First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
On "Freedom of Speech Argument"
1846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Davis, California
Offline
Posted 1/30/09 , edited 1/30/09
Note: I originally posted this topic in a group forum I'm a member of because at the time I attempted to post this topic on a non-group forum, I didn't have enough cr points to do so. So I'll now post it here:

You ever noticed how every opinionated individual would justify any opinion, no matter how insipid and completely brainless it is with the argument "Freedom of Speech?" Every time a person would use that excuse, it makes me wanna roll my eyes. Why you ask?As much as I like the ideal. many people don't actually believe in it. Simply put, the only reason they would use the "Freedom of Speech" is if only it's in their favor. Akin to die-hard religious folks using the "God says" argument, people from ALL political spectrums would only argue "Freedom of Speech" when it's only in their own personal interest. Don't get me wrong. I thinks it's good that people have strong opinions but if they are not willing to accept that the other party has a right to say their opinion as well as they, then they don't deserve to use "Freedom of Speech" as a legit argument. Here are a few anecdotes to clarify my point:

1.) When I was in high school, I used to have a classmate who was conservative in her politics. At the time of the 2004 election, during the Republican convention, she claimed that the liberal protesters should stop protesting because "The Republicans are allowed to have a convention It's called 'Freedom of Speech.'" Now I do agree with her about that except for one glaring contradiction: One day she came in my classroom hopping mad . I asked what was wrong. She said that she was furious at the manager of a local movie theater simply because he kept putting his liberal beliefs on the marque and he's not allowed to do that. I said "You said that the Republicans are allowed a convention because of ' Freedom of Speech' yet you got mad when the manager posted his contrasting beliefs on his marque. So is this so-called 'Freedom of Speech' only limited to your own?" She didn't say much after that.

2.) I once met a Neo-Nazi on Youtube who claimed that Kramer had the right to loose his composure at the Laff Factory and started to make infantile racial slurs at the black hecklers because of "Freedom of Speech." However when I asked this same Neo-Nazi what he thought of of the Black Nationalist Kamau Kambon speech about "Exterminating all white people" he claimed that Kambon is "just an uppity nigger" and had no right to say that. Then I said to him "So you said that Kramer had the right to call the heckler a nigger yet you said that Kambon doesn't have a right to say "Exterminate all white people?" If you truly believe in 'Freedom of Speech' then shouldn't Kambon say what he pleases as well? The Neo-Nazi shut the hell up after that. Another hypocrite bites the dust I suppose.

3.) In high school I met a liberal columnist who wrote an article defending a kid who painted a picture of Bush's decapitated head on a platter. The columnist once again argued 'Freedom of Speech.' Yet this same columnist wrote an editorial article saying how another columnist, who is a conservative, shouldn't be allowed to write an article attacking John Kerry. I rolled my eyes at his glaring hypocrisy.

4.) I met a white person once who argued that racist speech should be allowed because of "Freedom of Speech" even though he is not an advocate of bigotry himself yet this same person griped about racist speech spoken about Whites by a Black person. If that person truly believed in "Freedom of Speech ", then he should see racist speech against Whites as a form of "Free Speech" as well.

You see how utterly flawed and hypocritical "Freedom of Speech" argument is? Why won't these people admit their selfish bias and stop pretending to be a supporter of an ideal they truly don't believe in to begin with? What an utter sham those people are.


In addition, I also hate it when people always uses that argument as an excuse to justify their own stupidity. Mainly because they're stating the obvious for doing so.Now before you people tell me "BUT QUASIMODOSUNDAY YOU ARE JUST BEING A HYPOCRITE FOR THINKING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION IS STUPID IF YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH! SO YOU COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED YOURSELF IN THIS SECOND RANT!!!!! LOL!!!!" Understand this: I believe that people have a right to say their opinions but it doesn't mean that another person doesn't have a right to believe that the other person's opinion is wrong or just plain stupid. There's a difference between having a right to believe something and disagreeing with someone for their opinions, regardless if you think they're idiots for it or not: Here's a little scenario:

Tool: "HOMOSEXUALS ARE ALL SEXUAL DEVIANTS AND THEY CHOOSE TO BE GAY LOL"

Me: You are an idiot. Please kill yourself.

Tool: "HEY DUDE! I HAVE A RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH,YO! FUCK YOU!!!!!!LOL

Me:No shit, Sherlock. Of course you have a right to free speech.It still doesn't mean I don't have a right to believe you're an idiot for your ill-informed opinions. The fact you have a right to believe and/or say your foolish belief is not the issue here. The only issue here is that you're an idiot. Stop stating the obvious by saying the "Freedom of speech" argument. I mean I understand if you said that because I said"You can't say that opinion" but I'm merely disagreeing with you and think you're an idiot for it. There's a major difference between saying "You can't say that because it's too offensive and I don't agree with you" and simply saying, "You're and idiot for your foolish views.". Get a life, cretin.

Tool:......

Me: QED, bitch.

See what I'm talkin' about here? Freedom of speech is an "equivalent" exchange." It's a two way street. People have a right to say their opinions as is their opponents for disagreeing and thinking whatever they want about that particular opinion; Regardless if it's disrespectful or not. Too many people have the false notion that "Freedom of Speech" is when an individual can say whatever they want without "voice of dissent" from the other party.It's not. Freedom of speech just means that a person is ALLOWED to voice their opinion regardless if its idiotic or whatnot while at the same time allowing another person to disagree with it.

End rant.

.

