Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[Agayek]

People can't be trusted to make the right decisions and therefore to have valuable opinions.
Plato said democracy was the second worst form of government, just above anarchy.
Free speech is nice, but look what happens when the wrong people get hold of it & preach hate non-stop.

So because some people are morons, and other people are even dumber morons who will listen to them, someone gets to decide what is and is not acceptable to say?

edit:

The right to free speech is bad being allowed free speech is good.

The government should be allowed to repress those individuals that go against the grain (Hate groups/jack thompson/etc). The right to free speech seems to give people the idea that what they say is valid. This is not a good thing.

You are horribly, horribly wrong.

The government should never repress anyone, regardless of what they have to say. If someone is spouting bullshit, supply people with the truth. Or just ignore them. Suppressing things you do not like is the first step on the road to totalitarianism.

Everyone has an opinion, and the right to express that opinion. That doesn't make all opinions equally valid. It's very, very easy to prove someone a liar, just supply facts.

 

[Galletea]

Well in reality you only ever have freedom of speech to an extent. Once the government decides you've gone too far with your free speech you're then encouraging hatred or anti government sentiment or something like that. So in effect, it's good because it gives people the idea of freedom and yet the government can still tighten the strings when you go too far.

 

[CosmicCommander]

People can't be trusted to make the right decisions and therefore to have valuable opinions.
Plato said democracy was the second worst form of government, just above anarchy.
Free speech is nice, but look what happens when the wrong people get hold of it & preach hate non-stop.

I see Plato as the Father of Non-reason in the west, and as I said, idiots will have to be ignored, if your smart, you will.

So because some people are morons, and other people are even dumber morons who will listen to them, someone gets to decide what is and is not acceptable to say?

Problem is the average person is an idiot. An irrational person who'll just go with the mob with no actual views of importance or relevance.
It'd be better to get rid of free speech & democracy, implement a council, and if you want to be able to criticise the government or suggest ways to change, then you have to pass a test in politics and social standards.
That way, idiotic comments would be prevented and a more effective government and public would be created. Win - win situation.

So many flaws, I can't continue.

 

[Agayek]

Problem is the average person is an idiot. An irrational person who'll just go with the mob with no actual views of importance or relevance.
It'd be better to get rid of free speech & democracy, implement a council, and if you want to be able to criticise the government or suggest ways to change, then you have to pass a test in politics and social standards.
That way, idiotic comments would be prevented and a more effective government and public would be created. Win - win situation.

Then my question would be who decides those standards?

In your example, said council will design the standards, and it will be done, as has been done throughout all human history, in such a way so that only those who agree with the almighty will of the council are allowed to suggest changes.

Limiting speech is harmful, in every possible situation, no matter what your reasons or intentions are. You don't like idiots, ignore them. They start physical violence, kill them. But you cannot impinge on a man's right to speak his mind. I don't care who you are, or how important/smart/better you think you are. In all likelihood, everyone else is convinced they are just as superior to you as you believe you are to them. You cannot establish standards like what you suggest because whoever has power will manipulate them to keep that power. The only way for society to be fair, equal and just is to allow all people the freedom to act as they please, provided they do not impinge on the freedom of same of others.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

How about the freedom of speech of other countries (any and every country, no matter whether Saudi Arabia, european union, asia, oceania or wherever to stick two fingers up to America telling everybody what to do and how to run their countries?

 

[Valiance]

My boy, you suggest a forced Utopia, which would not be a Utopia at all.

 

[Agayek]

There's a difference between being bright and conceited.
Your idea works on the belief that people are power hungry & will only act to better their position. This isn't true.
Look at South Korea's military dictator from the 1960's onwards (I think from then) who made everyone work 7 days a week, not to line his own pocket, but to bring the country into the modern world.
Look at Ataturk. Did he bring Turkey into the western world for personal gain? No, for his country, and to this day, the country still upholds those ideals.
If there was a council, it'd have to be composed of people who put the good of the nation & country before themselves & they do exist. In that way, and a large enough council, no one would be able to, or essentially want to, manipulate others for power.
The great thing with people is you can limit speech & a lot of them wouldn't care over time. It's only a social mindset which has people value free speech. End of the day if I was to use my right to free speech and say Gordon Brown is a ******, it doesn't matter. 99% of the time free speech is frivolous and not really anything of value.

Do you have any concept of history? At all?

You are proposing something that simply does not happen. Ever.

What you are suggesting, in the form of a council, already exists. It is called Parliament, or Congress, depending on where you live. Yet time and again they've proven their corruption and ineptitude.

People are people. You cannot say "Oh everyone in this position will always be a virtuous flower child and never do any wrong", because that simply doesn't happen. All people, in all places, are motivated by personal gain. It may not be a tangible thing they're after, but in the end, everyone does everything for themselves.

Seriously, please brush up on history, the human tendency to abuse power, and the end result of any regime that does not tolerate dissent.


Edit:

How about the freedom of speech of other countries (any and every country, no matter whether Saudi Arabia, european union, asia, oceania or wherever to stick two fingers up to America telling everybody what to do and how to run their countries?

Yup. All those countries are free to tell the US to fuck off, and I encourage it.

Until they start legally killing, maiming or otherwise physically abusing their subjects. Then they can shut the fuck up and die. Just like the US government can if they try the same.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Good, and in an ideal society everyone would have it. Unfortunately, in this complex world we live in, free speech can cause problems. It's not always possible.
So far in the modern age most countries have managed to sustain it without serious problems, and for that I am grateful. It may not always be like that though.

 

[Simonccx]

to think freely is to challenge ourselves, to talk freely is to challenge the world around us, and to be free is just challenging.

 

[ike42]

By saying that you don't want anyone to say or think something just because it conflicts with your own outlook you confirm yourself as a fascist. If you think that controlling people's thoughts is a good idea you need to read 1984. I'm not saying that it's cool to be a bigot, but people should have the right to choose. People should be able to say whatever they want, you don't have to believe it or let it affect you. It's only when they try to force their ideas on you in a public forum like legislature that is really important. Freedom is something that applies to all of us or it applies to none of us. Unfortunately that means jerks too.

 

[LockHeart]

Free speech/expression = necessary for a free society. Without the freedom to state our objection to things, our views and opinions and our beliefs, we are not living in a free society, end of.

 

[Deacon Cole]

...but many people, see free speech as a barrier to progress, a way for the bad guys to harm us, and bigots to make people evil,...

Many people are morons.

An argument is only as strong as it's opposition.

Free speech means allowing the bad with the good.

Too bad America doesn't really have freedom of speech anymore. Just ask the Dixie Chicks []

 

[JaredXE]

I believe everyone, EVERYONE, has the right and duty to speak freely. I don't care what you say, you can be KKK, neo-nazi, Ann Coulter....doesn't matter, you have the right to spout your opinion. And I have the right to ignore you. Or argue with you. Or shoot you (wait, forget that last one. Damn gun control laws).

What happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Is it now "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will hurt my inner child forever"? You don't like what people say, then remove yourself from the situation or do something(non-violent) to shut them up.

Me personally, I'm a smart-ass. If it wasn't for Freedom of Speech, I would be locked away or stoned by the village folk. I am very glad I live in this time and this country or else I would have been burned at the stake for speaking out against authority a long time ago.

 

[Lord Honk]

free speech is probably the worst solution,
apart from the alternatives...

i really think that free speech is somewhat of a farce cause those with charisma can turn (nearly) every crowd, regardless of their (the charismatic ones) ambitions. therefore, yeah, kinda sucks, but still better that total censorship. history has shown us many examples that that's NOT the way to do it.

 

[KillerScott]

Definatly Not