Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Your topic title and question posed aren't exactly the same.
Is it good to have? Yes.
Is it necessary for people to be happy? No.

I agree. Free speech is a right that most of us enjoy, however I don't think that its entitled to us.

Honestly? You're just fine with being told what you are allowed to say? I think you are looking at this wrong. The right question is not "are we entitled to free speech?" The right question is "who the hell has the right to deny us free speech?"

 

[Bobkat1252]

Free speech is to me one of the most important freedoms. It was said earlier on in this thread but I'll reiterate it, read [i/]1984[/i] and you will truly appreciate free speech for what it is.

Someone said earlier in the thread that free speech is not entitled to people and is not necessary to be happy, I must respectfully disagree, every person has the right to freedom of speech, expression, and their lifestyle choice no matter who they are. Sure, people can disagree with your ideas, choices, and beliefs, in fact I encourage people to express their disapproval (freedom of speech again) but they however do not have the right to impose their way of life on you. This goes for governments as well.

In short: People have the right to live their life their way and to say what they want to so long as it poses no grievous threat to another person's safety or well being or infringes upon another person's individual rights.

At least, that's my opinion.

Your topic title and question posed aren't exactly the same.
Is it good to have? Yes.
Is it necessary for people to be happy? No.

I agree. Free speech is a right that most of us enjoy, however I don't think that its entitled to us.

Honestly? You're just fine with being told what you are allowed to say? I think you are looking at this wrong. The right question is not "are we entitled to free speech?" The right question is "who the hell has the right to deny us free speech?"

Couldn't agree with you more S.H.P.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Necessary to live a happy, good life.

I'd beg to differ on that. Sure it helps, but if you've got free speech and no food you probably won't be very happy [/nitpicking]

In all seriousness, I think freedom of speech is typically the most abused freedom, because unfortunately most people don't seem to want to take responsibility for what they say, and any time the government or someone else tries to put responsibilities on what they in all accounts are still free to say, they run around waving giant freedom banners ranting on about how the school principals are trying to turn the place into a fascist dictatorship (true story). In short, yes I do believe we should be free to say what we want, but we must also accept the responsibility of possessing that freedom. I've got a good article that discusses what I've been talking about, if I find it I'll add it to my post.

Interestinng, and true.

Here is the article, you may find it a good read. It's interesting to say the least

http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/learning-self-discipline.htm

 

[CosmicCommander]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Ron Paul.

Hell Yeah

 

[JWAN]

how do you run a country if you don't know the needs and wants of its people?

but let me say that their is also a fine line between free speech and slander/libel

 

[traceur_]

Just look at North Korea... Do they have free speech? No. Is it a fucking awsome country? Yes.

No, no it is not, just no.

For as long as kim jong il is in power it will not be an awesome country, people have been shot for trying to leave.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

 

[roboosh]

Just look at North Korea... Do they have free speech? No. Is it a fucking awsome country? Yes.

Okay...

I think your referring to South Korea...

I am referring to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Stop it. Now.

 

[Agayek]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

 

[Sewblon]

Without free speech this website probably would not exist so I voted yes. They only way to really eliminate bad ideas is to show everyone how flawed they are and that doesn't happen if you can't discuss them publicly to begin with.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are bad things that come with freedom of speech. There are worse things that come without it. Pick your poision. Me? I'll take my freedom and it's ills.

 

[LockHeart]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Well in reality you only ever have freedom of speech to an extent.

Exactly right. Completely free speech exists in no country on this earth. Defamation and hate-speech laws limit freedom of expression somewhat, which in my opinion, is a good thing. That said, freedom of speech in general is a good thing.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Australia doesn't have an explicit constitutional right to free speech and we're fine. Don't need it. Cops won't arrest you for sitting in a shop and saying why you think our Prime Minister is bad.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

 

[GodsAndFishes]

freedom of speech is fine as long as you obey Rule 0: Don't Be A Dick

 

[LockHeart]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

Well in that case we might as well just monitor the lives of everyone, every second of every day. One of the cornerstones of Common Law legal systems is the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty - what you're embracing is a step towards authoritarianism.

Let me tell you again, free speech has no limits. You cannot have a 'slight lack' of free speech, not noticing the loss of it is irrelevant. If I didn't notice that someone had stolen my watch or my phone, it wouldn't mean that it's acceptable for them to do so.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

Well in that case we might as well just monitor the lives of everyone, every second of every day. One of the cornerstones of Common Law legal systems is the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty - what you're embracing is a step towards authoritarianism.

Let me tell you again, free speech has no limits. You cannot have a 'slight lack' of free speech, not noticing the loss of it is irrelevant. If I didn't notice that someone had stolen my watch or my phone, it wouldn't mean that it's acceptable for them to do so.

not watch them every second of every day just whenever they are speaking on radio or television or any other broadcast.

also i dont think that you can compare material loss to the loss of the right preech hate. but either way micheal savage who i mentioned way back has the right to preech his hate and intolerance on the radio as much as he likes in america, but in the uk (a country that is accepted world wide to have freedom of speech) this is illegal, this means that the uk does not have complete freedom of speech so i guess in a way what im really doing is defending the modern uk laws on these matters.....yeah i think i'll go with that.

back in the 80's the uk laws on freedom of speech were exactly the same as modern american laws on freedom of speech, but back in the 80's the uk was a deeply prejadice country, many bradcasters had micheal savage like views, there was alot of racism, and alot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed, so we drew a line.

 

[LockHeart]

*snip*

not watch them every second of every day just whenever they are speaking on radio or television or any other broadcast.

also i dont think that you can compare material loss to the loss of the right preech hate. but either way micheal savage who i mentioned way back has the right to preech his hate and intolerance on the radio as much as he likes in america, but in the uk (a country that is accepted world wide to have freedom of speech) this is illegal, this means that the uk does not have complete freedom of speech so i guess in a way what im really doing is defending the modern uk laws on these matters.....yeah i think i'll go with that.

back in the 80's the uk laws on freedom of speech were exactly the same as modern american laws on freedom of speech, but back in the 80's the uk was a deeply prejadice country, many bradcasters had micheal savage like views, there was alot of racism, and alot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed, so we drew a line.

So in other words, establish a political censor who dictates what can and cannot be aired? Niiiice. God, jackboots are so in aren't they?

I don't really see the difference between my example and yours, in both cases someone has had something taken from them without their ebing aware of it. In both cases, this does not mean that the person doing the taking was not wrong in doing so. There's a quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall that I live by: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I know about the UK laws covering freedom of speech, I'm studying them at the moment. Just because I live here doesn't mean that I agree with the laws my country has (far from it). Yes, freedom of speech here is a qualified right, but it should not be, else it is a contradiction in terms.

Is there a direct causal link between the views of 'many broadcasters' and the 'fact' that 'a lot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed'? I doubt it. But please, don't let me put you off finding evidence to support it.