Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

  1. #1
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    I'm sure that most, if not all of us, support freedom of expression. It is a fundamental element of human freedom. But freedom, of natural necessity, has limits. To what extent should people be able to express themselves? Should this freedom extend to repulsive, discriminatory, and even blatantly false opinions? If these are to be forbidden, who decides whether an opinion is legal or not, and how do they reach this decision?

    We have all seen the extremes. On the one hand history shows brutal police states, where dissent is forbidden and people must choose their words carefully. On the other hand, we also have seen those who abuse others with their rights, take the most extreme and unsupportable opinions, and provoke their fellow men.

    Where do we draw the line? Is there a line at all? That is the topic which Thermal and myself have chosen to discuss. He is for the limiting of free speech, and I am for freedom from withstraint. Take notice that this is in lieu of AntiWarman's withdrawal from the other debate on this topic, due to time constraints.

    The commentary thread for readers can be found here.

    Thermal can make the first statement. Take it away mate!
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  2. #2

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    Free speech in hindsight may sound like a good idea, but essentially can be used as a tool to discriminate and undermine. Free speech allows people to be offensive to someones culture, beliefs, race and appearance amongst other things, which can only breed hatred.

    I don't suggest that people shouldn't be allowed opinions, but they should be rational and diplomatic. Being unnecessarily violent and unreasonable in speech is, if anything, going to make some people even more against your views, lengthening the divide. Which on a political scale, may then go on to play a major factor in creating riots and wars. For example, freedom of speech is what allows leaders such Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to publicly announce his hatred of Israel and Jew's, which has contributed to there hostility between each other.

    The freedom of speech can be abused in that it also means the freedom to lie, people can be lead to believe ridiculous things, especially when spread in less developed countries which perhaps haven't received the education or the unbiased side of matters others have, a man of importance telling African's that showering reduces AID's for example, is a huge immoral lie which overrides rationality as we know it, but to those in vulnerable situations, this man's lies may well of been responsible for more cases of AID's, with the assumption that 'we can have sex provided we wash'. I don't refer solely to just this case however, I wonder if you think people could be allowed to make false claims and deceive so easily in the name of liberty.

    This is not even to mention the implications your speech may have on others personally, discriminative speech, for example, may not only lower someones opinion of the person, but serves in creating stereotypes, insensitive comments may also create psychological insecurities by lowering self-esteem. Free speech allows for bullying essentially and excessive amounts can bring people to the brink. It allows you to heavily influence people in ways that you should have no control over whatsoever, such as tempting the prospect of suicide, which is yet another example of the effects your words can have on the vulnerable, freedom to say what you want could in fact make you a murderer. What good can come of intentionally insulting someone? Do there views not count? Free speech therefore threatens equality.

    I also believe that freedom of speech for all compromises discipline and respect, not having restrictions in speech for children will deprive them of discipline and will likely act irresponsibly, even basic things such as parental views should, in my opinion, be restricted, how can outdated systems move forward if children are practically brainwashed with views rather than getting to form ones for themselves.

    Is it always appropriate to use free speech? Should US soldiers return home to see hate groups such as the Westburo Baptist church welcome them with this?



    Should certain people be allowed to disrespect faiths and get away with it, such as extremists?




    Is this the kind of free speech you want, AM?

    _________



    Your Turn
    Last edited by Thermal; April 21, 2010 at 09:48 PM.

  3. #3
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    To the reader: if you only want to skim this longish post, PLEASE at least read the last couple paragraphs. I'm going to edit the format to make it more readable. You should be able to browse the headline points when I'm done, and read the supporting material at your leisure. It was written as a single piece, so each point should flow to the next, but I tried to segment it roughly by subject, because I tend to ramble.

    I have tried to make it as readable as possible. I hope it works. The responses to Thermal's points will be in spoilers.

    1. Mankind is naturally errant. Therefore, no circumstances will ever be ideal, there is no ultimate solution, and we must take the bad with the good.

    -
    Free speech in hindsight may sound like a good idea, but essentially can be used as a tool to discriminate and undermine. Free speech allows people to be offensive to someones culture, beliefs, race and appearance amongst other things, which can only breed hatred.
    If your first statement is that free speech looks good in hindsight, then you should consider the possibility that your desire to limit free speech is borne of a lack of foresight and clouded by short-term thinking. The very purpose of history is to show what works and what does not. If you will allow that free speech has worked (and conversely that censorship has failed) in the past, then certainly it is appropriate for today as well.

    Point out to me, if you will, any basic freedom, or any priviledge, that cannot be abused. The very reason that we separate between freedoms and priviledges is that freedoms are (and of right out to be) inalienable despite abuse, whereas we provide for the revocation of priviledges. Your driver's license can be suspended, but your expression cannot. There is a reason that these two are distinguished.


    2. We cannot legislate morals.

    -
    I don't suggest that people shouldn't be allowed opinions, but they should be rational and diplomatic.
    I agree. But, by definition, that is not really your position. Everyone agrees that people should be rational and diplomatic. You are saying that free speech should be legally limited, are you not? In that case, your position is that people must be rational and diplomatic.

    So that leads to the fundamental question of the debate: Can we legislate morals and ethics? Can we dictate people beliefs and ideals? We can dictate their behavior, certainly. You are not allowed to steal, murder, etc. But speech is just as much a matter of belief as it is of behavior.

    Speech is the natural expression of the ideals within. Legislated actions are different. Murder is not really a belief. You could say, "I believe that I should murder this person," but that is different; that is a choice.

    We can legislate choices, but can we actually legislate belief?


    3. Censorship is ineffective because it is subjective. It is prone to manipulation and mutation.

    -
    Being unnecessarily violent and unreasonable in speech is, if anything, going to make some people even more against your views, lengthening the divide.
    Tell me, pray: who will decide what is "unnecessary?" Perhaps I feel that your ideas on economics (or whatever) are unneccesary, for example. Or perhaps you think that my views on law enforcement are superfluous.

    Here is the next problem with censorship: it is not well-defined. It is entirely subjective. I think that so-and-so is wrong, he thinks that I am wrong. "Offensive" and "insulting" are entirely in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure you can think of a host of examples in which the same statement has entirely different meanings when made by different people in different contexts.

    The best that you can do is to ban specific words, phrases, and topics. You could ban Naziism. Or you could ban the word "dork." How far will that go? Nowhere. I mean, the word "jerk" has no meaning in itself; it's just a word that, over time, has developed a negative connotation.

    So you ban the word "jerk." I can no longer call you a jerk. Instead I think I'll call you a droob. You're a droob, Thermal. (I like the sound of that: "droob.") Well, that ban has gotten you nowhere.


    4. Does censorship even work?

    -
    As to the ban of opinions, all that will do is force people from speaking publicly. That will certainly not eradicate the ideal itself, however. Far from it. Christianity, for example, THRIVES in places where it is not allowed. Amazing testimonies abound of missionaries in China or the Soviet Union.

    As I mentioned in the other debate, I've heard a Communist say that Communism needs "a good banning." Censorship tends to purify an idea. It's like the crucible in metallurgy. Nothing polarizes, envigorates, and provokes people like telling them to be quiet. Censorship solves nothing.

    It actually exacerbates the problem, because at least when people are free to speak, we can thrash them with a storm of logic and reason and convert them, so to speak.

    Look at the Neo-Nazis: stormfront.org. It's an all-nazi forum. They pretty much can't afford to come out, because they're thrashed every time they try. So they just talk among themselves. What does this cause? It's like inbreeding; it develops a mutated, extremist, polarized ideology.


    5. Censorship is really about comfort vs. discomfort, and that is not justifiable.

    -
    So, realizing this, what is the real motive behind limiting free speech? Is it to cleanse society of wrong ideas? No. Free speech is the only real way to do that. The motive is simply one of comfort. People don't feel good when they walk past hippies on the street, or listen to Nazis on the radio. It makes them uncomfortable.

    Is our personal comfort in any way, shape, or form, worth this intellectual handicap? Because that is exactly what censorship is; it is a blanket method of holding things back. In the end we will find that we have held ourselves back.

    After all that, here's another question. Does any one have a right to freedom from discomfort? No. Yet the notion of limiting free speech is CENTERED on the feeling that we are entitled to freedom from discomfort. That is the very purpose of censorship.

    Furthermore, does anyone have the right to freedom from discomfort? Absolutely not; it's impossible to guarantee. Maybe your hairstyle makes me uncomfortable. Maybe my chair isn't cushy enough. Maybe I don't like the sound of someone's voice.

    Also, is freedom from discomfort wise? Absolutely not. This leads to a sheltered worldview. People should not be sheltered. As I said earlier, it leads to intellectual inbreeding. It gives people skewed views of the world. It's a cliche, but discomfort does build character; it's a reality of life.

    The other purpose of censorship to control and manipulate people. I don't think I need to discuss the evils of tyrrany. I don't feel the need because I'm sure that you don't have evil motives in this discussion. But you must realize that censorship is a slippery slope, and it can be manipulated.


    6. History shows, time and time again, that censorship is a disaster, and we must not be so foolish as to think ourselves above history.

    -
    Look at history. Have you ever imagined a world in which the Dark Ages had never occurred? A world in which the Catholic Church had never withheld education from people because they were afraid that, if they could read, they might misread and misinterpret the Bible? Who knows? Maybe we could have landed on the moon in the 19th Century. Maybe our great-grandparents would have driven cars instead of riding in wagons.

    It certainly didn't help mankind. It didn't even help the Church that started it! I believe that atheism had its beginnings, at least partially, in a reaction against the hypocrisy and ineffectiveness of the Church. Not only did the Church's behavior hurt the rest of Europe, but it hurt itself in the end.

    But it sure seemed like a good idea at the time, didn't it?

    With that in mind, do we think that we are above history? Are you familiar with the famous statement, made by a politician in the early 1900's, to the effect that we have discovered everything that there is to discover.

    Today, we look at that statement and laugh. What a silly guy; they hadn't even mastered flight yet! Scientists at the time had tried, but many thought it impossible. Nothing that was avaliable at the time could affect flight. But then some new materials were developed. Engines, machinery. Suddenly mankind had the means. Eventually, someone put two and two together and achieved flight.

    This has happened countless times throughout history. We think we know it all, only to make a ground-breaking, history-shaping discovery. So do we today, in this 21st Century, really think that we have finally arrived? Do we really think we are above history? Can we really afford to ignore that which has occurred over and over, because we think we've finally outgrown it? All those other people thought so, and today we laugh at them.

    What will people think about us two centuries down the road?

