Freedom of speech - Going too far?

[gambit]

Havent you heard about Bush threatening to use nukes against Iran? I thought everyone knows about that.

Did he? Or was he merely expressing options as all leaders legitimately can?

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Harry you need to understand USA will only use Nukes if we are nuked.

Did I miss how Japanese nuked US? And yes, US threatened to nuke Iran even though Iran never even mentioned of nuking US.

 

[Imran Khan]

every nation has such idiot minds we have many in pakistan .if we care them its mean they done the job but if we ignore them it will hurt them lolz

 

[gambit]

Did I miss how Japanese nuked US? And yes, US threatened to nuke Iran even though Iran never even mentioned of nuking US.

Apparently you missed the entire war that set the context for that action.

 

[NeutralCitizen]

Did I miss how Japanese nuked US? And yes, US threatened to nuke Iran even though Iran never even mentioned of nuking US.

Your seriously comparing what had to be done back then and now ? Unless you wanted the war to drag on in 1946 and 1947 ? Threatening and actually using Nukes are two different things.

 

[Hussein]

This is where you are wrong, at least partially. If I say to you: 'Am going to kill you if you do not do X, Y, and Z.' That would be legitimately prosecutable by law. The reasoning here is whether I have the capability to do or not and usually as individuals we do have that capability.

But only states can threaten other states. Individuals cannot threaten the existence of a state. An individual does not have that capability despite what 'Hollywood' might put out. Barack Obama as an individual cannot credibly threaten any state, but as President of the US with all the power available to him, and IF he has that sticker on the Presidential limo, then it becomes a credible threat. Basically, threats are assessed by their creators' credibility at achieving them, not just by their contents.

I agree with your point.
But there is another point i tried to say about that is used in Europe, but i was not clear about it. It is not about the capacity to threaten someone or a state. It is all about the "call for hatred" as they say here in France for exemple. Few exemples:
- if someone says publically "Jews are thiefs" then he will can be prosecuted (if only someone complains) for the reason "behavior or words that could lead to hatred towards the communauty of Jews"
- if someone is saying in his bar "hang Iranians" then he will be prosecuted for the same reason

Now this is about this car: it is not that simple as the two exemples above. Because it is really about a country. This is more difficult to condemn.

I like this point here about the fact that if you point your hatred towards a communauty someone can complain against you (incase what you say is really hatred, not an opinion).
I prefer the US economic freedom and some of your way of freedom for a lot of matter (here the companies have really a high pressure from state but not only: a lot of companies that you are forced to pay cotisations to.... damned in my country there IS NOTHING... you can imagine the chock of the culture about this ).... but the good point if for opinions: you can say whatever you want but it should not be a danger for a communauty
but i clearly understand your point gambit. thanks

 

[500]

 

[Hussein]

you think the guy can say "hey it is a V not a U"?

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Your seriously comparing what had to be done back then and now ? Unless you wanted the war to drag on in 1946 and 1947 ? Threatening and actually using Nukes are two different things.

Where I'm saying threatening and nuking is the same thing? It doesnt deny the fact US did threatened, and they actually did nuked before.

About "war dragging" is a separate topic, which isnt correct either, just US official position. In reality Japanese already offered peace before nukes, and even date was set. Furthermore, the biggest reason Japan surrendered was millions of Russian troops coming to Japan, and not US bombs. So why did US used nukes? They wanted to quickly test nuclear bombs before war was over. If they dropped them on military bases, that at least would have been less criminal than dropping on civilians

 

[gambit]

I agree with your point.
But there is another point i tried to say about that is used in Europe, but i was not clear about it. It is not about the capacity to threaten someone or a state. It is all about the "call for hatred" as they say here in France for exemple. Few exemples:
- if someone says publically "Jews are thiefs" then he will can be prosecuted (if only someone complains) for the reason "behavior or words that could lead to hatred towards the communauty of Jews"
- if someone is saying in his bar "hang Iranians" then he will be prosecuted for the same reason

We do not agree with some European countries did about 'hate' speech, even though we have problems on how to deal with such ourselves. In the US, you can say 'Jews are thieves' and the government will leave you alone. What Jews and other people will do is a different issue. That is 'freedom of speech' that works both sides of the street.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

Where I'm saying threatening and nuking is the same thing? It doesnt deny the fact US did threatened, and they actually did nuked before.

About "war dragging" is a separate topic, which isnt correct either, just US official position. In reality Japanese already offered peace before nukes, and even date was set. Furthermore, the biggest reason Japan surrendered was millions of Russian troops coming to Japan, and not US bombs. So why did US used nukes? They wanted to quickly test nuclear bombs before war was over. If they dropped them on military bases, that at least would have been less criminal than dropping on civilians

The Japanese surrender issue has been debated and debunked before. Look them up.

 

[888jamie888]

We do not agree with some European countries did about 'hate' speech, even though we have problems on how to deal with such ourselves. In the US, you can say 'Jews are thieves' and the government will leave you alone. What Jews and other people will do is a different issue. That is 'freedom of speech' that works both sides of the street.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------


The Japanese surrender issue has been debated and debunked before. Look them up.

Freedom of speech is good to an extent. Whats the name of that church that pickets dead soldiers funerals? It makes me angry that they should be allowed to do that.

 

[NeutralCitizen]

Freedom of speech is good to an extent. Whats the name of that church that pickets dead soldiers funerals? It makes me angry that they should be allowed to do that.

Westboro Baptist ? However as bad we might want to send to the firing squad they still have the right.

 

[gambit]

Freedom of speech is good to an extent. Whats the name of that church that pickets dead soldiers funerals? It makes me angry that they should be allowed to do that.

Westboro Baptist Church. It is the 'slippery slope' argument that if you censor THIS 'uncomfortable' speech, not threatening ones, then you will begin to find ways to interpret other expressions as 'uncomfortable' to censor.

 

[NeutralCitizen]

 

[888jamie888]

Westboro Baptist Church. It is the 'slippery slope' argument that if you censor THIS 'uncomfortable' speech, not threatening ones, then you will begin to find ways to interpret other expressions as 'uncomfortable' to censor.

Do you have the crime of inciting racial hatred in the US? I live in the UK so they would definetly be arrested.