Freedom of Speech ??

[bart]

Some are saying it needs to be controlled, as it can cause all sorts of problems...

I agree up to a point ?

 

Lets Discuss ?

 

From an angle of the extreme, in what ever you can discribe.

[Guest howyousawtheworld]

If it was John Stuart Mill the famous liberal philosopher he'd state that we all have a right to say whatever we want. So effectively he would believe today that the BNP have a right to exist and say what it likes. However if it becomes a physical threat to people in question than that is completely wrong. I don't necessarily believe in Mill's view but it's an interesting point.

 

You may say though that with freedom of speech and saying whatever you like which may be offensive to some then you will emotionally hurt them. The problem is Bart, how do you define the point of harm? At what point does it become harmful?

[66]

I'm quite fond of that right. The ability to question without threat of bodily harm or legal recourse is something I believe we almost take for granted. I remember watching the events of Tiananmen Square unfold in the late 80's, and more recently, the demonstrations in Egypt. Take away the right of your populace to question or state an opinion, and I think you ultimately lose.

Just my opinion.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

[the_gloaming09]

People should be able to say what they want so long as it's not extremely offensive (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church does protests holding hateful signs saying various things outside of funerals of dead soldiers).

 

Also I think it's tough when people take their beliefs to an extreme.

 

 

I basically think it should be you can say whatever, so long as it does not directly hurt someone.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

People should be able to say what they want so long as it's not extremely offensive (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church does protests holding hateful signs saying various things outside of funerals of dead soldiers).

 

Also I think it's tough when people take their beliefs to an extreme.

 

 

I basically think it should be you can say whatever, so long as it does not directly hurt someone.

 

What if what you just said was extremely offensive to me?

 

EDIT- never mind, didn't read your last sentence. I agree with that. As long as it does not cause phsyical harm or infringe upon someones right, it should be legal to say.

[the_gloaming09]

that's a good point you make.

 

 

But there has to be a line drawn. I mean do you think it's right or acceptable for people like the Westboro Baptist Church to have protests outside funerals?

 

 

I guess it's a hazy line to determine.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

that's a good point you make.

 

 

But there has to be a line drawn. I mean do you think it's right or acceptable for people like the Westboro Baptist Church to have protests outside funerals?

 

 

I guess it's a hazy line to determine.

 

It sucks but if they're not on private property then their opinions should be expressed just as anone else's

[the_gloaming09]

I mean I guess so, because if rules of free speech limitations were in effect for things like that it'd be hard to make that fine line.

 

Still... I think those people are despicable.

[chuck kottke]

I agree on the banning of hurtful speech at funerals - and speech that is clearly hurtful to one's character (if untrue) should be banned - basically any slanderous speech.

The big problem here in the U.S. right now is unlimited political speech - basically, anyone with the bucks can buy as much air time and put out as much political rhetoric for or against a candidate that they want. Our Supreme Court's 5 member majority behaves in a manner that is political and has decided money talks during elections.

[the_gloaming09]

^That is a good point

 

Also the same goes for like social networking hate speech, where we've seen people ganged up on. I mean theoretically it is free speech, but if it's hateful don't you think it should somehow be removed?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Yeah those people are scum. But something you might say might just be as offensive to someone else...what makes your opinion more valid. I subscribe to the treat others as you want to be treated.

 

You'd be pissed if you were in the minority and talking about Radiohead was considered extremely offensive and outlawed.

[the_gloaming09]

I do see what you are saying, and myself I do believe in treating others the way you want to be treated. It makes it difficult because like you say it then is impossible because anything can essentially be offensive to someone.

 

 

edit: I guess just for me at least that things like those protests outside of funerals should be banned especially with such a delicate thing as the death of someone. I do however understand that essentially it's no different than holding protests outside of the white house because the people are doing the same thing. I guess I just feel that in some sense on a humane level certain things should not be done from a moral standpoint. However that's impossible since it then brings up what is moral, and also how can you distinguish between being offensive or not.

[Josh42]

It really doesn't matter how much you disagree with someone else's opinion. Sure, protesting outside of funerals is a pretty scummy thing to do, but as long as they're not on private property, they should be able to say and do whatever they want. It's just that as soon as one group of people starts getting censored, then another group could get censored, and another, and another, until eventually no one has the right to speak their minds.

 

Freedom of speech for EVERYONE, no matter how offensive, as long as no one else is physically harmed and private property is not intruded upon.

[xxKels]

STFU OR GTFO !

[Josh42]

One of my favorite quotes...

 

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

 

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

- Pastor Martin Niemoller

 

This is why I defend everyone's right to free speech. You just never know when you'll be the minority.

[chuck kottke]

Freedom of speech is for everyone, but our natural rights include the right to be respected by others and treated fairly - I think in many cases it's pretty obvious what's hurtful and baseless and what's not, and where it is appropriate or inappropriate.

