What's next – jailing flat-Earth fans?

[cmotherofpirl]

Saying the holocaust didn't happen the way the history books say it did, is not inciting violence toward anyone.That isn't inciting or condoning genocide. To hold a minority even stupid opinion should not be illegal.

Because of this type of repressive thinking, the day will soon come when holding that homosexuality is sinful will be illegal in the US just like it is in Canada.

Repress free speech for some and you repress it for everyone.

[Era Might]

I will argue again that your premise is flawed.

You are saying that any attempt to moderate speech in public can be turned against us. I do not disagree.

However, you can't argue against the moderation of free speech because of this alone. As I said before, the same logic could be applied to law in general. Since all law presupposes a specific point of view, it necessarily involves the imposition of this point of view on everyone else in society. This could be corrupted, and everyone else in society could one day outlaw you. But the first principle of law is not thereby invalidated. The answer would not be to abolish law altogether, but to make sure law is not corrupted.

In this case, the answer is not to abandon the duty of the state "through the promulgation and careful enforcement of laws to exercise a fitting and careful watch lest grave damage befall public morals and the welfare of society through the base use of these media", as the Second Vatican Council put it. The answer is to make sure that this duty is not corrupted.

And with respect to Holocaust-denial, the issue is not primarily that Jews are being "offended". It is that anti-semitism is being spewed publicly (and sometimes by academics, no less), in a world which witnessed the systematic slaughter of the Jewish people only one generation ago, Europe rightly does not tolerate public anti-semitism, because it cannot, will not allow those who murdered Jews to reclaim any legitimacy, and God forbid, take hold once again in Europe

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:01 AM']When they use this law against Christians it will not be a corruption of the law, it will be the law.  And in their eyes Christians will be against it.
[right][snapback]896265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It will be a corruption of law from a moral perspective.

As I said before, all law presupposes the imposition of perspective. Will the Christian perspective prevail? Hopefully, it will. But some perspective will prevail, whether it is ours or someone else's. There is no such thing as a society which doesn't impose some standard on its people.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 09:17 PM']The Holy See recently reiterated this point in its response to the Danish cartoons:
[right][snapback]896216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


If the Holy See govered the whole of the earth there would be little to worry about, however you must remember the Holy See is does not govern the whole of the earth. Goverment is left to goverments, many of which may be democratic they still have or are begun to push God and the Church out of Goverment completely. Hate Crimes will, can, and have been used against us in courts of law. Incase you miss it here are just some I posted.

- Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and "reorientate" themselves. (The Telegraph, 10/11/03)

- In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. (Kyrkans Tidning, 01/11/04)

- Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country's discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church's teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (CWNews.com, 01/26/04)

- Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)

- In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican's publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)

[Era Might]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:08 AM']Repress free speech for some and you repress it for everyone.
[right][snapback]896267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So do you think that American society is wrong when it punishes slander and calumny in its courts of justice?

Slander is, after all, an exercise in free speech.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:15 AM']If the Holy See govered the whole of the earth there would be little to worry about, however you must remember the Holy See is does not govern the whole of the earth.  Goverment is left to goverments, many of which may be democratic they still have or are begun to push God and the Church out of Goverment completely.  Hate Crimes will, can, and have been used against us in courts of law.  Incase you miss it here are just some I posted.[right][snapback]896274[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is about the duty of the state to regulate free speech.

Again, you haven't deal with what I said, about applying your logic to law in general.

You are saying:

A) The moderation of free speech can be corrupted, and IS corrupted in the modern world (eg, jailing people for opposing homosexuality), then

B) There should be no moderation of free speech at all.

Applying this to law:

A) Law can be corrupted, and IS corrupted in the modern world (eg, through the permission of abortion), then

B) There should be no law at all.


The premise is flawed.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:14 PM']It will be a corruption of law from a moral perspective.

As I said before, all law presupposes the imposition of perspective. Will the Christian perspective prevail? Hopefully, it will. But some perspective will prevail, whether it is ours or someone else's. There is no such thing as a society which doesn't impose some standard on its people.
[right][snapback]896273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Morals too are being pushed out of goverments. Hopefully? We are just to sit back and hope we are not unjustly put in jail because of some unjust "hate crime" bill? I am sorry thats thats silly

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:23 AM']Morals too are being pushed out of goverments.  Hopefully?  We are just to sit back and hope we are not unjustly put in jail because of some unjust "hate crime" bill?  I am sorry thats thats silly
[right][snapback]896282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What else can we do?

Should we advocate anarchy because the government might one day make it illegal to be Christian?

Of course not.

Hopefully, the government won't make it illegal to be Christian, just as it hopefully will not make it illegal to express moral truth. But we can't tell it to abandon its duty to moderate free speech anymore than we can tell it to abandon all law.

All we can do is fight so that a Christian society prevails.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:18 PM']This is about the duty of the state to regulate free speech.

Again, you haven't deal with what I said, about applying your logic to law in general.

You are saying:

A) The moderation of free speech can be corrupted, and IS corrupted in the modern world (eg, jailing people for opposing homosexuality), then

B) There should be no moderation of free speech at all.

Applying this to law:

A) Law can be corrupted, and IS corrupted in the modern world (eg, through the permission of abortion), then

B) There should be no law at all.
The premise is flawed.
[right][snapback]896280[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No, your viewpoint of what I am saying is flawed. I am against so-called "Hate Crime" laws, this is the kind of law this man was changed and sent to prison with. Laws like that will be used against us.

[Paphnutius]

[quote][Hopefully, the government won't make it illegal to be Christian, just as it hopefully will not make it illegal to express moral truth.[/quote] Hopefully it well for persecutions often produce saints. I am just waiting for the time to come when it will be illegal to meet for Mass. Bring it on I say, the Church could use a good ol' purifying.

Back to you two. Sorry for the tangent.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:27 AM']No, your viewpoint of what I am saying is flawed.  I am against so-called "Hate Crime" laws, this is the kind of law this man was changed and sent to prison with.  Laws like that will be used against us.
[right][snapback]896287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You said:

[quote]It is unjust to send someone to prison over comments or viewpoints they hold.[/quote]

This suggests that you oppose any and all moderation of free speech.

If you are simply arguing against this specific act of moderation, I have no problem. I disagree, but it is a legitimate opinion.

If you are arguing against this specific act of moderation not because of itself, but because you oppose such moderation at all, then I must disagree, and have done so in this thread.

The moderation of free speech is a moral duty of the state, spelled out in the Church's social doctrine. The specific application of this duty is flexible, and there is room for differences between Christian societies. But the duty itself must be upheld.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:15 PM']So do you think that American society is wrong when it punishes slander and calumny in its courts of justice?

Slander is, after all, an exercise in free speech.
[right][snapback]896275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But the man was not changed with slander. Nor has any of the others I posted they all have been changed under hate crimes, they have simply been charged with speaking their mind. Even if some are greatly flawed. "Hate Crime" Laws are Anti-Free Speech, and become Anti-Christian!

Edited February 24, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:34 AM']But the man was not changed with slander.  Nor has any of the others I posted they all have been changed under hate crimes, they have simply been charged with speaking their mind.  Even if some are greatly flawed.  "Hate Crime" Laws are Anti-Free Speech, and become Anti-Christian!
[right][snapback]896301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok. That may be true.

My only point is that you cannot abandon the moderation of free speech because it is being abused. You have to fight for its proper use, but the duty is still incumbent on the state.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:34 PM']But the man was not changed with slander.  [/quote]
Ahh but slander does have the potential to damage the man's reputation, which the Church considers to be a real thing, and a thing that all men have a right to. Just saying...

Edit: Sorry I though you meant changed, I now believe that it was a typo and was meant to read "charged"

Edited February 24, 2006 by Paphnutius

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:33 PM']You said:
This suggests that you oppose any and all moderation of free speech.

If you are simply arguing against this specific act of moderation, I have no problem. I disagree, but it is a legitimate opinion.

If you are arguing against this specific act of moderation not because of itself, but because you oppose such moderation at all, then I must disagree, and have done so in this thread.

The moderation of free speech is a moral duty of the state, spelled out in the Church's social doctrine. The specific application of this duty is flexible, and there is room for differences between Christian societies. But the duty itself must be upheld.
[right][snapback]896298[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thats still a flawed viewpoint, I also said free speech had limits. If you read all of what I posted news articles and all you would see that what I am suggesting
is hate crime laws are unjust. That is the kind of law this man was changed. Please read what I have posted so you will know what I'm trying to point out.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:38 PM']Edit: Sorry I though you meant changed, I now believe that it was a typo and was meant to read "charged"
[right][snapback]896307[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yes, opps....

[Era Might]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Feb 24 2006, 12:45 AM']Thats still a flawed viewpoint, I also said free speech had limits.  If you read all of what I posted news articles and all you would see that what I am suggesting
is hate crime laws are unjust.  That is the kind of law this man was changed.  Please read what I have posted so you will know what I'm trying to point out.
[right][snapback]896316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have read all you have posted as you posted it.

I took what you said as an argument against the moderation of free speech. IOW, an unlimited right to free speech.

If I was wrong, I apologize. But that is how I understood what you were saying.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:36 PM']Ok. That may be true.

My only point is that you cannot abandon the moderation of free speech because it is being abused. You have to fight for its proper use, but the duty is still incumbent on the state.
[right][snapback]896305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do not think in anyway we should abandon very very limited moderation of free speech. However it is very very dangerous to teak with such a right, ONE wrong move and everything comes falling down. Hate crime laws have been very grave to free-speech. They limit speech far to much, and they have and will persecut the just as well as the unjust.

Edited February 24, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 23 2006, 10:49 PM']I have read all you have posted as you posted it.

I took what you said as an argument against the moderation of free speech. IOW, an unlimited right to free speech.

If I was wrong, I apologize. But that is how I understood what you were saying.
[right][snapback]896322[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I humbly except your apology. I too apologize if I have offended you... No I do not believe in a unlimited right to free speech. And please would you tell me what does IOW mean?

[Era Might]

Shorthand for "In Other Words".