Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

I dont think that total freedom of speech is good thing. But It is very hard to make line what should be allowed and what not.

freedom of speech is not allowed from childhood.. I suppose everybody of us hear this kind of sentence from your parents:
- Say one more word and I will really take you your toys !!!!

Rubinho... statements which are supporting war, crime, not natural behaving and so.. should be forbidden.
All such a statements are violating somebody's else rights like right for safe, right for normal life, right for peace and so.

So, imagine this: in a certain country, there is a genocide going on. Then the international community shouldn't say that they want to attack this country?

The most problematic are religion statements, because pro or against statments are always violating right of opposite group.

Tell me, which right am I violating if I'd say that God, Allah, Jahweh, ... are morons?

One group think that all people have right to meet god, so supporting religious is needed and second group think that all people have right to have "clear head" without such a fairy tales.
One or another group will always think that other is violating his rights.

If you apply this, you'll have a lot of problems, true. However, you shouldn't apply this: determining which rights exists and which don't should be religiously neutral based. So not christian based or muslim based or whatever. This is what we call separation of church and state.

I dont think that total freedom of speech is good thing. But It is very hard to make line what should be allowed and what not.

Total freedom of speech (limited to the border of crimes of course) is a good thing. And I've shown you it's not hard to make a line between what is allowed and what isn't, the line is a crime.

freedom of speech is not allowed from childhood.. I suppose everybody of us hear this kind of sentence from your parents:
- Say one more word and I will really take you your toys !!!!

Ridiculous argument, I hope you're not serious about this.

So, imagine this: in a certain country, there is a genocide going on. Then the international community shouldn't say that they want to attack this country?
ok, but then you must allow also al quaeda statements for war and attacking innocent people, it is just their way of war which they lose but refuse capitulate. (you can not say that right for war have just that who has tanks and armies) But on this you will answer "no" but it is same as your example. You are going to answer maybe that your example is about "good can help/defend weak" and my example is "bad can make ulgy attacks" but it is really same, it is about freedom of speech.


Tell me, which right am I violating if I'd say that God, Allah, Jahweh, ... are morons?
Maybe none of my rights by this example. But if you are talking in TV every week that God is moron, bad, that we should persuade young people to forgot on him then you are violation rights of people who trust and are trying to spread religion in the world. It is sensitive theme so if somebody is using freedom of speech to hurt another group it is violating their rights for free religion. I am sure that in any TV in Europe will not be some kind of show with burn Jesus and eating his body or so.... and it is good, that is violating of right of young people which can have "chance to believe".
(I dont trust in god, but I agree that they have right to have not aggressive opponents in media, at least in state or mainstream media.)

Not very serious, just funny example that we all here, who are parents are not accepting freedom of speech.
But honesty, if my son start calling me sokker lama, I forbid him TV and PC :-DDDD

ok, but then you must allow also al quaeda statements for war and attacking innocent people, it is just their way of war which they lose but refuse capitulate. (you can not say that right for war have just that who has tanks and armies) But on this you will answer "no" but it is same as your example. You are going to answer maybe that your example is about "good can help/defend weak" and my example is "bad can make ulgy attacks" but it is really same, it is about freedom of speech.

You are right, I'll say 'no' and let me explain. For instance 9/11: that was a clear terrorist attack against completely innocent and unarmed people. The USA didn't intend to attack innocent Afghan people or Iraqi people, they attacked the state, not the people. You see the difference? Attacking and murdering unarmed people on purpose is obviously a war crime. However, war itself is not necessarily a crime. By the way, the attack itself is never freedom of speech of course, only the call for the attack should be evaluated as freedom of speech or not.

Maybe none of my rights by this example. But if you are talking in TV every week that God is moron, bad, that we should persuade young people to forgot on him then you are violation rights of people who trust and are trying to spread religion in the world.

You don't have to forget him, you have to see the reality :p

Now serious: I am not violating other people's right to spread their religion by saying this religion is bad and just a bunch of lies. They can still spread their religion, I'm not forbidding it. It is their right to try to spread their religion, and it is my right to try to spread atheism. If I cannot say God is bad etc. you are denying me my right to spread atheism. Otherwise one could argument that socialism should be forbidden because they are violating the right of liberals to spread liberalism. Which would be ridiculous, but would be exactly the same as you saying I would be violating people's right by going against religion.

It is sensitive theme so if somebody is using freedom of speech to hurt another group it is violating their rights for free religion. I am sure that in any TV in Europe will not be some kind of show with burn Jesus and eating his body or so.... and it is good, that is violating of right of young people which can have "chance to believe".

Me offending religious people isn't violating religious people's right for free religion. I'm not forbidding it, ergo I'm not violating the principle of free religion. And of course, TV won't do that, that would be stupid, but it would be their right to do so.

(I dont trust in god, but I agree that they have right to have not aggressive opponents in media, at least in state or mainstream media.)

