Hundreds attend funeral of Copenhagen gunman

[derspiess]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that this guy wanted to incite terror.

[grumbler]

grumbler, would you argue that Anders Breivik was not a terrorist?

He said he was, and explicitly acted for political impact, so I take him at his word.  Do you think Charles Manson was a terrorist? 

I don't thoink it is "bizarre" to distinguish between terrorism and hate crimes.  In fact, I think it is bizarre to not so distinguish.  If El-Hussein was a terrorist, who was he terrorizing: movie directors, or rent-a-cops?

[grumbler]

I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that this guy wanted to incite terror.

I think he chose his targets because he wanted to kill his targets, not because he wanted to incite terror.  All I have to go on, of course, is his actions.  If he left some kind of a statement, then I'd re-evaluate based on what it said.  But my baseline assumption is that violence isn't terrorism.  YMMV.

[viper37]

What interest me more is the real world use and exercise of free speech, rather than just a strictly legal view point.

I'd be keen to find data broken down for how much Americans, Canadians, Europeans and others actually use their rights to free speech. I wonder how much research has been done on that?

Really don't think there's any measurable metric for that other than the legal one:  either somebody goes to jail for saying something, or they don't.

jail isn't the only punishment. 
Example:
- You could be sued for more money than you'd ever make in your life without the appropriate financial means to defend yourself against an army of lawyers
- A regulatory authority could suspend your license to speak (radio, television, etc)
- You could face a DOS on your website
- Government agencies could erect walls around you, refusing to buy any advertising for the radio/tv/newspaper hiring you; might not be a big deal in the US, could be quite problematic elsewhere
- A big corporation or a lobby group could put "subtle" pressure on your advertiser to incite them to stop buying ads in your media
- harrassment by the community with no legal/judicial protection

and probably other reasons that I haven't thought of too.

As Oex once said, freedom of speech means nothing if it's confined to your living room.

[mongers]

grumbler, would you argue that Anders Breivik was not a terrorist?

He said he was, and explicitly acted for political impact, so I take him at his word.  Do you think Charles Manson was a terrorist? 

I don't thoink it is "bizarre" to distinguish between terrorism and hate crimes.  In fact, I think it is bizarre to not so distinguish.  If El-Hussein was a terrorist, who was he terrorizing: movie directors, or rent-a-cops?

At the very least all of the people who were in the room/auditorium that he fired into.

[grumbler]

Really don't think there's any measurable metric for that other than the legal one:  either somebody goes to jail for saying something, or they don't.

jail isn't the only punishment. 
Example:
- You could be sued for more money than you'd ever make in your life without the appropriate financial means to defend yourself against an army of lawyers
- A regulatory authority could suspend your license to speak (radio, television, etc)
- You could face a DOS on your website
- Government agencies could erect walls around you, refusing to buy any advertising for the radio/tv/newspaper hiring you; might not be a big deal in the US, could be quite problematic elsewhere
- A big corporation or a lobby group could put "subtle" pressure on your advertiser to incite them to stop buying ads in your media
- harrassment by the community with no legal/judicial protection

and probably other reasons that I haven't thought of too.

As Oex once said, freedom of speech means nothing if it's confined to your living room.

Your statement doesn't seem at all related to the one you are quoting.  Are you arguing that all of those are examples of the measurable metric that the statement you quote refers to?

[viper37]

Hadn't noticed.

2 / 33 000 000 = overrun by terrorists.

[The Brain]

Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs?

[viper37]

Your statement doesn't seem at all related to the one you are quoting.  Are you arguing that all of those are examples of the measurable metric that the statement you quote refers to?

there are many ways to measure freedom of speech and freedom of press.  I have named a few I find relevant, none of them are absolutes.

While it is difficult to measre individual freedom of speech, we tend to equate it with freedom of the press, and for this, we have an index with an established methodology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

the only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.

[mongers]

Viper, thanks for the sincere reply.

[derspiess]

I think he chose his targets because he wanted to kill his targets, not because he wanted to incite terror.

Or possibly both.  Murderers and terrorists can have more than one motive.

All I have to go on, of course, is his actions.  If he left some kind of a statement, then I'd re-evaluate based on what it said.  But my baseline assumption is that violence isn't terrorism.  YMMV.

He went and shot up a synagogue, which seems to be a favorite target for terrorists.  I'm pretty comfortable calling him a terrorist.

[CountDeMoney]

the only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.

Thing is, some of your "punishments" could occur without having absolutely anything to do with freedom of speech.  DOS attacks?  Harassment by the community?  Regulatory violations?  That could be due to zoning issues for employee parking.

[grumbler]

there are many ways to measure freedom of speech and freedom of press.  I have named a few I find relevant, none of them are absolutes.

How do you measure any of the things you mentioned, given that none of them are, in fact, metrics of any sort whatever?

the only thing I was pointing is that freedom of speech is not solely related to the relation between an individual and the judicial body of his country.

I don't disagree, but also don't see what that has to do with the issue of metrics to which you responded.  Indeed, what you described isn't government action.  it's individual action.  When we talk about "freedom of speech," we generally refer to it in connection with government action.  A person's freedom of speech relative to other individuals is a matter of civil law, not freedom of speech per se, as i understand the parlance of "freedom of speech."  For instance, if your employer fires you for wearing a campaign button for a candidate he opposes, you are entitled to redress under unfair termination laws, not under a guarantee of freedom of speech in a constitution.  Similarly, someone launching a DOS attack on your web site entitles you to sue for damages, rather than invoking freedom of speech guarantees.

Of course, it is possible that the Canadian constitution and laws allow you to invoke some freedom of speech guarantees against private individuals or corporations, and I am not aware of it, but, then, you weren't responding to a Canadian.

[Martinus]

Why are people debating with grumbler's "a terrorist isn't a terrorist" bs?

No idea.

[grumbler]

He went and shot up a synagogue, which seems to be a favorite target for terrorists.  I'm pretty comfortable calling him a terrorist.

That's fine.  I'm not saying that you shouldn't call him a terrorist.  Anyone can call him anything they like.  I just don't think that governments should act against individuals who attend funerals because Some Guy on the Internet calls the deceased a terrorist.