Andy9o8 2 #26 June 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteIt is my understanding that the same restrictions on free speech exist in Canada as well. Sure does, and I am proud to say that the actions of the Westboro Church would not be legal in Canada. All of them? Or are you focusing mainly on the tactic of demonstrations at funerals? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 June 21, 2010 QuoteAll of them? Obviously not all of them. You should know, we have had a discussion about this before. You are against any restriction on free speech, I am not. So, no real need to have this discussion again, don't think eithe rone of us will change their belief on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 June 21, 2010 QuoteYou are against any restriction on free speech, No, I'm not. But I do set the bar very high. I also observe that, generally speaking, that bar tends to be legally set higher in the US than in virtually any other country (except re: porn). And I think that, on balance, the good of that outweighs the bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 June 22, 2010 Quotethink that, on balance, the good of that outweighs the bad. And on that you and I disagree. In Canada somebody would not be able to stand on a street corner and proclaim all niggers are stupid and should not be allowed to ride on a bus. I see that as a positive. The hate speech, spewed by the Westboro bunch would not be allowed. I can't find an example on the negative side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #30 June 22, 2010 QuoteIn Canada somebody would not be able to stand on a street corner and proclaim all niggers are stupid and should not be allowed to ride on a bus. And I say that's sad. "Freedom of speech" in theory is meaningless in practice if it only protects "acceptable" (read: popular) speech. For it to exist in practice, it must also protect disgusting, highly objectionable (read: unpopular) speech. Aside from porno laws, the US's First Amendment seems to do that better than any other nation on Earth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #31 June 22, 2010 WELL....IT IS A SIN...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 June 22, 2010 QuoteWELL....IT IS A SIN...... Which is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is the natural tension between freedom of speech and disorderly conduct/breach of peace laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 June 22, 2010 Quote And I say that's sad. "Freedom of speech" in theory is meaningless in practice if it only protects "acceptable" (read: popular) speech. But that is not the restriction. The restriction is on willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. I am okay with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #34 June 22, 2010 QuoteQuote And I say that's sad. "Freedom of speech" in theory is meaningless in practice if it only protects "acceptable" (read: popular) speech. But that is not the restriction. The restriction is on willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. I am okay with that. So you are, by default, against freedom of speech.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #35 June 22, 2010 QuoteQuote And I say that's sad. "Freedom of speech" in theory is meaningless in practice if it only protects "acceptable" (read: popular) speech. But that is not the restriction. The restriction is on willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. I am okay with that. Are you really naive enough to think so? I guarantee you, if you made a street-corner speech promoting hatred toward an identifiable group that most of the people already hated, or that the government considered to be an enemy of the state (which is say, you made a "popular" speech), it would not be banned and criminalized. One man's public speech or article harshly criticizing ideological (or religious or social or political) opponents is another man's "hate speech", especially if The Man happens to be one of the Authorities empowered to arrest, prosecute, judge or punish "hate speech." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #36 June 22, 2010 >WELL....IT IS A SIN...... Well, so is working on the Sabbath. Would be a shame to arrest all those people tho. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #37 June 22, 2010 QuoteSo you are, by default, against freedom of speech. As are you Turtle, if that is the definition you want to go by. I certianly don't see you complaining about the US restriction on free speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #38 June 22, 2010 >The restriction is on willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable >group. I am okay with that. Even if it's, say, the president of the US? Should people be prohibited from carrying signs that say "Obama=Hitler" or "Bush sucks?" How about "Vote Smith and Wesson to stop Illegals?" "Hate" and "group" are both pretty broad terms and could cover a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 June 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo you are, by default, against freedom of speech. As are you Turtle, if that is the definition you want to go by. I certianly don't see you complaining about the US restriction on free speech. Lack of advocating is not agreeing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 June 22, 2010 QuoteOne man's public speech or article harshly criticizing ideological (or religious or social or political) opponents is another man's "hate speech", especially if The Man happens to be one of the Authorities empowered to arrest, prosecute, judge or punish "hate speech." Actually the law makes clear examptions for statements of truth, subjects of public debate and religeous doctrine. I further have enough fate in our judicial system to make the determination on whether something does fall under the Hate Speech restrictions. There is no factual evidence of this slippery slope you are describing in Canada. The Hate Speech laws fall under the so called "reasonable limits clause" of Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This prescribes that any restriciton is justified in a free and democratic society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 June 22, 2010 QuoteLack of advocating is not agreeing. So, you do not agree with any restriction of speech? You are okay with the proverbial "fire" in a crowded theatre? You are okay with the ellimination of copyright laws? You are okay with the ellimination of slander laws? What about Chaplinski Vs. New Hampshire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #42 June 22, 2010 QuoteWELL....IT IS A SIN...... ONly till the preacher is caught having gay sex as so many seem to do Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #43 June 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteWELL....IT IS A SIN...... ONly till the preacher is caught having gay sex as so many seem to do Nope - still a sin then too.