• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

U.N. Resolution 16/18, freedom of expression, and "...incitement to imminent violence..."

 
author
Posts: 9050
21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I guess a couple of years ago Obama and Clinton led the charge to get this compromise with the OIC (Islamic UN block) ratified:

U.N. Resolution 16/18

I'm pretty damned concerned about 5f, and frankly the whole damned thing.

Please tell me why this doesn't start chipping away at freedom of expression in it's most crucial moments?

Please tell me who you think is qualified to decide when a given statement might be an "incitement to imminent violence"? Would the Danish cartoons qualify?
 
lowercase baba
Posts: 13089
67
Chrome Java Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
the right to free speech has always been tempered with 'the greater good'. The textbook example is that I do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there actually IS a fire).

I would think that "incitement to imminent violence" would be along the lines of "let's go kill person X", whereas posting something that might piss someone (or even a large group of someones) would not.

How a judge or lawyer interprets it will most likely be more situational.
 
Marshal
Posts: 79180
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

fred rosenberger wrote: . . . The textbook example is that I do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater . . .

Which would cross the boundary between freedom of opinion/speech and freedom to lie.
 
fred rosenberger
lowercase baba
Posts: 13089
67
Chrome Java Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Not sure what you mean. I have the right to yell "Fire", whether there is one or not, in my own home. The difference is that in a crowded theatre, yelling it could cause panic, injury, etc. The compelling good of the masses limits my free speech rights.

Truth does not really enter into it here.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 67746
173
Mac Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE jQuery TypeScript Java iOS
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's an example that has me thinking: I saw someone wearing a t-shirt with a picture of an assault rifle and the slogan "When all else fails, vote from the rooftops."

So, is recommending assassination as a political tool "inciting to violence", or is it "free speech"?
 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79180
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

fred rosenberger wrote: . . . Truth does not really enter into it here.

I agree that the overwhelming benefit to the many …

But, if you shout, “fire!” at home, everybody there knows whether it is true.
 
Bert Bates
author
Posts: 9050
21
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The context for this resolution was specifically aimed at curtailing criticism of religion, and was initiated and relentlessly driven within the U.N. (for a decade?) by the OIC (Org. Islamic Cooperation).

So the question about the Danish cartoons wasn't really rhetorical. In this example, the resolution would call on the Danish government to censor the cartoons criticizing Muhammad. It could be applied also to stopping Neo-Nazis in the U.S. from parading through Jewish communities, and so on.

Another non-rhetorical question is: Who do you think is unbiased and smart enough to judge such situations?

And another: Isn't free speech most critical when tyranny is on the march?

My own take is that - in an imperfect world - we should err on the side of strongly defending free speech.
 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79180
377
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Any religion worth its salt can stand up to criticism.
 
Bert Bates
author
Posts: 9050
21
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The actual "shouting 'fire' in a theatre" idea was actually part of a bad legal decision, ah well.

XKCD's take: XKCD, free speech
 
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs.
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic