Forum Settings
Forums

Freedom of speech - what does it mean to you?

Pages (3) « 1 2 [3]
Post New Reply
Jul 23, 12:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 7675
Bayek said:
hazarddex said:
actually you do you can vote based on the person's character as an individual that's why i look at peoples personal policies and not party policies.
I mean, your vote is the equivalent of a pawn moving one tile in a game of chess. Voters don't have the same influence that the established powers wield. If you're not in the binary GOP v DNC system, you're at their mercy.

i believe in freedom of association to ideals. i could turn that argument on its head by saying no such thing as freedom from consequences exist, but your still asking for it.
What if someone's ideal is to not associate with people of different races or tribes? What do you think happens when you force racial separatists to integrate and live together? Racial segregation in the US was state enforced law and even whites were compelled by the government to not associate with blacks. In contrast, however, integration was federally enforced and imposed upon people who should have had the right to choose for themselves if they were ready for such a monumental change.

your saying that there has never been a violent crime committed based on people having two different opinions? your ether naive or being intentionally dishonest if you believe no ones been murder over there opinion.
Eh, no. I'm saying that firing someone because they're afraid there'll be a murder at the workplace over a disagreement about same sex marriage is highly autistic.

laws are made by people. they don't spring out of the ground for everyone to follow. to have laws not made by people is simple fictitious.
My statement wasn't about laws, but about the consequences of what you say. There is no moral basis for the social repercussions of free speech.

i would say losing your job is far better then losing your life wouldn't you?
That's just so brilliant. I have a better idea though - not limiting speech based on some autistic notion that your coworker will stab you to death because you believe in two genders.

they also made the third amendment to prevent having a standing army and look where we are now.
and whose principles yours? that's' simple ego. principles are again made by people.
Funny that you mention that because the Constitution was written & decided on by elites without the consent of the people. At the time, the will of the people was to have a confederation of separate nation states, which would have undoubtedly led to the total collapse of such a system.

Better to be an individual who makes calculated choices then a sheep that follows one party exclusively and blindly no?

Knew you would go for that obvious strawman.
Ideals are not the same as race anyone with a brain knows that much. You've just shot your own arugment in the foot by bringing that up. Ideals are a choice what your born as is not. As such I have no problem with people facing the concequences of there choices. If there going to be some sepreationist prick then its clear they would make working in a job eviroment hell for everyone else and the boss has the right to fire them.

That is what it is to judge people by there character.

And I'm saying its better to allow people to fire others who make working with them difficult because they are a prick sure people might have diffrent definition of what a prick is.

If someones going to be an ass the whole time in the work place then its more likely they will get killed. I'm not saying a boss will fire them for there own safety I'm saying that its a far better alternitive to getting killed or just create continuous negativity in a workplace making it hard to work for people there.

If your not even going to allow others to make decissions based on others characters. All your doing is creating more problems then there needs to be.


Execpt for all the ones I've been pointing out.
But moral is not a universal equivelent so I dont expect you to understand that.



I find it ammsuing that your treating the people who write laws as some sort of non human entity.
Thats the appeal to authority is it? They are no less falable then any other human on the planet. To attribute the idea that they are more special then anyone else that makes a principle they follow is fallicous.
Modified by hazarddex, Jul 23, 12:13 PM
"among monsters and humans, there are only two types.
Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others."
 
Jul 23, 12:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 175
Ryuk9428 said:
Sphinxter said:
No, it's a superset of that and also includes speech that aren't opinions.

For instance holocaust denial is not covered under freedom of expression of opinion — though I still believe it should be legal — simply because it's not an opinion; it is covered under freedom of speech however.


Peaceful_Critic said:
That's still an opinion. It's just a really stupid and wrong one. However, that 100% falls under here:
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

They formed a judgment on the Holocaust, saying that it didn't happen which wasn't based on fact or knowledge.


Holocaust denial is protected as free speech in the United States. Its infamously illegal in Germany though, its also illegal in Israel, and maybe some other European countries.

Just because its nonfactual doesn't mean it isn't protected. The idea that Bush was behind 9/11 is also nonfactual but you have a right to claim it. Ultimately, they are opinions.

If someone doesn't think the holocaust happened then they don't think it happened. I think its pretty silly, by the same logic, you could conclude that WW2 itself didn't happen. But, there's no point in having an uproar about it anymore than there's a point to getting outraged if somebody did deny WW2 happened in the first place.


Please don't tell me that you're a holocaust denier. Holocaust happen there are evidence for it. Brainwashing like this is precisely the reason why hate speech should be banned.
 
