Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[Sugarfluff]

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Which is why I think that democracy needs to be modified. Turning 18 should not justify ones right to vote (not sure on how it works in other countries, in Sweden we vote at 18). They should really have a voters test (sort of a drivers test) that one has to pass to be able to influence the direction of ones nation.

As for Freedom of speech. It's something that belongs with that Utopian dream that will never completely become reality.

 

[JaredXE]

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.
[ Sorry, look what you just quoted.... ]

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.

I just gave you historical cases, and you then follow them up by saying "that never happens"?? How'd you figure that one out?
If you really think parliament is anything like what I just described, you need to brush up on the political system. Parliament is full of self righteous snobs that do what they want for business, not the good of the country.
I clearly didn't say everyone in that posistion would be perfect, but I'm saying it would be possible to find people who have the right goals and motivations. You seem to think that power instantly corrupts everyone like some kind of Midas Touch.
Plus it's been proven that to act for your own gain will never get you as far as co-operation. Ever. So it is in people's best interest to work with each other.
Less Nietzschean thinking that everyone is out for themselves. A lot of people are, but as we've agreed, the average person is an idiot & so can't be trusted.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Betterment of the structure at the expense of the people is not necessarily the best choice. Now I know that there can be cases made for and against, but in general, those that seek power are the ones who should never have it.

You mention the the South Korean military dictator, Park was his name btw, and the economic reform he instituted. Well, the dictatorship was not so much a dictatorship, but the military holding the reigns for 2 years following a disasterous 8 month regime until they voluntarily opened up presidential elections. Since 1948, S.Korea has been primarily a democracy. And those economic reforms? Park co-opted them from the previous elected government, who never got around to implementing them before the coup.

Very few governments: elected, parlimentary, republic, dictatorship, or military junta, EVER have the betterment of the people in mind. Or when they do, it's the betterment of THEIR people, and screw everyone else. People are inherently greedy, horny, stupid and selfish. Why do you think Marxism never works? It's fine on paper, sure. But put it into practice and you see people placing themselves above others, being "More Equal" amongst equals.

 

[Agayek]

I just gave you historical cases, and you then follow them up by saying "that never happens"?? How'd you figure that one out?

What the guy above me said.

If you really think parliament is anything like what I just described, you need to brush up on the political system. Parliament is full of self righteous snobs that do what they want for business, not the good of the country.
I clearly didn't say everyone in that posistion would be perfect, but I'm saying it would be possible to find people who have the right goals and motivations. You seem to think that power instantly corrupts everyone like some kind of Midas Touch.
Plus it's been proven that to act for your own gain will never get you as far as co-operation. Ever. So it is in people's best interest to work with each other.
Less Nietzschean thinking that everyone is out for themselves. A lot of people are, but as we've agreed, the average person is an idiot & so can't be trusted.

Parliament is exactly what you described. A ruling council that sets the laws and works for the betterment of the people. The problem is the people that fill it. And since we've already agreed people are idiots, why do those idiots have the right to tell me what to do?

People given power will abuse it. That is a psychological fact.

You're right at the end though, cooperation will get you much farther than working on your own. But then, working together is working for your own interests. There isn't a single person, past or present, who has ever done something for no personal gain. Let's look at the normal examples people provide to prove me wrong:

Ghandi: Freed his people, and consequently himself, from British oppression.

Mother Theresa: Felt the need to help the poor. Went out to help them to fulfill that need.

MLK Jr: Saw oppression, went out and fought to bring equality.

Not a single one of them did anything that wasn't for personal gain.

Humans are selfish creatures. It's natural, and it's not a bad thing, but that is the way we are.



Also, even if you disagree with all of my points, who would choose this almighty council of the virtuous? And if it's anything other than "the people" (which would make it Parliament), why do they have the moral authority to choose who fills such powerful positions?

No matter what you think, no one has the right to be better than the rest of society, as you suggest.

 

[Agayek]

As with the other thread, your question is too simplistic. Is unlimited free speach good? No. Is free speach with reasonable limits good? Yes. Is the lack of any right to free speach good? No.

How is unlimited free speech bad?

The only scenario I can think of would be the classic "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater", but that I see more as inciting panic (similar to firing a gun in the same theater) than falling under the "free speech" category.

