MarsAtlas said:
Loonyyy said:
Freedom of Speech is when I say whatever I like without consequence, including criticism.
Oppression of my Freedom of Speech is the moment you open your mouth to criticism any of my views.
Hence Duck Dynasty can be a freedom of speech issue, whilst Anita Sarkeesian is censorship.
Hitler was the most awesome guy ever and totally right for trying to kill all the jews, homosexuals, and blacks.
Okay, now that I've set up that I'm a neo-nazi, you have to respect my opinion and you can't say anything bad about it a all because we live in a world where that definition you made up applies.
Then again, I can't tell if you actually believe this or are pointing out the absurdity of the train of thought.
I thought I was quite obviously being facetious. The obvious double standard I apply clearly invalidates any concept of rights. The point where I misused the term censorship should also be an indicator. Don't start on the Godwinning already.
Although, tangentially, I'm not all that sure about Freedom of Speech. It's meant to support unpopular opinions, in times where opinions or information was needed, but unpopular, such as views critical of the government, or society, that needed changing....
*snips rest of post*
Its not made to
support, its made to
allow.
Semantics. And after missing the deliberate contradiction in my obvious satire of the ridiculous employment of "FREEEE SPEERCH" as a defense against criticism of bigotry, I think we can let this slide.
For example, NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, is a group of pedophiles who, more less, want to legalize sex between grown men and eight year old boys.
Their Freedom of Speech isn't a guaranteed platform, or that they can keep their job even it results in negativity for their employer,
I was
completely unaware of this. *Facepalm*. Before attempting to give a condescending dressing down after misunderstanding my point, why not shoot me a PM before making yourself appear foolish, and making me ruin the joke by overexplaining it. And, if you had read the end of my post, you should probably have got it.
Freedom of Speech is simply that the police can't come in and shut them down for what they're saying.
No Shit.
Or more specifically: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
ie: Free Speech means the government won't stop you from saying whatever you want, and won't imprison you for it, etc.
*snipped some crap*
The same freedom of speech that allows neo-nazis to deny the holocaust and allows the Westboro Baptist Church to protest funerals is the same freedom of speech that allowed the civil rights movement and things like gay pride parades.
Which is what I was discussing in the second half of my post. Don't conflate, compare, or mention together, neo-nazi sentiments with gay pride again. I know what you're getting at, an example of hate speech that exists, but don't do that. The Nazi's commited to an extended campaign resulting in the abuse and murder of many gay people, and to put those two together is seriously not cool. Hell, if we want to use them for comparison:
Gay Pride efforts: Help to counteract the systematic discrimination experienced by those of a non-straight sexual orientation.
Neo Nazism: incites racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation based hatred.
Westboro Baptist Church: incites racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation based hatred.
My point being: The second two are clearly superfluous, particularly as their basis does not pass any form of rational based scrutiny, and add nothing of worth to society. I could not care less if these views were silenced. I'd prefer it in fact. I'd go so far as to say I'd prefer that those who expressed those views were unable to use any form of speech in future.
One day its the "evil" in society you're referring to whom use the "freedom of speech defense", fifty years later its the prevailing notion.
Air quotes are cute, aren't they? Discriminating against Gay People, Black People, Women, or pretty much any minority group you care to name is evil. I refuse to have a discussion on this.
Again, no shit. Talking down to people on points they've already considered, and even detailed the consideration of, is a fast track to those people disliking you.
Fifty years ago, people were trying to shut down the gay rights movement, saying that they're immoral beings, but freedom of speech allowed them to do what they do, and fifty years later, the majority of the population is pro-gay rights.
Of course. But, is there any rationally defensible position by which gay people should be denied their rights? ie: Is there any good reason we should allow hate speech against gay people for the progress of society?
I'll give you the short answer: No.
My criticism is in relation to that: Should we continue to allow that, considering that LGBT youth are potentially as much as 4 times more likely to commit suicide? Should we allow people to discriminate against and cause the deaths of people innocent of wrongdoing in the fundamentalist application of free speech? Should the bigot's right to free speech be more important than the gay person's right to live in a world that doesn't make them more likely to kill them-self?
Now since you have shown yourself incapable of, I'll argue the pro-free speech position here:
Free Speech allows positions which are unpopular,
but also right to be presented without the government harming those involved, and thus should be protected. However, to ensure that a position which is right, but
unknown to be right by a large portion of the population can be presented without government persecution, all views must be allowed, as the government is an imperfect measurer of the validity of the views presented.
Then back to my side, on the Anti:
I know
Why freedom of speech is supposed to be of use in the context of social ills, however, it really doesn't do shit. When they spoke out about it, Gay people were killed. Trans people were killed. Black people were killed. Because the government did not protect them from societies reaction, and just refusing to punish them for speaking their mind wasn't, and isn't, enough. Hell, you can still be discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, and sexual orientation, even though the government won't try to shut you up, and the government continues to aid in the proliferation of the views which result in oppression by allowing hate speech so long as it doesn't constitute an incitement to violence. The government not stopping them from speaking was the
LEAST of any of these groups troubles. It did very little to help them, since most of them still couldn't speak out for fear of being raped, murdered or worse. So most of them were kept quiet by society.
That's not to say that not having Free Speech then would have prevented racism or homophobia or the like. It wouldn't have, because these views were socially acceptable, so no-one would be trying to censor them. However, at this point in time, were we to censor racism, homophobia, or goddamn motherfucking nazism, I would be relieved.
