Is Freedom Of Speech All It's Cracked Up To Be?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've been haerd often to say that if I could I would take some peoples right to speak away and make them have to write out everything they're about to say then have it approved in a majority vote by no less than 3 people of different genders, backgrounds, ethnicity, and races for soething they said once that was so profoundly stupid/intolerant/just generally isnt contributing to taking up the memory in a persons brain.
Besides, just cause you can say something doesnt mean someone has to listen, and its down right disgraceful when you protect someones right to perform a hate speech (or just in general allow groups like them to exist "as long as they're not physically hurting someone"). So speech with limitations would be nice, because just like everything it needs moderation.
Besides, just cause you can say something doesnt mean someone has to listen, and its down right disgraceful when you protect someones right to perform a hate speech (or just in general allow groups like them to exist "as long as they're not physically hurting someone"). So speech with limitations would be nice, because just like everything it needs moderation.
There is nothing that I believe should be illegal to say to someone else as far as words go, short of direct threats/blackmailing.
OP, students that off themselves are doing it because they have been harassed for months and months. The words meant nothing: the bullies could have said essentially nothing and would have gotten the same results.
Bullying and REAL harassment should absolutely be illegal, but there is a massive difference between those and something retarded-but-legal like shouting "******" to someone on the street.
It's also incredibly retarded that it's illegal to, for example, make the Heil Hitler sign in public in some countries, and illegal to suggest that the Holocaust didn't happen.
I say: LET THEM do it so I know clearly who I should not be conversing with.
OP, students that off themselves are doing it because they have been harassed for months and months. The words meant nothing: the bullies could have said essentially nothing and would have gotten the same results.
Bullying and REAL harassment should absolutely be illegal, but there is a massive difference between those and something retarded-but-legal like shouting "******" to someone on the street.
It's also incredibly retarded that it's illegal to, for example, make the Heil Hitler sign in public in some countries, and illegal to suggest that the Holocaust didn't happen.
I say: LET THEM do it so I know clearly who I should not be conversing with.
Short answer - No.interspark said:
Long answer - Excluding situations like "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre" or specifically inciting to violence/crime, I find it ethically problematic to silence others just because of the content of their speech.
In effect, you are saying that this speech is so bad, listeners cannot be trusted to think that what is being said is wrong. You are effectively treating adults -who are intelligent beings that can make their own decisions as to what they involve themselves with- like children.
The truth is Freedom of speech is much like any other freedom, it will be abused. Do I think we need to regulate and censer speech? Hell NO! What most people see as bullying is actually harassment and therefor illegal, however given the fact that a fair portion of the examples I am seeing (other than extremist groups picketing) are mentions of children in grade schools. The reason these go unpunished is how do you arrest a child for picking on another child. An activity that has been breed into us by countless generations of social conditioning. I am not saying what they do is right, nor am I saying they should be excused for their indiscretions. I just think we need to find a way to stop the cause and not just throw blanket solutions at the problem like changing our personal rights.
As someone said before me: "You have the right to feel safe"
As someone said before me: "You have the right to feel safe"
Not even that, it's a bastard child of selfishness and ignorance with a sidedish of "I like to hurt things".bahumat42 said:
It's the concept that you can only win if everybody else doesn't, totally ignoring the fact that with others winning to build your base you can win even more, resulting in the fucked up economic situation the US and many other countries are facing today, where everyone still tries to kill everybody else on the market.
thank goodness failure is the only option ^^
Freedom of speech is what lets us say that the Iraq war was a flimsy pretext to extort more oil from a war-torn country by smacking them in the face with our giant military wangs without fear of the government sending the men in black suits or a hitman to your door. It protects the people from the government. It does not protect people from other people. People claiming "freedom of speech" when they picket a funeral for a gay soldier or whatever completely misunderstand what freedom of speech really is. They're not rebelling against an oppressive government, or disagreeing with any particular policy, they're just being a bunch of hate-filled assholes. Freedom of speech does not protect that.
OT: No words should be banned or illegal, but say them at your own risk, and don't get all pissy when you get punched in the face for being a dick.
OT: No words should be banned or illegal, but say them at your own risk, and don't get all pissy when you get punched in the face for being a dick.
In the US, Yes and No:rje5 said:
No, it may be a lie, but lies aren't illegal. It might be irritating, and words can be painful to hear, but people have a right to say what they will. You can say what you want right back, or let others be the judge of what they believe. On a wide-scale level, though - this falls under Libel and Slander - and neither is acceptable Speech as ruled by US Courts.
Likewise, screaming "fire", that is illegal, and specifically has been exempted (such acts are referred to as "Incitement"). Both examples fall under the 'Responsibility' part of "Freedom comes with responsibility."
They aren't "extreme" cases at all - they are actually the two specific exceptions to the First Amendment Americans (used to) learn in Civics.
As far as the last example goes, you blame the guy that pulled the trigger, unless there is cause for charges of Conspiracy to commit murder, etc. - but those entail actions. Otherwise, anyone in the media could be charged as accomplices for anything, and killers could say "___ made me do it with his vile rhetoric."
Freedom of Speech should be cherished; if I gave the impression it should be absolute, then I apologize - that's not the case. As far as you, me, and Joe Escapist-Poster goes though, Freedom of Speech should be treasured. Hurting someone's feelings isn't "harming them", no matter what they do to themselves - that's their actions, and it's on them...
And a good chunk of people use the term wrong. There are bullying laws in a lot of places and we're pushing for more. These have been upheld as Constitutional thus far, and while it's not universal, neither is free speech.interspark said:
Free Speech is a term used as a cart blanch "get out of jail free card" and it's not. Freedom of speech is actually pretty awesome. It protects unpopular speech. It was never intended to protect against slander, threats, etc. Bullying seems to nestle in there.
Yes, I remember a lot of trite little rhymes that mean nothing in the real world.ZorroFonzarelli said:
wut, it means a lot in the real world. It means derogatory names can just fly by your ears if you want them too, but a rock can't. Seriously, if anything it saves energy to just ignore the people being cruel to you than to prosecute them. For people who can't ignore it, well I guess that's why there's parental figures or therapy. The sticks and stones thing is something we all learn at some point in life and no amount of government regulations is going to change that. You can't change human nature and some humans are just cruel, you gotta be strong and teach others to be strong.Zachary Amaranth said:
Putting children in a PC bubble to totally protect them from cruelity (if that's even possible) just makes them weak, and no not in the physical sense; weak in willpower, muscles aren't important, but willpower is.
I can't speak for how it is outside the US, but honestly, this is true. One can't take legal action against another for calling you a jerk, no matter how fragile an ego might be.Zachary Amaranth said:
In the US, a group called the Westboro Church protested outside the funerals of fallen servicemen and women who died in action. They somehow linked the soldiers' deaths with God's supposed vengeance against America for being tolerant of homosexuality. They tried to get as close as possible to the families to cause them as much anguish as possible.
Now, regardless of what anyone thinks of the wars, etc., can you think of anything more mentally painful to hear than a bunch of whackos chanting (my apologies) "God Hates F@gs!", and "He's burning in Hell!", etc. when you're trying to bury your son or daughter?
Last year the US Supreme Court ruled that the Westboro Church had a Constitutional right to do this, and the argument was simple - cracking down on them would set a precedent that could be used to stifle protest speech. Reading the Judges' opinions it was clear they were sickened by it, but the truth of the matter was that the Westboro people secured the proper permits, obeyed laws, etc. They couldn't simply make up laws to stifle their speech because it was hateful. In my view, the law failed the families. It's imperfect, but better than the alternative.
This is a big, scary world, where everyone has the right to tell you what they think of you and you have that freedom as well. Pretending otherwise is pointless.
The easiest way to minimize hateful comments directed at you is minimize your use of them, and remember that they really don't matter in the slightest in the grand scheme of life.
and just to comment on the British situation; I understand your trying to stop another Hitler from comming along and I'm not going to rag on you too much about that since nothing bad has really happened in regards to your laws about freedom of speech, but can't you guys at least be consistant? You let muslims get away with murder (as the saying goes) but, at least from what I've read here, you guys are too "afraid" to criticize them? Don't you think your fear comes from your overly politically correct society?
And I'm not saying that their (the muslim population) recent influx in the past couple decades is a bad thing, but it should be noted. What if a muslim prime minister is elected and wants to crumble up the Magna Carta and institute Sharia Law, are you going to be too afraid to criticize their beliefs then?
And I'm not saying that their (the muslim population) recent influx in the past couple decades is a bad thing, but it should be noted. What if a muslim prime minister is elected and wants to crumble up the Magna Carta and institute Sharia Law, are you going to be too afraid to criticize their beliefs then?
But in England the government can silence the media if they so desire. And in Australia they lock you up for speaking out against the government. Or so I'm told.bahumat42 said:
"Better living under marshal law" is a quote I saw somewhere in some anarchist shop. That being, having speech dictated and, essentially, the free expression of one's self, whether it be against government or each other, monitored and censored is a horrible idea.
Sure, it leads to bullying--but what would restricting speech make it? Illegal? And what would happen to those who trespassed-jail time, work camps, or execution? Would that really solve the issue of people being what they are--asshats?
Of course, with humans, there is no exact answer to be found and solution to be dictated in any situation--as repression can allow only like ideas to spread and choose the way people think, but that also represses creativity and the free voice that people have. And as far as games and people go, I like it when I can voice my opinion against the fanboys who would like to tell me otherwise (Oh, that's a good analogy!**) and take my own view of a perspective.
**Some fanboys would rather die than hear an opposing argument, so what do they do? Ban, curse, and troll the person out of existence, therefore, silencing their free speech in the name of their personal opinion standing through.
Rather a slippery slope argument I'm pulling here, but, nonetheless...
Edit: Realized this is about regulating certain offensive words against people--so to go with my principals, no, the words cannot be banned, but it would a good courtesy for one not to use them.
Sure, it leads to bullying--but what would restricting speech make it? Illegal? And what would happen to those who trespassed-jail time, work camps, or execution? Would that really solve the issue of people being what they are--asshats?
Of course, with humans, there is no exact answer to be found and solution to be dictated in any situation--as repression can allow only like ideas to spread and choose the way people think, but that also represses creativity and the free voice that people have. And as far as games and people go, I like it when I can voice my opinion against the fanboys who would like to tell me otherwise (Oh, that's a good analogy!**) and take my own view of a perspective.
**Some fanboys would rather die than hear an opposing argument, so what do they do? Ban, curse, and troll the person out of existence, therefore, silencing their free speech in the name of their personal opinion standing through.
Rather a slippery slope argument I'm pulling here, but, nonetheless...
Edit: Realized this is about regulating certain offensive words against people--so to go with my principals, no, the words cannot be banned, but it would a good courtesy for one not to use them.
So, who decides what's hurtful and what isn't? What if it hurts my feelings that I have to go to work everyday, and it puts a lot of emotional and physical stress on me, what if I decide to kill myself? Will there be outcry and will working be banned because of how stressful it is for people, and how unfair it is that some of us have the jobs we do? /rant
If you kill yourself because of a name someone called you, you were obviously neglected the mental therapy you need. Many MANY successful people thrive on opposition, why can't you do the same?
If you kill yourself because of a name someone called you, you were obviously neglected the mental therapy you need. Many MANY successful people thrive on opposition, why can't you do the same?
Sure. Here's the problem as I see it: People are complete idiots sometimes, some of them much worse than others.interspark said:
What do I mean? Well, take the mouthy pain in the ass that won't shut the hell up. He's not expressing his freedom of speech. His intent is not that he wishes to express himself over being silenced and not allowed to be explaining his views. That's not what the little shit wants. He just wants to be about to shout the word "****" at the top of his lungs every three seconds to piss people off. That's not right.
Look, the answer's very VERY simple. Shutting people up because they're throwing common sense to the wind is a GOOD THING. It's not subversive, but a waste of glorious air to allow some people to go on. Now, I'm of the opinion that people are far too uptight about all this PC bullshit. Say what you mean and take your consequences for it. If the man gives you a fat lip, then you took your freedom and the responsibility that goes with it.
God, there are so many people that get it wrong. You are who you are and who you are will come with certain stereotypes. If ya want these comments dropped, maybe the people that don't DO them should go find the ones CAUSING the stereotype and have a little talk. I, on the other hand, will continue to believe that Japan will develop the first real military giant robot, that fried chicken is eaten in the south, and that Canadians go "Eh?". Because it really DOES happen. And it's not wrong for me to say so when there's truth to the thing.