Should Free Speech be sacrificed to political correctness?

[Heathen Hammer]

As we know today, many governments try to limit free speech due to various reasons, mostly - to fit the current government ideology.Many people think that some sort of speech might offend someone, or lead to commiting a crime. IMO free speech should not be limited in any way, because saying things does not neccessarily lead to any bad consequences.

[♔Jean-Luc Picard♔]

i think political correctness is a farce. say what you mean, dont dance around it because someone with nothing better to complain about might get ants in their pants. let them complain about something that is a real issue instead. my opinion should not be oppressed because it may offend someone.

Skan

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

In case you would have missed it, there's already a thread about this topic, with a much more detailed and normal poll btw
The limits of free speech

This poll is utterly retarded. Free speech is a fundamental right, but every right has its limits.
At least you could make this a multi-poll vote.

[Heathen Hammer]

In case you would have missed it, there's already a thread about this topic, with a much more detailed and not a retarded poll btw:
The limits of free speech

Pol in that thread was the reason for me to create this one.

[Pious Agnost]

Not to politcal correctness, but if it promotes illegal actions, yes, it should be

[AqD]

Not to politcal correctness, but if it promotes illegal actions, yes, it should be

Everything could be made illegal for political correctness.

The laws are just a part of politics.

[Dunecat]

In case you would have missed it, there's already a thread about this topic, with a much more detailed and normal poll btw
The limits of free speech

This poll is utterly retarded. Free speech is a fundamental right, but every right has its limits.
At least you could make this a multi-poll vote.

So you would agree that a person sometimes doesn't have a right to their own life?

*Waits for PW to list rights by importance*

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

So you would agree that a person sometimes doesn't have a right to their own life?

Yes, Lenin, and I'll tell you a common example. In the case someone's life is directly threatened, the threatened person has the right to self-defense if the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced. This means the other person has forfeited his right to life.

[Samuel Adams]

In case you would have missed it, there's already a thread about this topic, with a much more detailed and normal poll btw
The limits of free speech

This poll is utterly retarded. Free speech is a fundamental right, but every right has its limits.
At least you could make this a multi-poll vote.

Wrong, wrong wrong, and fixed.

If it infringes on other's rights, it is no longer your right, hence it no longer is the right of free speech, it is an attack on other's rights.


A truly free people don't have limits on rights solely so people don't get their feelings hurt.

Or, look at it this way;

You have a right to life. However, if you are very ugly, we can waive that right so that the populace is no longer burdened by your ugliness.

Sounds radically insane, right? You'd never go for that legislation? Same basic idea, though. Your right to life only ends when you take or threaten someone else's. Free speech is the same way in any free country.

[Lord Feloric's Ambassador]

My Lord believes you should follow your sacred documents unquestionably, many of which advocate "free speech". Both me and my Lord follow the Chronicle Of The Wolf unquestionably.

[Pious Agnost]

My Lord believes you should follow your sacred documents unquestionably, many of which advocate "free speech". Both me and my Lord follow the Chronicle Of The Wolf unquestionably.

So your Lord listens to a higher authority?

[Calamari]

What is said beyond closed doors is no ones buisness but shouting trying to get people to kill, rape and steal is conspiracy to commit... or something like that.

There is nothing wrong with PC usualy, but like everything else its only good in moderation and the current "bovine originating, internaly processed nutritionaly drained biological output" that we have in the UK is anything but moderate. Or in other words, utter crap.

[the_mango55]

I agree with none of those options, but If there was a "Yes, if the speech causes danger to others" I would pick it.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" being a common example.

[MaximiIian]

PC = BS.

That simple.
Don't be a ing tool and pussyfoot around what you want to say. Just say what you mean and be honest.
Even if it's something a lot of people will disagree with, it's a hell of a lot more respectable that ing around with what you want to say.

As for the poll: Fourth option. Just because someone's speech advocates certain political actions doesn't mean someone will actually do it. Punishing someone for advocating anti-government action is ing paranoid.
And this is coming from a paranoid person, so...yeah, you know you ed up if the paranoid kid is calling you paranoid. ;D
There's even less reason to ban offensive speech. If you're offended easily, then just GTFO.

[Starlightman]

a better question...

"should political correctness be sacrificed to Free Speech"?

[Enemy of the State]

Nobody has the right to not be offended. Anybody who thinks he does is a ing retard.
I probably just offended someone. Well you deserved it. Now go cry.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Okay, here's why this poll is retarded, and why I refused to vote on this.

Should free speech be limited, and if yes than how?

Yes. If it can cause revolt against government
Yes. if it offends someone.
Yes. If it promotes illegal actions.
No. Free speech should be guaranteed by constitution as a fundamental right of individual.

Free speech is a fundamental right in either case. Every fundamental right has its limits. There's not a country in the world, not even the United States, where free speech would be boundless. Therefore the question "Should free speech be limited?" is completely beyond reason. It's like asking "Should political power be limited?". Of course it should be, as no right or privilege is boundless. Not even private ownership. Moreover, freedom never was, is, and never will be unlimited. There's no "freedom" without laws.

So if you click "Yes. If it can cause revolt against government", you don't negate that it would be a fundamental right guaranteed by constitution or whatever. However you have to choose of 4 options, which means that if you click on the first 3, you don't agree with the last one, namely that it would be a fundamental right.

But there are other flaws: why would I have to choose only one from the first 3 options, even if I would agree that free speech is not a fundamental right (which is not the case)? These can all be limits to free speech.

Therefore the poll is utterly biased and lame. The intention of this thread is to troll by its title ("Should Free Speech be sacrificed to political correctness?") and falsely suggest that by limiting free speech you "sacrifice" political correctness, which is simply not true.

I ask everyone to check out this thread and vote there instead:
The limits of free speech

[molonthegreat]

No the political correctness why care if some get offended?

[Dr. Croccer]

Everything has it limits. Name one place or country where you can say/write/draw literally everything you want. Full freedom is just as silly an idea as full equality. It goes against basic human nature. In this case arrogance, bigotry and ego. Everyone is for freedom of speech untill they see something that rubs them in a bad way.

[Strattios]

While I strongly disagree with some things people say, I went for no limits. The reason is that it would be impossible to develop sensible boundaries. Then, like everything else, the second the government can start limiting something (or taxing it) they go hog wild and leave you with almost nothing.