Freedom of speech as it relates to racism, hate, and pornography?

[TitusJuliusCicero]

Freedom of speech as it relates to racism, hate, and pornography?

Personally I think all human thought is precious and if you can not hear it and don’t want to hear it then all is good. I mean if you can’t debate publicly with people that believe in bad things such as Nazism how could we then have any chance to convince them otherwise? I believe in open forums. I think you would find only a small population believes or behaves tastelessly. I rather know who they are.
Pornography is good. I think though people would practice a little decorum regarding pornography. It’s not like you would see cock and clit everywhere you go, do you? Again sensible things like parental locks on media or change the channel. I doubt people will force you to look at porn, do you? And if you actively looking then all is okay.

Have to write a paper on this subject. Titus shruggs.

[Kiljan Arslan]

I think it should be allowed too. BTW shouldn't this be in the Acadamy not the mudpit?

[Sétanta]

There should be absolutely no restrictions on Freedom of Speech about those subjects. If you censor National Socialists, you are hardly better than they were.

Freedom!

[Gwendylyn]

There should be absolutely no restrictions on Freedom of Speech about those subjects.

Absolute is such a harsh word.

There is plenty of reason to censor certain forms of pornography that depict illegal actions. This doesn't cross over to other illegal activities since, for example, it's legal to watch footage of a robbery or illegal drug use.

And even 'hate speech' gets a bit unclear once you get to the point where if the person's purpose is to get people to commit illegal acts (violence or hate crimes). It's more accurate to argue that hate speech should not be regulated by the government any more than normal speech is regulated in regards to inciting illegal activities.

[Justice and Mercy]

Absolute is such a harsh word.

There is plenty of reason to censor certain forms of pornography that depict illegal actions. This doesn't cross over to other illegal activities since, for example, it's legal to watch footage of a robbery or illegal drug use.

And even 'hate speech' gets a bit unclear once you get to the point where if the person's purpose is to get people to commit illegal acts (violence or hate crimes). It's more accurate to argue that hate speech should not be regulated by the government any more than normal speech is regulated in regards to inciting illegal activities.

Should we censor anything that depicts illegal actions?

Books, movies, news footage, games, etc etc?

[Gwendylyn]

Should we censor anything that depicts illegal actions?

Books, movies, news footage, games, etc etc?

Don't get so excited to attack my statement by using such a ridiculous strawman.

Footage of an illegal event is not the same as fake depictions of one. I even pointed out already that we are allowed to see actual footage of illegal events such as drug use or robberies. Where did you get the idea that I disagreed with that policy?

EDIT: And my edit wiped half my post. Oh well.

[Justice and Mercy]

Don't get so excited to attack my statement by using such a ridiculous strawman.

It's not a strawman, it's a question.

Not strawman is in the form of a question unless it's something like, "Why do you believe [insert strawman]?"

Footage of an illegal event is not the same as fake depictions of one.

So, is porn the fake depiction or the actual footage?

Because movies and video games are also fake depictions.

I even point out that we are allowed to see actual footage of illegal events such as drug use or robberies.

Why that and not illegal activities in porn?

Now, think about what is different about certain illegal acts in pornography - and why it deserves a different standard - than those other crimes.

Hmm... pedophilia... footage of pedophilia should be illegal?

No, acting on the urges of pedophilia should be illegal.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

There should be absolutely no restrictions on Freedom of Speech about those subjects. If you censor National Socialists, you are hardly better than they were.

Freedom!

i agree and im an evillllll commie

FEAR MY BELIEF IN NATIONALIZATION!!!

[Medicus]

There should be absolutely no restrictions on Freedom of Speech about those subjects. If you censor National Socialists, you are hardly better than they were.

Freedom!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom..._Turtledove%29

[Kanaric]

The only censorship that occurs, when you say something racist about black people or another minority, is the censorship that society its self puts on you. You do not need the government to get involved, it happens on its own.

Ridiculous behavior gets reactions and results in ways that resolve things on their own, think of it as karma or whatever you want. If they want to keep saying the things they want they are choosing to be social outcasts on their own.

If you block it then people can't see how ridiculous and silly these people are and no lessons will be learned.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I am strongly for freedom of speech, but when it is used by cowards to encourage and cause the death or whatever evil you can imagine to innocent people then obviously it must have sensible restrictions.

[rathelios]

“From their own mouths let them be condemned”
But this maxim cannot always apply. Sometimes people use freedom of speech to incite other people to morally questionable actions or to otherwise pollute impressionable minds. There is a line. I would say policing this line is really about another line, that between what is authoritarian and what is libertarian. Consensus politics will likely result in everyone being equally dissatisfied with all available solutions.

[Shaun]

I am strongly for freedom of speech, but when it is used by cowards to encourage and cause the death or whatever evil you can imagine to innocent people then obviously it must have sensible restrictions.

I agree with Ferrets on this issue. However, I think the line needs to be made clear on what is acceptable and what is not. Allowing absolutely anything solely on the basis of principle would be silly, but often freedoms of speech can be curbed in the name of "hate speech". It's a tricky issue.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I agree with Ferrets on this issue. However, I think the line needs to be made clear on what is acceptable and what is not. Allowing absolutely anything solely on the basis of principle would be silly, but often freedoms of speech can be curbed in the name of "hate speech". It's a tricky issue.

I entirely agree. But codifying it is a matter for lawyers. We can't do it.

[Shaun]

I entirely agree. But codifying it is a matter for lawyers. We can't do it.

I do genuinely think that people should have at least some input in what is acceptable and what is not.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I do genuinely think that people should have at least some input in what is acceptable and what is not.

Unfortunately in some countries that means homosexuals and other innocents get stoned.

[Chlodwig I.]

where other peoples rights and freedom starts,
end your rights and freedom.

if the speech is used to make other people do crimes then the freedom of speech should be limited

[Ramashan]

Here's the issue with things such as printed speech or pornography in public places. When does your right trump mine?

For example. I believe that with freedom comes responsibility and that this is the very root of many of the issues we see today.

If I am trying to raise a child in a responsible way that I feel does not include them seeing graphic acts of a sexual nature or saying words that may be offensive without my supervision where is my right in this? If everytime I let the child out into a public setting or I need to pass it to enter a grocery store I must give up my rights of responsiblity then your rights have trumped mine.

[Gelgoog]

Here's the issue with things such as printed speech or pornography in public places. When does your right trump mine?

For example. I believe that with freedom comes responsibility and that this is the very root of many of the issues we see today.

If I am trying to raise a child in a responsible way that I feel does not include them seeing graphic acts of a sexual nature or saying words that may be offensive without my supervision where is my right in this? If everytime I let the child out into a public setting or I need to pass it to enter a grocery store I must give up my rights of responsiblity then your rights have trumped mine.

there is no trumping of rights. just because your offended doesnt mean its a violation of your rights. if you want your child to grow up without running into lewd behavior then you might as well lock them up in a church. the responsibility is on you, to raise that child with good values, not to impose your will on someone just because you disagree with them.

[RusskiSoldat]

In my opinion there is no such thing as "sensible restrictions" when it comes to fundamental freedoms.