Growing up, I was raised in a strict Baptist environment.
As I got older and had more life experiences, the precepts that I new as a youth began to change based upon my dealings with the real world.
But I have several friends that are still locked into their religious beliefs, thinking it is the right way that all should live by. They are not open to discussion on why others may choose to live in another way, and sadly many of them have a tendency to look down on others that don't believe as they do, even though the doctrine they espouse tells them they should do otherwise.
I find it strange that they refuse to acknowledge that there might be other beliefs that others abide by.

Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

Here in the Great White North, we do limit free speech when that speech promotes or incites violence or genocide against "a defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group" which I think is a reasonable limitation.

Actually, the Constitution for the US makes no clarifications on that... but the judicial process does, which is what interprets our Constitution - depending on the political leanings of the majority of the justices now.

Just the feeling of fear or the feeling of being intimidated is not enough to me. But if you are actively calling for/promoting violence against others, then that is perfectly legitimate.
It's where you get into prosecuting people for saying stuff like "I don't want a <fill in the blank here> living in my neighborhood because they are trashy and bring my property value down and they worship a false God" that I have problems with. And that is happening and being pushed by certain people with what I think of as a tilted outlook.

Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

Based on some of the things I've seen going on in America this last while, I'd say there are quite a few on the religious right who are against any mention of sex altogether

If you do anything other than missionary style, you are a sinner! We all know the good book teaches that sex is only for procreation and not enjoyment!
Let's ignore Proverbs 5:18-19

and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. May her breasts satisfy you at all times, may you be intoxicated always by her love

There are always extremist that bring their own thoughts (usually from their upbringing) into play.
That was sort of the reason of the creation of this site. Many peoples attitudes/outlooks are based upon their environment. Sadly, some of them refuse to look at facts that might disagree with their ingrained thoughts.

As for the restriction of religious items in the work place, I have no issues with that either. I agree that display of religious items in a government facility is tantamount to supporting religion.

Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

It's also a fact that many of the people who are most vocal about free speech interpret it to mean "free for me, but not for thee".

Yes, and I see this regularly here in the United States. Classic case is the theory that LGBTQ books are "bad" for school libraries because they talk about sex (what the certain religious types consider unnatural sex acts) yet they are gleefully happy to allow the Christian Bible (sorry, that nasty Quran is not allowed because it is the religion of those heathen Muslims) in the school library, totally ignoring the fact that it has the same type of items in it that they yell about in the other books.

Mythtaken said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

And, of course, America's version of free speech is different from that in a lot of other countries, where governments have put limits on what can be said if it is deemed harmful to some other group.

This is being attempted even here in some states. It's like we are entering the era of the "thought police" and restrictions of what can be said.
I do agree that there are some things that are not allowed, like the classic case of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater or threatening to blow up a building. Things that can cause the fear of or threat of actual physical injury can generally be controlled through legislative means. But outlawing the ability of people to talk in a derogatory manner about others is taking it to the extreme. Hurt feelings are not a place that government needs to be doing legislating in.

I have a feeling we will be in for them here if the site takes off.
I am afraid that most will not want to discuss the ideology behind their thoughts on the fields, but more their zealotry, conflating the two.