    So, after that rather long and rambling diatribe, I submit to you the notion that we cannot afford to limit the expression of certain peoples and groups just because we think we know what's best for them and us. The Church thought it could, and it dealt mankind a severe blow.


    7. Dissenting oppinion is essential to human development.

    -
    Continuing that concept, dissenting opinions are essential to social advancement. People by nature are intellectually dishonest. They hold stringent standards for other ideals, and lax ones for their own. Thus, the members of party X are the first ones to spot problems in the platform of party Y.

    I do a lot of debate on gun rights. Gun control proponents bother me sometimes. Does that mean I dislike them? Absolutely not. I would do some pretty stupid things if they weren't sitting there waiting for me to mess up.

    It reminds me of the great saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    I strongly believe in that principle, and I would never, under any circumstances, limit the gun control movement, even though I know for a fact that many of their statements are factually and fundamentally wrong.

    Well, you say, the gun control movement isn't extreme; they have a valid point. True. What about the Nazis then. Do you realize how quickly we tend to forget history? We forget very quickly. At the very least we can thank the Nazis in the world today for constantly reminding us of the holocaust, and continually forcing us to restudy the issues.

    I never really studied the holocaust until I discussed it with a Nazi and realized that I needed to research his claims.


    8. Hate speech is the symptom, not the disease. Legislation won't fix it.

    -
    Which on a political scale, may then go on to play a major factor in creating riots and wars. For example, freedom of speech is what allows leaders such Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to publicly announce his hatred of Israel and Jew's, which has contributed to there hostility between each other.
    Ahmadinejad only says those things because he has a deep-seated hatred for Israel. There is a long history of animosity between them.

    Speech does not determine one's course. Speech is simply an expression of the course that has been taken. So, while speech can raise someone's blood pressure and make them angry for a while, it is not the real factor in long-term decision-making and relational development.


    9. What about lying? Doesn't free speech permit lying also?

    -
    I don't refer solely to just this case however, I wonder if you think people could be allowed to make false claims and deceive so easily in the name of liberty.
    Lying is an interesting paradigm. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, for example.

    I think that lying crosses the line between expressions and action. Lying is more like an action. However, this is not relevant.

    You cannot make lying illegal. I could make a stand on principle, but I don't need to. It is literally impossible to prove 100%, barring a confession, that a person has lied. It simply isn't possible. Lying, by definition, cannot be touched by the law.

    Lying is a totally self-contained decision to say something against knowledge to the contrary. It is an entirely mental process. Sure, there are "tells" and lie detectors, but that is evidence, not proof.

    The guy who yells "fire" in a theater maybe saw cigarette smoke. Maybe he caught a glimpse of bright-orange clothing. Who knows?

    Furthermore, even if you were to ban lying, what would you accomplish? Liers LIE! Do you think they'll admit to lying?

    Lying is a very big problem. Usually we don't punish for lying itself, but for the thing that was lied about. So that's not a problem. Still, lying is something to be fought. This must be a SOCIAL reform, not a legal one. That's because the law simply can't do it. This issue is discussed to greater lengths below.


    10. Free speech does have flaws. However, pointing out flaws in free speech does not support legislated censorship.

    -
    This is not even to mention the implications your speech may have on others personally, discriminative speech, for example, may not only lower someones opinion of the person, but serves in creating stereotypes, insensitive comments may also create psychological insecurities by lowering self-esteem.
    Again, heltering people from discomfort, besides being an unethical and unaccomplishable premis, has never helped anyone. I realize that speech can be truly destructive. It can even lead to death, directly or indirectly.

    However, legislation cannot fix that problem. The only way to do that was if mankind, as a universal society, reformed in such a way that we developed and followed a code of ethics. That would be a truly miraculous reformation.

    Laws do not bring about reformation. You can see it in everything. Crime, for example. How about gangs. Law enforcement (legal repression) is necessary, but it doesn't ultimately fix the problem. It combats the symptom.

    It has been shown that gang violence is best fought by social intervention. Giving kids something to do, constructive social circles, opportunities to excell, etc.

    The law suppresses behavior. It is either about what we must do or what we must not do. Most often it translates into what we must not do. You must not kill people. You must not steal. You must not excell the speed limit.

    That is repression, not reformation. It affects the behavior, not the beliefs that cause behavior. It attacks the symptom, not the disease. That's why the US, for example, has such a tremendous rate of criminal recidivism. Prison time doesn't reform anybody. It might show them that the reward isn't worth the risk, but that's not the same. They would break the law if they could get away with it; it's just that now they realize that they can't. Most people don't even realize that and they go right back to prison shortly after release. The law IS necessary, but it is an imperfect method. And it's the best we can do, because you can't force people to change their beliefs.


    In Summary...

    What good can come of intentionally insulting someone? Do there views not count? Free speech therefore threatens equality.
    So you will suppress people in such away that they cannot suppress others? Don't their views count as well? That is a very circular statement, with mutually contradictory goals.

    Oh man, I'm gonna get you on this one.

    Look at these pictures. These people are against free speech!

    Look at them! "EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM." "FREEDOM GO TO HELL." "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM."

    Those pictures present a phenominal argument against censorship, not against free speech. If those people had their way, they would throw free speech out the window. The purpose of their whole protest is to promote censorship.

    It just goes to show how hypocritical censorship is, and what a dangerous slippery slope that it is.

    So let me ask you:

    Is this the kind of free speech you want, AM?


