WTF is insulting by speech?

[AqD]

The thread is a reply to this:

I could go on all day, but my point is: Freedom of expression and opinion does not mean that you are free to insult and belittle others.

What is exactly an insult? How can you insult someone by speech? How can you even outlaw it?

Before you answer, I should remind you the famous quote from Marcus Aurelius:
"Everything you hear is an opinion not a fact, and everything you see is a prospective not the truth"

An opinion! How can an opinion be insulting at all?

If I tell a briton "all britons are stupid", would it be insulting?
Yes? So what about "all celts in briton were barbaric and brainless"? Is that insulting too?

Oh well you could say I mean to insult, but how do you know exactly what I mean by my words? How can you judge it by anything but your own emotion? Who are you to decide my statement is made as an insult rather than a try to state something which I belive to be a fact (and what's wrong with trying to tell a fact?) What if the britons are truly stupid, e.g, scientifically confirmed to have 0.01 point lower IQ than those who live in antarctica?



PS: If you disagree with my post, I gonna report your reply as an insult - because I feel it's insulting! (j/k )

PS: no offense to britons

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

There are certain limits to free speech. In the case of insults it is defamation: libel and slander. If you publicize false facts of someone, you have to face the legal consequences in most civilized countries. An insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is not libelous in itself. If the statement is defamatory however, it will be considered a libel. The situation isn't so black-and-white as you or Copperknickers would like to make it seem. Besides that, your poll is completely ridiculous, meaningless and biased.

[AqD]

There are certain limits to free speech. In the case of insults it is defamation: libel and slander. If you publicize false facts of someone, you have to face the legal consequences in most civilized countries. An insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is not libelous in itself. If the statement is defamatory however, it will be considered a libel. The situation isn't so black-and-white as you or Copperknickers would like to make it seem. Besides that, your poll is completely ridiculous, meaningless and biased.

But nobody could possibly be hurt by speech, so how can you decide it's insulting or not? How can you judge it by anything but personal emotion and local customs?

[PointOfViewGun]

But nobody could possibly be hurt by speech, so how can you decide it's insulting or not? How can you judge it by anything but personal emotion and local customs?

You can very easily hurt people, companies or countries by false information and creating baseless negative opinion about them.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

But nobody could possibly be hurt by speech, so how can you decide it's insulting or not? How can you judge it by anything but personal emotion and local customs?

The internet is your friend:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/per...efamation.html

[Confederate Jeb]

There's no restraint on insults in freedom of speech. Course that third poll option doesn't fit my views.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

In my opinion there are no "bad words" only hurtful intentions. Which is why censoring these so called "bad words" is ridiculous.

[gambit]

Of course it's insulting and you can harm someone with speech. Free speech in theory sounds like heavenly liberty but when you add the fact that humans lie, cheat, steal and manipulate for the basest desires or stupidests reasons, you get some troubles.

You're only thinking of someone saying "I think you're ugly" or "Man republicans are stupid" which is by itself nothing. But when all free speech is allowed you have someone going around saying Jews deserve to die, and then a whole group of people gather together saying Jews deserve to die. They keep growing and it's only a matter of time before Jews start dying.

[Dr. Croccer]

Most countries have laws against defamation, slander and such, which means that false accusations and insults of certain people or organisations generally isn't allowed, unless it's satire of course.

[wudang_clown]

What is exactly an insult? How can you insult someone by speech? How can you even outlaw it?

An insult can be a verbal offence against someone's dignity. What's weird with that? Every community has it's own meaning of insult, so living in such a community gives you some knowledge about how far can you go with some critics and when a critic becomes an insult.
Haven't you ever been insulted?

[Helm]

Well you can be hurt by speech though it's psychological rather than physical.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well you can be hurt by speech though it's psychological rather than physical.

You can make someone lose money which in turn can hurt people physically. Or your speech can provoke crime.

[Khannis]

If people buy the idea that Jews should die so easily, it WAS a matter of time before those Jews started dying anyways, speech or no speech.

[Viking Prince]

Congradulations -- you are confusing three issues by lumping all under the banner of free speech. As PW so eloquently stated --

In the case of insults it is defamation: libel and slander.

But there is also the restraint of disorderly conduct. You cannot simply stand on the street corner and yell and scream insults at a passerby. Not only is annoying to the passerby, it is annoying to the general public as well.

But neither of the above is what freedom of speech is about. These insults, screams, etc. are not a factor in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is to constrain the government in it's power to silence debate and most importantly dissent in the public forums against the government and against the established powers within society.

I would highly suggest reading:

Amazon.com: Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment ...

If you are a bit lazier you can get a snapshot online with:

Libel and Freedom of Speech: New York Times Co. V. Sullivan

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or let google by your friend. There is plenty out there to read on this topic.

[Mr. Pink]

, if there's anyone on here who should know it's me...

But I'm not telling you

[Digbert]

Wow the four people who voted for the first option must really hate free speech

[Wu'a'ihiwalu]

The Creator doesn't listen to insults. Insults are made by people who are not connected to the Great Soul of the Universe and think they are separated from others. Insulting is the last resort of the defensive ego. Let go of the ego, forgive and forget.

[sephodwyrm]

All your options seems to be:
1. I hate insulting by speech
2. I hate insulting by speech
3. I hate insulting by speech

[Kiljan Arslan]

let extremists say what they want then people can see them for what they are and they can't claim they're being "opressed".

[wudang_clown]

let extremists say what they want then people can see them for what they are and they can't claim they're being "opressed".

Extremists have their own political aims. Their aims can be achieved by winning support of some group. This is done by spreading informations - in this case: some radical content. And if an extremist is pretty good orator, he can manipulate people quite easily. Not everyone is as clever as you. The question is: whether "clever" people should just watch how this radical orator manipulate others, or should they react properly.
I think they should react, when some life is endangered because of somebody's sick dream. In this particular case I wouldn't care about freedom of speech.