First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply 73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For
1081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:




Should be posted over and over till they get it.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:


You do realize that the concept of freedom of speech exists outside of the first amendment?


Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction


1081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:


You do realize that the concept of freedom of speech exists outside of the first amendment?


Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction




Freedom of speech =/= freedom from societal consequences.

It never has. And it never will.
19445 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17
Free Speech is worth it, it is not free of consequence, but it does require access to the debate.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

21stCenturyGemini wrote:

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from societal consequences.

It never has. And it never will.


Except that's the definition of the phrase, so you're wrong

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


Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4]



According to Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1994), any means by which conformity to socially approved standards is enforced, is called social sanction.



A sanction is any reaction from others to the behaviour of an individual or group.


Also, just to get it out there, being outraged doesn't mean you can justify any actions taken in the name of 'societal consequences'.

662 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

21stCenturyGemini wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:


You do realize that the concept of freedom of speech exists outside of the first amendment?


Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction




Freedom of speech =/= freedom from societal consequences.

It never has. And it never will.


Oh no, don't start the argument that never ends.

Look, they even got a visual aid for this one.

Some people have their opinion, and you can prove them wrong a hundred ways to Sunday, and you still get the same argument.

That's called being unrealistic or unreasonable.

When you get to that point, as long as they do no harm, let it go.
qwueri 
25770 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


Except that's the definition of the phrase, so you're wrong

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


Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4]



According to Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (1994), any means by which conformity to socially approved standards is enforced, is called social sanction.



A sanction is any reaction from others to the behaviour of an individual or group.


Also, just to get it out there, being outraged doesn't mean you can justify any actions taken in the name of 'societal consequences'.



If you bothered to read past the opening line, there's an entire paragraph detailing the functional application of free speech and why absolute freedom from sanction for speech is impractical (if not impossible).


Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[5] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[6] The idea of the "offense principle" is also used in the justification of speech limitations, describing the restriction on forms of expression deemed offensive to society, considering factors such as extent, duration, motives of the speaker, and ease with which it could be avoided.[6] With the evolution of the digital age, application of the freedom of speech becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise, for example the Golden Shield Project, an initiative by Chinese government's Ministry of Public Security that filters potentially unfavorable data from foreign countries.


Free speech is a two-way street, and people are generally free to express their disagreement within the purview of law.
2180 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17
There's such a thing as swinging too far in both directions. Too much "freedom of speech" is toxic and self-indulgent, whilst too much "societal consequence" is in the same vein. Authoritarianism, mob rule, anarchy, ect... Same bullshit. "Societal consequence" utilizes "freedom of speech," too. Everyone wants to do and say what they want. It's the same damned story, yet it's something of trend to pretend otherwise.
48851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

runec wrote:

Because this will inevitably become relevant in this thread lets just get it out of the way at the start:




ding ding ding
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

qwueri wrote:



If you bothered to read past the opening line, there's an entire paragraph detailing the functional application of free speech and why absolute freedom from sanction for speech is impractical (if not impossible).




That doesn't contradict what I posted. He was still wrong.


Free speech is a two-way street, and people are generally free to express their disagreement within the purview of law.


Right, but we all know what 'societal consequences' means to some people. Sure, you're free to criticize or to disassociate (unless you're a Christian baker...) but the moment you assault someone because your feefees got hurt, you can be legally killed. In countries that actually have Freedom of Speech in more than just name, anyway. That's why having the 2nd to defend the 1st is so important.
Silencing free speech because some ferals might go bananas is trash and goes against the concept of Free Speech.


qwueri 
25770 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

That doesn't contradict what I posted. He was still wrong.

...

Right, but we all know what 'societal consequences' means to some people. Sure, you're free to criticize or to disassociate (unless you're a Christian baker...) but the moment you assault someone because your feefees got hurt, you can be legally killed. In countries that actually have Freedom of Speech in more than just name, anyway. That's why having the 2nd to defend the 1st is so important.
Silencing free speech because some ferals might go bananas is trash and goes against the concept of Free Speech.




In the abstract sense, with zero practical application, sure he's wrong. Start applying freedom of speech beyond the esoteric definition certain forums use to justify a wild west policy, and your singular focus on a line from wikipedia doesn't hold water.

And props for segueing into a vaguely racist screed on gun-rights?

Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

qwueri wrote:

In the abstract sense, with zero practical application, sure he's wrong.




No, he was just wrong.



And props for segueing into a vaguely racist screed on gun-rights?


"Racist"


2nd defends the 1st, you can't have one without the other.



29637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17
Yeah there aren't laws governing speech but the self-censorship is still particularly repulsive when it favors only one political ideology.
qwueri 
25770 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

No, he was just wrong.

...

"Racist"


2nd defends the 1st, you can't have one without the other.





He's wrong on 4chan, perhaps.

And trying to argue that civil society cannot uphold freedom of speech without the right to bear arms is patently wrong on several levels. Not the least of which is neglecting the ability for people to discuss matters civilly and the ability of law enforcement to punish those who resort to violence.


MysticGon wrote:

Yeah there aren't laws governing speech but the self-censorship is still particularly repulsive when it favors only one political ideology.


Republicans practice their own brand of political correctness in everything but name. Self-censorship is common in all political ideologies, whether they choose to label it as such or not.
Posted 8/26/17 , edited 8/26/17

qwueri wrote:

And trying to argue that civil society cannot uphold freedom of speech without the right to bear arms is patently wrong on several levels. Not the least of which is neglecting the ability for people to discuss matters civilly and the ability of law enforcement to punish those who resort to violence.


What happens when those who use violence to attack other's free speech become a tool for law enforcement? Like in Russia and the EU.

You're wrong. You cannot have free speech without arms to defend your speech. On paper, sure people could just talk 'civilly'. It doesn't happen in practice. Neither does 'just letting police arrest those who resort to violence'. When seconds count, the police are minutes away and all that.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.