Do you believe in freedom of speech?

[JaredXE]

Absolutely 100%.

I NEED to have freedom of speech and expression, otherwise I would have been burned at the stake long ago for my heretical views. And yeah, freedom of speech allows nazis and the kkk to speak their filth....so? You also have the freedom not to listen. Because with freedom of speech also is the implicit self-responsibility that comes with it.

Say what you want, but understand the consequences of what you say. Let others say what they want, but be responsible enough to walk away if you disagree.

I don't care what Dubya said, there should be NO LIMITS to our freedoms.

 

[JaredXE]

Of course, "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can say anything. Mocking someone's characteristis they were born with, skin colour, for example, is not justified under any laws. Personal insults are not good either, it's just immature and rubbish.


Being a member of a group like the the KKK is not a matter of freedom of speech, it's about the citizen's rights to unite and gather. And in the case of this particular group, it has proven to be a group that drives its cause with violence, which is not acceptable, and it appears to be illegal. Also their racist ideas are not included within the freedom of speech. All this interperting the US bill of rights, not every single constitution in the world. Although the same principles apply in most of Europe as well.

Yes, actually that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. They have the right to say the most vile and hateful things....but they can't ACT on them. It's not freedom of action, just speech.

Racists have every right to say what they want. Why should we stop them? Remember, personal responsibility needs to be worked in there somewhere, and if they happen to forego their responsibility to not be assholes, that doesn't mean we forego ours to ignore them and walk away.

 

[powell86]

nah i dun believe in freedom of speech. i dun even believe in freaking democracy. democracy means putting a chav on equal footing as you. and by normal distribution, there is deft going to be more stupid people than smart people and therefore u'll have stupid people ruling over others.

case in point, politicians are always trying to placate the masses instead of generally trying to improve society living standards as a whole. And they always try to target the poorer and stupid people to garner the votes. I'm sorry i just dun believe a system that actually place a chav on equal footing with another more socially responsible person. FFS even a criminal is allowed to vote so wtf is wrong with us.

back on thread, freedom of speech is mostly abused. Why? thats becuz the crazies always use that freedom of speech flag to flog everybody who think they should shut up and tone down. Yes u may say they haf a right to say stupid things and downright outrages things but i tell you it is jus freaking irritating and creating nusiances and making our lives more miserable.
The whole ideal situation that eventually these irrational voices will be put down by public pressure is unrealistic as most people would rather get on with their lives than spending any time tackling with these crazies. Even if we spend time and effort to debunk their myths (think 911 conspiracies), we still lose due to opportunity costs and all we have is a pyrrhic victory.

just rem, in a fight the craziest usually wins, and certainly it's this group that has been making use of freespeech more than anybody

 

[Spitfire175]

Yes, actually that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. They have the right to say the most vile and hateful things....but they can't ACT on them. It's not freedom of action, just speech.

Racists have every right to say what they want. Why should we stop them? Remember, personal responsibility needs to be worked in there somewhere, and if they happen to forego their responsibility to not be assholes, that doesn't mean we forego ours to ignore them and walk away.

You cannot allow absolutely 100% of everything. If someone is directly telling people to go and shoot other people because they might have blue eyes, are you gonig to just stand by? I think not. If we are to consider ourselves human beings, we're going to need rules: inciting violence is just as bad as committing violent acts. That is what the law says and I believe it's right. In order to fix a problem, you don't remove the immediate agent responsible, but you go for the thing that started it in the first place.

I'm not saying we need thought police, strict control and regulations, no. There just are some things, like agitating people to violence on purpose, that are not good for anyone's freedoms. Absolute 100% freedom of speech means someone could lead to serious violent conflicts.

On a theoretical base, I agree with you: freedom of speech should not be restricted. It's necessary for the people to have the possibility of pointing out problems. But context is everything and the real world isn't the utopia we'd like to live in. There is a state power keeping us from killing each other. A pack needs a leader, and as Thomas Hobbes stated: We give up some of our natural freedom in exchange for protection from other cruel animals called humans.

One can make statements that could be interperted as racist, like the precentage of african-americans of prisoners in the US, but they have to be able to validate the arguments with facts. Otherwise it's just gibberish. I too, would like to think humans could be left to it with our opinions and understanding the responsibility of our speech, but it would be naïve to think that's that and everything will turn out fine in the end. It won't- we've seen that many times over.

I'm not suggesting saying there should be a list that has all the thigs people must not say on it, or they'll be put to prison. No. Instead we have to look for clues if some illegal activity is caused by someone agitating somebofy else to have done it. And then hold all them equally responsible for the possible damage done.

 

[axia777]

I personally don't.

Yeah.

Look at it this way, it is illegal to be a KKK member. It is illegal to be a Nazi sympathizer.

But it is legal to be an extremely sexist church member, preaching the ways of your Lord to disguise your phobia of homosexuals.

Your hate.

And with inequalities like this in the system...

Why should we have freedom of speech?

It is better this way.

It is good that there are no Nazi sympathizers, or KKKs.

It is better like this.

What do you think?

What do I think? Be glad you don't live in America were even the worst cum dogs of the universe are protected under the First Amendment.

Personally I do unequivocally believe in Freedom of Speech. Even for hate mongers and assholes like the KKK and Nazis. It is either for everyone or it is in danger of being taken away from everybody.

 

[MagicShroom]

I believe in Freedom of speech (but it is tremendously overrated though)

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

Yes, actually that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. They have the right to say the most vile and hateful things....but they can't ACT on them. It's not freedom of action, just speech.

Racists have every right to say what they want. Why should we stop them? Remember, personal responsibility needs to be worked in there somewhere, and if they happen to forego their responsibility to not be assholes, that doesn't mean we forego ours to ignore them and walk away.

Absolute 100% freedom of speech means someone could lead to serious violent conflicts.

Emphasis on could. Nearly anything could incite violence in others, difference in appearance, religion, or even just personality, because that's the way some people are. We cannot remove people's rights because we fear that their freedom may lead to violence and conflicts, because the fact is that conflict and fighting is pure human nature, and it happens regardless of whether or not people are allowed to say certain things. I think Benjamin Franklin put it best though

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

It may sound like an ultimatum, but what he said was true. If you're willing to remove one freedom for safety, why not remove the others because there's a chance they might cause fights and danger? As already stated, violence and conflict are natural things, and will happen regardless of one's freedoms.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Nobody ever said freedom of speech was good, but it's a right a lot of people enjoy exercising regularly.

 

[Shady Dealer]

To answer the thread i belive in freedom of speech its a freedom thats necessasry and while people abuse this freedoms(and otehrs) its still better than censorship

 

[Deadpoolsbrain]

As long as you aren't inciting violence free speech across the board.

 

[Kriptonite]

I think freedom of speech is fine just the way it is. Without the KKK and Nazi sympathizers, we wouldn't realize when a person is truly sane or not. Filtering through mountains of garbage to find a shining nugget of gold makes it so much more worth it in the discovery. Like beauty would not be recognized without ugliness.

 

[Spitfire175]

Yes, actually that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. They have the right to say the most vile and hateful things....but they can't ACT on them. It's not freedom of action, just speech.

Racists have every right to say what they want. Why should we stop them? Remember, personal responsibility needs to be worked in there somewhere, and if they happen to forego their responsibility to not be assholes, that doesn't mean we forego ours to ignore them and walk away.

Absolute 100% freedom of speech means someone could lead to serious violent conflicts.

Emphasis on could. Nearly anything could incite violence in others, difference in appearance, religion, or even just personality, because that's the way some people are. We cannot remove people's rights because we fear that their freedom may lead to violence and conflicts, because the fact is that conflict and fighting is pure human nature, and it happens regardless of whether or not people are allowed to say certain things. I think Benjamin Franklin put it best though

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

It may sound like an ultimatum, but what he said was true. If you're willing to remove one freedom for safety, why not remove the others because there's a chance they might cause fights and danger? As already stated, violence and conflict are natural things, and will happen regardless of one's freedoms.

Now did you read my entire post before deciding to bash me? I tried to clarify that we shouldn't pre-emptively reduce freedom of speech, but to hold hateful agitators responsible for their words. I may have been lazy writing.

 

[dark-amon]

I belive in freedom of speech, but then there's abuse of freedom of speech. When someone expresses intolerence or is disrespecting other human rights, his freedom of speech should not be respected as he has showed that he is not capable of having the responsebileties such a privelige comes with.

 

[llew]

i see your point but the KKK and the Nazis were just plain evil the normal protocal doesnt really apply when they get involved

 

[Woodsey]

No not really.

It doesn't exist any way , and it shouldn't really.

We don't have to be communists, but the way things are now is fine. Say what you want for the most part, but racism, denial of the holocaust, things revolving around stuff like that isn't allowed, which is good.

 

[llew]

i think human rights are cocked up big time. if a murderer massacres 28 people in a church in the most anti-human rights way possible he goes to jail for a few years then gets released early for good behaviour but what about the murdered people's human rights? the murderer should be hung drawn and quatered not put on a step on a stairs like a little kid

 

[llew]

HAHA that has so much truth in it its undeniable!

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

Yes, actually that is exactly what freedom of speech entails. They have the right to say the most vile and hateful things....but they can't ACT on them. It's not freedom of action, just speech.

Racists have every right to say what they want. Why should we stop them? Remember, personal responsibility needs to be worked in there somewhere, and if they happen to forego their responsibility to not be assholes, that doesn't mean we forego ours to ignore them and walk away.

Absolute 100% freedom of speech means someone could lead to serious violent conflicts.

Emphasis on could. Nearly anything could incite violence in others, difference in appearance, religion, or even just personality, because that's the way some people are. We cannot remove people's rights because we fear that their freedom may lead to violence and conflicts, because the fact is that conflict and fighting is pure human nature, and it happens regardless of whether or not people are allowed to say certain things. I think Benjamin Franklin put it best though

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin

It may sound like an ultimatum, but what he said was true. If you're willing to remove one freedom for safety, why not remove the others because there's a chance they might cause fights and danger? As already stated, violence and conflict are natural things, and will happen regardless of one's freedoms.

Now did you read my entire post before deciding to bash me? I tried to clarify that we shouldn't pre-emptively reduce freedom of speech, but to hold hateful agitators responsible for their words. I may have been lazy writing.

Actually yes I did read the whole thing, though reading it over again it seems I may have interpreted it differently than you had intended. In which case:

[image width=300]http://thesporadical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/deadpool.gif[/IMG]
My bad​

 

[theodric]

"But, I was told by a trusted source that it is illegal.

Can you give me a source?"

I, too, have an unspecified 'trusted source' that says it is not illegal. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

[Spitfire175]

Actually yes I did read the whole thing, though reading it over again it seems I may have interpreted it differently than you had intended. In which case:

[image width=300]http://thesporadical.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/deadpool.gif[/IMG]
My bad​

And in which case, all is well. It's good people like you voice their opinions.