Free Speech - Limits or No? (Ariovistus Maximus vs. AntiWarmanCake88)

[Ariovistus Maximus]

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 AntiWarmanCake88 and myself have chosen to discuss. He is for the limiting of free speech, and I am for freedom from withstraint.

The commentary thread for readers can be found here.

AntiWarman can make the first statement. Take it away mate!

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Thanks mate.




Yes, there is a line. In history we saw leaders give their citizens freedom of speech and those who did not. Some of these leaders were evil, like Hitler and Stalin. But some just wanted to keep their people civil, like Napoleon.



Freedom of Speech causes many problems. One of them is exactly that. Do you believe it is right to say you going to kill the head of state? Should you be allow to go to soldiers of fallen troops and call them the F word or say they serve to die? No. There is a line. I am for freedom of speech to a point. You should be allow to say things granted they are not racist, hurtful or demeaning. These acts are exactly the things that kill nations.




Your turn.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Good show mate. I was recently involved in a discussion on this topic. The introduction I used there is about the same as how I'd like to start out here.

Here is the basis of my thinking. Indeed some forms of expression are repulsive to the "normal" person. However, I am ultimately committed to the 1st Amendment, which guarantees free speech. If you like, you could also apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Personally, I dislike the way that so many nations state in their governing documents that "all people have the right to hold opinions without state interference," and then they go on to say "EXCEPT this list of opinions which we will not allow.

In my opinion, that simply undermines the whole principle. Isn't the very purpose of freedom of expression to protect those people who have unpopular opinions? You don't have to worry about persecution if you just tote the party line. Therefore, freedom of speech is meaningless when it simply protects mainstream opinions. It is necessary to the principle of free speech that people be free to maintain even incorrect ideas.

Freedom is not "freedom to do what we tell you." And, although there are of necessity limits on freedom, in obvious issues such as murder or theft, those are quite clearly necessary. The issue of free speech/expression is not so clear as these.

Finally, I would challenge you to think on this: most restrictions to freedom serve to ensure that we do not violate the freedoms of others. Murder is not wrong because most people say so; it is wrong because it violates another person's right to life.

So tell me: what right of yours is being violated by the Neo-Nazi, the Stalinist, or the (X whatever opinion you find to be blatantly false)? You tell me that. Do you have a right to comfort? Do you have a right to pleasure? Do you have a right to see only opinions that agree with your own when you browse the TWC? Do you have a right to only receive accurate information?

No you do not. The holocaust denier is not breaking a single right of yours; he is merely being an idiot and making you uncomfortable. On the other hand, you, out of your wish for convenience, are prepared to break his right to self-expression.

That is the principle of the issue as I see it. I think that it is most important to stick with your principles when they are not convenient. Again, I challenge you to consider this carefully. What do you really believe about freedom?

Finally, let me be clear. I am not free to "express" myself by punching you in the face. I am not free to steal copywrited products in order to "express" myself. That is, again, because I would be violating other people's rights.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yes, there is a line. In history we saw leaders give their citizens freedom of speech and those who did not. Some of these leaders were evil, like Hitler and Stalin. But some just wanted to keep their people civil, like Napoleon.

Indeed. But I'd rather not have my freedoms depend on the figurehead in power. Seems like a risky bet to me.

Freedom of Speech causes many problems. One of them is exactly that. Do you believe it is right to say you going to kill the head of state?

I'd certainly say that the State would be justified in keeping tabs on someone who says things like that; I don't see that they are justified in slapping a fine on him and sending him to jail. And why is a threat to the President the only threat that is labeled as crime? What if I told you that I plan to break 100mph on the highway tomorrow? What if I jokingly told you that I was totally going to beat you up?

Who decides which threats or crimes? What standards do they use?

Now what about the historical roots of the 1st Amendment? Weren't the colonists threatening King George? They explicitly threatened many of his agents. As a result, one objective of the First Amendment, I think, is to guarantee people's ability to dissent with the government.

In short I'd say that threats put a person under suspicion, and certainly make for evidence after the fact, but you cannot arrest anyone for pre-crime. What ever happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" A threat isn't a confession; it's a measly shred of evidence at best. Certainly nothing to build a case on.

Now, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as the old scenario goes, is a different paradigm. Your speech is less of words, and more of an action. And action that will put people in danger, disturb the peace, and a host of other things.

Freedom of speech/expression, as I see it, protects my ability to have an OPINION and to spread that opinion. Telling people that a building is on fire is certainly not a valid opinion, not even a false opinion. It is simply malicious deceit. So that scenario need not apply at all.

Should you be allow to go to soldiers of fallen troops and call them the F word or say they serve to die? No. There is a line. I am for freedom of speech to a point. You should be allow to say things granted they are not racist, hurtful or demeaning. These acts are exactly the things that kill nations.

