HaroLad
HaroChad
I made that clear here:Where do you really stand Haro?
The state should not have the power to regulate speech or opinion.
End of.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I made that clear here:Where do you really stand Haro?
The state should not have the power to regulate speech or opinion.
End of.
I made that clear here:
No, because that would not typically be considered an opinion.So someone who screams "fire" in a crowded theatre has no sanction against them for the consequences of that action, because "free speech"?
No, because that would not typically be considered an opinion.
No, because that would not typically be considered an opinion.
While it could be his opinion, I think that it could be measured by the objective reasonable person standard ie. would a reasonable person in his position make such a statement as an opinion?It could be his opinion there is a fire? Why not? Are you censoring his opinion now?
I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.So you want qualified free speech, like we already have
I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.
It would seem you have found an oversight in my thinking.So rather than compromise, you want the extreme the OTHER way of the scale. So anyone can have absolute freedom to express their opinion on anything without discourse.
I could make the claim you masturbate horses into jars and then sell them as mayonnaise, and thats my right as freedom of speech.
It would seem you have found an oversight in my thinking.
Perhaps by retaining the existing tort law or adding an ‘honestly held opinion or belief’ as a criterion would help, but if you thought long enough you could probably find a loophole or difficulty in that too.
My original intent, as I’m sure you know, was that opinions, views, expression of that nature shouldn’t be restrained, as evinced by the context in which I made the comment. Not sure why anyone would have any issues with that.
While it could be his opinion, I think that it could be measured by the objective reasonable person standard ie. would a reasonable person in his position make such a statement as an opinion?
I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.
Absolutely my friend, absolutely.Even when these opinions, views and expressions put at risk people in the community? Such as, organising a protest against measures to prevent the uncontrolled spread of a virus that has the potential to cripple entire medical networks and cause actual, real life death?
One would surely argue that you can have free speech UNLESS that results in actual, real world definable deaths.
Unless you want conspiracy to supersede that particular scenario.
That is such a vague, abstract, subjective criterion that it defeats the very purpose of such a right.One would surely argue that you can have free speech UNLESS that results in actual, real world definable deaths.
It's not free speech, because such a thing, taken literally, isn't feasible.No you don't. You want it on your terms. That's worse than censorship, because you're pretending it's free speech when it's not
I said previously retaining the tort law would help this situations like that.Then HOW can you defend a free speech that would ACTIVELY threaten the safety of those in society that are unable to ascertain the truth from opinion?
That would be like saying the people who advocated using BLEACH to treat Covid was just them expressing their free speech, and if anyone listened and did what they said it wasnt their fault!
I said previously retaining the tort law would help this situations like that.
You get what I'm trying to say though, don't you.
Yes, I don't understand how you couldn't be.Im doing my best to wrap my head around it, honestly. Are you against what happened to that women who was trying to organise a protest in Melbourne?
Yes, I don't understand how you couldn't be.
All I'm advocating for is very similar to what they have in the US.
No matter the situation, no matter what - someone should be able to protest and organise a protest against their government.She was organizing an event that would increase the change of death in her fellow people...You are defending her right to help hasten the spread of a virus that has proven to kill and cause long term effects in people. Not everyone you'll say, and its a low rate, but its STILL A VALID THREAT.
That's a seperate issue.The Victorian Government are doing everything they can to contain this outbreak. What do you think the public consensus would be if they just threw their hands up and went stuff it, let everyone govern themselves on this one?
Yes you can.You CANNOT have free speech that NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OTHERS WELFARE.
Yes you can.
I'm afraid I have not, I'm just familiar with history and know how things can get out of hand.I get the strong sensation that you've watched V for Vendetta recently Haro...i watched it last week and its eerily similar, but to suggest we are on the way to that existence simply because the government is trying to crack down on events that could cause further spread is stretching a veeeeery long bow...
I'm afraid I have not, I'm just familiar with history and know how things can get out of hand.
Read the book. It's waaaay better.I get the strong sensation that you've watched V for Vendetta recently Haro...i watched it last week and its eerily similar, but to suggest we are on the way to that existence simply because the government is trying to crack down on events that could cause further spread is stretching a veeeeery long bow...
Read the book. It's waaaay better.
V in the book is an actual anarchist; he doesn't long for the times before, for democracy and for a return to the way things were. V is asexual, amorphous; most of the time, when someone tries to attack him, he's not really there and it's a cloakrack wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. There are more characters, there's more corruption, there's worse consequences that are worse for everyone, those in power and those without.Yeah, I read some bits about it after and the author wasnt happy that they americanised the message so much, changed it from the original purpose of what V stood for.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the BLM protests in Melbourne and Sydney when COVID was still in its 'ambiguity' phase?She was organizing an event that would increase the change of death in her fellow people...You are defending her right to help hasten the spread of a virus that has proven to kill and cause long term effects in people. Not everyone you'll say, and its a low rate, but its STILL A VALID THREAT.
Its not like she could play dumb and say she didnt realise she couldnt organise such an event. The Victorian Government are doing everything they can to contain this outbreak. What do you think the public consensus would be if they just threw their hands up and went stuff it, let everyone govern themselves on this one?
Its literally a damned if they do, damned if they dont situation. And you're here arguing that some random, unqualified individual should have the RIGHT to undermind efforts to protect peoples welfare.
You CANNOT have free speech that NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OTHERS WELFARE.