    Is this the kind of censorship you want, Thermal?
    Last edited by Ariovistus Maximus; April 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  4. #4

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    A star effort went into that, well done.


    If your first statement is that free speech looks good in hindsight, then you should consider the possibility that your desire to limit free speech is borne of a lack of foresight and clouded by short-term thinking.
    Foresight is a planned view of the future whereas Hindsight is a planned view of the past. But the past isn't applicable to society as it stand right now, foresight is what will decide free speech as life progresses, not hindsight. I referred to hindsight potentially looking good, but at no point to I say it is more useful a tool than foresight.


    The very purpose of history is to show what works and what does not. If you will allow that free speech has worked (and conversely that censorship has failed) in the past, then certainly it is appropriate for today as well.
    Worked in what way? Exterminating Jew's worked for Hitler, but is that appropriate for today? Free speech like all things, has worked in the way its desired to, however it does not make it the right way.

    Point out to me, if you will, any basic freedom, or any priviledge, that cannot be abused.
    Of course any freedom can and often will be abused, but there is punishment for those who abuse it, freedom of speech in society as a whole is abused too frequently, which is why restrictions should be put in place. With punishment to those who cross the line.

    The very reason that we separate between freedoms and priviledges is that freedoms are (and of right out to be) inalienable despite abuse, whereas we provide for the revocation of priviledges. Your driver's license can be suspended, but your expression cannot. There is a reason that these two are distinguished.
    Freedom of speech is a privilege, just like a driving license, if that can be took away, then so can freedom of speech. I'm not suggesting all freedoms of speech be took away, but there are various countries where they have been, these two don't make quite the distinguishable pair that others do.

    I agree. But, by definition, that is not really your position. Everyone agrees that people should be rational and diplomatic. You are saying that free speech should be legally limited, are you not? In that case, your position is that people must be rational and diplomatic.
    If as you suggest, expressions cannot be changed, then people 'should' over 'must', be rational and diplomatic. The word 'must' makes it sound like some sort of dictatorship, people must be rational and diplomatic if they don't wish to receive punishment, but it isn't a necessity because as you point out yourself, freedoms can be abused.

    So that leads to the fundamental question of the debate: Can we legislate morals and ethics? Can we dictate people beliefs and ideals? We can dictate their behavior, certainly. You are not allowed to steal, murder, etc. But speech is just as much a matter of belief as it is of behavior.

    Speech is the natural expression of the ideals within. Legislated actions are different. Murder is not really a belief. You could say, "I believe that I should murder this person," but that is different; that is a choice.

    We can legislate choices, but can we actually legislate belief?
    Belief influences behavior, belief is a choice and so belief can be legislated. You may not have a belief in murder in the way you describe, but a belief will often have a viewpoint on various things, murder included.

    Belief = Having faith in something (you may not have faith in murder, you may well have in someones ability to murder something specific)
    Behavior = How somebody acts, Influenced by belief

    Speech therefore isn't 'as much a matter of belief as it is of behavior' beliefs may be concealed or overridden by behaviors, which may be artificial in order to be seen in a particular way. Free speech, can therefore distance people from certain beliefs through behavior. Instead of accepting certain beliefs, all it can do is make people behavior poorly to them, you seem to assume free speech = acceptance, when it usually ends in conflict.


    Tell me, pray: who will decide what is "unnecessary?" Perhaps I feel that your ideas on economics (or whatever) are unneccesary, for example. Or perhaps you think that my views on law enforcement are superfluous.
    Everyone will have different views, but some are extreme, uncompromising and completely undermining toward other views. Some beliefs simply don't deserve a voice through there behaviors and ideals, which will often conflict with the law or the vast majority of a populace and breed more hatred. Expressing your views in some places could get you killed (for example expressing hatred of Islam in Saudi Arabia), censorship provides protection on some levels.

    So you ban the word "jerk." I can no longer call you a jerk. Instead I think I'll call you a droob. You're a droob, Thermal. (I like the sound of that: "droob.") Well, that ban has gotten you nowhere.
    It is free speech which creates these conflicts, don't you see? No one would be calling each other droobs if the person didn't admit to being a fully fledged Nazi follower.

    Nothing polarizes, envigorates, and provokes people like telling them to be quiet. Censorship solves nothing.
    Free speech solves nothing, someone who denies the holocaust ever happened can announce it to the world, whilst most other people rationally disagree with this, is it solved? No. You can have wars, riots, all other forms of violence created by free speech, does it solve the situation? No. In South Africa the apartheid has long finished. Do people still see black people as inferior there? Yes, do others see them as equals? Yes, is the situation solved? No, they are still discriminated against even now, people will always have different views and so free speech will continually conflict with each other.

    Look at the Neo-Nazis: stormfront.org. It's an all-nazi forum. They pretty much can't afford to come out, because they're thrashed every time they try. So they just talk among themselves. What does this cause? It's like inbreeding; it develops a mutated, extremist, polarized ideology.
    And allowing there views to be freely discussed could gather them all the more hate, hiding away provides less resistance, groups such as Islam 4 UK speak out, have even been in interviews and get harassed and booed, free speech is not acceptable when the speech is seen as ridiculous to the vast majority. Censorship both protects the unpopular beliefs and those that would have to listen to them.