Well, in the first place that's a pretty broad context, but okay. This scenario is much clearer. People must absolutely be able to express such opinions, heinous though they may be.

No one has any right, Constitutional or otherwise, to be free from hurtful or demeaning words. Descriminating actions? You bet; 13th Amendment for example. But again, speech is an entirely different paradigm.

Furthermore, is it the speech that kills nations? No. The radicals who curse fallen soldiers accomplish nothing other than showing people how twisted their movement really is. Those radicals MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING if they weren't so horrible at expressing themselves.

In short, these people do not shape society, they reflect it. A person's speech is not the root issue; the mind determines speech. Therefore, it is simply a matter of social decline that is expressed, not propagated, by speech.

And, yet furthermore, what have you accomplished by shoving a cork up someone's mouth? Such tactics never changed anyone's mind. I remember on this forum that one member (hi JingleBombs ) said that Communism needs "a good banning." Nothing makes you realize how much you want something like loosing it. You want to polarize a radical movement? Ban them.

You will not change my mind on anything by telling me to shut up. You might actually accomplish something if you let me have my say, and then tell my why I'm wrong.

As I said in the previous post, that is a reason for free speech. Not only to protect what is right, but simply for the practical reality that bans are an extremely inefficient means of accomplishing anything.

For instance, stormfront.org, the internet hideout for Neo-Nazis. You notice that those people like to band together in isolated communities? That's because the instant that they try to enter a forum like this one, they get tarred and feathered with a furious storm of logic and reason that they can't handle.

Ban people, and that's what will happen. They will just congregate with likeminded people so that they need not fear repression, nor will they have to deal with inconvenient realities.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Well, in the first place that's a pretty broad context, but okay. This scenario is much clearer. People must absolutely be able to express such opinions, heinous though they may be.

No, they should not.

No one has any right, Constitutional or otherwise, to be free from hurtful or demeaning words. Descriminating actions? You bet; 13th Amendment for example. But again, speech is an entirely different paradigm.

No one has the right to have to be bullied in school, no right has the right to call a dead solider any particular set of names at his funeral. There is a line and when you cross it.....

Furthermore, is it the speech that kills nations? No. The radicals who curse fallen soldiers accomplish nothing other than showing people how twisted their movement really is. Those radicals MIGHT ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING if they weren't so horrible at expressing themselves.

Yes. See the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1800's? How about Russian and Prussian Empires? OK. Now look at today? No? Did Speech kill them? Soley, no, but it sure in hell didn't help them.

In short, these people do not shape society, they reflect it. A person's speech is not the root issue; the mind determines speech. Therefore, it is simply a matter of social decline that is expressed, not propagated, by speech.

Like calling conservative radicals or calling liberals the N word?

And, yet furthermore, what have you accomplished by shoving a cork up someone's mouth? Such tactics never changed anyone's mind. I remember on this forum that one member (hi JingleBombs ) said that Communism needs "a good banning." Nothing makes you realize how much you want something like loosing it. You want to polarize a radical movem
ent? Ban them.

Sure..... Then aren't you breaking civil rights then? And won't you infuriate them even more? I think so.

In short I'd say that threats put a person under suspicion, and certainly make for evidence after the fact, but you cannot arrest anyone for pre-crime. What ever happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" A threat isn't a confession; it's a measly shred of evidence at best. Certainly nothing to build a case on.

Now, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as the old scenario goes, is a different paradigm. Your speech is less of words, and more of an action. And action that will put people in danger, disturb the peace, and a host of other things.

Calling a solider a Fa...... at his funeral might cause his family to attack the protesters. Should they not be arrested for instigating a fight?



How about 9/11 conspiracy nuts.... I mean therosists () who go into a "hostile" crowd and start preaching their trash and get beat up by sane people like us?

So tell me: what right of yours is being violated by the Neo-Nazi, the Stalinist, or the (X whatever opinion you find to be blatantly false)? You tell me that. Do you have a right to comfort? Do you have a right to pleasure? Do you have a right to see only opinions that agree with your own when you browse the TWC? Do you have a right to only receive accurate information?

No you do not. The holocaust denier is not breaking a single right of yours; he is merely being an idiot and making you uncomfortable. On the other hand, you, out of your wish for convenience, are prepared to break his right to self-expression.

Actually they could be. It's call breaking the rights of human respect.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Before I begin, there is yet another reason for free speech. Allow me to give an example.

I make a habit of discussing and researching firearms and gun politics. It is my belief that gun control advocates are incorrect in general, outright false in several areas, and downright misleading in others.

Yet for all that, you know something? I am imperfect, right? Of course. And that means that I will, from time to time, fall into wrong ideas myself, right? Well, when I espouse an incorrect idea about gun rights, who do you think is the quickest to point it out to me? Gun control advocates, not gun rights' supporters. Though I believe them to be false, they still serve a CRUCIAL purpose to me!

People naturally pick apart ideas that they disagree with, and tend to blindly accept ideas that they agree with. Notice that we often choose to agree with something before we actually understand it.

Therefore, I will STRENUOUSLY defend the right of gun control advocates to speak out. I will even defend it with guns if necessary. Yes, you knew that was coming. I did it anyway. Anyways, that is because

Dissenting opinions in and of themselves are necessary to the progression of society.

They are the primary means by which we learn.

No, they should not.

Okay... why? Fewer definite statements, more rationale please.

No one has the right to have to be bullied in school, no right has the right to call a dead solider any particular set of names at his funeral. There is a line and when you cross it.....

That is reverse thinking. "No one has the right not to...", or "No one has the right to (X bad thing)" makes no sense.

I don't know in what universe a person would have the right to be bullied, or how it would be relevant if they did. But, the fact is that no one has a right to freedom from bullying either, except of course for physical bullying which is an entirely different subject.

And, rhetoric/emotions aside, the hard fact of the matter is that people DO have the right to call a dead soldier any particular set of names at his funeral.

Again, it breaks no rights. Tell me where people have a right that specifies that no person can call their relative names at a funeral.

Furthermore, would you call a war criminal names at his funeral? Is something like that fair in some cases, but not all? How do you decide whether it is fair or not.

See, I'm trying to show you that it's virtually impossible to create a standard set in stone to decide whether something can be said or not. That is why restriction of speech makes no sense. How do you decide what people can say and what they cant? WHO decides?

Ethics and human rights are two different things here.

Yes. See the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1800's? How about Russian and Prussian Empires? OK. Now look at today? No? Did Speech kill them? Soley, no, but it sure in hell didn't help them.

Demonstrate to me how free speech directly factored into the fall of those empires.

Even better, why don't you tell me how many nations have FALLEN because of censorship?

Like calling conservative radicals or calling liberals the N word?

Sure.

Sure..... Then aren't you breaking civil rights then? And won't you infuriate them even more? I think so.

EXACTLY MY POINT. You have just taken the words right out of my mouth.

Ban people from saying certain things, you will break your rights and you will infuriate them. Rather than bringing about the desired effect of suppressing them, you will just give them a greater will to fight. You will not have accomplished anything.

Well, I see that you agree with one of my main points. Censorship convinces no one.

Calling a solider a Fa...... at his funeral might cause his family to attack the protesters. Should they not be arrested for instigating a fight?

That is all highly circumstantial. And obviously they can only be arrested for instigating a fight if a fight occurs.

That's another point (most of which you have not responded to by the way); people are not guilty of anything (such as instigating a fight) until AFTER the fact. You cannot arrest them for pre-crime; it violates the very foundational principles of law and justice.

How about 9/11 conspiracy nuts.... I mean therosists () who go into a "hostile" crowd and start preaching their trash and get beat up by sane people like us?

If you beat some one up for preaching what you think is trash, then you are at fault. That is yet ANOTHER reason for freedom of speech. Just because you (or even the majority of people) think that something is wrong does not make it so. Nor, necessarily, does the information with which you have arrived at that conclusion make it so.

Now, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy is pretty bonkers. However, I still must insist that they be permitted to speak. Why?You wanted to discuss historical lessons earlier.

Imagine, if you will, what our world today might be like if not for the religious oppression of the Dark Ages.

Can you imagine what it would be like if, in that day, the Catholic Church had not decided to keep people from becoming educated to make sure that they would not dissent with the Church?

We could be CENTURIES ahead of where we are now. But, because most people thought that the others were wrong (of course they're wrong!), mankind was robbed of great potential for hundreds of years.

Imagine computers in the year 1900. Just imagine that for a moment.

Actually they could be. It's call breaking the rights of human respect.

That is pure rhetoric. No one on this planet has a right to respect.

If we do, I demand this instant that you respect my right to an opinion.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

I came across an interesting story that covers this very topic.

YORK, Pa. – Some nights Albert Snyder wakes up at 3 a.m. Other nights he doesn't sleep at all, tormented by thoughts of the hateful signs carried by a fundamentalist church outside his Marine son's funeral.

"Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

"You're Going to Hell."

"Semper Fi Fags."

Hundreds of grieving families have been targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church, which believes military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality.

Most mourners try to ignore the taunts. But Snyder couldn't let it go. He became the first to sue the church to halt the demonstrations, and he's pursued the group farther than anyone else. Now, more than four years after his son died in a Humvee accident in Iraq, Snyder's legal battle is headed to the Supreme Court.

Full story here.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Hey man, I'm old and crippled and I can't debate as well as I use to .

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Bummer. Well, sorry man. It was fun while it lasted.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

A new debate with Thermal has commenced in this thread.