their beliefs on others. Killing a civilian is more immoral than killing a soldier even if both are immoral.

Fighting against a tyrannous regime is not the same as killing anyone who opposes the idea of "freedom." Part of freedom of speech is being able to oppose it, but once you impose this belief on someone else, you are taking away their freedom.

Honestly, it's your last paragraph that is most jarring. Idealists are important. They keep ideals in sight. But the reality is, people are suffering all the time. What are you doing about it? Saying "Oh if everyone were a good person like me, we wouldn't have any problems?" The people who make things better are those who are willing to look realistically at the world and move things forward incrementally through compromise. The groups that prevent progress are those that are unwilling to compromise.

I accept the fact that no one should be forced to use violence, but it isn't necessarily always wrong either. It can save innocent lives. If you want to always eschew violence, you are free to do so, and as long as you stand up for freedom in a peaceful way, I find no fault with you. Your platitudes, however, are not impressive. Your tirade against Fiery is in this case, poorly thought out hyperbole and ad hominem. After all, even if we all did assume that, as you say, he is the type of person who makes the world a bad place, that doesn't actually make his argument wrong. Elaborating on why your philosophy is positive, which you claim but don't support in your last post, or why violence is always wrong(other than that you seem to assume this as an inherent truth, why?) will get me to think hard about what you have to say. Rhetorical one liners and accusations won't.

If you want to make the world better you should face the fact that the world is a long way from ideal, and that progress will be slow. But, it can be made better.

Freedom is one of the most important things in the world. Without any freedom, there can be no meaning to life. Freedom of speech is only one type, but it is especially precious because it is close to freedom of thought. The point of controlling speech is to control thought as much as possible. After all, if you tell the same lie enough times, you start to believe it yourself. I think it's something important enough to be worth fighting for.

I'm a hypocrite because I'm human. I'm inherently flawed just like every other human. I can claim the world would be a better place too if everybody followed my beliefs. There wouldn't be need for war or anything like that as well. The problem is it's just as unrealistic to think humanty will be anything more than the flaws creatures they are. You have a noble goal in the world but, it's completely unrealistic and your argument is frankly that of a spoiled child. You'd have a better argument (and also less annoying) if you just used "Well, if everybody just got along".



Actually, I wouldn't smile as there would be other problems in the world I would also like to attend to. Environmental damages, human rights violations, starving people in Africa, war zones all over the world with people fighting over control of others. Corrupt governments, corrupt companies, religious insanity, poverty, declining education, the list goes on.

I'm not talking about killing people who disagree with me over what can and can't be said but, let me ask you this. What is worse? The man who tries to kill another or the man who does nothing to stop it?

We live in a fucked up world and I do what little I can to make the place better for everyone. Even if it's a small thing like giving the last $20 out of my wallet or even my pocket change to people like ASPCA, Humane shelters, Homeless shelters, Shriners or any other groups that seek to do the same thing.

The 75% of the people in your class are doing the right thing. Unlike 75% of Americans who do nothing.

Okay, well I can honestly say I like you a lot more than I did before, but that's not what matters. What I believe in is a major, perhaps unachievable goal. I'll do what I can to make it happen or to try and bring it closer to fruition, without harming others in the process. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite, I want to be an example to people as to what humanity is capable of while still remaining morally and ethically right. I believe that humanity will always be flawed, but I also believe that we should all try to better ourselves, and while not enforcing this as law upon another person - I follow my own rules myself and hope that people will follow in my footsteps.

You're right about how fucked up this world is, I'm unsatisfied with it, and I do what I can to try and change it. But I believe it has to be done in the right way, in order to set a precedent for the future. I will always oppose injustice, but at the same time I will not fight fire with fire. Even if it is my best chance of succeeding.

The thing is: you may well be killing people who support a corrupt government because it's all they know, or because it is the best life they have ever lived, they can live with an authoritarian communist regime because they have food to eat. Rather than a laissez faire regime where they would have already starved to death. Is it right to kill these people because their ideology is different to yours?

I think that the man who tries to kill another man is worse, however someone should not just stand by and let someone else be killed. They should attempt to protect the person without endangering the life of the attacker. I can imagine how ridiculous this sounds to you; but even if that person is doing something wrong, his life is still valuable, he could still make a positive contribution to society.

I am in favor of higher taxes, if a government would do more to help people and if the money was invested efficiently. I would be happy living with the bare minimum I need to survive. I understand that in America you guys have more of a "you earn what you can and it's up to each individual to decide how much they want to give to charity". However people are flawed and selfish, most people won't give anything at all, wouldn't you say that is the wrong way of doing things?

Well I went to a good school, highly authoritarian, but still a good school, we had classes designed to instill a social conscience, so it's not all that surprising. It's pretty much the same over here generally, my school was the exception rather than the rule. :(

Philosophical differences between us are quite clear. A government is made up of people and if people are flawed and selfish then the government itself would be flawed and selfish. It quite simple to realize that placing people in control of others that the power would quickly go to their head and they would become abusive. Larger governments are known to become corrupt along with the politicians who run it. Authoritarian governments can quickly become abusive as there is too much of a power vacuum between the average citizen and the wealthy ruling politicians. Which is the reason I support a smaller government that only concerns itself with making people behave in a way that is beneficial to society such as preventing theft, murder, rape,etc while protecting its people from groups that wish to do its citizens harm.

Collectively if we act in our own self interests by controlling and channeling our greed we can make the world a better place. People have money, I want money. I make a business that provides a good or service to people for a price. People pay for my goods or services which gives me money which allows me to hire people. In order for me to get more money I keep my prices low which brings in more customers which allows me to hire more people and expand my business. By hiring those people I give them money to get the things they want and need. I may be acting in my own self interest but, I am in an "expanded definition" donating money to help other people while at the same time helping my community.

Keeping taxes low helps people use the money they see fit. That money finds its way into the pockets of those who need it (eventually). Higher taxes mean potential jobs are lost and that prevents people from working which means that people may lose their jobs as employers try to stay in the black.

I might be one of those mean ole conservatives but, I'm still a bit of a bleeding heart.

LIMIT THAT BITCH lol sorry.okay seriously if we ave free speech we need limits on it or else as you said people will take advantage over it now where free speech stops is on federal crimes free speech is a viable excuse on misdemeanors however if its 5 of them well draw your own coclusions. Also if we going to allow free speech then we must know people will abuse it and we must set some parameters on it.

The way I see it is; that the worst people, will be the most successful people. Therefore money is tied up disproportionately between good and bad. Power corrupts, but I would rather see that power in the hands of a government who at least aim to make their country a better place. Rather than in the hands of a corporation whose main interest is making more money. Isn't it better to have people who aren't supposed to become corrupt rather than the people who flaunt the fact that they have no ideals beyond self-interest?

Perhaps your way will make the world a better place, but the world should be a better place sooner. People should not resign themselves to self-interest, as that creates a precedent that others are forced to follow or be swept aside. It's the wrong way to do things imo.

A properly regulated company can't really become corrupt. Companies like wal-mart who break the law all the time would get their ass handed to them. Also if wall-street execs had been scrutinized more then the bank issue wouldn't be as bad or be there at all. You can write laws to restrict and punish a company but, you can't write laws to restrict or punish the government since the government will just barge through the restrictions like they usually do. Look at the bill of rights for America and look at the laws related to them.

I could go on but, I'll just say "I'm not exactly thrilled about large multinational corporations".

This is a good point for this topic, what in your opinion is the right way to deal with multinational corporations who break the law? Do you think it is feasibly possible to "properly regulate" companies without placing more power in the hands of central government?

Depends on the severity. In the event like Microsoft or companies who try to obtain a monopoly. Break the company up into smaller parts. For a company like Walmart, who breaks workers rights, environmental laws and even labor laws. Force them to pay for "damages" and compensation to the workers or the environment.