    So, realizing this, what is the real motive behind limiting free speech? Is it to cleanse society of wrong ideas? No. Free speech is the only real way to do that. The motive is simply one of comfort. People don't feel good when they walk past hippies on the street, or listen to Nazis on the radio. It makes them uncomfortable.

    Is our personal comfort in any way, shape, or form, worth this intellectual handicap? Because that is exactly what censorship is; it is a blanket method of holding things back.
    Not having to listen to uncivilized or incomprehensibly unfair views isn't an intellectual handicap, most people know about the regimes and ideologies that some groups have and the thought of learning more or having to listen to more of things which may contradict beliefs incredibly sensitive to an individual, doesn't only lead to uncomfortableness but open hatred.

    Even if we knew nothing of extreme groups through there complete and utter censorship, how is that bad? Groups such as Nazi's want Jews dead, saying this to the masses (only to get harassed for it) is not going to make them less hateful if their aims are never ever to be accepted into society. They'll mutate anyway, regardless of whether censorship is enforced. Overtime, censorship may reduce support for certain ideologies which can is a bonus, letting everyone see them can only add to the ranks...


    Maybe your hairstyle makes me uncomfortable. Maybe my chair isn't cushy enough. Maybe I don't like the sound of someone's voice.
    A hairstyle may make you feel uncomfortable, strangely, but not in the way a radical extremist could, the hair doesn't insult your beliefs, you may not like it, but they may not like your hair either, it isn't a problem to have an opinion of the hair, as it isn't a problem to have an opinion making all Africian's slaves again, however in both cases, these opinions should probably be kept to ones self, unless it is in the best interest for a majority.

    The other purpose of censorship to control and manipulate people. I don't think I need to discuss the evils of tyrrany. I don't feel the need because I'm sure that you don't have evil motives in this discussion. But you must realize that censorship is a slippery slope, and it can be manipulated.
    Censorship can be manipulated, but right back at you AM, free speech can be manipulated in so many ways, many of which demonstrated in my first post.

    But it sure seemed like a good idea at the time, didn't it?

    With that in mind, do we think that we are above history? Are you familiar with the famous statement, made by a politician in the early 1900's, to the effect that we have discovered everything that there is to discover.
    There are some things which will always be a good idea, such as equality (which free speech certainly hinders)

    Now I'm expecting 'how about the equality of the people being censored' Well if some is preaching activities which threatens equality, then they don't deserve it themselves.
    This has happened countless times throughout history. We think we know it all, only to make a ground-breaking, history-shaping discovery. So do we today, in this 21st Century, really think that we have finally arrived? Do we really think we are above history? Can we really afford to ignore that which has occurred over and over, because we think we've finally outgrown it? All those other people thought so, and today we laugh at them.

    What will people think about us two centuries down the road?
    This isn't exclusive to censorship by far, should the world have entirely free speech, in a couple of centuries I would also wonder what people think about us down the road? When enough free speech is spread to enough people in enough areas (baring in mind the vulnerable) perhaps new censorships themselves will come of age, parts of free speech and being successful in that speech can lead to much worse censorship's, its a vicious circle which will always come back round to bite itself in the tail.
    At the very least we can thank the Nazis in the world today for constantly reminding us of the holocaust, and continually forcing us to restudy the issues.

    I never really studied the holocaust until I discussed it with a Nazi and realized that I needed to research his claims.


    Just a way of revoking there beliefs and throwing them back in their faces.

    Although it looks as if free speech is just an excuse to lie in many instances, such as the one you mention.


    Speech does not determine one's course. Speech is simply an expression of the course that has been taken. So, while speech can raise someone's blood pressure and make them angry for a while, it is not the real factor in long-term decision-making and relational development.
    Have you seen the encores some of these people get? They gather people, people who probably had few views beforehand and make it seem good to believe in something specific. If anything free speech can make certain beliefs ever more outrageous, with creates pressure on people to shun it more.


    Lying is an interesting paradigm. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, for example. You cannot make lying illegal. I could make a stand on principle, but I don't need to. It is literally impossible to prove 100%, barring a confession, that a person has lied. It simply isn't possible. Lying, by definition, cannot be touched by the law.

    he guy who yells "fire" in a theater maybe saw cigarette smoke. Maybe he caught a glimpse of bright-orange clothing. Who knows?
    I disagree, freedom of speech allows such time wasting or annoying things to be said, by censoring punishment can be issued. Lie detector tests can be took for those vital moments (not meager ones)
    To yell such extremities just from seeing orange clothing is clearly a lie, you just wouldn't mistake it for a fire and if you actually managed to, you would be quick to correct yourself, by not doing this the deliberate effect aimed for is certainly achieved.
    So you will suppress people in such away that they cannot suppress others? Don't their views count as well? That is a very circular statement, with mutually contradictory goals.
    Not at all, it is simply an issue of limiting there views so they aren't victims of there own speech, society will be the cruel ones in the end. There views do count but only the rational ones, if they choose to go against a modern societies obvious ideals then perhaps not so much. Its OK for you to say that in history censorship has hindered us, but as societies and life changes rational choices must be moved on in the best public interest, not influenced by the voice of the more lesser minority. You will never please everyone but you can try your best, expressive free speech will always lead to conflict for everyone at some point.


    Look at these pictures. These people are against free speech!

