Does Free Speech Offend You?

[vla1ne]

Key word I used in that post: My philosophy. 

ah, my bad, i assumed you meant legally.

 

 

And when something goes wrong people say "Oh, we should've stopped them when they were spreading their hate." Having a certain law doesn't make the action right.

no, it doesn't make the actions that may follow said words right, but it's not like you can't counter their hate speech with an argument of your own. to paraphrase a famous quote I could object 100% to the words of somebody else, but i would never stop them from speaking. instead, i'd provide counterarguments to their words and let everybody else decide on their own whose side holds more water.

 

as for actions, actions are not words. i will defend anybody's right to speak their minds even if they're opposite to my own mind, but i will no stand by the actions of said people if they are opposite to my beliefs.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It may shock people to find not all laws are just and right.

[vla1ne]

It may shock people to find not all laws are just and right.

which law are you talking about here? hopefully not freedom of speech?

[chairman ali]

no, it doesn't make the actions that may follow said words right, but it's not like you can't counter their hate speech with an argument of your own. to paraphrase a famous quote I could object 100% to the words of somebody else, but i would never stop them from speaking. instead, i'd provide counterarguments to their words and let everybody else decide on their own whose side holds more water.

 

as for actions, actions are not words. i will defend anybody's right to speak their minds even if they're opposite to my own mind, but i will no stand by the actions of said people if they are opposite to my beliefs.

 

But you see, even if you CAN counter argue their point, the harm is done. People's minds have been changed and it will be harder to change them again. Many people are not thinkers, they're sheep, they just follow. Why do we still have Nazi and racists? Even after proving how wrong both things are and constantly showing people the horrors done by those two ideologies, they still exist.

 

Many cognitive and behavioral studies have been done on how people act. Unfortunately, people will choose feelings over logic and science any day. 

 

When you get sick, do you treat the symptoms or the actual cause? You treat the actual cause to eradicate the symptoms. If you treat the symptoms, the cause will remain and the symptoms will come back.

[Aix]

But you see, even if you CAN counter argue their point, the harm is done. People's minds have been changed and it will be harder to change them again. Many people are not thinkers, they're sheep, they just follow. Why do we still have Nazi and racists? Even after proving how wrong both things are and constantly showing people the horrors done by those two ideologies, they still exist.

 

Many cognitive and behavioral studies have been done on how people act. Unfortunately, people will choose feelings over logic and science any day. 

 

When you get sick, do you treat the symptoms or the actual cause? You treat the actual cause to eradicate the symptoms. If you treat the symptoms, the cause will remain and the symptoms will come back.

I think free speech and the internet particularly has become a powerful buffering force against dangerous ideologies. Misguided people will always exist, but we should facilitate people who are willing to speak and think on their own.

 

Also, if a leader holds sway over a populace it is generally because the populace already shares underlying sentiments with that person. The cause of the "disease" is not the speakers, but the people.

 

On the other hand, governments denying free speech is potentially dangerous.

[chairman ali]

I think free speech and the internet particularly has become a powerful buffering force against dangerous ideologies. Misguided people will always exist, but we should facilitate people who are willing to speak and think on their own.

 

You clearly haven't been on the deep web...

[Aix]

You clearly haven't been on the deep web...

What I mean is because of the internet, it is difficult to influence entire populations like what you've described. People are capable of speaking out against these changes.

[Arctic55]

I've seen many civil arguments and debates.  Just the other day, a friend and I were debating some big issues.  Free speech is a good thing, it allows us to share our thoughts, see other people's point of view, and potentially better the world.  I would be really pissed if someone came up and said, "I'm sorry, but your views go against our school policy, please be quiet or we are taking you to court."  I'm not hurting anyone, and both my friend and I, felt we grew closer as friends because of our debate, and we can both respectfully disagree.

 

Now, I've also seen the other side of the spectrum where this girl I was talking with was so convinced she was right, she would not only NOT ALLOW me to try to debate her, she tried to force her opinions on me.  I ended that conversation quickly with, "I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.", but at the same time, neither one of us tried to get the other in trouble, I could easily have called the conversation "hate speech" or some of those other new terms we are hearing on college campuses.  We just never talked about that issue again.  What is important here though, is that I was mature enough to NOT GET BUTT HURT, over her being a clear bully about it.  We were cordial on further interactions.