I don't think more power has to be given to the state for this as it already fits within my minarchist philosophy. Less money the government requires for other things. The more money can be invested into police and courts to do their job. It's not a question of more laws, just better laws and better enforcement.

In the current situation, if corporations are caught breaking the law they receive fines and have to pay for damages. This does not stop them from continuing to break the law if it is profitable for them.

So you trust a government to run a legal system, but not to wisely spend taxpayer money on issues like poverty and health? It seems to me that this way the worst people succeed, those who are willing to go the extra mile in order to get where they want to be. You cannot trust the "dripping tap" of charity to look after the well being of those less fortunate.

What are your beliefs on disabled people or those unable to work? Should they be left to die? Doesn't your philosophy propagate a passive violence against the poor or less able? This form of government seems to set the status quo in stone, it defends the rich and powerful against the poor and needy.

Answer this then. Do you believe it is morally justifiable for any group to use force or fraud to take money or property from one group to give another?



I believe companies are more efficient and flexible when dealing with such matters. A Government is too big, too slow and too wrapped up in regulations and red tape in order to be effective at helping people in such conditions. Government entities are just mismanaged and have tons of overhead costs. People who really need the money are often turned away while criminals are able to bilk the system. A lot of politicians are also spending tax payer money on pet projects and useless things like the "bridge to nowhere". So yes, I trust the Federal government with spending money only on Police, Courts or the Military and not a cent anywhere else.

The tax system I advocate would put more money in the hands of the people so they could afford their own health care and those who choose to forgo health care can. I advocate cheap health care in the private sector (The citizens & companies) instead of granting the government permission to take money from every working man and woman at the point of a gun to give to other people. I equate that to theft. The tax system would basically give people a "free ride" up to the poverty level on the basic necessities of life. So it helps the poor meet their basic requirements.

The only question I don't have an answer for is the disabled.

Okay, well to answer your first question I don't agree with the notion of money or property to start with so this could be a tricky one. Why is it all right to take taxes for the military or law enforcement but not for health care? You may say that the military and police are there to protect people and they are essential in that respect. But in what way are they more important than putting food on your family's table, or having the peace of mind that if you have an accident, your medical needs will be catered for.

Companies are generally more efficient than central government, do you know why? They don't care about anything beyond money. I'd rather have a government deliberate on a difficult decision rather than a company simply take the most cost effective solution. What is needed is a government of exceptional individuals, who are willing to work toward a common goal. If a government was made up of highly intelligent, hard-working people who actually cared about the well-being of the people, wouldn't you be more willing to give them a bit of lee-way with your tax dollars?

There is no difference between asking people to pay taxes for law enforcement or asking them to pay taxes for health care. Law enforcement and the military can be just as easily mismanaged. Ridiculous amounts are spent on weapons while people starve to death on the streets. What are your views on education? Should that be a private institution too? If so then the richest (most ruthless) people will send their children to the best schools, their children will get better jobs, and the cycle will repeat itself.

It would not ensure the poor meet their minimum requirements, which is not good enough. If you don't have an answer to disability then what about this; a child from a poor family has a tough upbringing and drops out of school, descending into a life of crime. However he has an epiphany and wants to go back to school; where are the adult education programs? If people make mistakes in their lives it is easy for them to fall by the wayside, it is the government's responsibility to give them another chance.

There will always be those who abuse welfare systems, however they benefit far more people than they hurt. It's not holding a gun to someone's head and saying: give us this money so we can misuse it. It's helping people to have a conscience. Making sure those less fortunate than themselves are not trodden on. The way I see it is that you advocate freedom, but the truth is that the only people who really have freedom in your society are the rich, and the poor pay for that freedom.

More like companies have an obligation to be fast. Pissing off customers isn't exactly "good business". I was referring to...the DMV, the Social Security Office, Schools, along with similar bodies of the government. They have no competition, no real reason besides "doing their job" to be fast or efficient. I agree that the government needs exceptional individuals but, in order to maintain those "exceptional" people you would have to remove a democratic vote as well as term limits. If anybody could get in to run the country then you'll have less than exceptional people. You can't make everybody exceptional.



