Freedom Of Speech?

[MattKestrel]

Do you think that we should have the right to say whatever we want in all circumstances? I believe this is the case in all normal places; usually social etiquette prevents us from going too far. However, stuff like the BNP tends to persuade us otherwise (ie, that the world would be a less discriminant place if they weren't allowed to speak their views). I mean, how many lives would have been redeemed had Hitler been silenced before he became Chancellor?

I'm mainly bringing this up because I want to widen my knowledge of the subject before the big school debate on this. Anyone have any opinions?

[Mute Monk]

Well, first, I think everyone should just chill out and be friends.

I think everyone has a right to voice their opinion, so long as they are also respectful of the opinions of others. For example, Hitler had every right to his opinion on Jews (and all non-Aryans), but oppressing and killing millions of people to express it was horrible and obviously shouldn't be permitted.

Politically speaking, I'm a libertarian socialist, so as long as everyone's views are given respect, I'm pretty much okay with it. If you say you hate Asians or Italians or people with long fingernails, you're welcome to have your own opinion...just don't go threatening them or killing them or fire-bombing their houses.

[SlappyMcGee]

libertarian socialist

...



what

[Mute Monk]

This.

[otters~1]

I've always disliked freedom of speech, because

so long as they are also respectful of the opinions of others

is basically impossible these days. Frankly, most people's opinions are not worth hearing--if restricting, say, insulting presidents, for example, wasn't likely to lead down a slippery slope to less freedom overall, I'd be entirely for it.

[Mute Monk]

I've always disliked freedom of speech, because

so long as they are also respectful of the opinions of others

is basically impossible these days. Frankly, most people's opinions are not worth hearing--if restricting, say, insulting presidents, for example, wasn't likely to lead down a slippery slope to less freedom overall, I'd be entirely for it.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

So then, you aren't for restricting "insulting presidents"...you're either for it or you ain't. If there's any reason you don't like it (your "slippery slope" in this case) then you obviously aren't for it. I'd be all for nuclear proliferation if all the bombs were dismantled afterwards.

[Tunco]

I've always disliked freedom of speech, because

so long as they are also respectful of the opinions of others

is basically impossible these days. Frankly, most people's opinions are not worth hearing--if restricting, say, insulting presidents, for example, wasn't likely to lead down a slippery slope to less freedom overall, I'd be entirely for it.

I agree with flagmyidol here.

Because that whenever you say whatever you want, someone, at least someone gets offended by it.
Let's see.

Text deleted by Tunco due to inappropriate and offensive content.

Those are my opinions.
But you see my point right? When you say these things out loud to world, people will start to hate you, and all that crap. I think there are times you should keep your mouth shut and speak at the right time, or never talk at all.

[smartalco]

So because some people are too stupid to keep their mouth shut we should just ban everyone from saying anything stupid?
You should keep your mouth shut more.
(by the way: only 1 of those is actually an opinion, the first 3 are statements, the 4th doesn't actually make sense)

The only things that it makes sense to limit are the only things currently illegal. (Yelling 'FIRE' in a theater when there is none, threatening someone (although technically saying it isn't illegal, it is just the threat itself that can get you in trouble), other things that actually endanger lives)

[SlappyMcGee]

I think people should be able to say anything they want. Not that that is a human right, because I don't believe in those things, but just because it would be cool to live in a world where words are not under the control of some overwhelming political morality.

But unlike my oxymoronic friend, I'm a full blown libertarian. Freedom for all, so long as nobody else is being made not free. I think that's what a lot of people believe, but they confuse "getting their feelings hurt" with having freedoms infringed on.

[otters~1]

First off, Slappy, I can't see part of your sig in Retronet. Second, I know my views are a bit weird--I'm surprised I got as little resistance as I did.

Lemme get something straight though: it /does/ piss me off when they burn books, esp. Vonnegut books.

[SlappyMcGee]

First off, Slappy, I can't see part of your sig in Retronet. Second, I know my views are a bit weird--I'm surprised I got as little resistance as I did.

Lemme get something straight though: it /does/ piss me off when they burn books, esp. Vonnegut books.

I don't use Retronet and recommend you use Hermes to fully experience SlappyMcGee.

[scythe]

Freedom of speech is really an absolute thing. Nobody has the right not to be offended. It does depend on the circumstances. That is, for anything you might say, there is definitely a time and a place where it's appropriate, but there might be places where it isn't. In general, though, any media directed at adults ought to be essentially free of any restriction on content. It's one of the things I think that the United States gets right, and Europe and Australia all too often get wrong.

Obviously, a private institution can restrict speech. Whether this conflicts with the philosophy of free and compulsory education has yet to be determined.

I mean, how many lives would have been redeemed had Hitler been silenced before he became Chancellor?

None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The original government of the Weimar Republic was dead in the water by 1930, before Hitler even became influential in the Nazi party. He merely rose out of the effective anarchy that succeeded the Great Depression.

