Religions/cults that suppress free speech

[Clara Tea]

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.

It takes a big man to admit that one is wrong.

That's why I always look around for a big man to force my opposition to admit that they are wrong.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think most religions do.

There are certainly exceptions, but it's very common for religions to dictate what speech - and even thought - is appropriate.

By itself this wouldn't suppress anyone's free speech. There's not necessarily an infringement on freedom when a voluntary organization that people are free to leave sets rules for its members.

The problem is that in many religions, members aren't free to leave. They're often threatened with horrible consequences - sometimes worse than death - for leaving. They also often build themselves into every aspect of a person's life so that leaving the group would mean that the member would lose their entire support network.

I would say that even many religious groups normally considered liberal or moderate suppress free speech this way.

At what point can the government intervene in cults? When kids are communal, several fathers of the same women, and kids are involved in sex acts (like Waco, Texas)(like Manson clan)? When the government stops freedom of religion, it might threaten all religion. Religion is like a continuum of beliefs that doesn't have clear lines of separation.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Sticking a fork in a light socket uses electricity (to electrocute the kid). Although we could put a lamp shade on his head and stand him in a corner (free light). He's always been a bright kid.

Many believe that it should be an individual's choice to take bad advice. Yet, many take bad advice. Should we ban free speech to protect people? At what point do we draw the line? Do we ban trans-fats to protect people's hearts? No hamburgers? No chocolates? No icecream? Eat only vegetables? At what point do we allow a nanny government? Some object to seat belt laws, yet they save lives.

The government decides which nation to attack (sometimes without good reason....like the war in Iraq, which had no association with terrorism). Should we allow the government to control the world?

We are supposed to have freedom of religion. That doesn't mean that we must prove religion or be unable to practice it.

Cults can hurt kids, so the government should have a right to intervene.

Some churches had open meetings without masks during the COVID pandemic, and their decision not only harmed their own members, but their members spread COVID to the rest of the population. Freedom that hurts others should not be allowed.

 

[Quagmire]

Sticking a fork in a light socket uses electricity (to electrocute the kid). Although we could put a lamp shade on his head and stand him in a corner (free light). He's always been a bright kid.

Many believe that it should be an individual's choice to take bad advice. Yet, many take bad advice. Should we ban free speech to protect people?

Near as I can tell nobody's talking about banning free speech all together.

Maybe try again without the straw man.

 

[1213]

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

I agree with that. And I think you have a good point of changing official truth. It is very difficult to take leaders seriously, when the truth changes many times in a short time.

And I think only tyrants need to limit freedom of speech, because they cannot defend their thoughts with logic and reason. Therefore, when governments limit freedom of speech, it is very bad in my opinion.

 

[1213]

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

If you mean with shunning the act of social rejection, I have heard of it. However, I think all should also have right to not be with people they don’t like. I don’t think that is necessarily about freedom of speech, or limiting it. As I understand the shunning, it is more about selecting the group where person wants to be. Similarly, as if I say something that communists don’t like, I think they are free to not be my friends anymore.

 

[1213]

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?

Yeah, if you tell someone that 2+2=3, it will increase their knowledge about in what level you are. If you tell correctly that 2+2=4, they would know that you can do basic math. And probably it would be better for your reputation.

 

[1213]

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.

I think in those the issue is not really about freedom of speech, but for example treason, if you give up state secrets. The crime is in that case not that you speak, but that you jeopardize state security.

 

[1213]

...
I do however think that there should be some level of limitation to speech.
...

Ok, in this case, would it be ok, if I am the one who decides who can speak and what can be said? If no, why not? Who is right person to tell what can be said?

 

[1213]

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 would not deny saying it. But, if person does that and kid dies, I think the person is guilty for murder, because he didn't tell that it can kill the kid. The person should be judged for the murder.

Now, I would like to hear your answer to this:
If there is a drug that can prevent people to die for a deadly disease and government denies people to know it and millions of people die because of that, is the government guilty for mass murder?

And if you don't mind, I would also like to know, if you would not allow people to know about a drug that can save persons life, can we hold you responsible for death of the person that didn't get the medicine because of you?

If you don't want to be accountable for a murder, I think it would be safer for you to allow people to speak. And if you think someone says something wrong, you could just explain why you think it is wrong and then allow people do decide is it reasonable argument or not. that way you would not have the responsibility and could sleep more peacefully.

I think Twitter, Fascistbook, Google and other enemies of freedom are accountable for all possible deaths that come because of them limiting freedom of speech. I think it would be much better for them to allow freedom of speech, and teach people to think by themselves critically to evaluate what are reasonable claims and what are not.

 

[Quagmire]

I would not deny saying it. But, if person does that and kid dies, I think the person is guilty for murder, because he didn't tell that it can kill the kid. The person should be judged for the murder.

So instead of preventing a child's death, you think it would be better to just go ahead and let the child die but punish the person responsible afterwards.

If you really believe that I don't see any way that you and I are going to be able to see eye to eye on this topic.

I think it should be the role of people in charge of basically anything to protect as well as punish.

Now, I would like to hear your answer to this:
If there is a drug that can prevent people to die for a deadly disease and government denies people to know it and millions of people die because of that, is the government guilty for mass murder?

In most cases I would say yes, but then how is the government going to keep people from knowing about it?

Even if they actually could suppress the information somehow I would say that like anything else it would depend on the circumstances.

For instance: if someone were claiming that cocaine cured cancer, I think it should make a difference whether or not these claims were coming from studies done by research institutions like say, the Mayo clinic; John Hopkins; Duke University, or coming from Colombian drug cartels trying to drum up business.

