Perspective:Freedom Of Speech.

There is no such thing as total freedom of speech.

International and National (that includes the American Constitution.don't believe me,go look it up) law both have their limits.

Inciting racial hatred.Inciting religious hatred.Publishing or producing pornographic material that goes beyond the pale.Making a profit out of a criminal life,such as a serial killer publishing a biography,etc etc etc.

Much of it makes sense,we can see and understand why they are law.
But,what about perception of these laws?

If someone perceives something differently than the words/film/speech etc intend,and they are in a position to have it banned,what then?

Are they within their rights to take action?
Or is their perception an infringement on our own rights?
Is this misunderstanding deliberate?
In some cases,without a doubt.But what then?
If you're not in a position to argue the case then your words will be lost.


No where is safe from the restrictions on the freedom of speech.
No where is safe from people's perceptions.
Not even the Internet.

There are also no such thing as "laws", show me scientific proof for such "laws", accordingly nature also has laws but they are not controllable, so hence mans' attempt to put himself in place of nature and to define the "laws" out of his simian paranoia of the unknown and uncontrollable forces that govern us. Since there are no such thing as "laws", then surely there must be no such thing as "laws" for speech in any real scientific manner. So I suppose you could claim we are made of nature and make nature's laws? But nature can decide to do what it wants irrespective of our ideas of what should be natural to us, same goes for speech.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by bubbabuddha]

Originally posted by DantesLost
material that goes beyond the pale.

to go beyond the pale means to go beyond the rule of law or to go to barbarity. the term is thought to stem from the idea of leaving the english controlled portion of ireland around dublin (the english pale) and venture into the gael controlled land. the saying used in it's proper context supposes that the gaelic irish are barbarians, little better than animals.

if i were inclined, being a gael, i might easily take offense to such use of the phrase, i choose not to, i choose to believe that the offense was not your intention, it would be entirely my perception.

to protect free speech we must allow people to say things that are abhorrent to us, hate speech included, we all have the right to reply and must rely on the power of our intellect to persuade the listener to the rightness of our views.

we should allow, in the form of words, any pornographic material a person can imagine and write. i have no issue with the written word, it hurts no-one bar the reader who chooses to read it.

a serial killer should not be allowed to profit but should be free to write and publish a biography, why not?

reply to post by pieman


I've never heard that description for the phrase 'beyond the pale' before.The first known use of it was in a poem by Sir John Harrington in the 17th century.

In this case I used the more modern meaning for it,which meant I didn't have to go into detail about certain pornographic content.

As to your question about serial killers publishing a biography,the objection usually comes from the victims families.


I personally believe in the freedom of speech.

The point of this thread is how we are restricted by peoples perception of what is offensive,even when its clear that isn't the case.For example,the hot topic on ATS,the Gaza conflict.If it is perceived that what you have said is anti-semitic,even though it isn't,the sensativity of the issue means that,in some cases,your freedom of speech is taken from you.Not because TPTB agree with those who are against you,but because they are following a political agenda.Sometimes not out of choice.