    Look at them! "EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM." "FREEDOM GO TO HELL." "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM."
    Prevention rather than cure my friend, these people made such protests without consequence, these are extreme views, 'freedom go to hell' in the context is nothing given what goes with it. "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM" for example, how does that free speech benefit society? Free speech has allowed these people to publicly threaten and oppress in itself, censorship can disallow these extreme beliefs.

    It is interesting that earlier in the argument you say that being oppressed just builds up and mutates the belief, these protesters have freely preached hate toward anyone who isn't Islamic, how exactly has that calmed there hate? Views this strong cannot be allowed in a civilized society (I'm not saying that in a upper class way) even if these ideals were suited in a very specific area, they don't belong in a predominantly Christan country, so they can off.

    Is this the kind of censorship you want, Thermal?
    Merely an example of censorship being misused, just like free speech can be, I don't advocate that kind of censorship. Free speech is what allowed them to say this in the first place, so it is in fact an argument for either point.




    Ok say your piece and DON'T EAT ME ALIVE.

    Last edited by Thermal; April 26, 2010 at 06:21 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    I'm waiting...

  6. #6
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    Oh yes. Apologies.

    I've just finished my two worst final exams and I have three more to go. I also just started my job yesterday. So it's been a psychotic couple of weeks. I can get to it after school today or tomorrow though.

    *Calls his evil cybercriminal friend and asks why Thermal's account hasn't been hacked and deleted yet.*
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  7. #7

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
    Oh yes. Apologies.

    I've just finished my two worst final exams and I have three more to go. I also just started my job yesterday. So it's been a psychotic couple of weeks. I can get to it after school today or tomorrow though.

    *Calls his evil cybercriminal friend and asks why Thermal's account hasn't been hacked and deleted yet.*
    Ahh, it is fine, the longer you take, the less bad I'll feel when it takes me 6 years to respond.

    *Happily thinks about the comforting safety in his TWC account and how no one would ever want to take it from him*

  8. #8
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    Aww man I am so bad. Sorry mate. Get back soon.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

  9. #9
    Ariovistus Maximus's Avatar Troll Whisperer
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MN USA
    Posts
    2,874

    Default Re: Free Speech - Limits or No? [Ariovistus Maximus vs. Thermal]

    A star effort went into that, well done.
    And to you mate! Sorry for the delay; I'm finally back in.

    Foresight is a planned view of the future whereas Hindsight is a planned view of the past. But the past isn't applicable to society as it stand right now, foresight is what will decide free speech as life progresses, not hindsight. I referred to hindsight potentially looking good, but at no point to I say it is more useful a tool than foresight.
    I think you'll have to explain to me in detail why instance after instance of failed censorship cannot apply to present times. What about history as recent as the 60's-80's? How did censorship fare with the Russians? Or the Chinese?

    Worked in what way? Exterminating Jew's worked for Hitler, but is that appropriate for today? Free speech like all things, has worked in the way its desired to, however it does not make it the right way.
    This is true, but of course I meant "worked" in the sense of "was an effective long-term solution to society's ills" way.

    And exterminating Jews was hardly a long-term solution to Germany's problems.

    Of course any freedom can and often will be abused, but there is punishment for those who abuse it, freedom of speech in society as a whole is abused too frequently, which is why restrictions should be put in place. With punishment to those who cross the line.
    Okay. So what kind of punishments are we talking about? Where do you draw that line?

    Freedom of speech is a privilege, just like a driving license, if that can be took away, then so can freedom of speech. I'm not suggesting all freedoms of speech be took away, but there are various countries where they have been, these two don't make quite the distinguishable pair that others do.
    On the contrary, freedom of speech is a right. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

    It is also given preeminence in the United States Constitution as well as those of many other nations.

    Driving, you notice, is nowhere present in any of these resolutions. That is the very point which I was making.

    If as you suggest, expressions cannot be changed, then people 'should' over 'must', be rational and diplomatic. The word 'must' makes it sound like some sort of dictatorship, people must be rational and diplomatic if they don't wish to receive punishment, but it isn't a necessity because as you point out yourself, freedoms can be abused.
    Precisely my argument. Censorship is exactly that; you must xyz if you don't wish to receive punishment.

    Obviously punishment is due the murderer and the thief. But there is a great difference. There is never any doubt when someone has died or when someone's property is missing. That's obvious.

    But can you so precisely define when someone has spoken offensively? Or insulted someone else? No, because it's subjective, and subjective laws are very slippery slopes that will probably if not certainly cause more trouble then the problem they were meant to solve.

    Belief influences behavior, belief is a choice and so belief can be legislated. You may not have a belief in murder in the way you describe, but a belief will often have a viewpoint on various things, murder included.
    You can't truly force me to believe anything, though. If you outlaw my religion, I might not preach in the streets, but do you think that I would cease to hold my faith just because you said I should? Of course not. A law would never stop me from praying at night or from discussing the matter in private.

    Belief = Having faith in something (you may not have faith in murder, you may well have in someones ability to murder something specific)
    Behavior = How somebody acts, Influenced by belief
    Right. So you can change behavior, but not beliefs. But if it is the beliefs that actually make people act offensively, then you haven't solved any problems by artificially altering peoples' behavior. You've just hastily masked the problem with some legislative duct tape.

    Speech therefore isn't 'as much a matter of belief as it is of behavior' beliefs may be concealed or overridden by behaviors, which may be artificial in order to be seen in a particular way.
    Of course speech is a matter of belief. If I speak out strongly for propisition X, or if I speak strongly against people of group Y, it is because my beliefs are in line with X and against Y.