If the claims are coming from the latter, and some government succeeded in suppressing the information (although I still can't see how they would go about doing that), then I don't believe the government is culpable even if later on by some insane coincidence it was found that cocaine actually does cure cancer.

And if you don't mind, I would also like to know, if you would not allow people to know about a drug that can save persons life, can we hold you responsible for death of the person that didn't get the medicine because of you?

Okay I think you're using the wrong terminology here. How can someone "not allow people to know" about anything?

If you don't want to be accountable for a murder, I think it would be safer for you to allow people to speak.

I think that would be an idea that would only be of value to someone who was only concerned about their own safety.

And if you think someone says something wrong, you could just explain why you think it is wrong and then allow people do decide is it reasonable argument or not. that way you would not have the responsibility and could sleep more peacefully.[

Again: if I only cared about my own well-being . . .

I think Twitter, Fascistbook, Google and other enemies of freedom are accountable for all possible deaths that come because of them limiting freedom of speech. I think it would be much better for them to allow freedom of speech, and teach people to think by themselves critically to evaluate what are reasonable claims and what are not.

And I also suspect you'd be on the phone to your lawyer if something posted on Facebook or Twitter resulted in injury or hardship to yourself.

That's most of the reason that social media platforms don't allow people to dispense off the cuff medical advice, or basically suggest anything that might result in their own liability.

To add a note: it doesn't really have much to do with the policies here. It has something to do with them, but it isn't our primary motivation for not allowing people to say that bleach or horse medicine cures covid, or that masks are useless, or that vaccines are from the Devil, etc.

 

[blü 2]

I think in those the issue is not really about freedom of speech, but for example treason, if you give up state secrets. The crime is in that case not that you speak, but that you jeopardize state security.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean ─ there's nothing absolute about freedom of speech as such.

And I find the idea of an inalienable right to spread lies knowing them to be lies is morally absurd.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Actually I am beginning to like the word, because I think western world was previously democracy, now it looks more like ignoracy.

Wow. I like that. Hopefully, Webster can adopt your word in their next dictionary release.

 

[Segev Moran]

Interesting, because -- let's take the ideas put forth about viruses and medicine.

Great

Here I'm speaking about looking at truth rather than opinions.

That's the only thing worth looking at.

People say different things and are inclined to believe one thing or another.

Regardless the subject, it is mostly due to lack of education.

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.

There never is an absolute true.
There is a probability and statistics.
The more information we have, the more accurate our ability to decide if something is efficient or not.

I do take medicine, however, when "I" determine I want to.

It depends.

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.

Indeed.

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.

I Agree.
However as our reality teaches us, the hard question is what happens if you not taking a medicine can be harmful to others.

 

[Segev Moran]

Ok, in this case, would it be ok, if I am the one who decides who can speak and what can be said? If no, why not? Who is right person to tell what can be said?

As I have no idea who you are, I cannot answer that.
Each "group" of people decides who gets to decide for them.
In most "groups" that one tries to force its own rules, prosperity and happiness are not common.

 

[YoursTrue]

Great

That's the only thing worth looking at.

Regardless the subject, it is mostly due to lack of education.

There never is an absolute true.
There is a probability and statistics.
The more information we have, the more accurate our ability to decide if something is efficient or not.

It depends.

Indeed.

I Agree.
However as our reality teaches us, the hard question is what happens if you not taking a medicine can be harmful to others.

Agreed to an extent. I was reading about a town in England many years ago who sequestered themselves during the time the plague was decimating the population. The whole town died because they did not want to infect others outside their boundaries.
I'm just guessing that is where compassion might come into the picture. Compassion for the next guy that might get sick if a person doesn't take the vaccine, contract the disease and pass it on. Or if he should get sick and possibly die if he does take the vaccine. That is where intelligence and lovingkindness comes in, as far as I understand it now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean ─ there's nothing absolute about freedom of speech as such.

And I find the idea of an inalienable right to spread lies knowing them to be lies is morally absurd.

Let me put it this way: years ago (not too long ago) there was a study done by nurses as to how long it takes to die from beginning to end from cancer. The beginning meaning when it was first discerned to be in the person's body until he died from the illness. (cancer.) And the findings were such that the length of life from discovery to the end was the same whether the person took treatment or not. This affected my way of thinking about believing everything a doctor tells me. Even doctors know they can't predict or figure out the situation and the remedy. Some of them are more honest with their patients than others.

 

[blü 2]

Let me put it this way: years ago (not too long ago) there was a study done by nurses as to how long it takes to die from beginning to end from cancer. The beginning meaning when it was first discerned to be in the person's body until he died from the illness. (cancer.) And the findings were such that the length of life from discovery to the end was the same whether the person took treatment or not. This affected my way of thinking about believing everything a doctor tells me. Even doctors know they can't predict or figure out the situation and the remedy. Some of them are more honest with their patients than others.

I'm not aware of research to that effect (and I'm a cancer survivor, so I'm surprised I haven't encountered it). Can you give me a reference to it?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not aware of research to that effect (and I'm a cancer survivor, so I'm surprised I haven't encountered it). Can you give me a reference to it?

I'll try to find it, but I remember hearing it on NPR some years ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not aware of research to that effect (and I'm a cancer survivor, so I'm surprised I haven't encountered it). Can you give me a reference to it?

Sorry, I may have made a mistake. If I remember correctly, this was estimated from the time they THINK the cancer was started. Not sure if it was when it was discovered, but when they think it started. I hope you are doing ok.