First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
On "Freedom of Speech Argument"
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/2/09

Teresa_Yuuki wrote:


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.


He is right that there is no "true" freedom of speech, there are some limits on what we can say. Slander is illegal, inciting a riot is illegal, and causing panic (like yelling "fire" in a crowded public place) is illegal. These limits aren't very strict so they don't affect most people.
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 3/3/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Teresa_Yuuki wrote:


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.


He is right that there is no "true" freedom of speech, there are some limits on what we can say. Slander is illegal, inciting a riot is illegal, and causing panic (like yelling "fire" in a crowded public place) is illegal. These limits aren't very strict so they don't affect most people.


yelling fire in a crowded public space? wtf. thats a horrible example.
slander is not illegal - the FEDs are not going to hunt you down, lock you up..just cause u spoke unpopular thoughts.
inciting a riot is illegal because it is a noisy, violent public disorder..a disturbance in peace. Any one is entitled to the right to protest but not in a fashion that will cause a tumult and outbreak. If you want something brought up to attention, do it in a more peaceful way.


70098 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Wa Wa Land
Offline
Posted 3/4/09
Woah...

Humans put themselves in cages, no one to blame but yourselves.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/4/09 , edited 3/4/09

Teresa_Yuuki wrote:
yelling fire in a crowded public space? wtf. thats a horrible example.

Why? If you go to a crowded place and yell "fire" when there isn't one, you're going to cause unnecessary panic (disturbing the peace=infringing on people's rights=illegal) and possibly cause some people to get hurt while they're trying to get away.


slander is not illegal - the FEDs are not going to hunt you down, lock you up..just cause u spoke unpopular thoughts.

Slander=lying about someone in order to ruin their reputation. If someone says "Bill Gates is a pedophile" in order to ruin his image and get him arrested when it's not true, it's illegal.


inciting a riot is illegal because it is a noisy, violent public disorder..a disturbance in peace. Any one is entitled to the right to protest but not in a fashion that will cause a tumult and outbreak. If you want something brought up to attention, do it in a more peaceful way.


I know that, and riots can be started through words. If you tell an angry mob to attack a Burger King because they don't really let you "have it your way," then you're stepping beyond the limits of free speech and doing something illegal.

So, again, there is no such thing as true, 100% freedom of speech.
27546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / London
Offline
Posted 3/4/09
There is no real freedom of speech.
1186 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Leading your nigh...
Offline
Posted 3/4/09
Freedom of speech in most instances is an excuse people use to justify their actions. First off 'freedom of speech' does not exist in all countries, so it's literally impossible to use the 'I can say whatever I want' quota in every country because in some they'll have you hanged.

Second of all, if freedom of speech was allowed, then why is it that lost of students get expelled and sometimes taken up with the cops when a racial slur is used? If freedom of speech did exist then surly a person could say whatever they wanted about another race without consequence.

When 'freedom of speech' is used, the term is so limited, it shouldn't even be used as an excuse anymore. yet, I'll admit that the lack of freedom of speech is shutting up a huge group of idiots... so works for me :P
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Teresa_Yuuki wrote:
yelling fire in a crowded public space? wtf. thats a horrible example.

Why? If you go to a crowded place and yell "fire" when there isn't one, you're going to cause unnecessary panic (disturbing the peace=infringing on people's rights=illegal) and possibly cause some people to get hurt while they're trying to get away.


slander is not illegal - the FEDs are not going to hunt you down, lock you up..just cause u spoke unpopular thoughts.

Slander=lying about someone in order to ruin their reputation. If someone says "Bill Gates is a pedophile" in order to ruin his image and get him arrested when it's not true, it's illegal.


inciting a riot is illegal because it is a noisy, violent public disorder..a disturbance in peace. Any one is entitled to the right to protest but not in a fashion that will cause a tumult and outbreak. If you want something brought up to attention, do it in a more peaceful way.


I know that, and riots can be started through words. If you tell an angry mob to attack a Burger King because they don't really let you "have it your way," then you're stepping beyond the limits of free speech and doing something illegal.

So, again, there is no such thing as true, 100% freedom of speech.


ok fine. *rolls up sleeves* serious business time.

..we are in fact free to speak as we like. freedom of speech differs from some other forms of freedom of action. If the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available. For example, current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree.

A more persuasive analysis of freedom of speech suggests that the threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and potentially more costly to exercise our freedom. Such sanctions take two major forms. The first, and most serious, is legal punishment by the state, which usually consists of a financial penalty, but can stretch occasionally to imprisonment. The second threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others. For example, one could expect a fair amount of these things if one made racist comments during a public lecture at a university.

Therefore, we DO have freedom of speech
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

Teresa_Yuuki wrote:

ok fine. *rolls up sleeves* serious business time.

..we are in fact free to speak as we like. freedom of speech differs from some other forms of freedom of action. If the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available. For example, current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree.

A more persuasive analysis of freedom of speech suggests that the threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and potentially more costly to exercise our freedom. Such sanctions take two major forms. The first, and most serious, is legal punishment by the state, which usually consists of a financial penalty, but can stretch occasionally to imprisonment. The second threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others. For example, one could expect a fair amount of these things if one made racist comments during a public lecture at a university.

Therefore, we DO have freedom of speech

Here are some definitions of "freedom," from dictionary.com:

exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

If there are severe negative consequences of making a certain choice, then it can't be considered true freedom. If that were the case, then we'd have the freedom to kill and rape and steal since no one can stop us from doing those acts once we've done them, only punish us for doing them. We have the ability to say whatever we want, but it's not the same as having the freedom to say whatever we want.

