First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply No to Free Speech with Social Justice?
22118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/31/16

Laws on free speech include a concept of "protected speech". The fact that there's more than one concept here doesn't invalidate the idea of a legal concept having underlying principles. Or the idea that people have rights.


Such laws vary from State to State Constitutions, but to admit that there's protected speech insinuates that there is unprotected speech, which would be a limit or limits on free speech already, no?
3415 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 10/31/16

ClothStatue wrote:
But if you cannot make laws by majority approval of some kind, how do you suppose we do? We have checks and balances to slow the process, and do our best to ensure reasonable passage of laws through many channels.
thats why we have groupes of people educated in such stuff to deal with it as a group, and ofc things can be discussed with the masses.
But most likely with such high education and working for such things, they would most likely be quite reasonable to an degree ofc.

same with our country have a group of selected few to be in charge insted of americans single "boss/leader".
with then even a bigger party of like... 100+ members?
All of them have to go through a system of education so no random fools can be elected.
With only a week for more or less to vote and thats done and finished.
22118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 10/31/16

thats why we have groupes of people educated in such stuff to deal with it as a group, and ofc things can be discussed with the masses.
But most likely with such high education and working for such things, they would most likely be quite reasonable to an degree ofc.

same with our country have a group of selected few to be in charge insted of americans single "boss/leader".
with then even a bigger party of like... 100+ members?
All of them have to go through a system of education so no random fools can be elected.
With only a week for more or less to vote and thats done and finished.


Highly educated is a relative thing, but that's true. My point is that if a law passes through these channels by majority, unless deemed unconstitutional by the court system, which is absolutely everyone's right to challenge it, can it not be passed through simply because a minority of people disagree? That's why we have activists for causes is it not? We try to convince people to support laws and propositions through debate with one another, that's a democracy. A democracy without the ability to pass laws lest they 'trample the disagreers' is just... noise. There are many laws that discriminate that pass through, while I strongly disagree with them, I understand that they were passed via at least some representation of a majority (okay well, pretending conveniently gerrymandering doesn't exist for a moment, but that's a whole other problem). But I can still fight to overturn said laws, and create new ones that may have different or even opposite effects.
24653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Aberystwyth, Wale...
Offline
Posted 10/31/16 , edited 10/31/16

ClothStatue wrote:


A good democracy will be designed so as to prevent the whims of the mob from trampling over the rights of their fellow citizens. If you on behalf of the mob want to rewrite the rules so that the mob is allowed to do all the trampling it likes, I'm glad you don't hold elected office.


Welcome to being a minority in the United States. And actually yes, our government without a balance of ideas is easily exploitable. Imagine if congress was a 75% to 25% split, there would be suffice to say, a lot of trampling going on. But if you cannot make laws by majority approval of some kind, how do you suppose we do? We have checks and balances to slow the process, and do our best to ensure reasonable passage of laws through many channels.


If you admit that a democratic government can be tyrannical and oppresive if the majority is voting for bad laws, then we're done with that part of the discussion, because that means you've admitted that the laws passed by a democratic government are not the same thing as the principles behind the idea of the existence of a right, or those rights themselves.

In which case, we can go back to the actual point about the nature of free speech, this time without the irrelevant tangent about the nature of democracy. To wit; "freedom from speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is a canard used to justify silencing political speech.


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Rowan93 wrote:



A good democracy will be designed so as to prevent the whims of the mob from trampling over the rights of their fellow citizens.


Who is the mob? The people that just don't want to use made up 'gender pronouns' or the literal mob of mentally ill people demanding people use their 'pronouns' (xem xir xey etc) or face violence?


Well, it's a general point about principles and democracies, so in different times and places it could be either side of the aisle, but really, it's the [CURRENT YEAR] and I'm arguing the point that just because a mob says it doesn't mean it's right; which side do you think I'm on here?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.