Newsflash: Spain "not the Arabian desert of 14 centuries ago..."

[lord of the mark]

there seems to be to be a distinction between inciting someone do to something, and giving them an instruction manual on how to do it. The former, is, arguably, political speech, even if it calls for breaking the law, and a strong case must be made that it would lead in a clear and imminent way to lawbreaking. The latter is different.

Lets say someone writes a book calling for bombing buildings in the US. Its hardly likely that many people would be persuaded to do so, just because they read such a book. And banning such books might lead to the banning of books using that advocacy in a metaphorical manner, in fiction, etc.

OTOH lets take the example of a book that gives detailed instructions on how to build a bomb. That would be useful to people who ALREADY want to do so, so the question of persuasion is absent.

Ditto for instructions on how to run a meth lab, how to counterfeit money, etc.


IM not sure how this plays out in US law - I think the question of whether such info is already in the public domain is part of the debate -

[OzzyKP]

So if i, like so many people do, argue that I should be able to beat my wife with a stick x many centimeters wide, I should be arrested for telling people how to beat their wives?

[Arrian]

You have the right to free speech right up to the point where you're telling somebody to violate another person's rights.

Sounds good to me, but it is rather vague. To each (society) their own.

I think I come down on the side of Spain on this one. I think it might have been the part about ensuring no bruising ("How to beat your wife and not get caught, by Iman so-and-so") that pushed me over.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Where's Imran when you need him?

Beating his wife, I think.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Instructing people how to physically harm others is not ok and should not be considered free speech anymore than yelling fire in a movie theater. Harm can come from yelling fire, but it doesn't necessarily happen. Harm can come from people reading this book, but it doesn't necessarily happen. Why is one instance forbodden and the other not? Why is one free speech and the other not?

Because one cause imminent harm, while the other does not. That is the standard in the US for 'inciting violence'. It must be imminent harm, or else we could just ban Anarchist materials for 'inciting violence'.

AFAIK it is so illegal to call for violent overthrow of US gov't.

No it isn't. Many Communists and Anarchists do so and they aren't in jail.

I think I come down on the side of Spain on this one. I think it might have been the part about ensuring no bruising ("How to beat your wife and not get caught, by Iman so-and-so") that pushed me over.

Do you people not read the news articles?! The lack of bruising was not so you wouldn't get caught, but because then the hitting would be EXCESSIVE! Such as slapping your kid is ok, but leaving bruises on him isn't!

[BeBro]

Would there be no official reaction in the US at all if I write books like "How to smash airliners in US buildings", "How to use a dirty bomb against the infidels" etc., etc...

Oh and no, it isn´t a troll - I mean it seriously. The current anti-terror measures limit rights as well (and I think it is acceptable under certain circumstances)

[The Viceroy]

Do you people not read the news articles?! The lack of bruising was not so you wouldn't get caught, but because then the hitting would be EXCESSIVE! Such as slapping your kid is ok, but leaving bruises on him isn't!

Ahh ok, and I thought Arab Govt's were just using torture, how wrong I was.

Personally, my wife is not a child, she isn't teated like one, nor does she act like one .. if she does, I'll be sure to take up this advice and smack her one carefully, so not to bruise her.

I have responsibility for my child, to ensure she knows right from wrong. I have no such rights over my wife. !

[Arrian]

Do you people not read the news articles?! The lack of bruising was not so you wouldn't get caught, but because then the hitting would be EXCESSIVE! Such as slapping your kid is ok, but leaving bruises on him isn't!

First off, I don't buy that excuse: I think it's a cover. Second, I don't believe in smacking kids around either.

COME ON! "Hit your wife, if you *have to* but if you must discipline the wayward wench, do so in moderation"

-Arrian

[Oerdin]

Imran: If you advicate violence then you legally can be held responsible if other people go out and do what you told them to do. If I say "kill all the jews in the city" then some dumb smuck goes out and stabs a few Jews then I am guilty of inciting murder and religious violence.

This man instructed his followers to beat their wives, which is against Spanish law, and then how to hide the fact they had beaten their wives. He is guilty and my only regreat is he isn't going to be put in jail where he will be abused like the rest of the pedophiles, wife beaters, and rapists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't buy that excuse: I think it's a cover.

Fine Mr. Cynical, go ahead . But when he continually states that it should be symbolic (like, in the other way, when a woman slaps a man) rather than excessive.

"Hit your wife, if you *have to* but if you must discipline the wayward wench, do so in moderation"

How is that any different from those advocating corporal punishment? Hit your kids if they get out of hand, but do so in moderation and not hard enough to cause welts and bruises. Still may be wrong, but its a FAR cry from saying hit your woman hard as you want, but since you won't leave any evidence, you can get away with it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Imran: If you advicate violence then you legally can be held responsible if other people go out and do what you told them to do. If I say "kill all the jews in the city" then some dumb smuck goes out and stabs a few Jews then I am guilty of inciting murder and religious violence.

.

I really dont think this is the line of argument id use with Imran right now (see "Haitians sue TakeTwo about GTA:vice city" thread)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
So if i, like so many people do, argue that I should be able to beat my wife with a stick x many centimeters wide, I should be arrested for telling people how to beat their wives?

Well it would be a question of judgement obviously.

Its one thing to say "the US is an imperialist country and it deserves to have planes flowninto its buildings" which would be protected speech

and quite another to say "the US is an imperialist country and it deserves to have planes flow into its buildings, and by the way, implement x is an excellent weapon that will make it through the new security screening, and the screening is particularly easy to get through at airport Y, and airport Y is located just a 15 minute flight from tall building Z, whose construction makes in particularly vulnerable"

[Arrian]

How is that any different from those advocating corporal punishment? Hit your kids if they get out of hand, but do so in moderation and not hard enough to cause welts and bruises. Still may be wrong, but its a FAR cry from saying hit your woman hard as you want, but since you won't leave any evidence, you can get away with it.

There is a distinction (though I happen to disagree with both, as I've said) between an adult female - your WIFE for goodness sakes - and a child. Some posters here at 'poly have argued that it is appropriate to spank a child when the child is too young/out of control to be reasoned with, in a situation where you *absolutely* must impress on them they must not do something (like, oh, play in the fireplace when there is a fire lite) for their own safety. I reserve the right to disagree, but since I haven't had kids yet and there is a certain logic to that argument, I accept it's possible they are right. That argument, however, doesn't work with another adult.

As for my cynicism... well, yeah, I admit I'm feeling a tad cynical today. Couple that with my abhorrence of the rather widespread problem with "domestic abuse" in this country, and it explains my stance on this. If the logic doesn't quite work, well, sue me.

-Arrian

p.s. My neighbor is always screaming at his kids. I worry about it sometimes. He was yelling at his daughter one day (she's early teens, I think), and she had apparently called him a "freakin' jerk." In response, he followed her outside the house (this is how I heard it) and launched a tirade that finished with "you don't talk to me that way! I'll smack you across the mouth." I swear to the God I don't believe in, if he'd done it, he and I would have had a major problem, then and there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you advicate violence then you legally can be held responsible if other people go out and do what you told them to do. If I say "kill all the jews in the city" then some dumb smuck goes out and stabs a few Jews then I am guilty of inciting murder and religious violence.

Is there any proof anyone started beating their wife as a result of the book? All we have is a book. No proof that anyone has followed it in the slightest. And if you write a book that says all Jews should be killed, and someone reads it and does it, that doesn't necessarily make you criminally guilty of inciting violence. As LOTM so adequatly stated, no one is putting Rockstar Games' CEO (the makers of GTA) in jail because they have "Kill the Haitians" in their game. If someone followed that, the only recourse would be civil penalities, and even that would be sketchy, since it'd most likely be protected under freedom of speech.

[KrazyHorse]

There is a difference between a character in a video game saying "kill all the haitians" and somebody actually suggesting you kill haitians in real life.

Incitement to commit violence is incitement to commit violence. It doesn't matter whether I say it about one individual while part of a crowd or say it about a group of individuals from the comfort of my own home: if I endorse violence in real life I should be held accountable for the consequences of my endorsement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a difference between a character in a video game saying "kill all the haitians" and somebody actually suggesting you kill haitians in real life.

Slight difference. Not that much to mean anything though.

Incitement to commit violence is incitement to commit violence. It doesn't matter whether I say it about one individual while part of a crowd or say it about a group of individuals from the comfort of my own home: if I endorse violence in real life I should be held accountable for the consequences of my endorsement.

Yes, in civil courts, after someone has done a crime as a result. Protection of free speech requires that tolerate some hatred in books and speeches.

[lord of the mark]

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???