As if Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton or anybody else would want to give their children the exact same "edge" as your kids. Government education is a pathetic excuse for education in general. Colleges are much better at educating a person than the warehousing of children like they do in Government schools in America. Look at the average American. They are proof that government education doesn't work.

It's not the governments responsibility. It's the mans responsibility to get an education.




You advocate a massive government which requires massive spending. In order to pay for that spending the government would have to levy huge tax burdens on all of society in order to pay for the nanny welfare state. In order to maintain "equality" and "fairness" people can't earn paychecks as it would create "income inequality".

Democracy only works if the people aren't ignorant and selfish, and there are no term limits where I live anyway. Even between government institutions there is still competition, lets take schools and league tables, schools that show they are well-run receive prestige. It works fairly well where I am. There are people who do not appreciate the gift of education, that is their choice, but it should be offered to everyone.

The average American is not proof government education doesn't work, only that it needs to change. There is no point doing a half-arsed job as far as funding is concerned. Perhaps Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton would want to give their children the edge. Doesn't mean they should be able to. I don't care about Obama or Clinton, as far as I'm concerned Obama is a placebo.

It is the government's responsibility to look after it's people, and to give them the best chance possible. This man has been set back by his upbringing, you advocate a kind of social Darwinism then?

Yes, I do advocate a massive government which would require massive spending. People would be taxed heavily by your standards, but it is undoubtedly the better choice from a humanitarian point of view. As I have said before, So you don't want to be fair? You wouldn't want people to be on equal footing? Judged by their intellectual merits rather than the size of their bank account? That is wrong as far as you're concerned?

Probably the biggest problem with public schools in the US is that the market for teachers is very artificial because the government controls a massive share and thus sets the market artificially. Currently, the US government is not willing to make competitive offers to skilled and intelligent people, so these people either go into other careers where they can make competitive salaries, or those that really want to teach end up going to private schools, who can easily out-compete the laughable offers made by the public schools. And even these teachers don't make good money, as the government drives down the market, but there seem to be enough people that want to teach regardless that the private schools can generally get decent staffing by just making slightly better offers than the public schools, which are left with the dregs. So, of course the public schools suck, and they will continue to suck until the public/government decides that they are willing to pay for good teachers.

There has always been a question of what "equal opportunity" means. Does it mean that the government should give everyone exactly the same thing and let them go at it, does it mean that the government should forcibly equalize everyone through a Robin Hood mentality, or something in between? I would say I don't personally have a definite answer, but that it is somewhere in the middle. There is no sense in taxing the impoverished, and in fact I think it is advantageous to try and provide them with aid, preferably in the form of education of skills training. But either way, the US as a society has decided that letting people starve on the streets is generally not acceptable, and don't want government to give everyone nothing, tax minimally, and generally be completely laissez-faire. Of course, the US has also rejected the socialist party, and doesn't want to go too far in that direction either.



In a sense, full on socialism without private property doesn't judge on either. It makes everyone the same regardless of other factors. It's impossible to have a bigger bank account, and if someone is more skilled or intelligent and can be more productive, anything they create or produce above the average will simply be taken away from them and redistributed anyways. The whole idea is that they aren't judged better, and socialism goes out of its way to really hammer this home.

I've given my views on how the world should be run before, but in the last few posts I've been a bit more pragmatic, and I have spoken about how the current situation could be made better. With people the way they are now, communism does not work, however there are a number of changes to the communist model that would make it more viable. People can be judged differently, as they are different people, with strengths and weaknesses that set them apart from one another. People should instead be judged by the merit of their contribution to society.

I'd advocate something more along the lines of a hero culture, where people are rightly glorified for a positive contribution. People can still attain a level of privilege, by proving themselves to be a worthy and productive member of society. Which they can do by helping other people, rather than screwing them over in order to make money. Can you give me one example of communism in history where the leaders actually believed in the ideal, and weren't just using it as a vehicle for their dictatorship?

