Omfg not Halo 3!

[FuzzBall 005]

Im in matchmaking and some asshat wants me to download his screenshot of a cross, and after a couple of times telling him no he asks me, in his words, "Wha are U some kinda Fa**y a** athiest B***h". I calmy told him I was and that I hope that this would not affect the gameplay...well I may have told him that I would have "rough sexual intercourse with his mother without her permission" and that I would "Put a certain something in the shape of a cross into a certain part of her anatomy" and then I would "Beat him to death with said object after I was finished."...ok maybe not as kindly as i made it seem right now...well I did beat his clan 100 to 37...all bout the warthog.

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?  

[MiniSiets]

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.  

[FuzzBall 005]

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.

Free speech does have its limits.  

[[-Erik-]]

Only jerks play Halo 3 with their mics on.

That's why I leave mine off.

 

[Captain_Shinzo]

Realize that most the people on Halo 3 hate, a lot...
Infact, most hate for NO REASON!
My first time playing Halo 3 was online, and this d**k-b***h was cursing at me for no reason. After an hour of hearing how he would "kill me" I beat him 20 to 7.
and alot more hate was found after that.
However, I continued to play because I love the game.

The internet is where Atheists reside.
The rest go to Xbox live I guess...  

[Lethkhar]

Eh...Halo's a really overrated shooting game series, anyway. It's all about CoD, man.  

[IVIalice]

I play Halo 3 and ODST with my Christian friend and his little bro uses the mic.. They don't usually talk about religion during gameplay.. So I guess whomever was talking to you is kinda odd..  

[MiniSiets]

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.

Free speech does have its limits.

So what are those limits according to your standards then? Are you just going to make the limits be whenever someone disagrees with you? It would seem pretty childish to me if you can't handle some flack from the likes of an obviously uneducated troll on Xbox Live so much that you need to get the government involved to deal with him.  

[FuzzBall 005]

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.

Free speech does have its limits.

So what are those limits according to your standards then? Are you just going to make the limits be whenever someone disagrees with you? It would seem pretty childish to me if you can't handle some flack from the likes of an obviously uneducated troll on Xbox Live so much that you need to get the government involved to deal with him.

Wikipedia.
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems recognize limits on the freedom of speech, Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech". My limits on free speech personanlly is when it will juase more problems than good. Also let me answer your question with another question. lets say you hate a certain ethnic group. Do you go up to them and tell them you want them and there kind dead and out of your country? Should we not allow you to say that becuase it hurts there feelings or should we let you becuase stopping you would hurt your feeelings.  

[MiniSiets]

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.

Free speech does have its limits.

So what are those limits according to your standards then? Are you just going to make the limits be whenever someone disagrees with you? It would seem pretty childish to me if you can't handle some flack from the likes of an obviously uneducated troll on Xbox Live so much that you need to get the government involved to deal with him.

Wikipedia.
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems recognize limits on the freedom of speech, Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech". My limits on free speech personanlly is when it will juase more problems than good. Also let me answer your question with another question. lets say you hate a certain ethnic group. Do you go up to them and tell them you want them and there kind dead and out of your country? Should we not allow you to say that becuase it hurts there feelings or should we let you becuase stopping you would hurt your feeelings.

I'm well aware that the law has limits on free speech. I'm asking you where you draw the line, because as the law currently stands, it disagrees with you. The first amendment of the constitution makes a statement of separation of church and state, which means not only is religion not allowed to interfere with government, but government isn't allowed to abridge the free exercise of religion. So, if someone is proselytizing in an open forum that isn't being publicly funded by the government (which is the case here), they have every right to be doing what they're doing.

By your standards you say that the limit is when speech causes more harm than good. That's a pretty vague and broad statement that could be used to prosecute a whole ton of ridiculous crimes. Consider for example if someone simply walked up to some anonymous person on the street that they never met and said, "You're stupid." While perhaps this statement may be unnecessary and random, I think most of us would agree it's hardly something worth getting so worked up about that we need to get the government involved to apprehend the offending individual. Most of us would recognize that it's just a matter of free speech, and although the statement may have "caused more harm than good," people do need to have a backbone and learn to take insults to some extent. The person who received the insult should be able to easily ignore it and move on. But of course, by your standards this would already constitute taking government action, which is just absurd. Furthermore, how do we even evaluate what really causes more harm than good? Also consider that for the people who actually do believe in their religion, to them proselytizing is always doing more good than harm if it means they're getting the word out to save you from an eternity of suffering, so for them, using your standards would justify preaching their religion everywhere. It seems to me that when it comes down to it, what you really mean by your standards is still just another way of saying "it's OK to say it as long as it doesn't disagree with me," which isn't really free speech at all.

