Should 'freedom of speech' be a right?

[oldbadger]

Unbelievable... you proved me wrong in a single post

You hit the spot

Okay, my turn. Hmm... your country's law against feeding the homeless sux big time. The homeless are still people. They have feelings, they get hungry, they cry and smile like anyone else... and feeding other people is something personal no one should get a hold of. This is AWFUL AND INHUMANE

How's that

Revolting hit your spot???? !
Revolting is just going on 'cos some southern State (Florida?) is stopping folks from feeding homeless folks who are camping out on their beaches.
I'll bet that he secretly agrees with banning wimmen drivers......

 

[Smart_Guy]

Revolting hit your spot???? !
Revolting is just going on 'cos some southern State (Florida?) is stopping folks from feeding homeless folks who are camping out on their beaches.
I'll bet that he secretly agrees with banning wimmen drivers......

Dude, I said the spot... theee spot, not my spot

On a serious note tho, non Saudis don't know how it really is here and if it is good for women to drive. I for one tell that bad traffic laws, bad traffic law enforcement, traffic services, wholes and bumps on the asphalt, driving awareness and some other stupid stuff are an over kill even for some tough men. How would it be for women then? But that's another subject, and it does not mean that I'm with banning wimmins from driving.

 

[oldbadger]

Dude, I said the spot... theee spot, not my spot

On a serious note tho, non Saudis don't know how it really is here and if it is good for women to drive. I for one tell that bad traffic laws, bad traffic law enforcement, traffic services, wholes and bumps on the asphalt, driving awareness and some other stupid stuff are an over kill even for some tough men. How would it be for women then? But that's another subject, and it does not mean that I'm with banning wimmins from driving.

I was only joking.......
Some people demand freedom of speech, but they might not like what they demand.
One example in hundreds:- Over here (Britistania) if a person commits a crime and gets convicted, in order to help that person re-establish themselves into society (and as long as the crime was not serious enough to attract 2.5 years in prison or more) after a five year period from the Court convicting and sentencing, that person can fail to disclose that conviction, can even claim a clean record (for many types of job) ........ and it is slanderous for any other person to tell about that person's conviction. This helps convicts to rehabilitate themselves into society and get a job, whereas before they would get refused work ..... which would lead to them going back to doing bad things.

See....... freedom of speech about that convict's past is REFUSED!

 

[Smart_Guy]

I was only joking.......
Some people demand freedom of speech, but they might not like what they demand.
One example in hundreds:- Over here (Britistania) if a person commits a crime and gets convicted, in order to help that person re-establish themselves into society (and as long as the crime was not serious enough to attract 2.5 years in prison or more) after a five year period from the Court convicting and sentencing, that person can fail to disclose that conviction, can even claim a clean record (for many types of job) ........ and it is slanderous for any other person to tell about that person's conviction. This helps convicts to rehabilitate themselves into society and get a job, whereas before they would get refused work ..... which would lead to them going back to doing bad things.

See....... freedom of speech about that convict's past is REFUSED!

I know u were joking... dude
Don't worry about such stuff with me. I'm open minded

 

[Sapiens]

The basic problem, and I am identifying the problem not proposing a solution, is that the same government that is empowered to protect secrets is the government that is in power, so there is no way to assure that the secrets that are being protected are anything more (of less) that just dirty laundry. The Nazis and the WTC are are in bad taste, but offer no threat to the country, so lets not use the power of the state to enforce what the state considers to be good taste.

 

[SkylarHunter]

Basically- should people be able to say 'whatever' they want to say? What if saying it pushes a person over the edge? What if saying it violates private business policy?

That's the debate: Should free speech be a right?

I think people should not have the right to say whatever they feel like. At the moment there is an excess of ridiculous things going on because people can get away with anything. The other day I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt saying "You should all die". Yes, that's how people are using freedom of speech these days!
There was a time when everything was forbidden, now everything is allowed. None of these options seems reasonable. Somewhere in the middle would be good.
I think people should only be entitled to express their opinions when they have gathered enough knowledge to have an opinion. That would be a great start.

 

[Quintessence]

The only relevant question worth asking with respect to the uttered word is the following:

Are you or are you not willing to accept the consequences of your speech?​

I'm not a fan of rights language. It's a misnomer. Rights language represents norms established by the social consensus of a culture, and any individual is quite free to ignore such norms if they choose to. To call them "rights" is a misnomer. They are norms, and that is all. As far as I'm concerned, a person has every right to do something if they have the ability. Regardless of what others think you ought to do or should do, you can do what you want provided you have the ability and the will.

The question then, is the one posed above. Consider the consequences of exercising the true rights that come with your personal power, and whether or not they are agreeable to you. If the consequences of exercising your power involves something condemned by your culture, caution is in order. Be certain that the potential sacrifices entailed are worth it to you and in accord with your sense of honor and virtue.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The only relevant question worth asking with respect to the uttered word is the following:

Are you or are you not willing to accept the consequences of your speech?​

I'm not a fan of rights language. It's a misnomer. Rights language represents norms established by the social consensus of a culture, and any individual is quite free to ignore such norms if they choose to. To call them "rights" is a misnomer. They are norms, and that is all. As far as I'm concerned, a person has every right to do something if they have the ability. Regardless of what others think you ought to do or should do, you can do what you want provided you have the ability and the will.

The question then, is the one posed above. Consider the consequences of exercising the true rights that come with your personal power, and whether or not they are agreeable to you. If the consequences of exercising your power involves something condemned by your culture, caution is in order. Be certain that the potential sacrifices entailed are worth it to you and in accord with your sense of honor and virtue.