I havent read the book, and so dont know the specifics - it seems to me that A. there MIGHT be a difference between "here how to beat your wife gently, which is defined as a way that doesnt leave marks" and "heres a way to beat your wife without leaving marks, which hitting with the degree of force you want might otherwise do" with its unstated motivation of avoiding getting caught. B. I think its quite reasonable to doubt the motivation, given that many wives ARE beaten by men who try to do so without leaving marks, and especially without leaving marks visible with normal clothing, precisely to avoid getting caught. C. I think a greater degree of scrutiny is warrented in the case of wife beating, which at least in the US, and i presume in Spain, is always illegal, and corporal punishment of kids, which (though im no fan of it) is legal within bounds.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, in civil courts, after someone has done a crime as a result. Protection of free speech requires that tolerate some hatred in books and speeches.

why does it require the above book though??? Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

There is a difference between a character in a video game saying "kill all the haitians" and somebody actually suggesting you kill haitians in real life.

Slight difference. Not that much to mean anything though.

Huge difference to anybody with half a brain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife?

How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

Free speech isn't always about political and social 'debate'. In that sense you can say that banning violent games/movies is perfectly consistant with freedom of speech. I don't agree with that. Freedom of speech is also a good goal because people should be allowed to say what they believe, with only the most minimal of restrictions.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife? How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Quote:

Im not speaking in terms of US 1st amendment jurisprudence, but in terms of actually protecting speech to enable political and social debate??? It seems perfectly possible to ban "how to" books without at all stopping political and social debate. I understand that a libertarian wouldnt like it, and they might be right, but its certainly possible to have free speech as, say JS Mill would have understood it, without taking a libertarian approach.

Free speech isn't always about political and social 'debate'. In that sense you can say that banning violent games/movies is perfectly consistant with freedom of speech. I don't agree with that. Freedom of speech is also a good goal because people should be allowed to say what they believe, with only the most minimal of restrictions.

Its a good goal to be able to say what you believe, but its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc. These are competing goals, and one cant say a prior which should trump the other. In the case of political and social debate i see why free speech absolutism makes sense. Beyond that its one good among others.

[Imran Siddiqui]

its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc.

Yes, nice goal, but secondary to being able to say what you believe, IMO.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

its also a good goal to live in a society where no one feels frightened by hatred, where hatred is not part of the culture, where no one beats there wife, etc.

Yes, nice goal, but secondary to being able to say what you believe, IMO.

depends on the extent to which restrictions are required to get some gain in the culture. If a little restriction can make a big gain in the culture, it may be worth it.

[BeBro]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro


But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

why i think we've got to seperate issues of US first amendment jurisprudence from more general democractic theory (this was also a problem in French head scarf thread)

[Imran Siddiqui]

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

Because limiting free speech in certain (small & defined) national security instances makes sense to me, while limiting free speech because someone somewhere may commit violence against someone by reading a book is silly. After all, remember, we don't ban Mein Kampf, and I don't think we should.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

But this means it is ok to limit free speech under certain circumstances - so you criticise Spain for not having the same definitions of such circumstances? Who says those definitions of the US (ok to limit free speech in case of national security issues) are the only right choices?

Because limiting free speech in certain (small & defined) national security instances makes sense to me, while limiting free speech because someone somewhere may commit violence against someone by reading a book is silly. After all, remember, we don't ban Mein Kampf, and I don't think we should.

If say the FRG chooses to ban it, i can see some arguments for that. The US doesnt have group libel laws, and Britain does. Both are successful liberal democratic societies. Theres more than one way to skin this cat.

If Mein Kampf had the kind of circulation that GTA:vice City has (not to compare the two asfar as content) id be more concerned. and again, I dont think Mein kampf had anything in the way of specific technical instructions, as the book under discussiondoes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US doesnt have group libel laws, and Britain does. Both are successful liberal democratic societies. Theres more than one way to skin this cat.

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

How about if someone writes a book about how to kill Haitians without leaving marks? Or how to beat your Haitian wife? How to beat your wife with a dirty bomb, instructions included???

I don't find anything wrong with the first examples. The second one (dirty bomb) may be restricted because of threats to national security (which can be used to restrict free speech).

Security of whom, though?

Your comfy, middle class, preserve my lifestyle security?

Or the security of a sizable portion of the population who happen to be the wives of fundamentalist men?

Your nation shall persevere and be protected, but the weakest and least heard from members will be consigned to whatever fate awaits them?

I'd rather my nation protect all of its citizens, and possibly die a quick death than last a lengthy period while providing protection for only the dead husk of what it should have been.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Security of whom, though?

Strawmen aside, I thought I already made that clear... national security, ie, security of the state... you know from which entity all rights come from?