General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Defendant must prove innocence? Is that what you mean by reversing the burden of proof? I didn't know such a country existed.
What do you mean by reverse the burden of proof?
Do you mean that a speaker should prove prior to speaking that his speech will not incite to riot.
As a mother, I can tell you that telling a child to turn off the TV can incite a small riot in the home. We don't think of that tantrum as a riot, but if you get a crowd of a couple of hundred people screaming at someone to stop expressing their opinion, to, in a sense, change the channel to something the crowd wants to hear, then it is a riot.
If people don't like a video saying horrible things about their religion or their country, then they shouldn't watch the video.
On DU, atheists criticize and say horrible things about fundamentalist Christians on occasion. But fundamentalist Christians don't riot when they read them.
And Wikis (don't know much about the religion but it exists) are vilified a lot -- however they don't riot either.
You just don't riot over insults about your ideas or beliefs when expressed by people who disapprove of your ideas or beliefs. That is childish. Infantile. We would say that it indicates deep insecurity in the validity of your own ideas or beliefs to be so sensitive to what others say or think about them.
The advantage of free speech is that people who are exposed to ideas that displease them can examine their own ideas. That is wonderful.
And when censorship is permitted it inevitably limits scientific inquiry -- which causes countries and nations to become backward, daring not to question their beliefs and superstitions.
Free speech is wonderful.