First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Oh Boy: 40% of Millennials Would Censor 'Offensive Speech'
8524 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
People are hurt by everything these days
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Hmm, from what I got out of it, he was referring to libel and slander. Threats. The sort of matters where restriction is warranted.
8701 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Definitely not EU
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
40% of Millennials are also dickheads. Coincidence?
24056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/19/15 , edited 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


PrinceJudar wrote:

A good listen.



I have to disagree with him about censorship being necessary to some degree. We live in the Information Age -- a time where the world's largest database (the internet) is at the tip of our fingers. It's accessible from our phones, our laptops, our desktops, our tablets, our portable gaming consoles, and even pairs of glasses. At any time in the day we can look up information regarding a certain subject or access the news. All that's required is an internet connection.

While some would argue that this has only increased the chance of misinformation spreading and that the internet is a cesspool of lies, I would firmly disagree. There are most definitely sites and people on the internet who spread falsehood and misinformation. However, there are also numerous reliable sources that many recognize as common household names. And these reliable sources can provide us with information that the mainstream media might not report on or that politicians may not want us to see. They ensure that we get a steady flow of accurate data to decide our thoughts on the issue and to keep informed with what's going on with the world. With this information, we're able to see through lies and share our findings with others over the internet and in person.

Misinformation, I'd argue, is far more easily combated now then it ever was before. The truth can be found out in a simple search or a single click. No one has to search vigorously in order to discover that someone's spewing out bullshit. For example, let's take Donald Trump. A while ago he posted made-up statistics that were originally shared by a neo-Nazi. After doing so, the origin of the statistics and their falsehood was quickly discovered and revealed to the American public. If the internet had never been invented and Trump had come out with those statistics, I guarantee you that he'd have fooled a greater number of people. But because we have this tool at our disposal, misinformation and propaganda such as what he posted are quickly revealed for what they are.

Honestly, I'm just not at all comfortable with the idea of a filter being placed over my mouth. I don't think it's unreasonable to feel that way either. While I'm strongly against hate speech and the sort, I don't think it's something that government should ban. Those are just my thoughts on the matter though.


So if the government can't ban any form of speech, you think it should be legal to yell "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded room then? Because the restriction of saying those things is a form of restriction on free speech. Another example are the restrictions on advertisements that they must not be fraudulent and can't spout blatantly untrue facts i.e. "this car was only driven by Grandma to church on Sundays." These are considered crimes because the use of one's speech in this way is not to simply express oneself or one's ideas but to cause harm and damage other people.

Then, since I assume you think that deliberate fraud should be illegal, which is a form of restriction on free speech, how then does one justify allowing hate speech? Suppose a prominent local political figure goes on forms of media and tells people, "Black people are stupid, violent, rapists and if we don't get them out of our community they will murder your friends and family and rape your daughters and wives." Suppose then, some of the already fairly racist people in this area go out and lynch a black person or two. Has the politician done nothing wrong? One cannot simply assume that a person's speech will have no impact, or simply expect all people who listen to a speech to spend the time fact checking everything you say. Words may not directly hurt anybody, but they certainly have an impact, just ask every major corporation in existence what they think, (though instead of asking you could just look at the billions of dollars they spend on advertising, which is a prime example of how speech vastly impacts what we do and feel.)

Now before you accuse me of being a radical left wing censorship Nazi, I utterly detest the amount of political correctness and absurd amount of attempted censorship that millennials are attempting to put into effect. I think that any censorship that interferes with one's ability to convey one's opinions and beliefs earnestly is wrong. That being said, I do not give a free pass to speech simply because it can be written off as opinion, and I am especially unsympathetic to fraudulent activity. The use of bogus research studies, misrepresentation of statistics and non-cited facts spouted in the media is absurd and, in my opinion, needs to be made illegal because the vast majority of people are not proactive in educating themselves on world/societal facts and if the news misrepresents something, many of the viewers will take it as though it is true, even were the true story were available online as you have suggested. Furthermore I think that phrasing one's opinion in such a way that it not be taken as hate speech is important. If someone in the news media were to announce that he "doesn't like black people" I would not try to censor him, and he would most likely not inspire any acts of violence. However, were he to attempt to go on a tirade against blacks and how we need to wipe them out for the sake of the country, I would fiercely object.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

Bantarific wrote:

So if the government can't ban any form of speech, you think it should be legal to yell "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded room then? Because the restriction of saying those things is a form of restriction on free speech.




Please tell me what opinion someone is expressing in the examples you provided.


Another example are the restrictions on advertisements that they must not be fraudulent and can't spout blatantly untrue facts i.e. "this car was only driven by Grandma to church on Sundays." These are considered crimes because the use of one's speech in this way is not to simply express oneself or one's ideas but to cause harm and damage other people.


Contrary to what Mitt Romeny says, corporations aren't people.



Then, since I assume you think that deliberate fraud should be illegal, which is a form of restriction on free speech, how then does one justify allowing hate speech? Suppose a prominent local political figure goes on forms of media and tells people, "Black people are stupid, violent, rapists and if we don't get them out of our community they will murder your friends and family and rape your daughters and wives." Suppose then, some of the already fairly racist people in this area go out and lynch a black person or two. Has the politician done nothing wrong?


He's done something wrong, but just because he's done something wrong doesn't mean legal action should be taken against him. I don't support adultery, but that doesn't mean I want to see the government punish people for cheating on their spouse. The fact of the matter is that while the politician incited said violence, he wasn't the one who committed the crime. Telling him what he can and can't say on the grounds that it might incite violence is simply absurd.

Every religion, ideology, philosophy, and ideal under the sun has the potential to incite people to commit violent acts. It doesn't matter whether it's benevolent or malicious, righteous or revolting, just or downright immoral. It can and will motivate individuals to do illegal and despicable things. Should we ban Islam because of groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda? Should we censor any and all opinions against the government out of the fear that somebody may commit terrorism because of them?


The use of bogus research studies, misrepresentation of statistics and non-cited facts spouted in the media is absurd and, in my opinion, needs to be made illegal because the vast majority of people are not proactive in educating themselves on world/societal facts and if the news misrepresents something, many of the viewers will take it as though it is true, even were the true story were available online as you have suggested.


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.

2277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
I'm not a big fan of censorship. I think being respectful is important and choose not to be a jerk but I won't say everyone should always do the same. People should be free to express themselves. Also people need to take a little responsibility. If someone's being offensive online then you can self censor. Just don't read it. It's as simple as that.

Now there is also a time and place for everything. Being "offensive" while on the job might not be a smart idea. Deciding to express yourself in public by screaming and ranting...also not a good idea. There are consequences for choosing to use your freedom of speech. You want to go up to a group of people of any race and scream racial profanities at them then that's your right but be prepared to get your butt kicked.

Who defines what's offensive anyway? How do you even define that? I find the band Ween highly offensive because of how horrible they are but others may love them. We're all different.

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.

The constitution is hard for newer generations to interpret. But I'm sure there are a few users here(myself included) who can interpret it for you.
19260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
Shit like this makes me embarrassed to belong in the millennial group. So much for 'freedom of speech', eh?
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.

The constitution is hard for newer generations to interpret. But I'm sure there are a few users here(myself included) who can interpret it for you.


You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

As for my quote, it's a direct quotation of the First Amendment.


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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 12/19/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

^

GrandMasterCoolio, this is a fail of the Internet. Not saying you're wrong, but your source is not legitimate. If you want to cite a right, you go to the constitution of 1791, you do not use a search result from anything else.

The constitution is hard for newer generations to interpret. But I'm sure there are a few users here(myself included) who can interpret it for you.


You mean this constitution? The United States Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788.

As for my quote, it's a direct quotation of the First Amendment.


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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Wrong. That's the "UNITED STATES Constitution"

I said 1971, it refers to "The Constitution for the United States of America"

http://rvbeypublications.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/constitutionnorthamerica3.pdf

It's also worth noting that the article you linked confuses the two as the UNITED STATES Constitution wasn't around in the 1700's. If you're confused, than you probably don't have both constitutions. I do.

The first "Bill of Rights" is at the bottom, which contradict your google search referring to this particular amendment only covering "opinions"

Again, you're not necessarily wrong, you just used a bad source. Which is fine because most people don't know there's 2 Constitutions.

One for America.

And one for UNITED STATES.

2468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
Maybe we should define what "offensive" is before this gets out of hand...
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/15 , edited 12/19/15
"You can say anything you want except when it offends me."

Anyway, it does sound like they are against hate speech rather than all speech with the potential to be offensive. There's a difference. Indeed, blatant hate speech ought not to be endorsed, but speech shouldn't be restricted simply because there's a potential for offense.
4315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Arizona
Offline
Posted 12/19/15
only 40%? I would have guessed a larger portion were a bunch of thumb suckers. People dont like to hear things that make them think. Offensive language is a great way to create discussion about a serious topic.

On a second note what is it they deem offensive? There are alot of things that offend me (like their logic) so does that mean I cn ask the government to censor anything I want? Sounds like a slippery slope to me.
Posted 12/19/15
Well, maybe Akage Chan is right. Millenials do suck.
Posted 12/19/15
Fuck we are entering the twilight zone.
In the other hand, I live in another country now. No longer my problem.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.