    Insults generally just don't fly out at random. People insult others whom hold conflicting opinions or positions. I mean of course some people are just dorks and insult for the heck of it, but you get what I mean.

    Free speech, can therefore distance people from certain beliefs through behavior. Instead of accepting certain beliefs, all it can do is make people behavior poorly to them, you seem to assume free speech = acceptance, when it usually ends in conflict.
    People can be pursuaded just as well as disuaded. I'd hardly agree that "ALL it can do" is create conflict or even that "free speech usually ends in conflict."

    And when there is conflict, it isn't because of free speech. Free speech is perhaps what causes people to realize the conflict, but that isn't what created it to begin with.

    Some beliefs simply don't deserve a voice through there behaviors and ideals, which will often conflict with the law or the vast majority of a populace and breed more hatred.
    (Emphasis added.)

    That is a dangerously fine line there. You just finished saying how many people have strong, uncompromising beliefs. Have you noticed that each side finds that THEY are deserving and the other guys AREN'T deserving?

    It is impossible as well as highly unethical to DECIDE which opinions are healthy for everyone else. See, already you are showing how censorship leads to dictating what people can and cannot think.

    Expressing your views in some places could get you killed (for example expressing hatred of Islam in Saudi Arabia), censorship provides protection on some levels.
    If you think that the threat of execution has helped Saudi society to advance, then by all means go over there and see.

    It's totally the opposite, don't you see? Saudi Arabia doesn't protect anybody, it just oppresses them. So what, making women wear baggy dresses and cover their faces might protect me from my own immoral lusts, but since when does that justify treating women like animals?

    That's like "protecting" little children by locking them in your basement 'till they turn 21 dude. It solves... nothing. Masks? Maybe. Shoves it off for a little while longer? Probably.

    In the mean time, the free world sees Saudi Arabia as the closest thing we have to the dark ages in modern times. People flock to the USA, to Britain, and to the rest of Europe to LIVE! Because that's what censorship takes away.

    Once again, Saudi Arabia is a perfect reason for free speech.

    It is free speech which creates these conflicts, don't you see? No one would be calling each other droobs if the person didn't admit to being a fully fledged Nazi follower.
    So... we all duct tape our mouths closed or what?

    I never said it was perfect, but imperfect =/= trash the whole idea then. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

    Well, you're right Thermal. If no one said anything, no one would get offended. We would also all be naked, hunt wild animals for a living, build houses out of mud, and make fire by rubbing sticks. Enjoy.

    (Naked? Maybe censorship has a few perks after all... )

    You were thinkin' it.

    Free speech solves nothing, someone who denies the holocaust ever happened can announce it to the world, whilst most other people rationally disagree with this, is it solved?
    And for each of those, we have a few billion issues that we discuss rationally and solve. Which is why we advance. You've picked one hot-button issue which is only hot because it is unusual in that we haven't solved it yet.

    No. You can have wars, riots, all other forms of violence created by free speech, does it solve the situation?
    Well, let me think about that for a moment. Lessee... free speech solving things...

    American revolution? Check.
    French revolution? Check.
    Civil Rights movement? Check.
    Perestroika? Check.
    Democracy as we know it? Check.

    You know what? This might get long. How about we list the times it hasn't worked.

    ...

    No. In South Africa the apartheid has long finished. Do people still see black people as inferior there? Yes, do others see them as equals? Yes, is the situation solved? No, they are still discriminated against even now, people will always have different views and so free speech will continually conflict with each other.
    And duct tape over the mouth would fix this?

    You notice that in the States we used to feel the same way. Yet somehow with our free speech baggage and all we managed to get over that. Well, I can't really say that completely. We have some redneck holdouts. A white supremacist here and there...

    And allowing there views to be freely discussed could gather them all the more hate, hiding away provides less resistance, groups such as Islam 4 UK speak out, have even been in interviews and get harassed and booed, free speech is not acceptable when the speech is seen as ridiculous to the vast majority. Censorship both protects the unpopular beliefs and those that would have to listen to them.
    Censorship protects unpopular beliefs? Are you sure you don't want to think about that for a minute?

    If there was censorship, then, you're right, no one would boo the Islam 4 UK people. Because instead they would all be dead, exiled, or imprisoned by the majority which decides what is censored and what is not.

    Overtime, censorship may reduce support for certain ideologies which can is a bonus, letting everyone see them can only add to the ranks...

    Censorship can be manipulated, but right back at you AM, free speech can be manipulated in so many ways, many of which demonstrated in my first post.
    Right. So are we going to err on the side of having too many ideas or too few? Some whackos on the fringe, or the KGB telling me what I'm not allowed to say or else?

    I don't know about you, but I've always noticed that if I get too much, I can cut down to size, but if I get too little I have to start all over again. Rather applicable concept there.

    There are some things which will always be a good idea, such as equality (which free speech certainly hinders)


    Um... your whole reason for having censorship is that some ideas don't deserve to be recognized, ie that they are inferior along with the nitwits that believe them.

    When on earth did free speech hinder equality? I hexuple dare you to find a professional legal opinion to back that one up.

    Now I'm expecting 'how about the equality of the people being censored' Well if some is preaching activities which threatens equality, then they don't deserve it themselves.
    Ah, the old "intolerant of intolerance" bit. So, you've just undermined your whole moral base for censorship.