Jul 23, 12:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 175
Monad said:
AnimeFeminist said:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. And hate speech isn't free speech. I agree that you should be able to criticize government but if you go around calling for violence against certain group of people that is not free speech any more. Private companies have a right to decide if they want certain type of content to be associated with their brand.


A true authoritarian right here. There is no such thing as hate speech. Hate speech is nothing but a vague term that allows the ones with power to use it to censor the words of those they disagree with, and thankfully at least the US courts saw as much and ruled it.
No such thing in what is slowly proved to be a new European dictatorship unfortunately.
As George Orwell said "If liberty means anything at all, it means telling others things they do not want to hear".
Even Ron Paul got it when he said "we don't have the first amendment to talk about the weather. We have it so we can freely talk about controversial things"

You can take the most ruthless dictator and he will be perfectly fine with you talking as long as you say things he likes hearing.
What you need freedom of speech for is when you say things he doesn't like hearing. And guess what a dictator will call such things? "Hate speech" of course.

As about direct calls for violence, that is already covered under law. You don't need to create "hate speech" laws for that.


It is sad that people like you grew with no important basic principles like "I may hate what you say but i will defend to death your right to say it."
And "Do not do to others what you don't like them doing do you."


People like you are exactly what Winston Churchill described with this phrase:
"Some people's ides of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage".
And people like that only drive our world to a darker place. One can only hope that there is some sense of principle inside you that may help you do understand the horror of your ways.

Btw private companies can censor all they like, but they should have no right to call themselves as platform or have any right that involves being one. They are publishers then and they must face the consequences of their own agenda and opinions.




Yes there is. It's been outlawed in many European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Germans also though that all ideas should be tolerated until Hitler came. Certain ideas are simply too dangerous just look at alt-right and white supremacist if they had their way how many innocent lives would be lost.
 
Jul 23, 2:03 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15740
AnimeFeminist said:
Monad said:


A true authoritarian right here. There is no such thing as hate speech. Hate speech is nothing but a vague term that allows the ones with power to use it to censor the words of those they disagree with, and thankfully at least the US courts saw as much and ruled it.
No such thing in what is slowly proved to be a new European dictatorship unfortunately.
As George Orwell said "If liberty means anything at all, it means telling others things they do not want to hear".
Even Ron Paul got it when he said "we don't have the first amendment to talk about the weather. We have it so we can freely talk about controversial things"

You can take the most ruthless dictator and he will be perfectly fine with you talking as long as you say things he likes hearing.
What you need freedom of speech for is when you say things he doesn't like hearing. And guess what a dictator will call such things? "Hate speech" of course.

As about direct calls for violence, that is already covered under law. You don't need to create "hate speech" laws for that.


It is sad that people like you grew with no important basic principles like "I may hate what you say but i will defend to death your right to say it."
And "Do not do to others what you don't like them doing do you."


People like you are exactly what Winston Churchill described with this phrase:
"Some people's ides of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage".
And people like that only drive our world to a darker place. One can only hope that there is some sense of principle inside you that may help you do understand the horror of your ways.

Btw private companies can censor all they like, but they should have no right to call themselves as platform or have any right that involves being one. They are publishers then and they must face the consequences of their own agenda and opinions.




Yes there is. It's been outlawed in many European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Germans also though that all ideas should be tolerated until Hitler came. Certain ideas are simply too dangerous just look at alt-right and white supremacist if they had their way how many innocent lives would be lost.



If you are an authoritarian there is. And that is what the EU is. Non democratic or representative of the people and authoritarian.

Until Hitler came huh. I guess you are right. Because when Hitler came, he changed that, he didn't think all should be free to express themselves. He thought disagreeing with him was hate speech and intolerable.
It seems you have lots in common.

I don't know because last i checked just about anyone can be called alt-right or white supremacist. So i have no idea who this life taking alt-right white supremacist are even suppose to be or what makes them so horrible and what their "ways" are.
Maybe you can enlighten me? What are the ways of an alt-right white supremacists? And what is the difference between alt-right and white supremacy?
Why are they bad and why are they the current big bad guys instead of Neo-Nazis and Communists like we used to have?

As about lives lost? When you have authoritarians in power lives will be lost no matter where you put them, left, right, west, east, up, down whatever. Authoritarians will always be awful and the thing they hate the most is free speech.
Hitler killed many, communists killed even more, in the end all it mattered is that both were authoritarian and they sure didn't like those speaking against them. Such ideas were simply too dangerous. That is why they had to kill them and imprison them.
 