So to answer your question, yes, I think I have the right to say whatever inflammatory s**t about some certain ethnic group I feel like (even though I never would), because that's the point; free speech isn't concerned about hurt feelings. You just gotta grow a pair and learn to take criticism, no matter how absurd or harsh it may be. I draw the line when speech can lead to physical harm such as death threats, because to me, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you seem to be suggesting, which would have so many restrictions on free speech that we couldn't possibly deal with; there would be just too many silly criminal offenses to prosecute.  

[FuzzBall 005]

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

MiniSiets

FuzzBall 005

well anyway the point im trying to make is, do you think that people should be allowed to spread their religion even in video games?

Yes. Free speech.

Free speech does have its limits.

So what are those limits according to your standards then? Are you just going to make the limits be whenever someone disagrees with you? It would seem pretty childish to me if you can't handle some flack from the likes of an obviously uneducated troll on Xbox Live so much that you need to get the government involved to deal with him.

Wikipedia.
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems recognize limits on the freedom of speech, Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech". My limits on free speech personanlly is when it will juase more problems than good. Also let me answer your question with another question. lets say you hate a certain ethnic group. Do you go up to them and tell them you want them and there kind dead and out of your country? Should we not allow you to say that becuase it hurts there feelings or should we let you becuase stopping you would hurt your feeelings.

I'm well aware that the law has limits on free speech. I'm asking you where you draw the line, because as the law currently stands, it disagrees with you. The first amendment of the constitution makes a statement of separation of church and state, which means not only is religion not allowed to interfere with government, but government isn't allowed to abridge the free exercise of religion. So, if someone is proselytizing in an open forum that isn't being publicly funded by the government (which is the case here), they have every right to be doing what they're doing.

By your standards you say that the limit is when speech causes more harm than good. That's a pretty vague and broad statement that could be used to prosecute a whole ton of ridiculous crimes. Consider for example if someone simply walked up to some anonymous person on the street that they never met and said, "You're stupid." While perhaps this statement may be unnecessary and random, I think most of us would agree it's hardly something worth getting so worked up about that we need to get the government involved to apprehend the offending individual. Most of us would recognize that it's just a matter of free speech, and although the statement may have "caused more harm than good," people do need to have a backbone and learn to take insults to some extent. The person who received the insult should be able to easily ignore it and move on. But of course, by your standards this would already constitute taking government action, which is just absurd. Furthermore, how do we even evaluate what really causes more harm than good? Also consider that for the people who actually do believe in their religion, to them proselytizing is always doing more good than harm if it means they're getting the word out to save you from an eternity of suffering, so for them, using your standards would justify preaching their religion everywhere. It seems to me that when it comes down to it, what you really mean by your standards is still just another way of saying "it's OK to say it as long as it doesn't disagree with me," which isn't really free speech at all.

So to answer your question, yes, I think I have the right to say whatever inflammatory s**t about some certain ethnic group I feel like (even though I never would), because that's the point; free speech isn't concerned about hurt feelings. You just gotta grow a pair and learn to take criticism, no matter how absurd or harsh it may be. I draw the line when speech can lead to physical harm such as death threats, because to me, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than what you seem to be suggesting, which would have so many restrictions on free speech that we couldn't possibly deal with; there would be just too many silly criminal offenses to prosecute.

tl;dr

But I thought I put that in here...hmm its the government most likley screwing with me so they can get my eyelashes...Well for me its inbetween where you ARE helping and not being an asshat and when your NOT helping and being an asshat.  

[MiniSiets]

FuzzBall 005

tl;dr

But I thought I put that in here...hmm its the government most likley screwing with me so they can get my eyelashes...Well for me its inbetween where you ARE helping and not being an asshat and when your NOT helping and being an asshat.

You're still not getting it. The point of free speech is that you can be as much of an asshat as you like as part of living in a free society. The limitations on free speech aren't implemented because people might get offended; they're implemented because certain forms of speech can lead to infringing on other people's rights like as I described earlier with death threats.