5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/30/09
wut does "QED" mean?
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 1/31/09
Well, your "freedom of speech argument" seems to be used for the wrong reasoning. Amendment I deals with freedom of expression while having a "time, place, and manner restriction." It does not mean that they use it to support their argument. They are just saying that they are free to express their opinions as well as not accept others opinions while making others acknowledge their opinions. True, it is hypocritical. But, they have the freedom to be charlatans.
Bigotry seems to be associated with what you are saying. They seem to be intolerate of others opinions. We have a freedom to express after all.
Freedom of Speech is not really used as a reasoning; it is just used to justify that they have the freedom to say it and disagree to what others say. Or which ever fits. It is exactly what you are doing right now: you are hating them for their expression themselves while you are asserting that they are idiots. It is the justification of the act, not the justification of what they had said. It is, after all, not even a good support for argument to just say "freedom of speech."
It is more on how you interpret it than how they use it. Surely you can interpret it that way, but you have to realize that you are not them nor are they you. You are free to think differently and so are they. We have a global perception after all. We have different opinions--biased opinions.
So yeah, you ranting about them does not make you any different from them.
Posted 2/24/09
what QED?
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 2/24/09
QED is a Latin acronym (dont know the exact words) that means "I showed what I am supposed to show."
Posted 2/25/09
Well I think freedom of speech is necessary or else dissent could be dealt with in a harsh manner (Look at those unfortunate souls who dare speak their mind in N.Korea, Russia, and China) though some have slackened laws on speech in China and Russia it is still considered ballsy to state or express certain things and can still put you into an early grave, depending on what you were trying to get across. Freedom of speech being hypocritical? Yes in certain cases, but to me the examples you gave seem to be from people who do not fully grasp the concept of the right to speak your mind. Everyone has the right to an opinion but I am sure that the majority who do so out of ignorance do not really make a dent in what the broad public views as free speech that matters.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 2/25/09 , edited 2/25/09
Well racism/hate is legal, nobody is gonna arrest me for calling a black man a nigger, nobody is gonna arrest me for saying kill all the jews, Racism and Hate is a part of freedom of speech, also i have the right to say your a fat ass, or go kill yourself nobody loves you. its all part off freedom of speech. We have the right to be racist or hateful
559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Feminism is made...
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Well racism/hate is legal, nobody is gonna arrest me for calling a black man a nigger, nobody is gonna arrest me for saying kill all the jews, Racism and Hate is a part of freedom of speech, also i have the right to say your a fat ass, or go kill yourself nobody loves you. its all part off freedom of speech. We have the right to be racist or hateful


I guess Amendment I is mistaken for "right to be ignorant" instead of "freedom of expression." There is a limitation to freedom of speech, it is under the time, place and manner restriction of the amendment. Another restriction of it is when it jeopardize national security and endangers the public or instills angry thoughts that can cause public disorder. True, you can say nigger to anyone, but if it actually causes a public disturbance, you can get arrested. It is indeed a part of freedom of speech, but as always, freedom is associated with responsibilities.

You seem to have proven the thread starter's point by the way. Great job.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 2/26/09

jewishplayer wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Well racism/hate is legal, nobody is gonna arrest me for calling a black man a nigger, nobody is gonna arrest me for saying kill all the jews, Racism and Hate is a part of freedom of speech, also i have the right to say your a fat ass, or go kill yourself nobody loves you. its all part off freedom of speech. We have the right to be racist or hateful


I guess Amendment I is mistaken for "right to be ignorant" instead of "freedom of expression." There is a limitation to freedom of speech, it is under the time, place and manner restriction of the amendment. Another restriction of it is when it jeopardize national security and endangers the public or instills angry thoughts that can cause public disorder. True, you can say nigger to anyone, but if it actually causes a public disturbance, you can get arrested. It is indeed a part of freedom of speech, but as always, freedom is associated with responsibilities.

You seem to have proven the thread starter's point by the way. Great job.


Every human being is ignorant in some way. But I'm not stupid enough to go up to a black man and call him a nigger, I"m not fond of getting punched in the face, you see. But yeah I see your point about national security and all that other crap. Although Instead of saying something, you could just as easily have it put onto a tee-shirt.
3545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 2/27/09
freedom of speech does not truly exist.
Posted 2/27/09

kamsa wrote:

freedom of speech does not truly exist.


I think freedom of speech exists, but the people that evoke the right to freedom of speech (In a way that tries to inform the public, bring out questions that need answering, or trying to elevate humanity to a higher level), are oppressed by forces that would like to see their rights diminished so as not to interfere with their ways of doing things. So maybe humanity lacks true physical freedom from a system it has no control over.
3545 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / United States
Offline
Posted 2/27/09
i somewhat agree with you. i do believe that freedom of speech exists but there are limitations to it, which some can be understandable but there are others that i find ridiculous.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 3/1/09
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thing...

But basically freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, like don't spread hate speech. Like when those caricatures of the prophet Muhammed were published and people went insane. What's the point of doing something like that when you know all you're doing is offending 1 billion people's most sensitive beliefs?

People have freedom of speech, but you also have to be responsible.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 3/1/09
there is no true freedom of speech

there were instances (such as in WWI) where the government arrested and fined those who spoke against the war
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 3/2/09 , edited 3/2/09

LemonyPanda wrote:

there is no true freedom of speech

there were instances (such as in WWI) where the government arrested and fined those who spoke against the war


amendment 1 - bill of rights.

your statement "there is no true freedom of speech" is overstated.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.