• Free Speech vs Limited Free Speech.
    55 replies, posted
I signed up here to ask this question seeing as there is an debate forum on the forums (and the only intelligent one), I would like to debate Free Speech VS Limited Free Speech. What I would like to say about Free Speech is that it allows many hate-groups (such as Westboro Baptist Church and KKK) to spit out bullshit upon us at will and I don't mean by Limited Free Speech by taking away the right to speak freely but to remove the element of being able to criticize us without even barely knowing us. I would like to get Facepunch's opinion, do you support Free Speech and how it allows hate-groups to preach there message of hate to us?
Yes. While I do despise letting Westboro Baptist saying all that shit, limiting it could open up a slippery slope. What is considered "hate"? Would Congress decide that? if they did, they could make criticizing current politicians a "hate-speech", giving even more power to incumbents.
Their "messages of hate" are opinions. It just so happens you can agree or disagree with their messages. Everyone's different and has their own opinion on topics, so for example some random person preaching about how the "Republicans are going to ruin America!" is something you may agree with, but it's tone can very well be considered a "message of hate". Hell, perception can consider some messages to not be hate speech at all. Freedom of speech is freedom of stating your opinion, so it lets people state their opinion without a bias against them from the government. Some may consider a "message of hate" to be hate speech, others find it an opinion they can agree with and barely hate speech at all. Limiting freedom of speech so as to make hate speech illegal is preventing outsiders of society (those who have opinions that aren't similar to the general consensus) from expressing their opinions. They are still members of society though, are they not?
No, no, NO. Limiting free speech can only end badly. It's very sketchy what the definition of "hate speech" would be, and any criticism could theoretically be turned into a crime. Although an extreme, if we limited free speech it could be possible for the government to fine or send somebody to jail for simply criticizing the government. It's a subject that has no real fact, and everybody should be allowed to say what they wish. Even idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church, but look at the bright side, free speech allows us to say shit about them.
I believe the key is not to censor the racism and the religious bigotry, but rather educate people on how said prejudice is incorrect.
The only time Free Speech should be limited is when it is used to call for assassinations (for whatever reasons) and death threats.
No everyone should be able to voice his or her opinion on any topic regardless whom disagrees
I'm all for free speech if somebody regulates it.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33679036]I'm all for free speech if somebody regulates it.[/QUOTE] and how should it be regulated?
I think everyone should be entitled to free speech. Look at a country like North Korea. Media is regulated by the government, you cant say or do anything against the regime without ending up dead/in prison without any fair trial.
There is no such thing as "limited free speech". Just because one finds another's beliefs or values unacceptable does not mean that one has the right, let alone the ability, to change them. Limiting anyone's freedom of expression is censorship no matter which way you cut it. You can't have the good without the bad. Would you still be in favor if someone thought your ideas were bigoted or misguided? The freedom of expression is extremely important and limiting it would only serve to hurt, not to help. (Within reason, of course. Symbolic expression [I]should[/I] be limited; a crime committed in the name of one's beliefs is still a crime.) [QUOTE=Jookia;33679036]I'm all for free speech if somebody regulates it.[/QUOTE] But who would regulate it? What would they do? What would be considered acceptable or not? Nearly everyone is an advocate for the "regulation" of free speech. The problem is no one has any notion of how to regulate it save for what they personally think is "right". Who decides that "gays should be able to marry" is acceptable, but "interracial marriage is a sin" is not?
The government should not interfere with the words that come out of your mouth.
All words besides words of coercion and verbal abuse are acceptable. If you accept the premise that you own your body, you must also own your thoughts and your speech. Limiting restriction must also mean that someone else owns your body as it is a dependency. Any form of force is a violation of the your ownership of your body and you must be allowed to retaliate. Coercion and verbal abuse is a form of force/violence and therefore can be retaliated against. It is important to go much further than hate speech. It is also important to protect libel, those who shout fire in a crowded theater, and any other obscure issue that people think ought to be restricted.
I'm all for free speech. Anyone should be able to say anything anywhere without repercussions for the words they say. This isn't to say that society shouldn't be able to shun certain things - there's nothing wrong with a society moderating itself. But government should have absolutely no role in it. For example: It should not be illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. However, it's perfectly fine for the theater to throw people out and ban them for shouting it. That's the theater's choice - they are the ones providing a service to others, and so they have the right to set up conditions to enjoy that service. That man who shouted fire didn't have to be in that theater. It's when government starts deciding when certain words suddenly have legal weight that I have issues.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33679036]I'm all for free speech if somebody regulates it.[/QUOTE] well according to my regulations you're not allowed to say that, so enjoy 15 years in prison giving anybody the power to "regulate" free speech opens the door to extreme corruption and abuse of that power, and in the end there is no need for regulation in the first place. are westboro baptist a bunch of stupid fucks who incite hatred against innocent people? yes. does this mean you need to put a basic human right at risk by allowing your government to babysit you and make sure you don't hear what the mean lady is saying? no.
Always freedom of speech, unless you're inciting a mob, etc. There must always be a platform to express yourself, even(/especially) if it's dissenting. [editline]12th December 2011[/editline] In fact, we should even have the freedom to incite a mob in an assembly, etc. As long as there's time to formulate a rebuttal and people are intelligent enough to have even a very rudimentary conception of the common good, it shouldn't ever be a problem.
I never understood the ridiculous censoring of free speech on public universities. One would think a university would be a place even more open to ideas, good or bad, but instead they are bastions of PC crap.
Some of the retardation people always come out and say in these types of threads is boggling. "I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT (massive contradiction) IT SHOULD BE LIMITED, REGULATED, WHATEVER ELSE" Free speech = free speech.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33689042]Some of the retardation in this thread is astounding. "I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT (massive contradiction) IT SHOULD BE LIMITED, REGULATED, WHATEVER ELSE" Free speech = free speech.[/QUOTE] I agree. I was about to call out Robbobin on it, with his "[b]Always[/b] freedom of speech, [b]unless[/b]", but he caught himself and amended that contradiction. There is no middle ground with free speech. Either it is completely unrestricted, and thus free, or it is in some form regulated, restricted, or limited, and thusly no longer becomes free. "Limited free speech" is a contradiction; it is either "free speech" or "limited speech." Pick one or the other; you can't have both.
In my opinion, you should be able to say anything unless you're trying to incite a group of people to do violent actions. "Gays shouldn't be able to marry" = OK "Let's go kill the gays!" = Not OK
You should be able to criticize anything, even criticize the critics. Otherwise we will just fall into a political correct big brother type of community.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;33689042]Some of the retardation people always come out and say in these types of threads is boggling. "I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT (massive contradiction) IT SHOULD BE LIMITED, REGULATED, WHATEVER ELSE" Free speech = free speech.[/QUOTE] Most of the posts here have been pretty good about lacking contradictions, so I don't understand what you talking about saying. I'm going to assume it is about violence. The claim that freedom of speech is acceptable expect when used for violence is not at all contradictory. The entire basis for freedom of speech is that you own your thoughts, your body, and your speech. It can't be said that you own your body is you don't completely own your speech. Speech that is considered coercion is speech that claims right to another person's body which necessarily invalidates that action. Free speech is an idea based on ownership of the body, meaning that any action that invalidates a person's ownership of their body cannot be considered free speech as free speech is dependent ownership of the body.
[QUOTE=Pepin;33689220]Most of the posts here have been pretty good about lacking contradictions, so I don't understand what you talking about saying. I'm going to assume it is about violence. The claim that freedom of speech is acceptable expect when used for violence is not at all contradictory. The entire basis for freedom of speech is that you own your thoughts, your body, and your speech. It can't be said that you own your body is you don't completely own your speech. Speech that is considered coercion is speech that claims right to another person's body which necessarily invalidates that action. Free speech is an idea based on ownership of the body, meaning that any action that invalidates a person's ownership of their body cannot be considered free speech as free speech is dependent ownership of the body.[/QUOTE] I didn't necessarily mean in this thread but whenever this topic comes up on FP theres always those guys.
[QUOTE=Pepin;33689220]Most of the posts here have been pretty good about lacking contradictions, so I don't understand what you talking about saying. I'm going to assume it is about violence. The claim that freedom of speech is acceptable expect when used for violence is not at all contradictory. The entire basis for freedom of speech is that you own your thoughts, your body, and your speech. It can't be said that you own your body is you don't completely own your speech. [b]Speech that is considered coercion is speech that claims right to another person's body[/b] which necessarily invalidates that action. Free speech is an idea based on ownership of the body, meaning that any action that invalidates a person's ownership of their body cannot be considered free speech as free speech is dependent ownership of the body.[/QUOTE] I would disagree with that. The speech itself is not trying to claim right to anything. How others interpret that speech may be trying to claim right, but the speech itself isn't. In fact, speech can not claim anything. How others interpret that is where the claiming comes into being. For example, one can interpret "may I buy I drink?" as a simple congenital act, where another may interpret it as "I want to get you drunk enough to fuck me." The former has no claim to it, whereas the latter is claiming the speaker wants to get in your pants. I will agree with you that free speech is based on ownership of body and thought, which combine to create the speech. However, I wouldn't say that coercion or threat is "claiming ownership of another's body," or that it invalidates the implications that "free speech" holds (IE no restrictions).
Free speech shouldn't be limited, but what the WBC does is pretty much harassment.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;33689521]Free speech shouldn't be limited, but what the WBC does is pretty much harassment.[/QUOTE] Freedom of speech should be unlimited but what the WBC does should still, to an extent, be pushed away, to help disencourage obvious hate speech.
Free speech doesn't mean that encouraging people to hurt others should be allowed. I could say something offensive as "All people from Pakistan are terrorist", and while people would probably despise me, it would be legal. Saying "Kill every person from Pakistan" is a whole different matter. But yes, I would like people to say just what they want.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;33691092]Free speech doesn't mean that encouraging people to hurt others should be allowed. I could say something offensive as "All people from Pakistan are terrorist", and while people would probably despise me, it would be legal. Saying "Kill every person from Pakistan" is a whole different matter. But yes, I would like people to say just what they want.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with saying "kill every person from Pakistan," from a purely practical standpoint? I mean, it's not like you're actually killing them, or using your authority to dictate others to kill them. The former is homocide, and the latter is an order, and that falls under whatever laws that apply to people giving orders to kill innocents and such. I don't see why, from a legal standpoint, encouraging people to hurt others [b]shouldn't[/b] be allowed. Your just saying it doesn't make them do it. One could even argue that the orders example given above should be exempt of blame, but again, it's not the words doing it - more the legal repercussions soldiers face for not following what those words say. Words are wind. They have no substance whatsoever. Words can not physically compel people to do things; people choose to do those things. And because words have no power or substance to them, there is subsequently no reason to have any restrictions on them. Since words can not affect things, they should be allowed to be used however one wishes. If their wish is to proclaim that we should herd up all the Jews, toss them into large communal showers, and dump shitloads of cyanide gas into those showers, then why should we stop them? Their words aren't herding up the Jews, or tossing them into communal showers, or dumping shitloads of cyanide gas into those showers. Blame the people who take words to actions, not those who speak the words or the words themselves.
But remember, From the KKK and westboro, They are correct, and you are giving a hate speech by complaining about them. Just leave it like it is and just ignore it.
Seriously, I think that free speech should be allowed, including the WBC and KKK (I can't say I agree with one of those)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.