Jul 23, 3:23 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 921
AnimeFeminist said:
Ryuk9428 said:




Holocaust denial is protected as free speech in the United States. Its infamously illegal in Germany though, its also illegal in Israel, and maybe some other European countries.

Just because its nonfactual doesn't mean it isn't protected. The idea that Bush was behind 9/11 is also nonfactual but you have a right to claim it. Ultimately, they are opinions.

If someone doesn't think the holocaust happened then they don't think it happened. I think its pretty silly, by the same logic, you could conclude that WW2 itself didn't happen. But, there's no point in having an uproar about it anymore than there's a point to getting outraged if somebody did deny WW2 happened in the first place.


Please don't tell me that you're a holocaust denier. Holocaust happen there are evidence for it. Brainwashing like this is precisely the reason why hate speech should be banned.


I already said that it was silly. You're just trying to deliberately misinterpret what I said so that you can use it as a way to attack me.
 
Jul 23, 3:24 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 921
Monad said:
AnimeFeminist said:


Yes there is. It's been outlawed in many European countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Germans also though that all ideas should be tolerated until Hitler came. Certain ideas are simply too dangerous just look at alt-right and white supremacist if they had their way how many innocent lives would be lost.



If you are an authoritarian there is. And that is what the EU is. Non democratic or representative of the people and authoritarian.

Until Hitler came huh. I guess you are right. Because when Hitler came, he changed that, he didn't think all should be free to express themselves. He thought disagreeing with him was hate speech and intolerable.
It seems you have lots in common.

I don't know because last i checked just about anyone can be called alt-right or white supremacist. So i have no idea who this life taking alt-right white supremacist are even suppose to be or what makes them so horrible and what their "ways" are.
Maybe you can enlighten me? What are the ways of an alt-right white supremacists? And what is the difference between alt-right and white supremacy?
Why are they bad and why are they the current big bad guys instead of Neo-Nazis and Communists like we used to have?

As about lives lost? When you have authoritarians in power lives will be lost no matter where you put them, left, right, west, east, up, down whatever. Authoritarians will always be awful and the thing they hate the most is free speech.
Hitler killed many, communists killed even more, in the end all it mattered is that both were authoritarian and they sure didn't like those speaking against them. Such ideas were simply too dangerous. That is why they had to kill them and imprison them.


I'm pretty sure AnimeFeminist is a troll profile. Maybe a Russian bot, idk, but there's something iffy about that profile. I don't even think that its a legitimate feminist you're talking to.
 
Jul 23, 4:41 PM

Online
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 13397
hazarddex said:

Better to be an individual who makes calculated choices then a sheep that follows one party exclusively and blindly no?
Sure but I'm saying that you don't effectively have weight in the political sphere, which is why getting shut out of the GOP or DNC is a major disadvantage. I'd love for a candidate to come along who's better than Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, but that person will never win on a third party ticket. Howard Schultz was probably the biggest independent name for 2020 and no one even talks about him anymore.

Knew you would go for that obvious strawman.
Ideals are not the same as race anyone with a brain knows that much. You've just shot your own arugment in the foot by bringing that up. Ideals are a choice what your born as is not. As such I have no problem with people facing the concequences of there choices. If there going to be some sepreationist prick then its clear they would make working in a job eviroment hell for everyone else and the boss has the right to fire them.
Then that's not freedom of association. That's you forcing your values onto other people and making them live in ways that they don't want to. People make decisions based on immutable characteristics all of the time. Do you think having racial preferences for dating is bad? How about preferring your own children over other people's kids? Would you condemn someone for choosing not to associate with people who have severe mental disorders?

And going by your logic, isn't it bad to force white separatists to live with black people? Wouldn't that just result in murders? Isn't it just better to let them create their own communities and leave them be?

Ultimately, it seems you're just brandishing this 20th century liberalism of "Racists are bad and need to be punished by having black neighbors!"

If someones going to be an ass the whole time in the work place then its more likely they will get killed. I'm not saying a boss will fire them for there own safety I'm saying that its a far better alternitive to getting killed or just create continuous negativity in a workplace making it hard to work for people there.
Again, you're talking about something entirely different. Being obnoxious & counterproductive to the workplace is not the same as holding politically dissident views in your personal life. As for your fear that people will start getting mowed down because they work with difficult people, I say LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

Execpt for all the ones I've been pointing out.
But moral is not a universal equivelent so I dont expect you to understand that.
No but I suspect you'll keep shifting this goalpost the moment I start to point out how everything you're arguing is effectively void if morality is completely subjective & relative.


I find it ammsuing that your treating the people who write laws as some sort of non human entity.
Thats the appeal to authority is it? They are no less falable then any other human on the planet. To attribute the idea that they are more special then anyone else that makes a principle they follow is fallicous.
Ah come on now. Surely you don't believe that a bunch of uneducated farmers, cobblers & carpenters could have crafted the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution? Do you really believe that things such as checks & balances or inalienable rights could have been envisioned by just anyone? If so, why did it take thousands of years of human history to finally arrive at 4 or 5 men who all happened to be intellectual elites with unequaled educations, accolades & accomplishments of their time?
 
Jul 24, 12:15 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 7675
Bayek said:

That's you forcing your values onto other people


view must be great from that glass house of yours.

And going by your logic, isn't it bad to force white separatists to live with black people


nice strawman, please find me where people are being told they must house strangers inside there houses otherwise im not wasting my time on that obvious strawman.


Again, you're talking about something entirely different. Being obnoxious & counterproductive to the workplace is not the same as holding politically dissident views in your personal life.

you don't need to be obnoxious to be an asshole.


completely subjective & relative.
which basically sums up your own argument




Ah come on now. Surely you don't believe that a bunch of uneducated farmers, cobblers & carpenters could have crafted the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution? Do you really believe that things such as checks & balances or inalienable rights could have been envisioned by just anyone? If so, why did it take thousands of years of human history to finally arrive at 4 or 5 men who all happened to be intellectual elites with unequaled educations, accolades & accomplishments of their time?

appeal to an authority. also america was not the first country to come up with the concept of democracy. (hell it can't even do democracy correct since its more of a republic then a democracy.) so idk where your pulling this "take thousands of years." democracies have existed since ancient Greece.

also you forget that many of those 4-5 men were in fact common folk. to attribute to them some sort of supernatural powers is simply silly.
"among monsters and humans, there are only two types.
Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others."
 
Jul 24, 5:42 AM

Online
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 13397
hazarddex said:

nice strawman, please find me where people are being told they must house strangers inside there houses otherwise im not wasting my time on that obvious strawman.
Alright, this is just becoming tedious and highly autistic. Do you not know how societies work? You don't need to house criminals Airbnb style to know that living in their vicinity is a bad idea. Disclaimer: I'm not comparing living to blacks to living with criminals. Don't need any more kvetching about "muh strawman."

you don't need to be obnoxious to be an asshole.
Yeah, you're doing a superb job at making that distinction.

Look, I'm going to keep it as simple as possible for you. Having unpopular opinions =/= being obnoxious (or an asshole).

appeal to an authority. also america was not the first country to come up with the concept of democracy. (hell it can't even do democracy correct since its more of a republic then a democracy.) so idk where your pulling this "take thousands of years." democracies have existed since ancient Greece.
The founding principle of America is not democracy nor a democratic republic. It is representative government based on maximizing the liberties of the individual and preventing a monopoly on power through a checks & balances system of government.

Now go find me an example that predates 1789.

Also, you'd be better off saying you simply disagree with me instead of kvetching about supposed fallacies. It's not an "appeal to authority" to point out that the men who devised America were the best of the best. I'm not sneering at the common man as inferior - I'm simply pointing out that there was no way America would have been conceived were it not for exceptional, well accomplished men who strayed from conventional thought and pushed for a radical vision of a new nation.

also you forget that many of those 4-5 men were in fact common folk. to attribute to them some sort of supernatural powers is simply silly.
Now that is simply not true. They might have been considered low born by British aristocrats, but most of them owned manors & plantations, were highly educated (which was far less common at this time), and partook in extravagant hobbies such as fox hunting. Saying that George Washington, James Madison, John Jay or Thomas Jefferson was just your average joe is asinine. Even Alexander Hamilton, who started as a commoner, rose up to very affluent means by the time he became instrumental in devising the United States.

...Oh and yeah, they didn't have super powers. I feel like I need to mention that lest I'm slapped with another "but that's the marvel comics superhero fallacy."
 
Jul 24, 9:41 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 10184
AnimeFeminist said:

Germans also though that all ideas should be tolerated until Hitler came. Certain ideas are simply too dangerous just look at alt-right and white supremacist if they had their way how many innocent lives would be lost.


Even Trump himself has disavowed the Alt Right, they don't speak for him. You don't have to agree with every hater on planet Earth to be a conservative lol.
 
Jul 25, 5:47 AM
Offline
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 71
When it comes to freedom of speech, I always wonder whether we actually have it. Media here in the west like to talk about 'dictators, corrupt regimes and suppression of free press' to indicate that in other countries freedom of speech is restricted, a claim which can only be verified by a handful of people who have experienced the country themselves.

So, do we have freedom of speech here? According to law, yes, somewhat. But the law only indicates that certain actions will have certain consequences if you're caught. It is not so that everything that's written in the law is reflected in society (murder is illegal but people are still getting stabbed and shot to death). In society, it's different. There are many examples where saying something in the wrong crowd will end up with you in shit, despite your actions being unpunishable by law. Some examples (which don't have to occur eveywhere, it's just something general):
If you say we should tone down immigration, you are xenophobic.
If you don't like gay parades, you are homophobic.
If you don't believe in God, you are a devil's child.
If you don't want to date a transgender, you are transphobic.
If you think that hiring a certain amount of women to reach an x% margin of women in a company is a stupid idea, you are a mysoginist.
People being people, they'll think that you disagreeing with one aspects of their ideals means you are entirely against it. Black and white. The stupid 'You're either with us or against us' mentality.
Also, people throw the words 'hate speech' too often. For example, there is a vast difference between 'I don't like gay parades, you don't have to show off your sexuality' and 'I hate gay people, we should get rid of them'. The latter is hate, while the first is not. It's just a different opinion about a certain aspect that in another person's view, could be done differently.

Another issue is when people think that freedom of speech means 'I have freedom of speech, therefore I can parade my opinion in front of me like a flag and everybody must listen and accept it and my opinion is the most important in the world'. No, just no. For the masses your individual opinion isn't relevant.

Inconvenient, unpopular and contradicting opinions are opinions people don't want to hear, and that is an important obstacle we must overcome if we want a world with real freedom of speech.
Oregairu is life
 
Jul 25, 6:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 1072
No one has free speech, not even American who go on about how they have it and everyone else doesn't.
They are the only ones who imprison people for lying about their service in the military.

Freedom of speech/actions is not there to let you act like an arsehole like the idiots who got fined for eating a raw squirrel in front of a vegan food stand.
 
Jul 25, 1:09 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1535
HopefulNihilist said:
Sphinxter said:
An American buzzword that is useless because it is always "with limits" and any freedom "with limits" is no freedom at all — that is a contradictio in terminis.

The problem of limitless freedom of speech is that it would also have to include libel, death threats, and leaking of personal information which is also speech; that is why I think it's useless as a concept.

In the Netherlands there exists no "freedom of speech" what exists is "freedom of expression of opinion" — that's a significant difference and I do believe that that should and can be sans any limits, at least from governmental prosecution and probably above that. I also believe there should be protections that take away the privilege of employers to fire any employer for what opinion he might have expressed outside of his capacity as an employer.

"freedom of speech" is not a good thing to limitlessly and just an empty buzzword but "freedom of opinion" can be limitless: the important thing is that death threats, libel, leaking of personal information, production of child pornography &c. are not "opinions" though they are speech.


I...actually agree. In America, it's more like, "freedom of opinion" instead of, "freedom of speech". However, rappers can rap about killing people and the police, so there's "freedom of speech" there (even though it's messed up).
A court of law is obviously to find whether the thread was credible or not. Courts are not so literal minded that they would convict a man for sarcasm or threats that are clearly idle of which the maker of said threat præsents it as such.


It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate".

— Bertrand Russell
 
Aug 2, 11:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1888
It's very important! There is no reason for speech to be censored unless it incites violence. That's why I always wonder why threads are blocked on this website.
 
Aug 2, 12:46 PM

Online
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 1835
Well it is one of the foundations for a thriving society, so yes I do highly value it.
 
Aug 2, 1:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 1535
Orhunaa said:
Well it is one of the foundations for a thriving society, so yes I do highly value it.
Yet no society currently has it so feel you no society is currently "thriving"?


It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate".

— Bertrand Russell
 
Aug 10, 9:49 PM

Online
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 20
I would say Freedom of speech is the ability to express an opinion no matter how unpopular it might be, without the fear of being silenced or the fear of violence for that opinion. However this doesn't mean there aren't social ramifications for it.

I firmly believe everyone should be allowed to express their opinions no matter how bad they might be because discourse is the best way for bad ideas to be debunked and better ones develop.
 
Top
Pages (3) « 1 2 [3]