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #44 June 22, 2010 Why does this sin require so much more attention than the sins of cheating, lying, or oppressing the poor (all of which have the same Hebrew word applied to them, along with various forms of incest). Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #45 June 22, 2010 >Why does this sin require so much more attention than the sins >of cheating, lying, or oppressing the poor . . . Because I think people understand those sins. People are sometimes afraid of what they don't understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #46 June 22, 2010 QuoteWhy does this sin require so much more attention than the sins of cheating, lying, or oppressing the poor (all of which have the same Hebrew word applied to them, along with various forms of incest). Wendy P. I don't require it to have more attention. As for others, I think it has to do more with how obvious it is.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #47 June 23, 2010 QuoteWhy does this sin require so much more attention than the sins of...(insert favorite sin here) Here is a small quote from a sermon I heard a couple years ago... I think it might answer your question: Quote"...this effort at cultural morality becomes selective as to the sins it attacks...I don't notice that they're really hard against pride, do you? I haven't seen a great effort in the Religious Right against materialism. I haven't seen a great effort even against divorce. In fact, they rarely say anything about adultery. They're really against homosexuality, that's so bizarre and abnormal. They're really against pedophilia, that's sick and abnormal. They're against killing babies, that's safe, who can imagine doing that? They're against filth and pornography. And there's a certain satisfaction in their morality about that but there's a lot of other things they don't talk about. At one point in America, the greatest advocate for the Religious Right, the national spokesman, well-known politician, was while he was developing the contract on America involved with a woman who wasn't his wife. It's a selective thing. And let me put it down where it really needs to be. It doesn't deal with the worse sin in the world....What is the greatest commandment? "To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." Therefore what's the greatest sin? To break that commandment. How you doing? You've committed the greatest sin. You want to talk about morality? Let's talk about that. You want to talk about sin? Let's not pick out five that we can easily assault because it, you know, we don't do those five. Let's talk about the fact that you have broken the greatest commandment, therefore you've committed the greatest sin that any human being can commit and that is the sin that sends you to eternal hell. You have failed to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And, as R.C. Sproul one time said, "And you know you haven't kept that commandment at any time in your life for five seconds." You can't keep that commandment. It's impossible. Well let's talk about that. If you want to go after America's immorality, then let's indict the whole nation for not loving God. That is not only the first and great commandment, that is the sum of the commandments. And the second commandment is to love your neighbor as...yourself, and you can't keep that one for five seconds. So if we're going to get moral, then let's go where we need to go because that, wrote the apostle Paul, is the sum in Jesus' (????), the sum of all the law. Why do we have to pick these selective ones? .... cultural morality brings persecution and hatred of Christians for the wrong reasons...not because we're preaching the gospel. ...People who call themselves Christians today are getting vilified by the world for their political positions and for their animosity and hostility toward the people who are the people we're supposed to reach." The whole sermon can be read here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-257_The-Deadly-Dangers-of-Moralism The audio can be heard here: http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/80-257 the quoted text starts at -19:49Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyBastard 0 #48 June 23, 2010 i think they should have thrown him to the gays.Dude #320 "Superstitious" is just a polite way of saying "incredibly fucking stupid". DONK! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #49 June 23, 2010 Quote>WELL....IT IS A SIN...... Well, so is working on the Sabbath. Would be a shame to arrest all those people tho. By the new covenant in Christ, the actual Sabbath day is optional to the believer. Mark 2:27 Jesus said to them, " The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #50 June 23, 2010 QuoteWhy does this sin require so much more attention than the sins of cheating, lying, or oppressing the poor (all of which have the same Hebrew word applied to them, along with various forms of incest). Wendy P. First, understand that sin is replacing self desire for God in your life. From God's perspective all sin is equal as a rejection of Him. Speaking for myself, there is sin that makes me think, that is just not right. There is sin that makes me think, that bastard should die. And, there is sin that makes me think, that is disgusting and repulsive. Finally, all sin, ALL SIN, can be forgiven by repentance and turning to Jesus Christ and making Him Lord in your life. In so doing, the believer receives the guidance of the Holy Spirit and He clarifies the decision process.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
