I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe in the freedom and ability to ignore stupid things that result from it.
Do you believe in freedom of speech?
- Thread starter FROGGEman2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What kind of crazy sword are you using? Darth Maul's double lightsaber? I believe the metaphor you seek is "double edged sword".Spygon said:
I believe in freedom of speech for the most part.
However, I think that if a crime is caused by what is said (for instance, the words incite someone to commit an act of violence), the speaker should be an accessory or accomplice to the crime. I also think that if words spoken are sufficiently threatening to give a listener good reason to believe he is directly and immediately in danger, that listener should be entitled to initiate violence under rules of self-defence.
However, I think that if a crime is caused by what is said (for instance, the words incite someone to commit an act of violence), the speaker should be an accessory or accomplice to the crime. I also think that if words spoken are sufficiently threatening to give a listener good reason to believe he is directly and immediately in danger, that listener should be entitled to initiate violence under rules of self-defence.
Freedom of speech can only be free in so far as other people's rights aren't infringed upon too much.
Same thing with any other rights, by the way. I have the freedom to do anything I want but, for example, I can't kill anybody because (while this rule infringes upon my freedom to do anything I want) the infringement upon the freedoms of the person I killed would be far worse.
So, we have to weigh rights against rights from case to case.
Also, to cite South Park:
"I believe in - freedom of speech. I believe in - racism."
Same thing with any other rights, by the way. I have the freedom to do anything I want but, for example, I can't kill anybody because (while this rule infringes upon my freedom to do anything I want) the infringement upon the freedoms of the person I killed would be far worse.
So, we have to weigh rights against rights from case to case.
Also, to cite South Park:
"I believe in - freedom of speech. I believe in - racism."
I'm more than happy for people to demonstrate freedom of speech, but only if they can exercise freedom of thought first.
Everyone should say as they please, whether it's Nazi-Sympathy, racism or good old fashioned religious zealotry
But if they slip up they'll be shot down by the words of others, that's how a perfect society should work, opinions clashing non-violently
But if they slip up they'll be shot down by the words of others, that's how a perfect society should work, opinions clashing non-violently
Well freedom of speech causes lots of problems but when problems are caused those same issues tend to discredit those who say bad things (Like when the a 'church' (emphasis on the sarcasm) group is against gay marriage (go gay marriage!!!) all it does is make them look stupid and bigoted which doesn't help their image anyway).
Also, if there wasn't freedom of speech it would cause problems because people like to express themselves and getting in trouble for speaking your mind would cause anarchy ... I am against free speech (nah I'm kidding though if I had an anarchy switch (kinda like a cheat code which makes people archaic) I would totally use it like, all the time).
Also, if there wasn't freedom of speech it would cause problems because people like to express themselves and getting in trouble for speaking your mind would cause anarchy ... I am against free speech (nah I'm kidding though if I had an anarchy switch (kinda like a cheat code which makes people archaic) I would totally use it like, all the time).
I'm opposed to censorship, but I do feel there needs to be something to make people more accountable for what they say. Prehaps bringing back hazeled ground would be a possible solution....
As I read this thread I notice that many of you are a bit confused about the Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is not the same as Freedom to do whatever the fuck you please.
So that means you are allowed to say and do and think whatever you want, but that doesnt make it legal to ACT like it. And you WILL have to take other peoples thoughts/feelings into concideration.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech" (wikipedia)
So basicly it means I have the right to say to my friends that I absolutely hated Yatzee's guts for his review of Arkham Asylum and hes an arrogant and ignorant prick for saying the stuff he said (yes i know he hasnt reviewd that one yet, that why I used it as an example). But that doesnt mean I'm allowed to say stuff like that to his face(also, that would just be stupid cause I'd probly get my lights knocked out).
Freedom of speech is basicly that its not forbidden by law to say what you want, or to say certain words.
So yes, I'm FOR Freedom of speech, Because the thought of putting people in jail for saying "What the Nelly?" (lol) is a bit extreme
So that means you are allowed to say and do and think whatever you want, but that doesnt make it legal to ACT like it. And you WILL have to take other peoples thoughts/feelings into concideration.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech" (wikipedia)
So basicly it means I have the right to say to my friends that I absolutely hated Yatzee's guts for his review of Arkham Asylum and hes an arrogant and ignorant prick for saying the stuff he said (yes i know he hasnt reviewd that one yet, that why I used it as an example). But that doesnt mean I'm allowed to say stuff like that to his face(also, that would just be stupid cause I'd probly get my lights knocked out).