    Doesn't that make you no more tolerant than the extremists? Which means... you're an extremist. Which means you don't respect other people. Which problably means that by your rules you don't deserve respect either.

    Which means that if you have your way you will be arrested and incarcerated for hate speech.



    This isn't exclusive to censorship by far, should the world have entirely free speech, in a couple of centuries I would also wonder what people think about us down the road? When enough free speech is spread to enough people in enough areas (baring in mind the vulnerable) perhaps new censorships themselves will come of age, parts of free speech and being successful in that speech can lead to much worse censorship's, its a vicious circle which will always come back round to bite itself in the tail.
    Well, we can't really know that, but we can try it the other way around.

    Let's see...

    1860. America. Blacks want free speech? Somehow I think they would.
    1992. Russia. Russians want free speech, freedom of information, freedom of assembly, etc? Yep. Something about tearing down walls and all that jazz.
    1789. France. Yup.
    1955. America. Again, yes.

    Have you seen the encores some of these people get? They gather people, people who probably had few views beforehand and make it seem good to believe in something specific. If anything free speech can make certain beliefs ever more outrageous, with creates pressure on people to shun it more.
    A minute ago you were saying that Neo-Nazis having free speech causes more Neo-Nazis.

    But if a guy only becomes a devoted Neo-Nazi because of his huge throng of Nazi-followers, as you just now suggest...

    How did THEY become neo-nazis? Sounds almost like they didn't need that guy to have free speech in order for them to arrive at their conclusions.


    I disagree, freedom of speech allows such time wasting or annoying things to be said, by censoring punishment can be issued.
    Again, all you're doing here is poisoning the well.

    "See over here you got 5 examples where people mess with free speech. Forget the other 95 cases. And forget the 95 times that people engaged in a horrendous abuse of censorship and drove the government into the ground, and imagine those 5 times it kept annoying people for wasting other people's time."

    Sorry, I just don't see it.

    Its OK for you to say that in history censorship has hindered us, but as societies and life changes rational choices must be moved on in the best public interest, not influenced by the voice of the more lesser minority. You will never please everyone but you can try your best, expressive free speech will always lead to conflict for everyone at some point.
    You don't seem to acknowledge the reality here. OK:

    GALILEI was in the lesser minority once.
    COPERNICUS was in the lesser minority once.
    PLATO was in the lesser minority once.
    DARWIN was in the lesser minority once.
    JEFFERSON was in the lesser minority once.
    ...

    And heaven knows that the people of those times were extremely uncomfortable about what those men had to say. Yes, chopping these guys' heads off would have made them much more comfortable. And they threatened to do it too.

    They wanted to kill Galilei just because he threw a bick rock and a small rock off the top of a tower and proved that big things don't fall faster than small ones! They were angry with him for it!

    And to think that they could have been saved from such discomfort. And just a little catch: we'd still be in the dark ages. Yes, we'd still think that the earth was suspended on the back of a giant tortoise, and we'd think that every bright light in the sky was a sign of the apocalypse.

    You are grossly overrating the importance of comfort.

    censorship can disallow these extreme beliefs.
    And how could you possibly accomplish that? The eradication of extremism on all fronts?

    Let me guess: wars, violence, protests, and so on.

    Hmmm... well, for one thing that seems remarkably similar to the problem you're trying to fix in the first place, only worse. Not to mention that you'll probably eradicate a lot of really good things along the way. There's the dark ages looming again.

    You're still missing it. I assume that if one were to institute censorship, that they would censor those things which the MAJORITY feel is objectionable.

    In which case "behead those who insult islam" would be at the top of the list for state policy, not banned topics.

    It is interesting that earlier in the argument you say that being oppressed just builds up and mutates the belief, these protesters have freely preached hate toward anyone who isn't Islamic, how exactly has that calmed there hate?
    You think that's bad? Try to shut them off and watch your politicians get assassinated and your government buildings blown up en masse.

    Unless you execute them all, of course.

    Views this strong cannot be allowed in a civilized society (I'm not saying that in a upper class way) even if these ideals were suited in a very specific area, they don't belong in a predominantly Christan country, so they can off.
    Ah, so different countries and cultures are perhaps suited to different ideals and concepts? So, one culture might have different opions on islam than another country?

    Uuh-oooooh... I can see where this is going...

    See what I'm saying? People ARE different. Cultures are different and that's great. Your censored idea of society could only work in a whitewashed universe of clones and robots.

    I don't advocate that kind of censorship.
    And yet it happens. I don't advocate that kind of free speech either. Yet it happens.

    Which abuse has the worst consequences? Well, there's dark ages, or personal discomfort. (Dark ages, discomfort? Dark ages... discomfort? Hmmm... )

    Free speech is what allowed them to say this in the first place, so it is in fact an argument for either point.
    And either way you have no solution.

    Bad? Yes. Solution? ... duct tape ... ?

    I dunno, after duct tape I'm all out of ideas. I suppose we could genetically engineer mutations in the human genome until we have no mouths...

    We'd still have trouble with those danged sign-language speakers though. We'd have to take off the arms too. And the eyelids, so that people wouldn't communicate in morse code by blinking. Or by tapping their feet...

    Ok say your piece and DON'T EAT ME ALIVE.



    Your turn.

    I was in a sarcastic mood. Hope you don't mind.
    Land of the Free! Home of the

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •