Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?

[JJJA]

your questions don't seem relevant to my original post. pardon my bluntness, but you took what i said and ran with it to suit your own agenda on this subject.
all i'm suggesting is that people own what they say and take responsibility for the words they utter - words are powerful.
if you don't see or get that, so be it. i have no interest in debating such a basic statement.

We all have agendas here, that's why there is a vote on the topic. It's a very hot issue at the moment for many people and I was wondering, since you mentioned 'responsibility', what you mean by it, and how it is relevant to the position you took to regulate free speech to some extent. I took what you said and analysed it, and then decided to ask further questions. Words are indeed powerful, but should they be regulated? That's the point of the poll; to start a discussion.

I ask these questions because there appears to be a very wishy-washy argument produced from the 'regulate some speech' camp. I am trying to bring forward these arguments to further specificity.

 

[JGirl]

We all have agendas here, that's why there is a vote on the topic. It's a very hot issue at the moment for many people and I was wondering, since you mentioned 'responsibility', what you mean by it, and how it is relevant to the position you took to regulate free speech to some extent. I took what you said and analysed it, and then decided to ask further questions. Words are indeed powerful, but should they be regulated? That's the point of the poll; to start a discussion.

ok here's an offhand example:
in the united states, well, for most states as far as i know, citizens have the right, or freedom, to own and carry a firearm. that doesn't mean that they can flail that firearm around wherever they please. there is a responsiblitiy that comes with the freedom to possess and/or carry that firearm.
this is the same idea with respect to freedom of speech. yes, by all means, express yourself. but understand that there is an appropriate place and time for that activity. respect that.
is that censorship? not in my mind. i think of it as being a mature and responsible human being.

 

[JJJA]

ok here's an offhand example:
in the united states, well, for most states as far as i know, citizens have the right, or freedom, to own and carry a firearm. that doesn't mean that they can flail that firearm around wherever they please. there is a responsiblitiy that comes with the freedom to possess and/or carry that firearm.
this is the same idea with respect to freedom of speech. yes, by all means, express yourself. but understand that there is an appropriate place and time for that activity. respect that.
is that censorship? not in my mind. i think of it as being a mature and responsible human being.

Words aren't anywhere near as threatening as flailing a gun around a public place. I would honestly be less scared at somebody swearing at me in public than if that person were to point a .44 Smith & Wesson in my face. I also think that speech regulation does not include being polite or considerate. Regulating the right to express yourself involves the 'hate speech' issues discussed already; many people have been sent to prison for expressing themselves even in the most professional context (writing a book, for example). Some (such as David Irving, a holocaust denier) were even arrested for simply thinking an opinion considered 'inappropriate', 'wrong' or 'offensive'. It's very important to distinguish exactly what the regulation camp are actually advocating for. At least you gave an example, which is appreciated.

 

[JGirl]

Words aren't anywhere near as threatening as flailing a gun around a public place. I would honestly be less scared at somebody swearing at me in public than if that person were to point a .44 Smith & Wesson in my face. I also think that speech regulation does not include being polite or considerate. Regulating the right to express yourself involves the 'hate speech' issues discussed already; many people have been sent to prison for expressing themselves even in the most professional context (writing a book, for example). Some (such as David Irving, a holocaust denier) were even arrested for simply thinking an opinion considered 'inappropriate', 'wrong' or 'offensive'. It's very important to distinguish exactly what the regulation camp are actually advocating for. At least you gave an example, which is appreciated.

as i said, it was an offhand example. i wasn't comparing guns to words per se, sorry if it came off that way.
i also understand your point, but i guess i don't take it apart as diligently as you. i have a very laid back approach to most things in life, and tend not to get tied up in the intricacies of social mores. however, i do understand that in order to have a cohesive society, there has to be regulations on things of power, such as words. i don't see that as censorship, although perhaps others would.

 

[Cornerstone]

It depends on your audience. I think if you have a big platform there ought to be a cultural expectation you use it appropriately i.e. justify everything you say empirically, logically or by demonstrating insight into the emotional charge behind what you are saying. People should be directly educated to be able to tell when a person is or isn't doing this.

How do you enforce this? I don't know, maybe not at all. Probably best not to in reality...which would amount to the first option in practice.

The education thing, I suppose. That's not a quick fix though.

 

[invisible]

I don't think it should be illegal to deny The Holocaust. I just think that people who deny The Holocaust should be sacked from their jobs, have any professional status they hold revoked, and be advertised by their legal names as Holocaust Deniers.

 

[invisible]

ok here's an offhand example:
in the united states, well, for most states as far as i know, citizens have the right, or freedom, to own and carry a firearm. that doesn't mean that they can flail that firearm around wherever they please. there is a responsiblitiy that comes with the freedom to possess and/or carry that firearm.
this is the same idea with respect to freedom of speech. yes, by all means, express yourself. but understand that there is an appropriate place and time for that activity. respect that.
is that censorship? not in my mind. i think of it as being a mature and responsible human being.

I agree. If it's necessary for one to speak abusively or insultingly towards others in order to make a point, then perhaps one should consider some lessons in rhetoric, or even reconsider the validity of what they have to say entirely! Because naturally it goes without saying that swearing at others is preferable to putting bullets into them!! That doesn't mean that it is the most productive or constructive way to have a discussion. If we have something intelligent to say, we should be able to say it without "being a dick", as Wil Wheaton so eloquently put it.

Of course I frequently need those lessons in rhetoric myself! It is so easy to get carried away in emotions about things that make us passionate.

 

[JJJA]

I understand the argument that you shouldn't 'disturb the peace' with insults and 'rudeness', but I honestly think it is a bullshit sinister excuse for regulation, no matter how small it may be. The cartoonists working for Charlie Hebdo magazine were considered to be insulting many Muslims worldwide, but does that make them responsible for their actions? No is the answer. The people that decide to be offended by something can by all means complain all they want, but even SOME regulation involves the act of being a censor and silencing somebody for a particular reason based on a self-righteous agenda. For those that wish to suggest I am using only the most extreme example to support my case is for a very good reason: we need unregulated free speech in order to prevent barbaric acts by (mostly theocratic organizations) barbarians from happening again. If we support even the slightest bit of regulation on free expression, we allow the barbarians to gain a foot-hold on the territory of intellectualism, and who will command this brigade of barbarity? THE BARBARIANS! Organizations like ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and Hezbollah; they all operate on the dependency of stifling and silencing free-thought in order to spread their dangerous and totalitarian ideology via coercion. Regulating free speech is a form of coercing public discourse and it must be stopped. This is why I voted for 100% free expression.

Thank you.

 

[Elegant Winter]

I don't think it should be illegal to deny The Holocaust. I just think that people who deny The Holocaust should be sacked from their jobs, have any professional status they hold revoked, and be advertised by their legal names as Holocaust Deniers.

Lol.

 

[Artisan]

Back when I was in school, freedom of speech was always and everywhere advocated as a basic human right. Censorship was considered the first hallmark of tyranny.

Today, it seems as though freedom of speech is often critiqued and treated as being almost synonymous with hate speech.

Thoughts?

I agree, especially on the modern turn freedom of speech is becoming deliberately confused with and its slow but sure censorship as the result of Politically Correct folk and movements.

 

[invisible]

Lol.

Lol.

 

[Azereiah]

JJJA, if I told the cops that you were a terrorist, you just shot a kid, and were about to bomb a theater full of school kids...

Would your "All speech should be permitted under all circumstances no matter what" belief also include that I'm at no fault for a SWAT team kicking down your door and wrongfully arresting you?

Speech includes a lot of things and can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon.

 

[brightmoon]

Some hate speech isn't hard to define. If someone advocated the genocide of another race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, that's hate speech and its really clear cut.
Others not so much, like the controversy surrounding Donald Trump

Refer to this article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35041402 Under the Public Order Act (1986) Trump may be guilty of hate speech in the UK

Hate speech doesn't even exist in US law in the same ways as it does in Canada, the UK and Europe.

I am not an advocate of an absolute right to free speech. Rights must be balanced with responsibilities and yes words have power.

 

[invisible]

I thought a lot about the much more well considered and thoughtful posts on this thread than mine and changed my mind. I do think that certain things people say such as slander and denying the holocaust should be illegal. I still think people who deny the holocaust should lose their jobs and professional status over it though, but that's very much just my personal belief. Sorry if my views offend/ed anyone.

 

[JJJA]

Some hate speech isn't hard to define. If someone advocated the genocide of another race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, that's hate speech and its really clear cut.
Others not so much, like the controversy surrounding Donald Trump

Refer to this article here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35041402 Under the Public Order Act (1986) Trump may be guilty of hate speech in the UK

Hate speech doesn't even exist in US law in the same ways as it does in Canada, the UK and Europe.

