Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    No, it limits moral offenses.
    It does this by limiting free speech.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  2. #182
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, you could call your President a racist Nazi, and suffer no repercussions?
    I just don't say the majority bacause he was elected with 60% of the votes... A lot do it.


  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    I just don't say the majority bacause he was elected with 60% of the votes... A lot do it.
    A lot of people call him a racist Nazi?

    But, what about moral integrity?

  4. #184
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    A lot of people call him a racist Nazi?
    he isn't the most popular in the left, at the eyes of the portuguese comunist party he is a fascist, the commies call fascists to anyone that isn't left winged.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    But, what about moral integrity?
    Takes a lot of effort to collect evidences, and judges commonly just ignore that.

    EDIT:
    Because of article 37.


  5. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.

    - - - Updated - - -


    he isn't the most popular in the left, at the eyes of the portuguese comunist party he is a fascist, the commies call fascists to anyone that isn't left winged.


    Takes a lot of effort to collect evidences, and judges commonly just ignore that.

    EDIT:
    Because of article 37.
    So, there are restrictions to free speech, but you are saying theya re too lazy to enforce them?

  6. #186
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, there are restrictions to free speech, but you are saying theya re too lazy to enforce them?
    Again, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTION TO FREE SPEECH IN PORTUGAL, free speech is enforced by and protected by the constitution.

    EDIT:
    The topic is US discussing free speech, not Portugal, this is going off-topic.


  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Again, THERE ARE NO RESTRICTION TO FREE SPEECH IN PORTUGAL, free speech is enforced by and protected by the constitution.
    You specifically spoke about moral integrity. You even spoke about "being rude."

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    One thing i am sure, it isn't Portugal that is discussing limitations of free speech, i would love to know the motivations of that judge, and what sort of limitations he defends.
    It's basically about whether or not the government should allow twitter to ban people on it's platform. He doesn't think they should be allowed to ban people on their platform for saying a bunch of shit the platform doesn't want to be disseminating. Unlike Portugal, no one would be facing jail time for defamation or blasphemy, just possibly fined for banning people from twitter. No other justice on the 9 member court (again, this court is 13 members in your country) agreed with him that twitter shouldn't be allowed to ban people because it restricts that person's right to free speech (as opposed to the platform's freedom of association).

    You could have easily just read the OP though, right?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    So, there are restrictions to free speech, but you are saying theya re too lazy to enforce them?
    Let's be clear, they do enforce those laws against free speech with possible prison sentences, or there wouldn't be cases that judges sometimes accept bad faith arguments in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  9. #189
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    You specifically spoke about moral integrity. You even spoke about "being rude."
    Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?


  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?
    Which is why I wondered why you brought up moral integrity and being rude.

  11. #191
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Lets see if you understand this once for all. We use a lot of bad wording here, we say whatever we wish, and no one goes to jail, OK?
    Then why are there defamation laws with possible 4.5 year prison sentences? 48 people were sentenced to prison under Portugal's blasphemy and defamation laws in 2013.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  12. #192
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Then why are there defamation laws with possible 4.5 year prison sentences? 48 people were sentenced to prison under Portugal's blasphemy and defamation laws in 2013.
    If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.

    EDIT:
    Some people are really mean, our law protects people in those situations.
    Last edited by Tuor; 2021-04-11 at 09:13 PM.


  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.
    Yes. That means your speech is more restrictive than ours. You're never going to be facing prison for that in the US. The most that can happen is a monetary penalty, which requires the defamed person to sue the other. This is why we're saying your speech is less free than ours. Because it is.

    The only time you're going to be facing prison for speech is if you threaten someone, plan a crime and then enact that crime (conspiracy), incite a mob to kill/injure, or yell fire in a crowded theatre (negligent homicide if someone dies).
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  14. #194
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    That means your speech is more restrictive than ours.
    Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...

    EDIT:
    Is that bad to protect peoples integrity? I can assure you, unlike what @Machismo said there are no real limitation in our speech, that includes not agreeing with anything, that includes the governement.
    Last edited by Tuor; 2021-04-11 at 09:24 PM.


  15. #195
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    If you spread false information over someone, like calling a protitute to somone, and has a result that person had real problems, like losing its job, and they got the evidences that you did it, then you in the hands of the judge.
    That is a restriction on free speech. Just like anti child-porn laws are technically restrictions on free speech. Whenever people are discussing freedom of speech, it's important to remember that no civilized country in the world has truly unrestricted free speech. They ALL draw lines, because the vast majority of people recognize that certain things are vile enough and dangerous enough that they cannot be allowed. So debating absolute freedom of speech is absurd, the question is never 'can restrictions be put on free speech' and always 'Is this restriction truly required, can it's goal be achieved in a different way, or is it's goal even valuable enough to restrict something so important to begin with?' Which leads to the line being placed in different locations depending on the country, but to pretend that a line placed where you like it doesn't exist and therefore anyone discussing a line hates freedom is disingenuous at best.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...
    People go to prison yearly in your country for defamation. With increased penalties if you're speaking about how the gov't does its job. I've already linked you the laws and have shown that people are prosecuted for those laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  17. #197
    Warchief
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    Then go to a portuguese twitter account and you would be surprised...

    EDIT:
    Is that bad to protect peoples integrity? I can assure you, unlike what @Machismo said there are no real limitation in our speech, that includes not agreeing with anything, that includes the governement.
    We're not saying that anti-defamation laws are bad, I happen to believe that it IS important to protect people's integrity from attack. It's just wrong to pretend that it isn't a restriction on speech just because it happens to be a restriction that serves a genuine need that most of us recognize as also important to a healthy society.

  18. #198
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    People go to prison yearly in your country for defamation. With increased penalties if you're speaking about how the gov't does its job. I've already linked you the laws and have shown that people are prosecuted for those laws.
    Except you don't understand anything of what i said, because you trying to make a point in turning the main point of this thread, secondary, you don't like it so you poiting int another direction that fits your point. it's like, we going bad, but those guys are even worst. That is the defintion of a white knight.

    Face the truth, here in Portugal no one goes to jail because of a stupid tweet.


  19. #199
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,197
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    I can pretty much guarantee it won't, because we have this thing called the first amendment and private property laws. Unless you are planning on seizing Twitter or Facebook's private property, which is fucking communism, it won't fucking happen.
    Unfortunately tech companies have the USCDA to deal with and that is why can be changed on them. Of course, it'll be on the USSC to determine to what length sites like Twitter and Facebook can be considered platforms and publishers, and that is the more contentious issue surrounding section 230 of the CDA.

  20. #200
    Pit Lord Tuor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    We're not saying that anti-defamation laws are bad, I happen to believe that it IS important to protect people's integrity from attack.
    You not, others are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    It's just wrong to pretend that it isn't a restriction on speech just because it happens to be a restriction that serves a genuine need that most of us recognize as also important to a healthy society.
    I have no restrictions on what i say, and i already a lot of bad stuff that isn't ok... Anyway it isn't my style to say bad things about other people, but i do, if required.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •