In light of the massacre in Virginia....

[_Mephitus]

There might be, but people should have the ability to hear every posistion or likewise voice any opinion. So long as information lines are free and open, people will generaly fall into a base level of order. Its when we stop one side or the other from speaking that we run into issues.

[_Fortigurn]

There might be...

There might be? Would you consider it possible, for example, that those attempt to incite to riot may actually end up effecting a riot?

... but people should have the ability to hear every posistion or likewise voice any opinion.

Why should they? I don't understand why the society as a whole should be held ransom to the whim of the individual.

So long as information lines are free and open, people will generaly fall into a base level of order. Its when we stop one side or the other from speaking that we run into issues.

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that a healthy, functional society requires demagogues on the streets inciting violence against people who drive yellow cars, or death to people with the wrong surname?

I find the historical record suggests otherwise.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Heres a question, when they did the background check, the history of mental illness didn't set off any red flags?

The problem with conducting mental health checks lies with the the health care system in the form of doctor/patient confidentiality and between the state and the healthcare system in not having a database that would make such checks doable. You could possibly set up such a database, but you'd have patients rights advocates and every damned medical review board in the country tossing a hissy fit the second you tried it.

Also, before anyone asks, as far as the criminal background checks go, all that they are looking for are felony convictions for violent and/or drug related crimes. Having a felony conviction for violent crimes or drug charges on your record automatically removes you from being able to legally purchase a firearm of any kind in the US.

[_Mephitus]

There might be...

There might be? Would you consider it possible, for example, that those attempt to incite to riot may actually end up effecting a riot?

So long as its only speach, i would protect it. Speach is protected, some actions are not.

... but people should have the ability to hear every posistion or likewise voice any opinion.

Why should they? I don't understand why the society as a whole should be held ransom to the whim of the individual.

Im a lebertarian. Freedom to the proletariat.

So long as information lines are free and open, people will generaly fall into a base level of order. Its when we stop one side or the other from speaking that we run into issues.

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that a healthy, functional society requires demagogues on the streets inciting violence against people who drive yellow cars, or death to people with the wrong surname?

Your getting a bit extreme here. Most people generaly get that riled up only when things become depliorable due to oppression of some form. But i believe full heartedly in revolution. Revolution gave us freedom, it gave me the country i live in, it honors my ancestors.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure

I find the historical record suggests otherwise.

The other question is: Will people pay attention to people who continualy cry against one group or another? Some will, but that's the price of freedom. That some can and will make mistakes. But that hopefully we can learn from them and become strong.

[_Fortigurn]

[b]I would count that as a threat of violence against a person/people/group. that's what I consider "violent" speach.

I though you didn't consider anti-vilification or anti-incitement laws to be valid?

I'm a lebertarian.

Would that be 'lebertarian' as in Benjamin Lebert or Hermann Lebert?

Freedom to the proletariat.

Perhaps 'responsibility' is a higher ideal than 'freedom'.

Your getting a bit extreme here.

That's odd, because I think your's is the extremist view. You told me that it's when we 'stop one side or the other from speaking that we run into issues', and you've advocated unqualified free speech to the extent of considering anti-vilification and anti-incitement laws invalid. I'm trying to understand the benefit to society which is gained from your position.

Most people generaly get that riled up only when things become depliorable due to oppression of some form.

Really? Who oppressed the members of the Ku Klux Klan? They weren't exactly suffering under the Negro Boot.

But I believe full heartedly in revolution. Revolution gave us freedom, it gave me the country I live in, it honors my ancestors.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure

I find that a particularly odious sentiment, which is fundamentally anti-social. Revolutions are useless for the production of anything but human suffering. Why do you think they're called 'revolutions'? Because all that happens is that the wheel turns and you're right back where you started. Reformation is one thing, revolution is quite another.

I find it disturbing that you endorse the regular shedding of blood for the continuance of a healthy society. I do not believe that a healthy society requires regular bloodshed.

The other question is: Will people pay attention to people who continualy cry against one group or another? Some will, but that's the price of freedom.

That is not a price, that is a cost. I believe we can be free without incurring this horrific cost.

That some can and will make mistakes. But that hopefully we can learn from them and become strong.

Since most of us have already learned 'It's a best idea if X is left unsaid', then why should we protect the right of the ignorant to say it?

[_Mephitus]

I would count that as a threat of violence against a person/people/group. that's what I consider "violent" speach.

I though you didn't consider anti-vilification or anti-incitement laws to be valid?

[b]I changed my wording on this, see above.

I'm a lebertarian.

Would that be 'lebertarian' as in Benjamin Lebert or Hermann Lebert?

lib·er·tar·i·an /ˌlɪbərˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-tair-ee-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
–adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.

More or less, minimalist government with people free to live their lives as they see fit so long as it does not interfere with anyone elses right to live as they want. Basicly i try to take the stance of, "i don't want you to have the power to tell me how to live, nor do i want to the power to tell you how to live."

Freedom to the proletariat.

Perhaps 'responsibility' is a higher ideal than 'freedom'.

Freedom=responsibility to me. Much as the freedom and responsibility bestowed to you from gaining adulthood.

Your getting a bit extreme here.

That's odd, because I think your's is the extremist view. You told me that it's when we 'stop one side or the other from speaking that we run into issues', and you've advocated unqualified free speech to the extent of considering anti-vilification and anti-incitement laws invalid. I'm trying to understand the benefit to society which is gained from your position.

As a prime example of completely open free speach, we can use the internet. People can say whatever they want. Because people now have access to every form of information imaginable, people are more informed than at any other time in history. And wouldn't you know, people arent going nuts in the street killing everyone else.

Most people generaly get that riled up only when things become depliorable due to oppression of some form.

Really? Who oppressed the members of the Ku Klux Klan? They weren't exactly suffering under the Negro Boot.

Nope, but they suppressed the information on many of their inner workings. When that information came out (funnily enough through a superman radio show) people began to rebel against them. When information gets around, the people benefit.

But I believe full heartedly in revolution. Revolution gave us freedom, it gave me the country I live in, it honors my ancestors.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure

I find that a particularly odious sentiment, which is fundamentally anti-social. Revolutions are useless for the production of anything but human suffering. Why do you think they're called 'revolutions'? Because all that happens is that the wheel turns and you're right back where you started. Reformation is one thing, revolution is quite another.

I find it disturbing that you endorse the regular shedding of blood for the continuance of a healthy society. I do not believe that a healthy society requires regular bloodshed.

I guess history has just told me and my founding fathers different things. Every time a major shift in freedom has occured, it was always written with the blood of revolutionists.(even if its merely figurative) I can't name a time when it hasent. (no really, i can't.)

The other question is: Will people pay attention to people who continualy cry against one group or another? Some will, but that's the price of freedom.

That is not a price, that is a cost. I believe we can be free without incurring this horrific cost.

I wish freedom could be maintained through pacifism/peace. But we have seen that only in a very few situations that this can be effective.

That some can and will make mistakes. But that hopefully we can learn from them and become strong.

Since most of us have already learned 'It's a best idea if X is left unsaid', then why should we protect the right of the ignorant to say it?

If only to show how ignorant it is. Their voicing does not mean that you have to listen. If someone says something we don't like, just don't listen. Simple as that. don't like a radio host? change the channel. don't like a TV show? Change the channel. YOU have the controll over what you believe and learn. Your attention to them is the only power they can obtain. When they have none, they have no power.

[_Fortigurn]

More or less, minimalist government with people free to live their lives as they see fit so long as it does not interfere with anyone elses right to live as they want. Basicly I try to take the stance of, "I don't want you to have the power to tell me how to live, nor do I want to the power to tell you how to live."

Let humor equal "on". I understood you, I was simply playing on your typo.

Freedom=responsibility to me. Much as the freedom and responsibility bestowed to you from gaining adulthood.

