Freedom of Speech

[tf_arl_90]

"Everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, even hate groups like the KKK."

Agree/disagree?

Edit: Let's say it's strictly "speech," not action(s). :)

[God.]

Agree. There's no limit to limitations, if they're started.

[Wacko1574]

seconded...................

[Nik Nak]

I've just left a forum because if you said something a particular mod and the main admin doesn't agree with, you either got infractions or banned. The mod has a real thing against America and insults the place in nearly every post, and in his sig, some racist remarks. Yet if you say one negative thing, not even racist about Russia, he calls you a racist, warns and bans you if you argue your point. As for the admin, he arse-licked the mod, an does basically the same thing.

Everyone should be free to speak their mind as long as what they say can be backed by something.

[God.]

Well, nobody on here is like that, we have a mutual dislike of America. :p

[Nik Nak]

lol Yeah, lots of us agreed with him to a certain extent. We dislike America, knowing there are good people there. But this guy was seriously abusing his power. He says he only dislikes them, but seems to have some sort of obsession, and if you contradict what he's been saying over the last week - boom - banned.

[tf_arl_90]

I've just left a forum because if you said something a particular mod and the main admin doesn't agree with, you either got infractions or banned. The mod has a real thing against America and insults the place in nearly every post, and in his sig, some racist remarks. Yet if you say one negative thing, not even racist about Russia, he calls you a racist, warns and bans you if you argue your point. As for the admin, he arse-licked the mod, an does basically the same thing.

Everyone should be free to speak their mind as long as what they say can be backed by something.

Well, freedom of speech doesn't apply to an internet forum that is privately owned and maintained. Whatever the owner/admin says, goes. You usually agree to this when you register and agree to the terms of service.

Sounds like you made a good choice leaving that particular forum though.

[VraiCanon]

Yes, I agree.
However, this should only be the case if these words do not become actions.

[Fez]

Well, nobody on here is like that, we have a mutual dislike of America. :p

i lolled. ^.^

i agree

[tf_arl_90]

Don't you think we are tolerating intolerance then? What if someone gets insulted? That's not right, is it? Shouldn't we show them that what they're saying is wrong?




if I suck at playing devil's advocate can someone take over for me? lol

[Jyt]

Well, nobody on here is like that, we have a mutual dislike of America. :p
I don't dislike America...Just their fucked up government.

But on topic,
As tf_arl_90 said, on the internet anything is fair game, it's not in the jurisdiction of any country and as such theres noone to govern it.
Basically all you can do if you encounter that kind of person is ignore them.

[God.]

Unless you live in China, amongst other places.

[Jyt]

Or if no government knows you exist and you just live out in the middle of the desert or something.
Then you could kill them, and noone would know it was you.

[VraiCanon]

Don't you think we are tolerating intolerance then? What if someone gets insulted? That's not right, is it? Shouldn't we show them that what they're saying is wrong?




if I suck at playing devil's advocate can someone take over for me? lol

However offensive somebodys comment may be, you are still entitled to the right to say it. I'm not condoning offensive comments, however the right to a freedom of speech is still there.
Yes, they should be told what they are saying is wrong but you can only point somebody in the right direction, not push them there.

[tf_arl_90]

Do you think allowing hate speech promotes fear or intimidation? Violence?

What about the issue of brainwashing? Is it right that people are allowed to instill hateful ideas in children?

[Nintendus]

Yes, I agree.
However, this should only be the case if these words do not become actions.
How are you to judge that? Take the example in the post of the KKK, them saying hateful things might not directly result in an action - like, say for instance the classic example of yelling fire in a public place - but it instills racial hatred in people that might indirectly lead to hate filled actions such as violence. That's only one reason why the 'right' to freedom of speech is far too complicated to be so black and white upon.



Yes, they should be told what they are saying is wrong but you can only point somebody in the right direction, not push them there.
Well that is obviously not true, we do it all the time. That is what the law is for. If we stop people performing actions seen as detreficial to society, why can we not stop people from making speech with the same effect?

[VraiCanon]

How are you to judge that? Take the example in the post of the KKK, them saying hateful things might not directly result in an action - like, say for instance the classic example of yelling fire in a public place - but it instills racial hatred in people that might indirectly lead to hate filled actions such as violence. That's only one reason why the 'right' to freedom of speech is far too complicated to be so black and white upon.


Well that is obviously not true, we do it all the time. That is what the law is for. If we stop people performing actions seen as detreficial to society, why can we not stop people from making speech with the same effect?

The law does not stop you from having a freedom of speech.
Who are you to judge what is right and wrong, in that sense? Morality is subjective therefore what one person perceives to be a hateful/offensive comment, others may see nothing wrong with it.

[Nintendus]

The law does not stop you from having a freedom of speech.

1) Of course it does, I just pointed out a classic example, that it would stop you yelling fire in a public place.
2) I never actually said it did, you said that "you can only point somebody in the right direction, not push them there.", and I was saying that the purpose of the law is to do just that with actions. You hit an ethnic minority for race reasons, we stop you doing that, because that action is detrimental to society. So too, if you make a speech filled with racial hatred, and as a response people hit ethnic minorities, why should we not to punish that person for encouraging that? You said "this should only be the case if these words do not become actions.", clearly seperating words from actions. But words are actions, as shown in the example I stated above. Most words have resulting actions of some sort, and as you tell me below whether the action is right or wrong is highly questionable. Therefore suggesting that only giving free speech if the words do not become actions is far too sweeping as a statement.



Who are you to judge what is right and wrong, in that sense? Morality is subjective therefore what one person perceives to be a hateful/offensive comment, others may see nothing wrong with it.
Morality is only subjective to an extent. If someone rapes someone, some strange person might view it as justifiable, but we still feel we can punish that person. This again seems like you trying to seperate words and actions , if someone says something which is clearly wrong, then why do we not stop them like in the above example, epecially if we can forsee it will have negative effects on society.

Speech is every bit an action - which can be just as detrimental to society as direct pyhsical ones - so why do you propose giving a right to freedom over it when people do not have freedom to every action?

[Hugga-Bear]

I'm with Nintendus on this one, freedom of speech sounds luverly but it can be just as easily used to abuse as physical violence. Here for example swearing at someone is considered assault. And quite rightly, a lot of people are hurt by insults. But isn't this breaking freedom of speech?

[tf_arl_90]

You're not allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater because the theater is privately owned, and the owner has probably forbidden that speech. Free speech is guaranteed, but there are restrictions on where you say it and how you say it. The government can't arrest and punish someone for saying racist words in their own basement.


You hit an ethnic minority for race reasons, we stop you doing that, because that action is detrimental to society. So too, if you make a speech filled with racial hatred, and as a response people hit ethnic minorities, why should we not to punish that person for encouraging that?

Is shutting a person up because they say distasteful things really the way to go about bringing social change? I'm not sure I would want them to shut up, tbh. I want them to share their disgusting views so that I can challenge them and speak louder about what I believe is morally and socially right.

The same laws that are used to shut bigots up are the same ones that can in turn be used against you and me.


You said "this should only be the case if these words do not become actions.", clearly seperating words from actions. But words are actions, as shown in the example I stated above. Most words have resulting actions of some sort
I originally asked to have people respond only considering words. Everything is an "action" if you're going to take the definition that literally.

The function of the government is to protect its citizens' rights. Whose rights are being infringed upon by a racist simply *saying* "I hate blacks" ?

Is the mere possibility that it could lead to a bigger action really enough to say "you can't think that way" and have someone arrested?


Who are you to judge what is right and wrong, in that sense?

I think I see what you're trying to say, but everyone is free to "judge" anyone any which way they like. I think racist speech is wrong. The law that lets a bigot share his views is the same law that lets me freely share my tolerant views. We are both free to say each other is "wrong".


And quite rightly, a lot of people are hurt by insults. But isn't this breaking freedom of speech?

Harassment is certainly not legal. But I didn't know people had the right to not be insulted by speech.

If they did, the question goes back to where is the line drawn? What if I'm Christian and I'm offended by a person who talks openly about their atheism? Should this person be punished for openly discussing their (dis)beliefs because a large group of people find them insulting?

As someone (can't remember who) said earlier, I don't condone racist speech, but I do fully support a person's right to say it. Free speech is essential to maintaining a free society with free thinking individuals.

In the US, the First Amendment is meant to protect speech which is particularly distasteful. And I'm glad it's that way. We should be defining our own morals, and making the social changes ourselves.

The government telling me what to think is a really scary thought. I don't want people in positions of power telling me what I can and cannot say.

[kralian_Wings]

I'd be inclined to agree with that statement...BUT common sense and consideration for others has to come into it somewhere, how ever much it limits freedom of speech.

[Arielle]

"Everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, even hate groups like the KKK."

Agree/disagree?

Edit: Let's say it's strictly "speech," not action(s). :)
Strictly with speech, I think people should have a right to express their true feelings. There have to be limits, as with most things, but for the most part, speech shouldn't really be a damaging thing. I find the censoring of speech pretty annoying, really. Like on Radio 1, if a song has cursing or bad words in it, they blot it out. >>;; One of their most-played songs at the moment is Nickelback's "Rockstar". They block out ass, drugs, and I believe pills too. It takes freedom of speech to a whole new level of censoring, which is absolutely abysmal to begin with.

Also, when parents for example, tell their children off for swearing... Why? When in the same breath they'll tell them to ignore the bullies because "It's only words, it won't affect anybody."

[eukaryote]

"Everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, even hate groups like the KKK."

Agree/disagree?

Edit: Let's say it's strictly "speech," not action(s). :)
Yes, I agree with that. If we start limited the freedom of speech, the boundaries of what is legal speech and illegal speech will become fuzzy because morals themselves get debateable.

Of course, people shouldn't be allowed to yell "I have a bomb!" on an airplane or anything like that, but that's completely different. The KKK is stating what they believe, the idiot who yells fire in a public place just wants to spread panic.

[tf_arl_90]

Also, when parents for example, tell their children off for swearing... Why? When in the same breath they'll tell them to ignore the bullies because "It's only words, it won't affect anybody."

That's a little bit more of a parenting issue, and not really what I meant when I started this topic originally, but I'll respond to it anyway.

I'd probably scold my child for swearing simply because it's impolite and vulgar language. Younger children tend to be impressionable and usually need help learning when certain words are appropriate to use and when they aren't. If you're talking about a teen who feels the need to utter a few curses while in a bad mood, that's fine imo, because they are probably old enough to know when not to say certain things.

[diabloprimeevil]

i agree every one is entitled to there say.
but here is the reason i belive we never will.

i belive that the world we live in is (Politicaly Correct) crazy
like the fact that you cant say black bord in a class room or i have to take a puff of my inhailor as you can bet you last pound that you will be take to court by some one over it.

like the childs nursury rhyme bah bah black sheep has been chainged to bah bah rainbow sheep as it offended minoraties but how long befor the gay/lesbian comunity complain about it or the religious comuity saying that rainbow sheep is trying to teach that homosexuality is ok. face it weather you belive we should have the right or not dosent matter as we never will people are to uptight these days.

sorry about my spelling i cannot spell to save my life

[tf_arl_90]

face it weather you belive we should have the right or not dosent matter as we never will people are to uptight these days.

Actually, you have the right to say all of that "un-PC" stuff. And people have the right to disagree with you.