Freedom of Speech and Expression is only meant to protect you from censorship from the government. It is not absolute, as much as people would like to think that. It does not mean that I can say anything I want in any venue and not expect repercussions. For instance, if I walk through the bronx with a "I hate niggers" sign like in Die Hard 3 - the government has no right to tell me not to do it, but I can be damn sure to get my ass beaten up or worse for doing it. So in a way, it's a bit about moderation too - use your freedom of speech reasonably. Ultimately, freedom of speech always trumps the "freedom to not be offended" - we don't have that.

Fundamentally, freedom of speech one of the basic rights that make a good, prosperous and fair society.

To not be hypocrites, we have to let people have their opinions and express them, even if we don't agree with them. That means, the Nazis, the Stalins, the Muslims, the Atheists, the Workers, the Evangelicals and so on all have the right to say what they want, but that we also have the right to criticize what they say. Agreeing that someone has a right to say something, does not mean agreeing with what they say.

^but "beating [people] up or worse" is against the law, you know, so it's not reasonable to just say "well he got what was coming to him", even if that's your emotional reaction.
The consequences of allowing violence or some kind of "self defense" in response to provocation are much worse than any offensive remark, because of the subjective, legally inscrutable nature of offensiveness.

Well, @Crake that wasn't my emotional reaction at all, it was just what you can, sadly, reasonably expect in certain venues. Ideally, you'd be able to speak your mind freely everywhere, but the reality of it is that you cannot do or say certain things certain places and expect that other people obey the law.

I wouldn't go through Jerusalem with a drawing of mohammed, because I would, rightly so, fear for my life - even though, if my person was protected, I totally would do it.

We should not allow people to break the law, because they were offended by someone using their free speech at all, I don't think I was getting at that either. I was just saying that you have to know where to say what and where not to say it.

Words are words. Rights are too important to split hairs over what falls into a right and what doesn't. People will instantly upon hearing that go to the extreme to point out instances where the right may be harmful. But how often have you heard someone threaten to kill someone, though someone did threaten to kill me via one of my video tags and made it all weird, but I digress.

It happens, but usually it's just hot air. There's no way to differentiate. So, I say a right is natural and shouldn't be infringed upon, and it's not just something to be protected from the government, but something we must protect from others who want to infringe upon it.

@blankfist: Just so we're all clear... you're a sociopath.

>> ^blankfist:

Words are words. Rights are too important to split hairs over what falls into a right and what doesn't. People will instantly upon hearing that go to the extreme to point out instances where the right may be harmful. But how often have you heard someone threaten to kill someone, though someone did threaten to kill me via one of my video tags and made it all weird, but I digress.
It happens, but usually it's just hot air. There's no way to differentiate. So, I say a right is natural and shouldn't be infringed upon, and it's not just something to be protected from the government, but something we must protected from others who want to infringe upon it.


@blankfist

I'm not taking sides in whatever beef you two have, but your power of creating siftbot comments should be taken away because you have clearly been abusing them in a personal squabble with knivesout. People argue here all the time, that's life. And I do like that some people can give Sifty a little personality .. it's usually funny, but you went way beyond that and tried to make it look like another member made threats against you. Those siftbot comments were later edited to reflect that knivesout didn't make those invocations, but that's not the point. When you did it, you made it look like knivesout made those invocations and threats. And you're still now, here spouting off about how someone threatened to kill you, which is total bullshit. It's kind of ironic that you did this on a sift about manners.

It's also ironic that your own actions are in themselves an argument for why there are restrictions on free speech. You are on thin ice here, not just breaking the rules of the sift, but of breaking the law. I would be very careful about making false accusations and trying to manufacture evidence that someone is threatening your life.

Wait wait, blankfist controls siftbot?

I think not, siftbot must be controlling blankfist! SkyNET lives and for some reason it's made a Libertarianator!

...

>> ^gwiz665:

Wait wait, blankfist controls siftbot?


See bogus siftbot entries here: http://videosift.com/video/Manners-Penn-Teller

I can speak for myself, thank you very much.

Didn't we get siftbot up to the gold 100 star a long time ago? I think I remember that. I miss gold 100 stars. You know, he's only 37 stars away from having his own channel.

A Robot Channel would be a swell idea.

I vote for the robot channel.

@blankfist @burdturgler @KnivesOut

Post hijacking for squabbling is not cool.

I don't really know what the facts here are but whoever's stirring the shit please grow up and whoever's not stirring the shit please be mature and not react otherwise it'll just keep going.


This was meant to be a discussion, not an example.

Well... you'll be happy to know that "the shit" has been settled.

Sorry that we left skid-marks all over your sift-talk-post!

I generally have no problem with people saying... well, anything that isn't slander or libel. When words turn to illegal actions, that is where law should step in. Verbal provocation should not be equated to physical action. People have the right to listen or not listen and to judge what they hear for themselves. Trying to legislate what people are allowed to say and not allowed to say is not only a nightmare for law enforcement, but is far more authoritarian than people initially perceive it to be. You may emotionally agree with one enforcement now, but the situation may be turned around on you before you realize it.

I've never liked the term "slippery slope." I think it's cliche and hyperbolic. In a case like this, no one is slipping down any slope. However, the directions we choose to take influence the directions future generations will take. If we begin life with the right to say anything and end life with the right to say "most" things, than the next generation begins life at "most"...

The question really is:
Do you want to head toward authoritarianism or libertarianism?