 

[Thegoodfriar]

There are bad people... That's a fact, Timothy McVeigh or Jeffry Dommer prove that fact. But as much as people can use free speech as a way to try to frighten people, that's all they can do.

Also there is a limit to free speech, I live in a fairly racist area of Indiana and it is not uncommon to see a KKK rally, or them demonstrating at public events.

Although I completely disagree with their viewpoints it is unfair to take away their rights. Yet the second it becomes threatening it can be viewed as conspiracy, and people can be arrested.

All in all, free speech is necessary. At least in a democratic format like the U.S. or other such countries.

 

[scotth266]

Of course free speech is important. It's also important to be civil though: that's the part people have trouble grasping.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes, it's good. Yes, it's neccisary for a function goverment. Yes, you should be able to say what you want. I really would like to see someone's arguement for it being a bad thing though.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well everyone seems to agree that free speech is generally a good thing but open to abuse. Let's be a bit less diplomatic, and a lot more specific, shall we?

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Ron Perlman.
- Ron Paul.
- Ron Atkinson.
- Come to think of it, just about anyone whose first name is "Ron".

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Fourteen-year-olds on gaming servers.
- Anyone, no matter what age, who uses any of the following phrases online, in any forum whatsoever: "LOL", "ROFL", "ROFLMAO" or "PWNED".
- Apple zealots.
- Linux zealots.
- Any other technology zealots.
- The campaign for bilingual road signs in Wales. ("And you have to put the Welsh above the English please.")
- Britney Spears.
- The Westboro Church Foundation.
- Any wretched scum-of-the-earth lily-livered pierced-eyebrowed pink-shirt-wearing glue-sniffing floppy-haired fatherless barefooted so-called human being whose life's ambition is to go into any of the following trades: marketing, public relations, policy analysis, civil service.
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.
- David Beckham.
- Anyone who uses the phrase: "It's only a game, innit?"
- Victoria Beckham.
- Anyone who thinks the illegal immigrants are doing them out of a job.
- Anybody who thinks they're just a little bit better than anyone else. (Also see: anyone who talks to their friends like Barney the purple dinosaur would.)
- Anybody who uses any of the following words in casual conversation: "Indubitably", "Prescient", "Monopoly" or "Coalition".
- "Persecuted" smokers.
- Anyone who uses their kids as an excuse for being a bad person.
- Anyone who thinks the world owes them a break.
- Gossip columnists of any description. (Come to think of it, they probably shouldn't have the right to life either.)
- Anyone not covered in the above, apart from me.
- Me. (For evidence of why I shouldn't be allowed free speech, look at everything above this line.)

Soooo... I guess I'm anti-free speech then!

 

[wordsmith]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.

I think my last post gives me a cast-iron defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity", no matter what I am charged with. Of course, if you go on my post / rant up there, any doctor who could support that theory would also have no right to free speech themselves...

 

[Agayek]

No, parliament is a two party system where the ruling mob out-shouts the other mob in order to satisfy their voters, not progress the country.
May want to learn a bit about the problems of implementing democracy, you forgot to mention that Parliament costs of parties.

You're assuming everyone in your council will always agree on everything. Sorry to say, that's not the way life works.

People will divide into groups based on their opinions on various issues. And guess what happens then? You have political parties.

Where is your proof for your fact? There is an actual psychological experiment which has proven that cooperation will always get you further than doing something for your own gain.

I'll see if I can find the article that was talking about. Basic summary was a psychologist wanted to see how prisoners react to prison, so he got a bunch of students at his university together for the experiment over the summer. It took about 3 days for the students in place as "guards" to rather horrifically abuse the "prisoners". And the 2 week experiment ended up being canceled before the first week was out.

The problem is you think that by helping yourself, you won't help other people, which just isn't true - certain qualities like honour and morality generally overcome personal want. And what you fail to see is that with Martin Luther King etc that even though a small part was for personal gain, they made such a big difference that any personal gain is outwieghed by what the majority gains.
You seem to illogically think that something done for your own gain is always bad, which just isn't true.

When did I say that? I said people are motivated by personal gain. I made no judgment on the morality of same.

You seem to think that everyone is equal and everyone's opinion is valid which is utter *****. A thug from Liverpool's opinion is not as valuable as a hard working business man, or a person of a low intellects ideas are not as valuable as someone who is brighter. It's simple. Some people are smarter, and so will make better decisions than others. The thick/average person likes low taxes. But anyone with a brain means low taxes means less money for the government so a decline in standards somewhere along the line.
Thinking that everyone's voice is valuable just isn't true.

Nope. People are not equal. And people's opinions are very frequently invalid. I have never once said that all opinions are of equal value/validity/applicability.

All I have been saying all along is that you have no basis to deny them their right to express that opinion. Just because it's a stupid opinion doesn't mean they can't have it, or express it. It doesn't make it an intelligent position to hold, but the decision to hold it is theirs, not yours.

If a council of, say, 50 was elected say by the top business men and intellects, you cannot say that your decision, or anyone else's is more valuable, or just as valuable as there's. Simply put, they are brighter and so will make better decisions as they have a better comprehension of the future & how the world works. If you think that a plumber from Warrington's views are just as valuable, I ask how?

You honestly have no idea how the world works do you?

Those top business men and intellectuals will simply vote for the people that will further their goals. The common people will be horribly oppressed and eventually a revolution will spark.

This isn't about all opinions being equal. This is about the basic human right to think, feel, and say what you want. Of course some redneck from podunk Alabama will be completely useless for political discourse. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to say "I hate Obama!".

What you are trying to do is oppress any ideas that you think are foolish. That is the very heart of totalitarianism, and goes against almost every major Western political philosophy of the last 200 years.

 

[Kiutu]

In another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.112660], I discussed human rights in Saudi Arabia. Here, The Topic is Freedom of speech, is it good or bad?

Of course, the awnser by the majority will be yes, (I'll be among them) 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, I can think of many flaws in their argument, but I'll stop a wall of text, and let you guys awnser.

Its those who wish to hinder our speech who GIVE the power to the bigots. Swear words are only bad because people treat them so. Sure if I said' Fuck you" to you, it wont make you feel good (generally) but if people freaked if I said "Funkle you" and I used it in a mean way, it would be just as bad.
Free speech however, also lets flaws in other things be shown. If no one speaks out against a wrong, it is not likely to get fixed.

 

[wordsmith]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.

I think my last post gives me a cast-iron defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity", no matter what I am charged with. Of course, if you go on my post / rant up there, any doctor who could support that theory would also have no right to free speech themselves...

Nope, I'd say you'd get declared fully sane, just heavily opinionated (which, of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with). My point is that Lawyers are your legal mouthpiece for when you DO end up in court, and so silencing them is a bit like throwing away a microphone to talk to everyone at a concert. A loud concert.

 

[A random person]

The problem with censorship is how easy it is to abuse and in defining what is harmful speech. Someone is going to use it for personal good.
Besides, if we banned bigots from speaking, it may be good at first, but things would be boring. If I didn't have people who were too stuck in tradition or close minded, I would be bored out of my fucking mind.

 

[Blood_Lined]

Free speech is obviously a good thing; and it IS as simple as that.

 

[Agayek]

A council wouldn't need a perfect vote all the time, and the problem with political parties is that it becomes a race to win the retarded public over, not do what is best for the public.
Yeah I know the test you're on about, which was very shocking. Just goes to show how average Joe is dangerous. Something I don't know the answer to, but would be needed is to make sure that everyone running a country put their country first, and themselves second.
I can see what you saying, that denying a person to speak is wrong. But...why? Surely it'd be better to brainwash the plebs into liking/accepting their existance allowing them to be happy/ier, rather then having them moan all the time about a concept they can't grasp. Just a thought.
Business men & intellectuals, with the right insentive, wouldn't have any goals to further, and making sure their mindset is right, they'd just further the country as a whole.
As for Western philosophy, the only good western philosophy was 2000 years ago =p

Two major counterpoints:

1) Everyone always has a goal to further. It doesn't matter who they are or what their position is. As long as they're alive, they are working towards a goal of some kind.

2) Brainwashing the masses is a terrible idea. It stifles innovation and cuts down the very heart of what it means to be human. If you want to be supreme overlord of the universe, it's a great idea, because no one will ever challenge you, but the only way for people to grow is to challenge everything, constantly, for no reason other than that they can. To be human is to think, and you can't formulate thought if the words to represent those ideas do not exist.