I hold FREE SPEECH as ubiquitous, the FIRST AMENDMENT the final arbitrator.

[LeftyLen]

Salient examples, one extreme desires a book banned for being immoral, anti- authority, secularist, heretical, occultic, anti-family, etc etc etc, all to ‘protect’ children. The other extreme says a book should be banned from schools for being sexist, phobic, hater, racist, etc etc etc., all for the ‘common good’-as youth ‘must be protected.’ Besides divergence in rhetorical proclamations, left/right all book banning no matter the motivation the same thing, ‘censorship.’ The only viable censorship I see is the front door of ones own home. Outside of self-evident porn or ‘profanity,‘ I see no reason to censer anything, anything. If you don’t like what's being taught send your children to a private school or home-school. If you don’t like certain books in the library, keep your child locked up.


Clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class. Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

FREE SPEECH (sic) is clearly not ubiquitous, and the reason that one cannot yell fire in the theater is precisely because the FIRST AMENDMENT (sic) is not the final arbitrator.

 

[LeftyLen]

FREE SPEECH (sic) is clearly not ubiquitous, and the reason that one cannot yell fire in the theater is precisely because the FIRST AMENDMENT (sic) is not the final arbitrator.

That is a strawman argument. as stated, clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class. Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That is a strawman argument.

It's not an argument. It's an observation about an incoherent, if not pretentious, title.

Have a nice day.

 

[LeftyLen]

It's not an argument. It's an observation about an incoherent, if not pretentious, title.

Have a nice day.

its about clarity as opposed to elitism

 

[LeftyLen]

Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. FREE SPEECH correspondingly cultivates openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion political force such as the arbitrary notion of 'HATE SPEECH.' Persuading rather than compelling is the primary mode of political interaction. Emotions where free speech are held as a premium are moderated by the demand to speak rationally persuading others, defend positions, rather than emotional retreats into claims of 'hate speech. The notion of enforced hate speech (other than a direct threat) is the lefts direct threat to free speech.

 

[Kenny]

Clarity normally clears up the difference between censorship and actual inappropriateness. Now say the extreme right wants flat earth, geocentric earth, young earth taught in science class, mere clarity as to what is/is not science excludes such things from science class. Now say the fanatic left wants gender dogma in children's classes, both science and the mere idea of sexualizing children exposes it just as inappropriate as the other extreme.

I would agree. There is “appropriatenss” just as we don’t hand over the car keys to a 5 year old in the name of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason.

As an ACLU member, I'm a big free speech fan. I also love tangine.

 

[LeftyLen]

I would agree. There is “appropriatenss” just as we don’t hand over the car keys to a 5 year old in the name of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

my

I would agree. There is “appropriatenss” just as we don’t hand over the car keys to a 5 year old in the name of “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

Those animated to ban operate from a mental vacuum, their fears manifested in a desire to ban vie the apparatus of government, government rendered a handmaid for personal fears, government becoming the modis operandi of those evangelizing idiosyncratic constructs. Autocrats affirm engagement in discussing, debate a waste of time as ‘they are right,’ their groups absolute fantabulous ideas must triumph, such ideas just ‘too good’ not to be mandatory. As the Founding Fathers asserted, when censorship is needed to quell open debate, aka censorship they have in fact already lost the debate. Simple minds view censorship as a valid means of defending belief, beliefs propped up by denial.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@LeftyLen

"I hold FREE SPEECH as ubiquitous, the FIRST AMENDMENT the final arbitrator."​

I don't. And I don't see any objective reasons one way or another as to me all positions are cases of moral and cultural relativism.

 

[LeftyLen]

@LeftyLen

"I hold FREE SPEECH as ubiquitous, the FIRST AMENDMENT the final arbitrator."​

I don't. And I don't see any objective reasons one way or another as to me all positions are cases of moral and cultural relativism.

Maybe its an American ideal.Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. FREE SPEECH correspondingly cultivates openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion political force such as the arbitrary notion of 'HATE SPEECH.' Persuading rather than compelling is the primary mode of political interaction. Emotions where free speech are held as a premium are moderated by the demand to speak rationally persuading others, defend positions, rather than emotional retreats into claims of 'hate speech. The notion of enforced hate speech (other than a direct threat) is the lefts direct threat to free speech.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe its an American ideal.Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. FREE SPEECH correspondingly cultivates openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion political force such as the arbitrary notion of 'HATE SPEECH.' Persuading rather than compelling is the primary mode of political interaction. Emotions where free speech are held as a premium are moderated by the demand to speak rationally persuading others, defend positions, rather than emotional retreats into claims of 'hate speech. The notion of enforced hate speech (other than a direct threat) is the lefts direct threat to free speech.

Well, I have never seen any version of good or bad based only on reason or rationality. So maybe you can give evidence for what is to you a good life?

 

[LeftyLen]

Well, I have never seen any version of good or bad based only on reason or rationality. So maybe you can give evidence for what is to you a good life?

Well first an environment where government is limited for allowing for maximum personal liberty, conditions fostering entrepreneurship, complete freedom of religion. In the macro those are some of the pre conditions fostering a 'good life.' The 'micro conditions for a good life' of others is up to, others. Freedom of speech is one essential pillars of those macro conditions for establishing a 'good life.'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well first an environment where government is limited for allowing for maximum personal liberty, conditions fostering entrepreneurship, complete freedom of religion. In the macro those are some of the pre conditions fostering a 'good life.' The 'micro conditions for a good life' of others is up to, others. Freedom of speech is one essential pillars of those macro conditions for establishing a 'good life.'

No, there are good for those who are born in lucky conditions and have somewhat luck in life.
Look up the problem of luck in morality.
E.g. I am handicapped in effect and couldn't have a good life without help in the end.

 

[LeftyLen]

No, there are good for those who are born in lucky conditions and have somewhat luck in life.
Look up the problem of luck in morality.
E.g. I am handicapped in effect and couldn't have a good life without help in the end.

I can only speak in the macro, (generic) on the issue.

 

[crossfire]

Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason. FREE SPEECH correspondingly cultivates openness to being persuaded by reason. The opposite of persuasion political force such as the arbitrary notion of 'HATE SPEECH.'

Hatred can overcome an individual's reasoning ability (amygdala hijack.) The effect (and possibly the indirect goal) of hate speech is shutting down individual reasoning, which is basically compelling rather than persuading.

Persuading rather than compelling is the primary mode of political interaction.

It seems that has gone by the wayside by many. Compelling has become a favored tool of authoritarian (anti-freedom) types.

Emotions where free speech are held as a premium are moderated by the demand to speak rationally persuading others, defend positions, rather than emotional retreats into claims of 'hate speech. The notion of enforced hate speech (other than a direct threat) is the lefts direct threat to free speech.

If free speech is to invoke reason, hate speech is contrary to free speech, as hate speech can overcome the individual's ability to reason (amygdala hijack.) Pointing out the differing and contrary effects of the free speech and hate speech does not constitute an emotional retreat. Rather, it is an invitation to observe the different effects for oneself, so one does not confuse hate-speech for free speech.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can only speak in the macro, (generic) on the issue.

Well, that is your subjective understanding. I have another.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Freedom of speech cultivates in citizens the mental habit of persuading fellow citizens through reason.

It also lowers cholesterol while improving skin tone.

Freedom of speech is important because the irresponsible suppression of speech can be extremely is dangerous.

 

[LeftyLen]

Hatred can overcome an individual's reasoning ability (amygdala hijack.) The effect (and possibly the indirect goal) of hate speech is shutting down individual reasoning, which is basically compelling rather than persuading.

It seems that has gone by the wayside by many. Compelling has become a favored tool of authoritarian (anti-freedom) types.

If free speech is to invoke reason, hate speech is contrary to free speech, as hate speech can overcome the individual's ability to reason (amygdala hijack.) Pointing out the differing and contrary effects of the free speech and hate speech does not constitute an emotional retreat. Rather, it is an invitation to observe the different effects for oneself, so one does not confuse hate-speech for free speech.

How does anyone define 'hate speech' ? Government attempting to Ban hate speech would be capricious. 'hate speech' claims are just a new rhetorical methodology to curtail free speech. A lie hates free inquiry and as a consequence totalitarians strive to suppress free inquiry, free speech and debate. I recall an exchange student raised in a dictatorship, China. This young woman openly stated ‘debate’ about government policies in her country was considered ‘disrespectful ‘ to authority. That is close to hate speech. I asked the young lady “Why in a democratic republic does anyone with any civil authority need to be ‘respected,’ exalted in any way more than anyone else?” I added the mere notion that ‘government’ knows whats best is something beyond my understanding of what the function of government is. To my points the young lady had no rebuttal, rendered uneasy by the topic matter.

Government is not the arbitrator of right or wrong, governments business is not correcting all societies ills. The simple fact is clear that discussion is monitored and debate is outlawed in totalitarian countries to protect totalitarian rule, there being no other reason debate is suppressed. When debate and discussion is quelled, a lie is empowered and ultimately exalted. The suppression of discussion under so called 'hate speech' on any side of the spectrum is one of the signs your dealing with those of a totalitarian mindset.

 

[LeftyLen]

It also lowers cholesterol while improving skin tone.

Freedom of speech is important because the irresponsible suppression of speech can be extremely is dangerous.

" suppression of speech can be extremely is dangerous." you need to express yourself in gooder grammar.