So, again, legally we do not have true, 100% freedom of speech. Since it is the law that allows us to speak (mostly) freely, then it is important to acknowledge the restraints that the law puts on the freedom that it grants us.
17071 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Sellout Town
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

QuasimodoSunday wrote:

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.

.



Speaking of stating the obvious, there's nothing in here to discuss, in an extended fashion or otherwise.
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Teresa_Yuuki wrote:

ok fine. *rolls up sleeves* serious business time.

..we are in fact free to speak as we like. freedom of speech differs from some other forms of freedom of action. If the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available. For example, current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree.

A more persuasive analysis of freedom of speech suggests that the threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and potentially more costly to exercise our freedom. Such sanctions take two major forms. The first, and most serious, is legal punishment by the state, which usually consists of a financial penalty, but can stretch occasionally to imprisonment. The second threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others. For example, one could expect a fair amount of these things if one made racist comments during a public lecture at a university.

Therefore, we DO have freedom of speech

Here are some definitions of "freedom," from dictionary.com:

exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

If there are severe negative consequences of making a certain choice, then it can't be considered true freedom. If that were the case, then we'd have the freedom to kill and rape and steal since no one can stop us from doing those acts once we've done them, only punish us for doing them. We have the ability to say whatever we want, but it's not the same as having the freedom to say whatever we want.

So, again, legally we do not have true, 100% freedom of speech. Since it is the law that allows us to speak (mostly) freely, then it is important to acknowledge the restraints that the law puts on the freedom that it grants us.


You give horrible examples.

and we are on the topic of freedom of speech , not freedom of action.

And, to clear up some gray areas... Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience. You are getting those two mixed up.

In a liberal society, we have found that the harm principle provides reasons for limiting free speech when doing so prevents direct harm to rights. This means that very few speech acts should be prohibited. The offense principle has a wider reach than the harm principle, but it still recommends very limited intervention in the realm of free speech. All forms of speech that are found to be offensive but easily avoidable should go unpunished.
Some argue that speech can be limited for the sake of other liberal values, particularly the concern for democratic equality; the claim is not that speech should always lose out when it clashes with other fundamental principles that underpin modern liberal democracies, but that it should not be automatically privileged. To extend prohibitions on speech and other actions beyond this point requires an argument for a form of legal paternalism that suggests the state should decide what is acceptable for the safety and moral instruction of citizens.

If the USA used the YOUR concept of freedom of speech, we'd no longer be a civilized democracy. We'd be like Columbia, and other chaotic countries.

Our freedom of speech is as free as can be, until we go over the line to the point where we are risking harm and mischief.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

Teresa_Yuuki wrote:
You give horrible examples.

and we are on the topic of freedom of speech , not freedom of action.

And, to clear up some gray areas... Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience. You are getting those two mixed up.

In a liberal society, we have found that the harm principle provides reasons for limiting free speech when doing so prevents direct harm to rights. This means that very few speech acts should be prohibited. The offense principle has a wider reach than the harm principle, but it still recommends very limited intervention in the realm of free speech. All forms of speech that are found to be offensive but easily avoidable should go unpunished.
Some argue that speech can be limited for the sake of other liberal values, particularly the concern for democratic equality; the claim is not that speech should always lose out when it clashes with other fundamental principles that underpin modern liberal democracies, but that it should not be automatically privileged. To extend prohibitions on speech and other actions beyond this point requires an argument for a form of legal paternalism that suggests the state should decide what is acceptable for the safety and moral instruction of citizens.

If the USA used the YOUR concept of freedom of speech, we'd no longer be a civilized democracy. We'd be like Columbia, and other chaotic countries.

Our freedom of speech is as free as can be, until we go over the line to the point where we are risking harm and mischief.


I don't really understand the 3rd paragraph (big words hurt little brain), but I do agree with everything else. And this:


Our freedom of speech is as free as can be, until we go over the line to the point where we are risking harm and mischief.


...is what I was trying to demonstrate in my earlier posts, but I guess I didn't do that very well.
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 3/4/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Teresa_Yuuki wrote:
You give horrible examples.

and we are on the topic of freedom of speech , not freedom of action.

And, to clear up some gray areas... Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to denote not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is closely related to, yet distinct from, the concept of freedom of thought or freedom of conscience. You are getting those two mixed up.

In a liberal society, we have found that the harm principle provides reasons for limiting free speech when doing so prevents direct harm to rights. This means that very few speech acts should be prohibited. The offense principle has a wider reach than the harm principle, but it still recommends very limited intervention in the realm of free speech. All forms of speech that are found to be offensive but easily avoidable should go unpunished.
Some argue that speech can be limited for the sake of other liberal values, particularly the concern for democratic equality; the claim is not that speech should always lose out when it clashes with other fundamental principles that underpin modern liberal democracies, but that it should not be automatically privileged. To extend prohibitions on speech and other actions beyond this point requires an argument for a form of legal paternalism that suggests the state should decide what is acceptable for the safety and moral instruction of citizens.

If the USA used the YOUR concept of freedom of speech, we'd no longer be a civilized democracy. We'd be like Columbia, and other chaotic countries.

Our freedom of speech is as free as can be, until we go over the line to the point where we are risking harm and mischief.


I don't really understand the 3rd paragraph (big words hurt little brain), but I do agree with everything else. And this:


Our freedom of speech is as free as can be, until we go over the line to the point where we are risking harm and mischief.


...is what I was trying to demonstrate in my earlier posts, but I guess I didn't do that very well.


case closed.

nice doing business with you
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.