 

This is how people should approach controversy.  Cordially, respectfully, and logically.  And be willing to admit your opponent might be right (which I had to do this morning in another debate).  Not put bloody restrictions up and develop new terms and ways to shut people up.

[vla1ne]

But you see, even if you CAN counter argue their point, the harm is done. People's minds have been changed and it will be harder to change them again. Many people are not thinkers, they're sheep, they just follow. Why do we still have Nazi and racists? Even after proving how wrong both things are and constantly showing people the horrors done by those two ideologies, they still exist.

 

Many cognitive and behavioral studies have been done on how people act. Unfortunately, people will choose feelings over logic and science any day. 

 

When you get sick, do you treat the symptoms or the actual cause? You treat the actual cause to eradicate the symptoms. If you treat the symptoms, the cause will remain and the symptoms will come back.

no. that's not justification for shutting down free speech. making it illegal to argue racist points will not erase racism, nor will banning ideas that you disagree with for one reason or another. arguing against those points will do it far faster, and be far more permanent than just banning the discussions outright.

 

so what if some peoples minds change for the worse, you can argue the point back and change them just as easily. when you claim that people are sheep, then it either goes both ways, or it goes neither. if all it takes is a few people spouting hate speech to change a mind, then how exactly would the reverse not be true as well? 

 

nazis and racists still exist, but they are not the majority. why not argue the point instead of ignore the sentiments? do you not have confidence that you can bring better reasons to the table than a nazi or a racist?

 

yeah, studies show that people go with feelings over logic and reason, but even science can bring feelings into the argument when necessary. denying free speech simply because you're afraid of the oppositions power to harness feelings will not help you half as much as it helps your opposition. bringing the discussions to the light will at least allow the public to watch the discussion in the open instead of searching for alternate avenues. for example, the church attempted to kill free speech in relation to religion in the dark ages, and even with the severe punishments of those times, look how well that turned out. banning the opposing side will do far more harm to your cause than acknowledging it and breaking it down in the open.

 

 When you get sick, do you treat the symptoms or the actual cause? You treat the actual cause to eradicate the symptoms. If you treat the symptoms, the cause will remain and the symptoms will come back.

 

banning the speech is treating the symproms. when people can't speak, the problem fosters in silence. holding the discussion actually lets you destroy the root cause because then it can be brought out into the open, where you can argue and dismantle their points with (hopefully) ease.

[chairman ali]

no. that's not justification for shutting down free speech. making it illegal to argue racist points will not erase racism, nor will banning ideas that you disagree with for one reason or another. arguing against those points will do it far faster, and be far more permanent than just banning the discussions outright.

 

so what if some peoples minds change for the worse, you can argue the point back and change them just as easily. when you claim that people are sheep, then it either goes both ways, or it goes neither. if all it takes is a few people spouting hate speech to change a mind, then how exactly would the reverse not be true as well? 

 

nazis and racists still exist, but they are not the majority. why not argue the point instead of ignore the sentiments? do you not have confidence that you can bring better reasons to the table than a nazi or a racist?

 

yeah, studies show that people go with feelings over logic and reason, but even science can bring feelings into the argument when necessary. denying free speech simply because you're afraid of the oppositions power to harness feelings will not help you half as much as it helps your opposition. bringing the discussions to the light will at least allow the public to watch the discussion in the open instead of searching for alternate avenues. for example, the church attempted to kill free speech in relation to religion in the dark ages, and even with the severe punishments of those times, look how well that turned out. banning the opposing side will do far more harm to your cause than acknowledging it and breaking it down in the open.

 

 When you get sick, do you treat the symptoms or the actual cause? You treat the actual cause to eradicate the symptoms. If you treat the symptoms, the cause will remain and the symptoms will come back.

 

banning the speech is treating the symproms. when people can't speak, the problem fosters in silence. holding the discussion actually lets you destroy the root cause because then it can be brought out into the open, where you can argue and dismantle their points with (hopefully) ease.

 

No one said ban free speech...

[Arctic55]

No one said ban free speech...

But that's essentially what colleges are doing, as discussed in the video.