Just where you draw the line is sometimes an issue, but in the case of the funeral protests, I think there's little doubt the protesters should be arrested for basically hate speech.

To me it's a matter of which right had the right-of-way. The right to respectful honest treatment, or the right to speech? A solder gets killed in combat, there's the family grieving over the loss as they bury their dead loved one, and along comes a band of protesters shouting angry hateful words at these family members - to me, the right of respect in public takes precedent over the right of speech in that situation.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

> And to the above quote attributable to Pastor Niemoller, one might note that they came for the Jews during the NAZIS reign of terror because hateful speech and lies had so effectively convinced German citizens of that time period that people of the Jewish faith in Germany were culpable for the economic failure that had so crippled the economy, for Germany loosing WWI, and the hate speech had so effectively labeled Jews and other minorities as undesirable, that is was much easier for the NAZIS to order them labeled and deported to the concentration camps. So is freedom of speech the answer, or is respecting the right to honest speech and preventing non-slanderous speech the answer? The right to descent respect seems to be more important than unlimited freedom of speech in my mind.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

STFU OR GTFO !

 

Now that's what I call freedom of speech!

[Guest howyousawtheworld]

People should be able to say what they want so long as it's not extremely offensive (for example, the Westboro Baptist Church does protests holding hateful signs saying various things outside of funerals of dead soldiers).

 

Also I think it's tough when people take their beliefs to an extreme.

 

 

I basically think it should be you can say whatever, so long as it does not directly hurt someone.

 

But at what point does harm become harmful? It's different for everyone. I might say something that is fine to 90% of people but the remaining 10 may be very offended.

[the_gloaming09]

Freedom of speech is for everyone, but our natural rights include the right to be respected by others and treated fairly - I think in many cases it's pretty obvious what's hurtful and baseless and what's not, and where it is appropriate or inappropriate.

Just where you draw the line is sometimes an issue, but in the case of the funeral protests, I think there's little doubt the protesters should be arrested for basically hate speech.

To me it's a matter of which right had the right-of-way. The right to respectful honest treatment, or the right to speech? A solder gets killed in combat, there's the family grieving over the loss as they bury their dead loved one, and along comes a band of protesters shouting angry hateful words at these family members - to me, the right of respect in public takes precedent over the right of speech in that situation.

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

> And to the above quote attributable to Pastor Niemoller, one might note that they came for the Jews during the NAZIS reign of terror because hateful speech and lies had so effectively convinced German citizens of that time period that people of the Jewish faith in Germany were culpable for the economic failure that had so crippled the economy, for Germany loosing WWI, and the hate speech had so effectively labeled Jews and other minorities as undesirable, that is was much easier for the NAZIS to order them labeled and deported to the concentration camps. So is freedom of speech the answer, or is respecting the right to honest speech and preventing non-slanderous speech the answer? The right to descent respect seems to be more important than unlimited freedom of speech in my mind.

 

I guess that's the point I'm trying to get at. Yes of course they can say what they want but I think it's extremely distasteful to be protesting such garbage in front of grieving families.

 

Interesting point you do bring up with that. Never thought about how in some sense freedom of speech could be bad as it was for that time. But I guess for me I'd have to agree with you in having as you put it "the right to decent respect"

 

But at what point does harm become harmful? It's different for everyone. I might say something that is fine to 90% of people but the remaining 10 may be very offended.

 

Of course. I mean essentially anything can be considered offensive to someone. For me what I was just trying to bring up was that I am all for free speech, but it is things like those protests that anger me, and thats where I think families should have more of a right to get rid of the protesters. I mean if they want to protest, go to washington or city hall. Don't do it at a funeral.

[Cobalt]

I think too that freedom of speech should be for everyone - they can say what they like as long as it doesn't become violent.

[bart]

The consquences of letting people say what they want to say, sometimes cause negative affects on others. this is why I belive some people should be limited.

 

For example, the idoit whom wanted to burn the Koran, he should be silenced for ever. Was so pleased the uK never let him in the country to spread his shite. !

[mc_squared]

The consquences of letting people say what they want to say, sometimes cause negative affects on others. this is why I belive some people should be limited.

 

For example, the idoit whom wanted to burn the Koran, he should be silenced for ever. Was so pleased the uK never let him in the country to spread his shite. !

 

Extremists like that should never be given publicity, no matter what they say.:dozey:

[Matter-Eater Lad]

One of my favorite quotes...

 

 

 

- Pastor Martin Niemoller

 

This is why I defend everyone's right to free speech. You just never know when you'll be the minority.

 

This. What I wanted to say but couldn't.

[Prince Myshkin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/google-eric-schmidt-piracy