I am not an advocate of an absolute right to free speech. Rights must be balanced with responsibilities and yes words have power.

So, you are in favour of censorship?

 

[JJJA]

JJJA, if I told the cops that you were a terrorist, you just shot a kid, and were about to bomb a theater full of school kids...

Would your "All speech should be permitted under all circumstances no matter what" belief also include that I'm at no fault for a SWAT team kicking down your door and wrongfully arresting you?

Speech includes a lot of things and can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon.

You're suggesting that speech be regulated because a person lied to a cop. What happened to personal responsibility? People here wish for responsibility but they also advocate personal management of people's responsibilities by regulating what they can and cannot say. I am sure that if you told the cops such a thing, they would first ask a few more questions and also would require plenty of evidence in the process. There are also laws protecting people from being wrongly accused, and none of them does nothing to hamper the right of somebody to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. These examples are complete nonsense and only highlight the ridiculous extent to-which people are willing to give up a few personal rights just to 'keep the peace'. Grow a pair.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

JJJA, if I told the cops that you were a terrorist, you just shot a kid, and were about to bomb a theater full of school kids...

Would your "All speech should be permitted under all circumstances no matter what" belief also include that I'm at no fault for a SWAT team kicking down your door and wrongfully arresting you?

Speech includes a lot of things and can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon.

That scenario doesn't sound like speech to me in the least. That's directly acussing someone of something he didn't do, lying. Free speech, the way i understand it, doesn't really have to do with incitation, (much less acussation).

 

[brightmoon]

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] Yes under some circumstances I am in favour of censorship. When that speech advocates the genocide of a race, for example, it should be censored.

 

[Azereiah]

You're suggesting that speech be regulated because a person lied to a cop. What happened to personal responsibility? People here wish for responsibility but they also advocate personal management of people's responsibilities by regulating what they can and cannot say. I am sure that if you told the cops such a thing, they would first ask a few more questions and also would require plenty of evidence in the process. There are also laws protecting people from being wrongly accused, and none of them does nothing to hamper the right of somebody to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. These examples are complete nonsense and only highlight the ridiculous extent to-which people are willing to give up a few personal rights just to 'keep the peace'. Grow a pair.

I will dispute the point that the cops will ask many questions, because people have been SWATted quite regularly over the past several years, many of whom have come to injury.

Point being, twisting the truth or lying to the correct individuals can cause unnecessary injury and death, and as such, it should be banned in some circumstances on account of being paramount to murder if successful. Inciting a riot, or calling for public executions of, say, all blacks would fall under this category as well.

"Personal Responsibility" is a bullshit point because humans are not responsible. We have laws in the first place because people are inherently irresponsible creatures, and suggesting that they can just magically stop doing stupid or mean things is utterly ridiculous.

 

[JJJA]

I will dispute the point that the cops will ask many questions, because people have been SWATted quite regularly over the past several years, many of whom have come to injury.

Point being, twisting the truth or lying to the correct individuals can cause unnecessary injury and death, and as such, it should be banned in some circumstances on account of being paramount to murder if successful. Inciting a riot, or calling for public executions of, say, all blacks would fall under this category as well.

"Personal Responsibility" is a bullshit point because humans are not responsible. We have laws in the first place because people are inherently irresponsible creatures, and suggesting that they can just magically stop doing stupid or mean things is utterly ridiculous.

Personal Responsibility is an excellent point because humans ARE responsible. When did I ever suggest that people can magically stop doing mean things? When did I ever condone mean things? This is how absurd your camp is getting. You are willing to stop people from potentially causing a damage to peace by force in order to keep people from learning how to act responsibly. Humans can learn to be responsible, and I know many people that are very responsible people that have voted for the first motion here.

It honestly doesn't matter what specific example you come up with. All of your examples come down to an inescapable truth: People will always attempt to spread untruths. People do it every day and I am damn tired of people doing it without repercussion, but I always defend their right to speak their mind. If a person says terrible things, then the responsible humans will judge that person accordingly and dismiss them as [insert 'ism' here]. What you and others are calling for is a complete ban on some kind of unexplained category of speech whilst giving a shady justification for its implementation into law.

How would you stop somebody saying such things to the cop if they have already done it? How would you implement censorship and who would be your target?