Freedom of speech is basicly that its not forbidden by law to say what you want, or to say certain words.
So yes, I'm FOR Freedom of speech, Because the thought of putting people in jail for saying "What the Nelly?" (lol) is a bit extreme
Mm, he would've deserved it. And I'm an American.Sparrow said:
Now, two people have already said it, but I haven't seen anyone respond to it, and certainly not the OP, so I'm going to say it a bit louder.
<font color=red>It is not illegal to be a KKK member or a Nazi.
Hell, there's even a Neo Nazi Party. These groups are fairly small, with low membership counts, and are generally looked down upon, but they do exist. Why do they exist? Because we have freedom of speech.
The only time freedom of speech is restricted is when it is harmful to other people. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire because it's not only possible, but extremely probable that someone will get hurt. People have gotten trampled to death in panics in enclosed spaces like that. Ergo, it is illegal to to yell fire when there isn't one because you endanger others.
However, the KKK and Nazi's don't directly endanger other people, they just have incredibly intolerant opinions. No, they're not allowed to carry out hate crimes obviously, but they are allowed to have and voice their opinions.
More directly on topic, I don't just believe that we have freedom of speech, I believe in the concept of freedom of speech. Yes, there are some hateful bastards. Fundamentalist religious folk, nazis, rascists, but the weak damage they do is far, far outweighed by the good that has come from people speaking out about injustices, uncensored. The civil rights movement, women's sufferage, all sorts of extremely positive things have come out of freedom of speech, and I believe it is a part of the bedrock of freedom our country was founded on. I agree that there may be a lot of idiots, and a ton of people who try to abuse their freedoms and take away the freedoms of others. But they should not be allowed, and they won't be, because I believe in the principles that this country was founded.
I may not like the people in it sometimes, but I certainly love this country.
OK, fine, you can use colours.Hexenwolf said:
But, I was told by a trusted source that it is illegal.
Can you give me a source?
There aren't? What rock are you living under?FROGGEman2 said:
Anyway, I think John Stuart Mill made the most compelling argument for freedom of speech. No opinion should be outlawed because 1)it's always possible that we with the received wisdom are not correct, 2)even in a false opinion there may be a portion of the truth, 3)to outlaw false opinions hobbles us in our justification of the opinions we hold by preventing challenges to them, and 4) unchallenged opinions tend to turn into dead beliefs; without being renewed in their vigor by contest, they wither and become believed as more of a formality than anything else. Essentially, the virtue of human reason is that errors are corrigible: new cultural understandings are a social process that for the best result must not be rigid and inflexible. In two cases we have censorship of opinions: we're afraid we might be wrong or we're certain that we know everything there is to know about the issue already. In both cases censorship is unjust and ridiculous. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
http://www.kkk.com/FROGGEman2 said:
That's the KKK's official website in the the US.
http://www.adl.org/LEARN/Ext_US/n_alliance.asp
Here's a page detailing the existence of a Neo Nazi group, from a Jewish website.
I didn't bother to look up official court rulings, this was just from a quick google search, but I will look for them if you want me to. The KKK site in particular is obvious, there's a calender of planned events like marches to support white supremacy. These groups exist openly and legally in the United States.
I don't support them, and when I learned of their existence I was just as shocked as you probably are now, as I had also assumed them to be outlawed. But I recognize now that freedom of speech protects them, and it should so long as they remain non-violent.
By the way, I edited my previous post, it's much longer now.
The KKK is a curious case. They have officially been a terrorist organization (as regarded by the Federal government of the United States) for quite a long time, but they also still exist. Actually, maybe not. Wikipedia disagrees with me sort of: it says they were declared by a Federal grand jury in 1870 to be a terrorist organization, and had many actions taken against them then because of that. Since, they have reformed a few times and so may not be on any sort of government list of 'terrorist organizations' as such.Hexenwolf said:
Didn't they have that whole revival in the 1920's when they were all friendly with the government?Seanchaidh said: