Religions/cults that suppress free speech

[1213]

Christianity.

Please give one example of how Christianity has done it? And was it not right? Why?

 

[1213]

I usually start out assuming everyone is wrong. And wait to be convinced otherwise.

People have convinced me, otherwise. I suppose I'm skeptical as long as it seems reasonable to do so.
What seems reasonable to you may differ.

I think that is good way. I recommend that for everyone.

 

[1213]

Only one ...Jehova's Witnesses

Ok, please tell how have they done it? Do you have some example case what they have done?

 

[1213]

That doesn't mean that once its exposed a lie should be tolerated or allowed, which is really what we're talking about here.

If the lie is visible and there is also answer and explanation to it that tells why it is wrong, it can help others to have better understanding and if they hear the lie in some other place, they could correct it, or at least would not be misled. If it is not visible, it is possible that others don't learn and they may have wrong belief, because the issue is not addressed. That is why I think freedom of speech is important.

We take down misinformation about covid (since that's also what we're really talking about here) as soon as we spot it.

I think it would be more useful to explain why the information is misinformation. If it is just removed, people may still think it is correct. But if it is addressed properly people could understand why it is wrong and that could lead to better situation.

That way when somebody posts something recommending people start taking horse medicine, which has actually happened here long before it ever became an internet craze, hopefully we can take that down before someone actually gives it a try.

That is interesting, I have not seen anyone recommending horse medicine for humans. Unless, if one thinks "antibiotics are used for horses, therefore antibiotics are horse medicine" .

Or put it another way: rights come with responsibilities. As far as I'm concerned if you're going to waive one you're not entitled to the other.

I think the responsibility is always for the listener. It is always possible that the speaker is telling something that is not correct and listener should always think, is the claim reasonable, is there a good reason to believe it. Even governments and doctors have been wrong in history. For example, smoking was good and healthy, lead gasoline was good and not a problem. Many things have been good, until it was shown otherwise.

…At Eton College, smoking became a requirement, and violators were punished severely if they were caught not smoking…
Was There a Time When Smoking Was Considered Healthy?

In 1946, RJ Reynolds built a campaign on the slogan, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette".
Remember When Cigarettes Were Good For You?

Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented… …a public health service report concluded there was “no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline”
Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Government officials have been wrong many times. That is why I think it is really wrong and bad, if now all opposing voices are silenced. Obviously, opposing voices can be wrong also, but it is best that listeners hear all arguments and then make own choice what they believe. It is not good to leave that decision to some officials, especially when they often have conflict of interest.

But, if we accept that there is some kind of ministry of truth that tells what is allowed to say, do they have responsibility? For example, if some people would have prevented people to know about working medicine for a deadly disease and so caused death of millions, do they have any responsibility when the truth is revealed? I don’t think governments or media takes any responsibility. That is why they should allow all information and let people to decide what they do.

I would like to hear your opinion on: if world would be led by Christian leaders that say, “atheists can lead people way from truth and lead them to hell, which is worse than death, therefore they should not have freedom of speech”. Would you think it is good and ok?

 

[Quagmire]

If the lie is visible and there is also answer and explanation to it that tells why it is wrong, it can help others to have better understanding and if they hear the lie in some other place, they could correct it, or at least would not be misled. If it is not visible, it is possible that others don't learn and they may have wrong belief, because the issue is not addressed. That is why I think freedom of speech is important.



I think it would be more useful to explain why the information is misinformation. If it is just removed, people may still think it is correct. But if it is addressed properly people could understand why it is wrong and that could lead to better situation.



That is interesting, I have not seen anyone recommending horse medicine for humans. Unless, if one thinks "antibiotics are used for horses, therefore antibiotics are horse medicine" and some indeed recommend antibiotics for humans and so someone could say people recommend horse medicine for humans.



I think the responsibility is always for the listener. It is always possible that the speaker is telling something that is not correct and listener should always think, is the claim reasonable, is there a good reason to believe it. Even governments and doctors have been wrong in history. For example, smoking was good and healthy, lead gasoline was good and not a problem. Many things have been good, until it was shown otherwise.

…At Eton College, smoking became a requirement, and violators were punished severely if they were caught not smoking…
Was There a Time When Smoking Was Considered Healthy?

In 1946, RJ Reynolds built a campaign on the slogan, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette".
Remember When Cigarettes Were Good For You?

Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented… …a public health service report concluded there was “no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline”
Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

Government officials have been wrong many times. That is why I think it is really wrong and bad, if now all opposing voices are silenced. Obviously, opposing voices can be wrong also, but it is best that listeners hear all arguments and then make own choice what they believe. It is not good to leave that decision to some officials, especially when they often have conflict of interest.

But, if we accept that there is some kind of ministry of truth that tells what is allowed to say, do they have responsibility? For example, if some people would have prevented people to know about working medicine for a deadly disease and so caused death of millions, do they have any responsibility when the truth is revealed? I don’t think governments or media takes any responsibility. That is why they should allow all information and let people to decide what they do.

I would like to hear your opinion on: if world would be led by Christian leaders that say, “atheists can lead people way from truth and lead them to hell, which is worse than death, therefore they should not have freedom of speech”. Would you think it is good and ok?

So if somebody on social media platform were telling kids that sticking a metal fork in an electrical outlet would save their parents on their electric bill, do you think that should be allowed?

I mean, should he be allowed to post it just because sooner or later somebody will probably come along and disagree with it?

Edit: btw, just to save you some typing in the future, there are 10 paragraphs in your post here. I very seldom bother reading more than two paragraphs into any post anyone responds to my posts with.

I figure if the person I'm talking to can't make their point in a few short paragraphs they're probably just trying to convince themselves of something.

 

[Altfish]

Ok, please tell how have they done it? Do you have some example case what they have done?

YouTube is your guide ....

There are many more

 

[Segev Moran]

Do you know a religion or cult that suppresses free speech?

Most "groups" have a sort of suppression on free speech, ranging extremely strict to very loose.
A true freedom of speech can only be achieved after we will learn how to talk.

If you ask me, that should be the first sign that something is wrong in that group.

It depends on what the limitations are, wouldn't you agree?
I think it is easy to understand which group restricts freedom of speech and which does not.

If cult leader would say to you, "we reduce ignorance by not allowing all to speak", would you think it is reasonable or not?

If the restriction is enforced, than, it is a huge no.
If the restriction does not carry any harmful consequence, I don't see a reason that it should not be acceptable.

I think limiting free speech increases ignorance, because then people will know less. Do you agree with this, or is there some good reason to think the opposite?

I Mostly agree with you.
I do however think that there should be some level of limitation to speech.
Speech is a very powerful tool, and as technology advances, it can easily be used to abuse.
I think mostly, its not the message itself that needs to be limited, rather the way it is said (or reacted to).

 

[blü 2]

Do you know a religion or cult that suppresses free speech?

If cult leader would say to you, "we reduce ignorance by not allowing all to speak", would you think it is reasonable or not?

I think limiting free speech increases ignorance, because then people will know less. Do you agree with this, or is there some good reason to think the opposite?

I'm not in favor of absolutely free speech. Neither is the law, when it comes to sedition, incitement, defamation, state secrets on national security, and so on.

And I think there should be negative consequences sufficient to act as an effective deterrent for knowingly or negligently publishing statements that the publisher knows or should know are untrue or deceptive.

I read recently of a poll in Australia showing that 93% of respondents agreed that elected representatives who lie in the course of their duties should be subject to prompt forfeiture of office. I'd vote for that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Because it would lead to situation where someone corrects it, I think it would lead to more information and therefore decrease ignorance. If you would not have the right to say it, no one would know you have such idea and no one could correct it.

So my telling my granddaughter that 2+2=3 and having my daughter correct it lead to more of a decrease in ignorance than my just telling her that 2+2=4?

Should I ask my daughter if she's okay with me teaching her daughter that 2+2=3 if I tell her it will decrease her ignorance?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans know we live equally as a human.

Same atmospheric conditions supports all life. We lived freely and nature supplied everything we needed.

We mutually needed each other to human survive. Our holy nature.

First human advised free speech free life memories self owned.

We know the will of a natural life was free in every term.

Then inhumane man group ego to force control took over. The basis of which is creation science human thesis.

Scientific invention for civilization status.

Free speech hence says I can state my human natural conditions but scientific human creation controls won't allow me my natural freedom.

Born into inheriting what we never wanted. The actual real answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most "groups" have a sort of suppression on free speech, ranging extremely strict to very loose.
A true freedom of speech can only be achieved after we will learn how to talk.

It depends on what the limitations are, wouldn't you agree?
I think it is easy to understand which group restricts freedom of speech and which does not.

If the restriction is enforced, than, it is a huge no.
If the restriction does not carry any harmful consequence, I don't see a reason that it should not be acceptable.

I Mostly agree with you.
I do however think that there should be some level of limitation to speech.
Speech is a very powerful tool, and as technology advances, it can easily be used to abuse.
I think mostly, its not the message itself that needs to be limited, rather the way it is said (or reacted to).

Interesting, because -- let's take the ideas put forth about viruses and medicine. Here I'm speaking about looking at truth rather than opinions. People say different things and are inclined to believe one thing or another. And we know that medical science itself puts forth the factor that research shows even in the sense of medication, the results are not for sure absolute in the way of truth or success. I do take medicine, however, when "I" determine I want to. On the other hand, if let's say, a school board or a company required me or my children to take, let's say, a smallpox vaccine, I'd have to weigh the situation and make a decision. I tend to go with the idea of protection in a medical sense. Knowing there are possibilities of failure and/or side effects, I'll go with what my body and conscience are telling me, if possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not in favor of absolutely free speech. Neither is the law, when it comes to sedition, incitement, defamation, state secrets on national security, and so on.

And I think there should be negative consequences sufficient to act as an effective deterrent for knowingly or negligently publishing statements that the publisher knows or should know are untrue or deceptive.

I read recently of a poll in Australia showing that 93% of respondents agreed that elected representatives who lie in the course of their duties should be subject to prompt forfeiture of office. I'd vote for that.

Gotta say that Pontius Pilate there at least told the truth about his opinion to the people who wanted to kill Jesus, but he went along with their desire anyway. Because, i suppose, he was a politician.

 

[blü 2]

Gotta say that Pontius Pilate there at least told the truth about his opinion to the people who wanted to kill Jesus, but he went along with their desire anyway. Because, i suppose, he was a politician.

I know that's the traditional view, but it seems to me that the stories show Jesus outmaneuvering Pilate to make sure his execution went ahead. After all, the aim of his mission from the start was expressly that it would end in his death, and in all four gospels he rejects opportunities to escape.

 

[rational experiences]

You can tell the humans lying on forums they place drug threats or life threats into conversations.

When the first origins lying introduced the rich man in life money and money fake is used in all excuses of evil human choice. I will lose what I paid.

Earth owns all things naturally first. Money is just a lie and excuse to harm others.

The basis of telling a human truth was removed a long time ago.

Lying replaced it already.

If you search for basic truth natural family first is the only answer to any human question.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Freedom of speech is not possible without anarchy and bloodshed. If we allowed complete freedom to use things such as racial abuse thus would lead to hatred s and wars.

speech I believe, needs to be moderated.

 

[Altfish]

Ok, please tell how have they done it? Do you have some example case what they have done?

Ever heard of 'Shunning' - the JWs are world leaders at it.

 

[Altfish]

Freedom of speech is not possible without anarchy and bloodshed. If we allowed complete freedom to use things such as racial abuse thus would lead to hatred s and wars.

speech I believe, needs to be moderated.

Indeed, like no one should be able to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema.
All free speech is limited by anything that spreads hatred

 

[loverofhumanity]

Freedom of worship entails being able to freely leave ones Faith. If one is forbidden to do that then freedom of speech may be forbidden without the individual having any recourse.

But in religions which freely allow one to leave then it cannot really be enforced as the person is no longer a member. Theoretically one can leave any religion but in some sects this could involve turning ones family against them as in Scientology. In Islam the Quran states that there shall be no compulsion in religion but this is not always adhered to.

In my faith if we don’t agree with the teachings we are free to leave without penalty.

 

[Clara Tea]

Do you know a religion or cult that suppresses free speech?

If cult leader would say to you, "we reduce ignorance by not allowing all to speak", would you think it is reasonable or not?

I think limiting free speech increases ignorance, because then people will know less. Do you agree with this, or is there some good reason to think the opposite?

Facebook, Twitter, and a variety of forums have banned various people for supposedly not being accurate. President Donald Trump was banned. During this COVID pandemic, many believe that it is dangerous to disseminate false information that might deter people from getting a vaccine. So, it makes sense, to some people, to ban free speech. Lets look at what they consider "accuracy."

"Do need masks." (later statement of Anthony Fauci). "Don't need masks" (earlier statement of Anthony Fauci), and anyone who writes in a forum that says that we need masks will be banned. COVID vaccines were not fully authorized (at first) by the FDA--they issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (old statement). The COVID vaccines are old technology that has been rigorously tested (new statement).

COVID could not have been made in a lab (old statement). COVID could have been made in a lab (new statement). Reason it could not have been made in a lab: the SARS hybrid would have had to have been a SARS hybrid (does that make sense????).

Wikipedia (article on the Wuhan Institute of Virology) says that in 2015, they published a research paper on a SARS/bat corona virus hybrid that they made that attacks human cells in a petri dish (called Hela), but it was not published until 2020, and it is obvious that the experts denying that such a hybrid was made had not read the research paper.

Hillary Clinton says that we must ban free speech about COVID. I can see her point that it is a worldwide emergency and we must not spread false rumors about vaccines. Yet, politicians should use charisma to get their way, and back their statements with hard facts from reliable sources to combat ignorance and false rumors. Think of the charisma of President John Kennedy when he talked us into going to the moon, or talked us into not having school kids dive under desks for atomic bomb drills. He led by guts, facts, and logic.

Guts, facts, and logic should trump ignorance and falsehood....thus, banning Constitutionally guaranteed free speech should not be necessary.

While it is true that some cults ban free speech, but should not. It is also true that those cults should also be allowed to speak freely and talk people into belief in their religion. Freedom of speech is a part of freedom of religion. One can't be free to practice religion if one is not free to talk.

 

[Clara Tea]

Indeed, like no one should be able to shout "Fire" in a crowded cinema.
All free speech is limited by anything that spreads hatred

I wish that were true. Sadly, it isn't. When the Ku Klux Klan chose to march down the streets of Skokie, Illinois (a Jewish community), the ACLU argued in court that they had a right to do it. Apparently, everyone has the right to free speech, even if that is hate speech, and the object of their hate is free to object.

Sadly, sometimes the object of hatred is banned from free speech. For example, some forums disallow hate speech, but they let the hate speech be posted temporarily. Anyone who objects to the temporary posting is banned.

The ugliness of Hitler did not die with Hitler, but lived on in his philosophy.