Freedom of speech?

You can objectively say that you dont like the way for instance that Islam places its women as second class citizans however you cannot say that all muslims are terrorists. That would come under inciting religious hatred which is wrong as obviously there not.

"Citizens of the Earth,
The Regime that is governing your Present has Not your best interest in mind, & the Mass Genocides it has been committing during the last two & a half millennia have failed to awaken U from the Lethargy that keeps U subject to their Will.

The ‘Globalization’ they are currently implementing, shall grant them total and absolute control over the life and destiny of each and every one of U.
Most of U have already seized to be individuals; robbed of your right to freedom of Self-Expression; brainwashed so thoroughly U are no more born as much as manufactured.
Your Natural Instincts are being systematically repressed, your Personal Potential suppressed and your Identity impressed by the Stigma of their values/ethics/dogmata to suit their purpose only: Cling-on to Power they usurped and maintain by way of key-player assassinations and mass genocides both, in full support of their all-fronts truth-inversion Propaganda. "
[Epsilon]

"Citizens of the Earth,
The Regime that is governing your Present has Not your best interest in mind, & the Mass Genocides it has been committing during the last two & a half millennia have failed to awaken U from the Lethargy that keeps U subject to their Will.

The ‘Globalization’ they are currently implementing, shall grant them total and absolute control over the life and destiny of each and every one of U.
Most of U have already seized to be individuals; robbed of your right to freedom of Self-Expression; brainwashed so thoroughly U are no more born as much as manufactured.
Your Natural Instincts are being systematically repressed, your Personal Potential suppressed and your Identity impressed by the Stigma of their values/ethics/dogmata to suit their purpose only: Cling-on to Power they usurped and maintain by way of key-player assassinations and mass genocides both, in full support of their all-fronts truth-inversion Propaganda. "
[Epsilon]

The freedom to scream abuse is an absolute. So is the freedom to respond in kind if on the receiving end of said abuse. Making either illegal will not stop them.

You're right, of course, but a lot of people still do say such things, including on here. Freedom of speech should be a wide-reaching right, but there are certain things which go beyond legitimate opinion.

You can objectively say that you dont like the way for instance that Islam places its women as second class citizans however you cannot say that all muslims are terrorists. That would come under inciting religious hatred which is wrong as obviously there not.

If someone is harmed by slander, we already have remedies through civil actions.

Yeah we're suppose to have 'freedom of speech' but because the country has to be so politically correct and the amount of mixed races here, it means you can't say anything, cant even fly the country's bloody flag in some places...ridiculous!

"If someone is harmed". That's the point, really, isn't it. Too many laws these days adopt a pre-emptive approach rather than a responsive one; and while it's always a little difficult arguing with success, especially where the big crimes are involved, said approach is nevertheless morally questionable. If you want to stop murder, you don't outlaw everything that can conceivably be used as a weapon, from grenades, petrol bombs and guns via knives, crowbars and bricks up to arms, feet and teeth. You punish the murderers harder.

You don't think it's wrong that you cannot fly your own flag in the country it belongs because it may cause racial tension or bloody fights? it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Is freedom of speech an absolute right or should it be restricted by governments?
Here in the West we are told that we have freedom to speak our minds, but in reality we don't, for our governments restrict what we can say with hate speech laws; so we don't really have freedom of speech.
The only exeption is America, whose people are protected by the first amendment. So, do you want the freedom to speak your mind even if it causes offense to certain groups, or are you prepared to accept government censorship in the name of cracking down on.... "hate"?.

In America freedom of speech permits extremist Christians to shout abuse at the funerals of soldiers killed in combat - they hold up placards "God Hates Army Fags" etc and shout abuse to the effect that the soldier was a "fag enabler" and "going straight to hell" etc. I'm talking about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

Freedom of speech is important up to the point that it becomes calculated abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm personally not interested in defending the freedom of speech of extremists who peddle hate and abuse. Other than this, yes freedom of speech should be supported. Extremist groups like the Nazi BNP should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews than extremist Islamicists should be allowed to call for the killing of infidels. The ironic thing is that these kinds of extremist groups who harp on about having their freedom of speech would be looking to stifle all debate should they be in power.

So? The problem here is not with free speech - it's with public property. You privatise the roads, the graveyards &c, and then the owner can choose to let or to evict whomever he likes from his property, just like a newspaper owner can choose to hire or fire any columnist. At the present there's conflict on whose right is dominant; the protestors or the funeral procession? It's quite arbitrary to decide on either side, when neither have a justified, exclusive claim to the land over which they're disputing. Privatise it and be damned...The BNP have called for "the gassing of Jews"? Some evidence, please, for this outlandish and libellous claim that the BNP directly ncite genocide...You conflate two issues here; abuse and threats. It's perfectly acceptable to verbally abuse somebody, as long as they aren't compelled to listen to you. To threaten is totally different - then, you refuse them the right to walk away, and compel them to accept your aggressive act.

As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".

It's only a problem of property to those obsessed with property - i.e. libertarians, so your argument is a bunch of *******s to me on that score.

I didn't claim that the BNP had publicly called for the gassing of Jews, I said they shouldn't be allowed to do it - a closer reading of my words might help you here.

As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".

I'm deliberately conflating abuse and threats because as far as I'm concerned, beyond a certain threshold, I'm not interested in defending either in terms of freedom of speech.

Absolutely. Don't forget the right to "burn my pet dogs alive in the back yard" - something these libertarians defend as a matter of 'principle' it seems.

Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?