TheBig3

It also has historically lead to an overturning of the position they were trying to defend.

There was, for a time, some statute of limitations that prevented issues being constatly brought up on the senate floor. Because of this Slavery was not allowed to be discussed for a 7 year period resulting in open rebellion for its call to terminate.

It has been said that open discussion would have allowed compramise.

Education has the ability to remove something completly.

We've seen how well Prohibition worked, we've also seen how well the persistent legal status of tabacco has been.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

phantom133pz

Err... have you ever read 1984? The entire concept is that once we let the government take away small freedoms like that, even extremely subjectively, they will begin to do more and more very slowly. People won't even notice because they will be numbed to the effect.
With your argument, sleepy jack, how would me saying that I hate a particular group of people affect the personal safety of anyone? That's not how most people feel anyway; those that make statements like that are usually not very well liked anyways. And like Janszoon said, think how easily the government could use a rule banning, say, the KKK to shut down whatever they want? It would be up to the ruling body to determine what is considered inappropriate. For example, they could decide to say that criticism of music is insulting to musicians that should put the point home here.

And I read one and realized it wasn't worth my time.

TheBig3

And with regard to the KKK, what do we shut them down from doing? Speaking? Having a web site?

At least we know what their saying this way.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

lucifer_sam

There actually are a few general limitations of free speech (at least in America). No personal threats, slander, or advocating violent overthrow of the government.

__________________
first.am

Fruitonica

I would only draw the line at directly inciting violence or destruction, which of course does bring in some troubling grey areas or interpretation, but I think is necessary.

Other than that, any religious or philosophical ideology should be freely expressed, no matter how disgusting they are, or if they could be taken to promote violence in extreme cases. Basically because of the slippery slope argument, once you give the government power to censor some viewpoints, it's a short step to censoring other harmless groups when the prevailing ideology shifts.
Additionally, any position held by us rational people should be able to hold up against any argument presented by other groups. It doesn't do us good to insulate ourselves from others opinions.

As far as the forums go, I'd say there is a fair amount of curtailing of freedom of speech in this friendly dictatorship, but because it's a completely voluntary experience that doesn't actually impose upon people's 'real lives', it isn't an issue.
The mods are totally essential to keeping the forum running smoothly, someone has to protect us from the idiots roaming the internet.

sleepy jack

The 1984 argument is completely absurd. Banning hate speech doesn't lead the government to control your thoughts, actions and spy on you all the time, the Patriot Act does that. As for the argument that banning hate speech would lead to banning the expression of opinions that is equally absurd. We're talking about hate speech; speech that is openly bigoted and disrupts domestic tranquility. This doesn't lead to the censorship of unpopular opinions it leads t the censorship of things that specifically disrupt domestic tranquility. The KKK parading down main street and then ending it with a "******s are inferior and deserved to be lynched" for instance. Or for a more recent example take what the Westboro Baptist Church does on a regular basis. They "assemble peacefully" at soldier's funerals and tell the family and friends of the dead soldier he died because them and they're country are too "secular" and "godless." Those kind of assemblies are considered criminal offenses in many countries, countries that most people would consider free. This isn't a case of give the government an inch they'll take a mile. You don't see Canada or Sweden telling you "Freedom is Slavery" or "Big Brother is Watching You" do you?

jibber

In Canada, hate speech is an indictable offense and actually runs very close to the definition of slander. It stipulates that any statement advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any identifiable group is an indictable offense, and exceptions will only be made in the case of statements of truth, and subjects of political debate or religious doctrine.

I completely agree with this law. It is perfectly in line with the laws of slander and defamation, which no one here has voiced an issue about. If you publish an article in an independent newspaper making false, and defaming claims about a public figure, you will be sued for defamation. It is the same if you go marching through the streets shouting for all the jews to be killed, blacks to be enslaved, or any other hateful message. These claims have no truthful or factual basis, and are defaming and injurious to a recognizable group of people. It's actually not a "slippery slope" as so many of you are referring to the issue. If a historian published a document with arguments refuting the holocost, he may very well be a racist or a biggot, but under the law, if he is sticking to facts, he is perfectly entitled to voice his opinon.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER