• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
I hate this debate and love it at the same time. I view the 1st to be our first line of defense, but it can be a double edged beast of a sword. The word I mean. I support free speech, but there are some types of speech I'm not in favor of, so ... I am self limiting in my verbiage and the way I communicate. Gossip, for example: I walk away. I can't stand it. Either that or it goes right through. I can't stand it. Self control, I guess and personal choice is a choice, so yeah ...

Go free speech. We should have harsher penalties for libel and defamation of character, though.

Yup
 

LeftyLen

Active Member
I hate this debate and love it at the same time. I view the 1st to be our first line of defense, but it can be a double edged beast of a sword. The word I mean. I support free speech, but there are some types of speech I'm not in favor of, so ... I am self limiting in my verbiage and the way I communicate. Gossip, for example: I walk away. I can't stand it. Either that or it goes right through. I can't stand it. Self control, I guess and personal choice is a choice, so yeah ...

Go free speech. We should have harsher penalties for libel and defamation of character, though.

Yup
" You truly understand freedom of speech when you defend what you most despise"
 

LeftyLen

Active Member
I hate this debate and love it at the same time. I view the 1st to be our first line of defense, but it can be a double edged beast of a sword. The word I mean. I support free speech, but there are some types of speech I'm not in favor of, so ... I am self limiting in my verbiage and the way I communicate. Gossip, for example: I walk away. I can't stand it. Either that or it goes right through. I can't stand it. Self control, I guess and personal choice is a choice, so yeah ...

Go free speech. We should have harsher penalties for libel and defamation of character, though.

Yup
Secularism leads to lack of self control
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Freedom of speech and indoctrination are two connected but separate things. Indoctrination may begin as freedom of speech, presenting a point of view or even a fairy tale. But when the freedom of speech is force fed in schools and/or becomes propaganda, disinformation and misinformation designed to manipulate and or indoctrinate, then the countering freedom is speech serves the purpose of checks and balances. Indoctrination does not benefit by freedom of speech except at its own front end, for its own manipulative ground breaking. Once the propaganda is working, freedom of speech can neutralize a lot of hard work. This often involves censorship, such as with social media.

As a case study, President Biden had been off his best game for quite a few years. When Biden stayed hidden during COVID and that was fashionable, this was easier to hide. The disinformation and propaganda machine of his party, was trying to pretend all was well. That type of lying is part of freedom of speech. However, they began to repeat this like a choir, day after day until their base was losing touch with reality. This is when freedom is speech becomes propaganda and can be psychologically harmful.

Free speech became the counter move to help set the record straight. But the effect for this counter free speech was censored by their propaganda machine, by ignoring all the reality data that was obvious to those not drinking their kool-aid. The propaganda machine, at first would call this counter freedom of speech, right wing disinformation, to protect the first round of lies with more lies; more convoluted alternate reality. That is also freedom of speech, but it is not healthy to believe what is not true; emperors new clothes. It took a reality check; Trump-Biden Debate, for many to wake up and others to realize they were caught in their lies and disinformation. But rather admit their error, they went on the attack as though Biden did this and this was not the work of puppet masters and their henchmen, who were caught.

The Democratic vote for President Biden was then voided by the same small Cabal that leads their propaganda machine. They now are using freedom of speech to puff up their coronated candidate with new disinformation. Freedom of speech allows me to point she was AWOL while Biden was in office. Her main assignment was immigration, with her rarely visiting the border, which turned to crap. It is now one of the key issues going to the election that may sink their ship, yet they ran with captain Harris who did not avoid the ice berg. Now the disinformation team is trying to rewrite reality, into a new and improved fantasy, and I am using freedom of speech like a cup of coffee to help them wake up.

Based on freedom of speech the DNC has become the main threat of Democracy. A small group just voided the Democratic primary vote for Biden and did not allow you to vote again. Instead they coronated the choice of the Cabal, so the Cabal can retain power. I think you should insist on a re-vote to restore the Democratic process, so you the people can pick the Democratically voted candidates for President and VP.

I believe your best showing would occur if your team was Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia for President and Robert Kennedy Jr for VP. This team are two popular moderate Democrats who are among the most separated from the Cabal and Swamp, and who will draw more independents.

Manchin by having the courage to vote with the Republicans, against the foolish $7 trillion spending plan, avoided what would have doomed the DNC even worse, due to the worse inflation it would have caused. He helped saved his Party and country to his own political detriment. These guys are not attached to the worst things the DNC and swamp did, that harmed the American people. They are more reasonable and have an appeal that crosses over. They could help reunite the country. Harris was chosen for the Cabal and not the American people.

I still think we need to elect Trump to do the heavy lifting to correct the economy, but this genuine ticket for the DNC, will help Trump and the conversation to stay more down the middle so all Americans benefit. A swamp team will force the counter weight to go farther right, to create a self fulfilling prophesy that obstructs and leads to perpetual propaganda and hate mongering. We are all sick of the kool-aid and would prefer freedom of speech to be a creative debate and not reality versus fantasy for power. I conclude my freedom to speak.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
" You truly understand freedom of speech when you defend what you most despise"

I had thought about doing a publication aimed to be inflammatory...something totally opinionated and blunt. Hell, I would have chosen not to play sides and simply be a very jaded, and bitter curmudgeon. The title of the publication would have been "The Curmudgeon". In another publication, I was going to utilize the same pen name but be incredibly understanding and diplomatic, if not humorous. I thought, that'll confuse everyone. I once made people think I was an FBI agent, after making them think I was moving bricks of cocain. Then, they figured I was just a little crazy. I'm like yup ... I'm not a cop.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
How does anyone define 'hate speech' ?
see "amygdala hijack"
snippet:
The amygdala hijack occurs when your amygdala responds to stress and disables your frontal lobes. That activates the fight-or-flight response and disables rational, reasoned responses. In other words, the amygdala “hijacks” control of your brain and your responses.

Hate speech seeks to shut down reason via amygdala hijack.
Government attempting to Ban hate speech would be capricious. 'hate speech' claims are just a new rhetorical methodology to curtail free speech.
Please do not confuse reason-invoking speech with reason-disabling speech. Reason-disabling speech will try to masquerade as reason-invoking speech. Do not let yourself become deceived by reason-disabling speech, especially if tries to cloak itself as reason-invoking speech.
A lie hates free inquiry and as a consequence totalitarians strive to suppress free inquiry, free speech and debate.
Indeed, authoriarians (anti-freedom types) will use reason-disabling hate speech and lies in an effort to shut down free inquiry.
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.
Agreed.
To my points the young lady had no rebuttal, rendered uneasy by the topic matter.
No programmed response. The authoritarian programming was in danger of being exposed for what it is, and made her feel uneasy.
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.
Agreed.
When debate and discussion is quelled, a lie is empowered and ultimately exalted.
Agreed.
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.
I disagree on this point. Pointing out reason-disabling hate speech for what it is gives the person a chance to recover from amygdala hijack, if they are not overcome by the uneasy feeling of the subconscious realization that their frontal lobes have been quelled.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Time is short, i will quote C.S.Lewis "When people stop believing in God, its not that they believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
t5506880-216-thumb-irony.jpg
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
see "amygdala hijack"
snippet:​
The amygdala hijack occurs when your amygdala responds to stress and disables your frontal lobes. That activates the fight-or-flight response and disables rational, reasoned responses. In other words, the amygdala “hijacks” control of your brain and your responses.

Hate speech seeks to shut down reason via amygdala hijack.

Please do not confuse reason-invoking speech with reason-disabling speech. Reason-disabling speech will try to masquerade as reason-invoking speech. Do not let yourself become deceived by reason-disabling speech, especially if tries to cloak itself as reason-invoking speech.

Indeed, authoriarians (anti-freedom types) will use reason-disabling hate speech and lies in an effort to shut down free inquiry.

Agreed.

No programmed response. The authoritarian programming was in danger of being exposed for what it is, and made her feel uneasy.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I disagree on this point. Pointing out reason-disabling hate speech for what it is gives the person a chance to recover from amygdala hijack, if they are not overcome by the uneasy feeling of the subconscious realization that their frontal lobes have been quelled.


I had never heard of the hijack, but I can relate. I typically practice avoidance nowadays. It's not like I'm unaccustomed to it, and it seems a reasonable enough practice to help keep me out of trouble. The word is a powerful thing. I mean it can be utilized in so many different ways, there's no wonder why so many of us proceed with enough caution to merit a recluse title. Reactionary I may be or have become, but it's not without reason, although avoidance may be deemed a detrimental effect of the hijack itself. Life in America ... I was happy enough with masks and a 6 ft distance and no more than 3 to 10 gathering together at a time. Duct tape may be a solution. Don't serve me a gag order .... I'm your resident "who's he talking to" schizo labeled can't keep my mouth shut, social outcast who can't stand to NOT be social, with a hijacked amygdala or whatever it is. I'm not even a schizo. I'm just too social to not be social in a world where I can't stand to be around too many people.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
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.
I think that most "hate speech" must be allowed, even if we don't like it. I think we have to stick with the long standing limits of speech which boil down to restricting speech only when it will immediately provoke violence.

With that said, can you give any specific examples of "hate speech" you think should be restricted?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Freedom of speech and indoctrination are two connected but separate things.

Freedom of speech allows for all manner of indoctrination and propaganda and marketing and sales that are bad for society. It's one of the prices we have to pay for free speech, but it's worth it.

I've recently been censored and it's a profoundly disturbing experience. I'd almost say it's worth it to be censored just so you can experience what it's like. It really puts a sharp focus on just how precious free speech is.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
I think that most "hate speech" must be allowed, even if we don't like it. I think we have to stick with the long standing limits of speech which boil down to restricting speech only when it will immediately provoke violence.

With that said, can you give any specific examples of "hate speech" you think should be restricted?
That's a dangerous proposition.

What .. you don't like pink? Screw you man! I'm came here to do two things: Talk smack and kick *** and I'm done talking smack.

Yeah, people are crazy like that.

Sometimes.
 

Regiomontanus

Eastern Orthodox
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.

What I find fascinating about that (yelling 'fire' in a theater is not allowed) is the origin of that dictum.

That was a ruling in one of the most anti-free speech rulings ever by the USSC. IMHO.

Imagine you are an American citizen in the early 20th century and want to voice your opposition to us getting involved in WWI. You stand on a street corner and tell a passerby 'don't support this idiotic war by letting your son get involved in it.' In 2024, one would say, so what?

But no, the US was a very different place then. You talk smack about that ridiculous war and you would be thrown in jail.


""Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).[1]

The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word crowded to describe the theatre.[2]"



This is just an historical aside about a major ruling, one many (especially those here from another country), I have found, do not know the origin of.


Cheers
 
Last edited:
Top