[vla1ne]

No one said ban free speech...

wait, then what are we discussing here? if it's the actions that follow the speech, then those don't fall under the category of free speech, and as such are still punishable by law, and outside of speech, people being easily led sheep makes less sense.

[chairman ali]

wait, then what are we discussing here? if it's the actions that follow the speech, then those don't fall under the category of free speech, and as such are still punishable by law, and outside of speech, people being easily led sheep makes less sense.

 

I wasn't discussing the video. I was discussing the points raised in this thread. I was discussing ho hate speech is disguised as free speech.

[epicmemesbro]

If one is talking solely on a legal standpoint, it is completely dependent on which country one is referring to. In some countries hate speech is free speech and is protected by law. In some countries hate speech is not protected by their laws and is deemed exuded from what constitutes as free speech in their laws' eye. Now if you are talking from an ethical standpoint its a lot more tricky, as there is no official guideline on which people can use to decide on the circumstances surrounding hate speech and freedom of speech. And yes a few countries have combined the two and it has mostly resulted in some negative and but expected results.

[vla1ne]

I wasn't discussing the video. I was discussing the points raised in this thread. I was discussing ho hate speech is disguised as free speech.

as far as america goes, Hate speech is still free speech. personally, i agree with that way of thinking. i'd rather have racists be blunt about their hatred so that i can argue in the open than have them hide behind some guise of "it's not hate speech". blunt hate speech is just faster, and easier to argue against since it doesn't hide behind other meanings.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Key word I used in that post: My philosophy. 

Please don't use that as an excuse to annul any criticism directed towards your opinion. If you wanted us to disregard the value of anything you said perhaps it wasn't wise to post it in the first place. You posted your opinion in a debate thread, and you are surprised when your opinion is called out for criticism? Sorry, no.

[Tourmaline]

Please don't use that as an excuse to annul any criticism directed towards your opinion. If you wanted us to disregard the value of anything you said perhaps it wasn't wise to post it in the first place. You posted your opinion in a debate thread, and you are surprised when your opinion is called out for criticism? Sorry, no.

It's called postmodernism.

[ÆƵ–]

Please don't use that as an excuse to annul any criticism directed towards your opinion. If you wanted us to disregard the value of anything you said perhaps it wasn't wise to post it in the first place. You posted your opinion in a debate thread, and you are surprised when your opinion is called out for criticism? Sorry, no.

Vla1ne was talking about legality, I was talking about mindsets and, like you said, opinions. I was surprised that it was criticized, true, but I merely wanted to clarify that I was putting my opinion out there and not that I did not understand the legalities behind said opinion.

 

Also I feel that this post is pointlessly aggressive and, if you did not intend that, I apologize for taking it that way. If, however, this was intentional, I would rather this be discussed through PM than further discussed here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Even if it offends you, that should change nothing.

 

It's free speech, not free speech* 

 

_{*but only if I like it}

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Even if it offends you, that should change nothing.

 

It's free speech, not free speech* 

 

_{*but only if I like it}

"Free speech" is not an intrinsically correct thing.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

"Free speech" is not an intrinsically correct thing.

Maybe not, but picking and choosing it on what each person feels comfortable with sets up a ever shrinking domain of what speech can be. That's dangerous IMO

[vla1ne]

"Free speech" is not an intrinsically correct thing.

it doesn't have to be does it? that's the flipside of "freedom" you accept the pros AND cons of an open forum correct?

[Maeriberii Haan]

is the act of being offended to what people said count as free speech?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

it doesn't have to be does it? that's the flipside of "freedom" you accept the pros AND cons of an open forum correct?

Why? I don't mean to spam or be argumentative. But, curious, why?

Do we not attempt to limit the cons best we can?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

is the act of being offended to what people said count as free speech?

Absolutely. You have every right to express your feeling on their words. What's not OK is for you or society at large to shame them into conforming to what you feel is correct. It's a never ending battle.

 

For example, say the Right win the battle (lol), correctness is never gonna stop. It'll split again creating the moderate right and the far right, MR becomes the new left etc. Battle it out again and again. It's not going to ever end unless everyone magically agrees, which can never happen. The true way for this to resolve is to allow everything and those without merit will objectively weed themselves out

 

I think I rambled there, but hopefully you get the idea