Can you have too much liberty?

[Xan Krieger]

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.

I gave up on expecting decency from humans a long time ago.

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?

I'm not even going to touch the issue anymore because I know the only thing that'll result is me getting flamed.

 

[Knight Templar]

I'm not even going to touch the issue anymore because I know the only thing that'll result is me getting flamed.

That would be ironic, us going off at you for saying some things should not be said. So please, what things would you stop a person from saying (or would rather they did not, whichever you ment).

 

[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.

I gave up on expecting decency from humans a long time ago.

I'm not saying we should outlaw free speech and free thinking. What I'm saying is that most people believe in trying to be decent in public places, so if they get angry at you for shouting racial obscenities and force you to leave, you've hit that wall and there's no way around that. Violence won't change their minds.

People who turn to violence because they can't express themselves just haven't learned how to express themselves so people will listen. Most of the time, the impact of violence only gets your message through for 10 seconds, and then everyone's talking about how they shouldn't take your message to heart because you used violence instead of an acceptable, alternative message.

Your lack (my bad, I dropped that) of faith in human decency doesn't change the fact that people believe in it, or will continue to believe in it after they ignore you.

 

[SimuLord]

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 who decides what is "hate speech"? You name the minority group and I'll show you a bunch of people who have hidden behind the skirts of victimhood to stifle legitimate debate and prevent unpopular but necessary views from being aired.

Consider Chris Rock's "Black People vs. Niggers" comedy routine. Nine minutes of pointing out that certain segments of Black America live down to stereotypes and that the N-word is as good a word as any for describing those particular people. Consider the Anti-Defamation League's getting its panties in a bunch every time someone suggests the Palestinians might have a point about the way the Israeli government has treated them and that maybe, just maybe, having their mandate over their land taken away by an arbitrary mandate of the UN isn't exactly what you'd call "justice". Yet point that out and you get accused of being an anti-Semite or a Nazi.

Hate speech restrictions serve no useful purpose other than causing people with a grievance to have to sublimate their feelings, and when their opinions have no valid outlet for debate, no wonder they turn to violence. If I were a Palestinian in the occupied territories I'd probably become a terrorist too. If a white male is repeatedly passed over for a promotion because of his company's "diversity policy" and he decides to put on a bedsheet at night and burn crosses, don't you think at some point he's got a legitimate beef?

We need less political correctness, not more. It's restrictions on free speech that cause far greater social ills.

 

[McClaud]

Hate speech restrictions serve no useful purpose other than causing people with a grievance to have to sublimate their feelings, and when their opinions have no valid outlet for debate, no wonder they turn to violence. If I were a Palestinian in the occupied territories I'd probably become a terrorist too.

...


We need less political correctness, not more. It's restrictions on free speech that cause far greater social ills.

That's a bad example. Palestinians aren't bombing Israelis because their free speech is hampered. They are committing terrorist acts in the hopes of DESTROYING the Jews. Or at least cowing them into submission. Because there's a level of religious hate that justifies genocide. These people believe they go to Heaven by killing infidels on a daily basis. Freedom of speech and ideas is the LAST thing the Palestinians are thinking about, because they want to force their view on others in a militaristic and political way.

On that note: I don't have a problem with less PC actions. I would say that we should have some decency to mind ourselves in public so we don't actually start fist-fights in the streets. There's only so much tolerance people have for free speech, and that often forms the boundaries of it (lately, yes, we're a little too pussified and put too much boundary on speech at times). Society forms the norms, not the other way around. It's part of human nature.

 

[Simriel]

This is a gaming website so i assume what i say will be understood.
Rapture.
That is all.

 

[Bat Vader]

I am a liberal but I believe that yes there can be too much liberty. I love having freedoms but when they start to cross over into anarchy and lawlessness it can be bad. We need law just not a lot of law.

 

[ssjSephiroth]

The limits to liberty are called laws, and they are put in place simply because man cannot handle too much liberty. If people were given complete and total freedom to do what they wanted without consequence, don't you think there would be a greater number of murders, thefts, rapes, etc? Liberty is not good if taken in excess, and I hear of people every day who would push the boundaries of freedom well past their logical extent. Having laws means sacrificing certain freedoms, but those are freedoms I can do without.

-------

-You inferior beings don't deserve to see my sig.
(Tales of Symphonia reference, dont kill me!)

 

[Dele]

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?

Is free speech something to be afraid of? Clearly some people have views like that and putting your head in to bushes and pretending that they dont exist is a desperate attempt to maintain status quo by people who cant handle change.

 

[ckam]

There is no such thing as too much freedom, otherwise it won't be freedom at all. You could see this as being very similar too, if not actually, anarchism.

 

[linchowlewy]

Yes. Remember;

'Freedom is slavery'

 

[Rolling Thunder]

That's a bad example. Palestinians aren't bombing Israelis because their free speech is hampered. They are committing terrorist acts in the hopes of DESTROYING the Jews. Or at least cowing them into submission. Because there's a level of religious hate that justifies genocide. These people believe they go to Heaven by killing infidels on a daily basis. Freedom of speech and ideas is the LAST thing the Palestinians are thinking about, because they want to force their view on others in a militaristic and political way.

Actually, most of them are killing Israelis because they are royally pissed off with the Israelis. It's less a holy war, more a long-running vendetta. Israel takes land, kills Palestinians, Palestinians kill Israelis, Israelis kill Palestinians, et al, et al.

Don't bullshit and pretend one side is somehow 'better', save in terms of their ability to kill.

1. Direct advocacy of criminal acts, ergo: "Kill all X people", is a crime in itself. Arguing the morality of commiting such an act- even arguing that such an act would be justified- is not illegal, merely repugnant.