Yes, the same social Darwinism that capitalism is founded on. The better (faster, stronger, smarter,etc) workers will be sought after more and offered more. Hence why people with college degrees are paid more than their non-college educated counterparts. This encourages people to invest in themselves more. The system you have laid out is rather impractical and doesn't take human nature into account. Why would I both spending 10 years in college to become a doctor (general or specialized) or a lawyer or any career that takes more than four years of education to acquiree? The money is gone so the only reasons left are 1) because of a fiery passion for the job (doctors who want to help people) or a love for the job (lawyers, teachers). So if I can just graduate high school and go work in a warehouse stacking boxes and make the same amount why would I bother? Humans are lazy on top of being selfish. In order to counter this trend you have to move away from Socialism/True Communism into Stalin communism or Dictatorship "Work or don't eat" or "work or die".



I believe all people are created equal. Just like the declaration of independence of my country states. When we're born we are at the same starting point. It's up to us to achieve success or failure. Trying to force everybody to be "equal" is counter productive to society as there is less incentive to be productive since you don't reap any rewards from your labor, everybody else does.

Your system requires massive government control over everybody which restricts individual freedom and incentives. Progress would almost stagnate as the only incentive to work is "because it's the right thing to do" and for a species that is as self centered as us, that's not a good start. Not to mention you have to worry about resources. Who gets how much of what and when. We'd literally go back into Stalin's U.S.S.R. where we'd have to wait in line for our daily rations. The collective misery wouldn't matter because we'd all be "equal".

In a nutshell; it'd be like watching a plane crash in slow motion. You know it won't end well.

My system while everybody wouldn't be "equal" in your sense would be the better option

Currently, the average middle class American pays 1/3rd of their paycheck in taxes before they ever get their check Then why they do to spend their money they are taxes on every dollar spent by roughly 7% since it varies from state to state I"ll just use my sales tax. For every dollar earned and spent the average middle class American pays 41 cents out of every dollars. We lost 41% of our income in taxes just to meet our basic necessities of food and shelter. You'd increase that tax burden which would only force middle class people to become dependent on the government and stagnate economic growth as businesses will just move to countries with lower taxes. America already has a tax rate of 40% which is second to only Japan. Here are the corporate tax rates for the top 30 countries

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



The problem with increasing tax rates on companies is that the smaller businesses are forced to lay off workers or drop potential jobs. The people who are kept around won't get paid as much since companies wouldn't be able to afford to give them raises and may be forced to drop things like 401k, health and other benefits.

By lowering taxes you give companies more money to play with. Soon, the backbone to capitalism will force that money to be spent. Either hiring more employees, investing in new technology, paying it's employees more to stay instead of jumping ship to another company with a better "offer". Lowering taxes on individual citizens also helps as the citizens have more money to spend on their basic needs and more to invest to themselves and their children.

While we aren't all "exactly equal". Giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him how to fish is better in the long run than giving the man a fish.

I'd like to offer a different spin on this. Clearly, everyone is not created equal. Some people are born with natural physical talents that give them an advantage in the competition to be an NBA player, while some people might be born with a higher intelligence in a certain area, say mathematics, and be able to learn much more with much less effort than most others. I think the idea of all men created equal is more related to a certain sense that all human life has an inherent value, and that all are created equal in this sense. Might one person use what talents they have and achieve something while another lies around on their ass and lives off welfare? Sure, but the lazy person doesn't lose his inherent value by contributing nothing.



The US is an interesting case. In theory, the corporate tax rate is high, but if you ask any CPA or corporate lawyer, they will tell you the truth is that the US tax code allows for so many exemptions and exceptions that most companies pay much much less than the surface rate. A more useful chart would be one of the amount of corporate taxes paid by fortune 500 companies over the past few years. This is the "corporate tax loophole" that Obama wanted to close. Of course, it's easier said than done. While corporations outsource to get cheaper labor, you don't really hear about corporations fleeing the US for tax reasons, and the so called "loopholes" in the system are the reason for this.