EDIT: I'd just like to clarify that I consider "no Snuggie commercials" and "no Vince Foster" to be acceptable limitations on free speech.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think social backlash is generally underestimated. That's the system of justice already in place to punish poor uses of your right to free speech.
If you say shout racist obscenities on the street, for example, you should expect to get your head kicked in, and a surprising lack of witnesses at the trial if you decide to press charges. You can say whatever you want, and if you choose to flex that right in idiotic ways, you'll soon find that you're out of friends and respect.
Free speech only means that legal action won't be taken against you. I feel this needs mention because some people seem to think that free speech legally binds other people to pretend that everything you say is neutral and inoffensive.

[Mute Monk]

I think social backlash is generally underestimated. That's the system of justice already in place to punish poor uses of your right to free speech.
If you say shout racist obscenities on the street, for example, you should expect to get your head kicked in, and a surprising lack of witnesses at the trial if you decide to press charges. You can say whatever you want, and if you choose to flex that right in idiotic ways, you'll soon find that you're out of friends and respect.
Free speech only means that legal action won't be taken against you. I feel this needs mention because some people seem to think that free speech legally binds other people to pretend that everything you say is neutral and inoffensive.

Hearken to the voice of reason; prepare yourself for Christmas season.

Or, y'know, QFE.

[otters~1]

I've always disliked freedom of speech, because

so long as they are also respectful of the opinions of others

is basically impossible these days. Frankly, most people's opinions are not worth hearing--if restricting, say, insulting presidents, for example, wasn't likely to lead down a slippery slope to less freedom overall, I'd be entirely for it.

But the issue isn't whether you like or agree with other people's statements. The issue is whether criminalizing certain kinds of statements is an effective policy.

Can anyone give me an example of a place that has severely restricted the ability to express certain ideas and is a nice place to live?
Hint: PRNK, PRC, USSR, Iran... etc.

Well, exactly. Note all the qualifiers in my statement. And, no, I don't think it would be effective at all, because people seem to cherish a supposed "freedom" of speech more than, say, actual privacy. The general populace would be up in arms immediately.

[Tunco]

So because some people are too stupid to keep their mouth shut we should just ban everyone from saying anything stupid?
You should keep your mouth shut more.
(by the way: only 1 of those is actually an opinion, the first 3 are statements, the 4th doesn't actually make sense)

Yeah, I'm talking about that. Just giving examples anyway. [Also gloomp and Slappy already knows about it, it's personal]

I think people should be able to say anything they want. Not that that is a human right, because I don't believe in those things, but just because it would be cool to live in a world where words are not under the control of some overwhelming political morality.

QFE.

Then everybody would be each others' enemies, no matter how good friend they are. It also has some good effects, but that's not a good idea at all.

it would be cool to live in a world where words are not under the control of some overwhelming political morality.

The system is just fucked-up and nobody cares a shit about anybody but themselves, it's just the way things are. Sometimes wondering, if 2012 is a true myth, so let it be. It would be good for the humanity, this planet can't go over with more than 6 millions of people.

Not to change the subject but neither what Slappy suggests or the system we have right now is good for anyone. -Except for a few people who is at the top of this and resposible for all of these.- It's just the way things are.

Btw, I agree with Slappy 'till the end of this first sentence.

[Tunco]

I'm not seeing a consistent message in your post, Tunco. Could you elaborate?

Oh, sorry for the so vague post. I'm going to write an articulate post to explain myself clearly.

The thing is people need to say what they need to say, when they need to say. When this happens usually public makes him/her shut his mouth or few people above media takes huge amount of money from politicians to make the guy look a democracy contrary person to make people discriminate him/her, or 'overwhelming political morality' makes him shut his mouth, nobody knows how. I'm just being sarcastic about the last part of the last sentence, though. In addition to this, what Slappy said is very correct. I would like to live in a world where nobody is under control of an overhelming political morality, in a world everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but things don't work that way.

To speak the truth, "Freedom Of Speech" is a very dithyrambic phrase in these world circumstances we're experiencing right now, at least that's my opinion. Everything has a right time to say. That's why you can't persuade a group of communist people to be conservative in a minute. You just need to wait the right time, the time when their understanding, what they believe is starting to be shattered, becoming old and uneffective on people, there's your chance, that's the right time. I was just giving an example about this so don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian socialist as Mute Monk. You start seeing my point at the moment. Anyway, movin' on.

I'm going to strengthen my statement more. Think of a single place in the world where you have the right to say everything you want -which everyone has that right in most of the countries, important point- and when you say whatever you want someone does not get you wrong and you have a nice living? I don't know any place like that. If you know, tell me, I'm going to buy a only-going bus ticket for the first bus going there. Still, my statement holds it's realism. Althugh, suppose that everybody said what they wanted to say when they want, few people with power would kick us in the ass.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I can just continue to this post forever but I will tend to finish this post at here. I hope I expressed myself clear enough. Debate.

[otters~1]

To speak the truth, "Freedom Of Speech" is a very dithyrambic phrase in these world circumstances we're experiencing right now.

dith⋅y⋅ram⋅bic  /ˌdɪθəˈræmbɪk/
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dithyramb.

dith⋅y⋅ramb  /ˈdɪθəˌræm, -ˌræmb/
–noun 1. a Greek choral song or chant of vehement or wild character and of usually irregular form, originally in honor of Dionysus or Bacchus.

(Yes I know that's not how you meant it, but quoting the dictionary seems to be a fad these days, and it's a great word.)