Can you have too much liberty?

[maximilian]

Well peeps, liberty has been a huge feature of enlightenment and modernism, and exists as a benchmark in nearly all theaters of academic discussion. However, do you think we can ever have too much liberty? Do you think there is a time that constriction needs to apply. I'm trying to focus on law/freedom of speech/freedom of thought. I'm not an advocate for or against, I'm simply fascinated as to what a hive mind would explore in this subject.

 

[Cortheya]

I think that certain things are not liberties, they are arrogant demands. Therefore some things are liberties, EG the newspaper wanting to criticize the president. Some things are not, however such as the porno company wanting to place their pictures on huge billboards (I have no knowledge of such an occurrence i'm just using an example off the top of my head.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Of course you can have too many freedoms, that's anarchy. However, that doesn't mean we can't have a lot. For example:

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

 

[maximilian]

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

What if the freedom of speech is condoning something like pedophilia? Essentially, is morality a viable reason to halt something like that? And if so, what are the defining criteria?

 

[Theon Tonarim]

Yes, because humanity is flawed. People need laws limiting what they can do, or they'll abuse their freedoms.

 

[OneWingedSin]

Well, I guess since this would all be personal preference, I'll just spit mine out as:
I believe you should have as many liberties as you have wisdom and self-discipline in order to not abuse them. It seems to me nowadays that more people scream 'freedom' when they choose to deny responsibility instead of actually using their liberties to advance anything.

Edit: (and to reply to above) You can have the freedom to /say/ what you want about pedophilia, but saying it and doing it are two different animals.

 

[maximilian]

No, morality is not an acceptable reason to put a limit on thoughts or speech. If they wish to condone it, then they may do so. Just because you (or I) don't agree with something doesn't mean it's okay to censor it, correct?

I suppose that works in a theoretical sense, but surely something should be judged on it's potential to progress humanity. Are we not entitled to ban a form of speech or behaviour if it is found repulsive by a society? (namely, pedophilia, rape, Nazism)

 

[Good morning blues]

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

What if the freedom of speech is condoning something like pedophilia? Essentially, is morality a viable reason to halt something like that? And if so, what are the defining criteria?

No, morality is not an acceptable reason to put a limit on thoughts or speech. If they wish to condone it, then they may do so. Just because you (or I) don't agree with something doesn't mean it's okay to censor it, correct?

I believe hate speech should be outlawed. Nobody should be allowed to stand in public and exhort people to violence against an identifiable group. It's not beneficial to democracy; all it does is destabilize the state and prompt violence and chaos.

 

[jimduckie]

i live in canada despite it beinb a free country i am a true minority i am white , straight and male , i'm from the old school of thinking but i can't say f all without someone whine that i can't say that , that causes me to keep my mouth shut , even though the others can ***** about lots of things that really mean nothing , even in the us you have to watch your mouth cause youmight offend someone so yeah you have way too much liberty at times while other people in other countries have none ,if they speak up it's jail and or death

 

[oktalist]

As it harms none, do as you will.

 

[Knight Templar]

Stoping somebody from saying what they think? Even if I dissagree? No.

What gives me the right to stop a person from expressing their thoughts? If I silence others what stops them from making me shut up, are my views somehow better?
If they are just saying things to cause trouble thats diffrent because your actions should never cause direct or intended harm.

I don't care what you belive, as long as it doesn't affect me.

 

[McClaud]

EDIT:

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

What if the freedom of speech is condoning something like pedophilia? Essentially, is morality a viable reason to halt something like that? And if so, what are the defining criteria?

No, morality is not an acceptable reason to put a limit on thoughts or speech. If they wish to condone it, then they may do so. Just because you (or I) don't agree with something doesn't mean it's okay to censor it, correct?

I believe hate speech should be outlawed. Nobody should be allowed to stand in public and exhort people to violence against an identifiable group. It's not beneficial to democracy; all it does is destabilize the state and prompt violence and chaos.

But words can serve as an outlet for frustration. What's worse?
Someone saying, "Fuck all them white bitches," or someone going on an ethnic cleansing spree?

Well, the alternative should not be to go on an ethnic cleansing spree. There's this thing called "human decency" that people should actually try to understand. Shouting racial obscenities in a public place is not exactly doing anything productive anyway.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

I'm all for freedom of thought but there are some things better left in people's heads (if I gave examples I'm sure I'd be flamed).

 

[Knight Templar]

Freedom of speech/thought: No, you can't have enough. Limits on either impede progress. Nothing should stop someone from thinking or expressing their ideas.

I'm all for freedom of thought but there are some things better left in people's heads (if I gave examples I'm sure I'd be flamed).

Probably, but who gets to decide what stays in that persons' head?

Whoever has the bigger stick.

 

[Aardvark]

The right to freedom of speech has an unwritten responsibility, that of knowing when to shut up. Anyone who fails to realise this should be allowed to speak long and loud about whatever ignorant tripe they believe, but should not be the least bit surprised when they get caught out later on by someone who was silently listening to them weave themselves enough rope.