They are not the same. Freedom is one thing, responsibility is another. Responsibility is the higher (and therefore less popular), ideal.

As a prime example of completely open free speach, we can use the internet. People can say whatever they want. Because people now have access to every form of information imaginable, people are more informed than at any other time in history.

As an information professional, I dispute the third sentence (especially the last). The availability of information does not constitute informing people. The massive increase in plagiarism and intellectual fraud is evidence that not only are many university students becoming less informed, but they are becoming increasingly less concerned with being informed, despite the fact that they are the very individuals whom one expects to be highly informed, and highly concerned with being highly informed.

What the Internet does is provide the illusion of being informed. It provides information overload to a largely information illiterate society, with predictably unfortunate results. Not only that, but it contributes to the new movement of information selection, whereby people are choosing to become less informed, or only informed by those sources of information which suit their personal tastes. People's worldviews are becoming narrower, not broader.

And wouldn't you know, people arent going nuts in the street killing everyone else.

No, but I haven't been arguing that. But are people more enabled to harm others in various ways as a result of the Internet? Yes. And are they doing so? Yes. Personally I believe we could live without it.

Nope, but they suppressed the information on many of their inner workings. When that information came out (funnily enough through a superman radio show) people began to rebel against them. When information gets around, the people benefit.

I think you missed my point. I was questioning your argument that people like the Ku Klux Klan 'generaly get that riled up only when things become depliorable due to oppression of some form'. I mentioned the fact that the Ku Klux Klan succeeded in becoming 'that riled up' without being oppressed in the least.

I guess history has just told me and my founding fathers different things.

No it hasn't. You've just chosen to look at history through an extremely narrow worldview, and chosen to interpret it according to a traditional cultural reading.

Every time a major shift in freedom has occured, it was always written with the blood of revolutionists.(even if its merely figurative) I can't name a time when it hasent. (no really, I can't.)

At least you've included figurative bloodshed in your statement now, which is a slight mitigation of an otherwise disturbing philosophy. So what you're really saying here is that major shifts in freedom have always required a few people to make sacrifices? That might be true, but I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand.

I wish freedom could be maintained through pacifism/peace. But we have seen that only in a very few situations that this can be effective.

I think that's like saying we can only maintain peace by having wars. Or we can only teach people to love each other if we get them to kill.

If only to show how ignorant it is.

We already know how ignorant it is. Why give them the right to say what we already know is worthless?

Their voicing does not mean that you have to listen. If someone says something we don't like, just don't listen. Simple as that. don't like a radio host? change the channel. don't like a TV show? Change the channel. YOU have the controll over what you believe and learn. Your attention to them is the only power they can obtain. When they have none, they have no power.

It is never 'as simple as that'. My attention to them is not the only power they can obtain. They can obtain power over my stupid neighbours, and I will suffer as a result. Just look at the US for goodness' sake.

[_Mephitus]

I think we are talking about freedom of speach from 2 different contexts. Im speaking in terms of a libertarian style of society in which people wouldn't be able to step on someone else in such an overt manor. Whereas your context is in how things currently are with people being able to maintain controll over someone else. Even if its just because of the opinion that they hold.

[_Coggins7]

I'm shocked, relieved, and yet, dismayed, that someone here didn't find some way in which to blame this whole thing on the church. Pity.

[_Jason Bourne]

What is it, do you think, in a society which produces these events? Why do you think it is that certain societies experience them more than others? Could it be that there might be a few small problems with the way our modern societies are set up? There's only so many times you can trot out the 'lone nut' theory before it becomes apparent that there's a social mechanism which is actually producing these 'lone nuts'. They're not exactly 'lone' anymore, are they?

Beastie, please pardon me for saying that a society which produces people like this is not a society to which I look for moral guidance.

It is not society. It is people who do this that are plain nuts and/or evil. The kid was disturbed of course. So are millions of others who do not murder 32 innocents. Lay the blame at the killers feet. There have been murderers and phsycos since man has walked the earth.