I'm not aggressive. I'm just denying what they say. Just like they deny what I say. If you want to forbid people to try to take down religion (by saying on TV weekly that God is bad etc.), than you must forbid people to say God exists on TV too, as that could be seen as an 'aggressive opponent' against atheism, and you say everyone has the right to not have an aggressive opponent (counts for both religion and atheism of course). And I can compare this with socialism and liberalism or conservatism again: in Belgium, people are saying on TV that conservatism is bad etc. on a weekly basis. Aren't they those aggressive opponents you were talking about?
(edited)

war crime vs. crime
I dont think as I wrote on previous page maybe... terrorists are not just "bad people", they are group of people who lose war but refuse capitulate. they have not army or heavy guns, they can just attack small targets which are important just in the case that are frightening (like targeting innocent people). terrorist are just result of war, I dont like them but I can understand them, same evil as war /aggressor with big army/. Also war in Lybia will create new terrorists groups, so terrorist in this case are just children of France and Italy and other, that is all. So freedom of speech can not be dividing between two groups related to crime or war.

god...freedom of speech
I was not talking about discussion and opinions. I was talking about systematic very aggressive talking.
Discussing and spreading pro or again opinions is ok, but ugly aggressive talking should be not tolerated for freedom of speech. At least I think that freedom of speech should have limits :-)

If you say that freedom of speech have limits in crime, I will say that freedom of speech should have limits in crime, hurting, ugly insulting or in making negative aspect on "normal life".
Maybe the best way have how to set a line should be have fast and honesty courts so everybody can say whatever but then court/judge can force him to pay for it if hurted people make repeal or so and will win case....

But this is fairytale, such a fast courts are not possible. And if yes everybody on earth would be just starting lawsuit everyday...

I dont think as I wrote on previous page maybe... terrorists are not just "bad people", they are group of people who lose war but refuse capitulate. they have not army or heavy guns, they can just attack small targets which are important just in the case that are frightening (like targeting innocent people). terrorist are just result of war, I dont like them but I can understand them, same evil as war /aggressor with big army/. Also war in Lybia will create new terrorists groups, so terrorist in this case are just children of France and Italy and other, that is all. So freedom of speech can not be dividing between two groups related to crime or war.

Well, you understand terrorism, I don't. They could have flown the planes in military targets instead of civilian targets. And once again, acts of war are never related in freedom of speech, they are a matter of freedom of acting. Make that difference please. Firing a gun is never freedom of speech.

I was not talking about discussion and opinions. I was talking about systematic very aggressive talking.
Discussing and spreading pro or again opinions is ok, but ugly aggressive talking should be not tolerated for freedom of speech. At least I think that freedom of speech should have limits :-)

If you say that freedom of speech have limits in crime, I will say that freedom of speech should have limits in crime, hurting, ugly insulting or in making negative aspect on "normal life".
Maybe the best way have how to set a line should be have fast and honesty courts so everybody can say whatever but then court/judge can force him to pay for it if hurted people make repeal or so and will win case....

Then we must agree to disagree. You think freedom of speech should be limited before the call for crimes, I don't. There is no right to not be hurt, there is no right to not be insulted.

By the way, how would you define what is hurting or insulting and what is not? Now thát would be a tough call to make.

And by the way: you didn't answer this statement of mine:

'If you say religious people have the right to not have aggressive opponents on TV, do I - as considerate conservative and nationalistic person - have the right to not have aggressive opponents on TV too? 'Cause in my country, weekly, there are people on TV and in the newspaper who say nationalism is dangerous for democracy. Our former prime minister Verhofstadt (leader of the liberals in the European Parliament now) even said that the consequent result of the idea of identity (which is a key aspect of nationalism) always leads to the chambers of Auschwitz ... Should this be forbidden too?'
(edited)

:-)

in religion case people can be really hurted (it is much more sensitive theme) but in your case you are just nervous of them, that is different or not ?

I dont know where and how to make the line, I just think that totally freedom of speech is not good think.
We can not ask for people to stop saying bullshits, insulting or so :-), but we can ask for it at least in newspaper, TV, maybe internet :-). Not generally, but at least stop it (except some special registrated places). Maybe every moron tv show, web or newspaper should have star or some warning for normal people ..."be aware, this has moron star" :-D

Once more time.. I dont know how to make limits, but I dont think that so huge freedom of speech as you like is good for human race. People are moron and trolls like I am, so society should have right not to read or hear them at all :-DD (except special places, like sokker can be too :-D )

in religion case people can be really hurted (it is much more sensitive theme) but in your case you are just nervous of them, that is different or not ?

What do you mean by 'nervous'? I don't understand.

Look how much topics are about how good drugs are and why to taste them and how much topic are here to tell us how dangerous it can be.
For example, you have web for young people and some of them start talking about how they like marihuana or cocaine... you allow this, I not. (except place with address maybe .drugs, which can be blocked at once by parents :-D )

Or look how often are women showing boobs in TV (boobs are allowed in most of EU states before night, just all woman body is forbidden). Or look how much stupid reality shows are on TV every day and how bad influence it has on population, people are generally sheep, so somebody should have control over freedom of speech and freedom of TV broadcast and so....

ok, I make fast reading, I thought that you was complaining on morons among politics and the fact that you must listen them on TV :-DD ....
I am going to read it more careful, wait :-)

Cause in my country, weekly, there are people on TV and in the newspaper who say nationalism is dangerous for democracy. Our former prime minister Verhofstadt (leader of the liberals in the European Parliament now) even said that the consequent result of the idea of identity (which is a key aspect of nationalism) always leads to the chambers of Auschwitz ... Should this be forbidden too?'

i dont know, as I said. I just dont like totally freedom of speech. so I have no answer...