Does a person have the right to murder someone if they can get away with it and/or accept the consequences of their actions?

 

[Quintessence]

Does a person have the right to murder someone if they can get away with it and/or accept the consequences of their actions?

By what usage of the term "right?"

Did I mention that I really dislike rights language and that the usage of the word "right" is a misnomer to me? Pretty sure I did. They're not rights, they're norms. What I presume you mean to ask is "is it acceptable within the norms of our society to do X," the answer to which is obviously no. And if you meant to ask "does a person have the ability and will to do X," the answer depends on the person and cannot be answered in the general.

 

[Debater Slayer]

By what usage of the term "right?"

Did I mention that I really dislike rights language and that the usage of the word "right" is a misnomer to me? Pretty sure I did. They're not rights, they're norms. What I presume you mean to ask is "is it acceptable within the norms of our society to do X," the answer to which is obviously no. And if you meant to ask "does a person have the ability and will to do X," the answer depends on the person and cannot be answered in the general.

I view a right as something that a person is entitled to by the mere virtue of being human. That's the definition I went by in my post,

 

[Quintessence]

I view a right as something that a person is entitled to by the mere virtue of being human. That's the definition I went by in my post,

I'm unclear on what you mean. Entitlement suggests an external authority is granting a property, rather than the property being intrinsic to its virtue or nature. Entitlement also suggests a privilege that can be taken away and removed by the same external authority that granted it. The language seems to conflict here, and I'm not sure whether or not to read this as a socially normative take on rights or an intrinsic property/ability take on rights.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm unclear on what you mean. Entitlement suggests an external authority is granting a property, rather than the property being intrinsic to its virtue or nature. Entitlement also suggests a privilege that can be taken away and removed by the same external authority that granted it. The language seems to conflict here, and I'm not sure whether or not to read this as a socially normative take on rights or an intrinsic property/ability take on rights.

The latter: An intrinsic property of being a human.

 

[Estro Felino]

I respect your opinion, but some facts, if known by the masses, would or could lead to mass panics, for example. Are you suggesting that we should have published all our forthcoming battle plans in our newspapers during the great wars?

do you think that a country which accepts to be at war deserves that its secrets are preserved? I think it doesn't.
I think that journalism has been the triumph of freedom of speech and I thank God each day for the invention of the press.

there is a right which is more important than the freedom of speech: the right to be informed. and we all have this right.

 

[Quintessence]

It occurs to me that it is fairly typical of those who use rights language to regard rights as intrinsic properties, in spite of them being social norms. It's another reason why I dislike rights language. It's too ambiguous. It does too much of the blurring between the objective fact of what's going on and projecting value judgements or oughts and shoulds.

But really, the ought/should question is the important one anyway with respect to the topic. Are you or are you not willing to accept the consequences of your speech? That's a question of ought/should. It's value-laden, subjective, and situational.

 

[Estro Felino]

It occurs to me that it is fairly typical of those who use rights language to regard rights as intrinsic properties, in spite of them being social norms. It's another reason why I dislike rights language. It's too ambiguous. It does too much of the blurring between the objective fact of what's going on and projecting value judgements or oughts and shoulds.

But really, the ought/should question is the important one anyway with respect to the topic. Are you or are you not willing to accept the consequences of your speech? That's a question of ought/should. It's value-laden, subjective, and situational.

we live in modern and open-minded democracies. so I think that there are very very rare cases in which words can harm people.

it deals with words.

 

[Quintessence]

we live in modern and open-minded democracies. so I think that there are very very rare cases in which words can harm people.

it deals with words.

I very strongly disagree that it is rare for words to do harm. Words do harm on a more regular basis than any blade or bullet. And for us to not recognize and respect this is dangerous.

 

[icehorse]

For everyone who's suggesting that there be limits, I have a question:

Who have you ever met that is so smart you trust them to decide what you can hear?

I have to say, I've never met anyone that I'd trust to filter the world for me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The basic problem, and I am identifying the problem not proposing a solution, is that the same government that is empowered to protect secrets is the government that is in power, so there is no way to assure that the secrets that are being protected are anything more (of less) that just dirty laundry. The Nazis and the WTC are are in bad taste, but offer no threat to the country, so lets not use the power of the state to enforce what the state considers to be good taste.

Can you explain that?

For everyone who's suggesting that there be limits, I have a question:

Who have you ever met that is so smart you trust them to decide what you can hear?

I have to say, I've never met anyone that I'd trust to filter the world for me.

I've not met anyone who to claims know what we should hear. However, if you yell fire in a crowded theater is a very likely chance people will get hurt, so yes there should be restrictions in that regard (not to mention it's very disrespectful to the actors to be disruptive). And when it comes to public airwaves, do they really need to be wasted with filth that proclaims certain people need to be killed? Do we really need to protect the garbage speech of some small church that causes tremendous public outcry? Should we even bother with the effort to protect the "rights" of those who proclaim an innocent group to be just as dangerous as terrorists? Should we really allow a paranoid lunatic to claim a violent and fairly geographically concentrated minority is a dangerous and powerful majority who all over the world and out to get you? Should we at all protect spreading fear over a disease that poses very little threat?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Shadow Wolf,

Usually inciting violence or panic is illegal - an exception to free speech.

As for garbage speech and lunatics... well now you're back to being a judge. And one man's paranoia might just be a legitimate concern. It's far better to allow the speech and marginalize the speaker of nonsense than to censor the speech in the first place.

Now, it hasn't escaped my attention that you might have a target in mind with your last post. It's a fantastic example! Your claim is that *some* posters might be spreading fear unnecessarily. But what if you're wrong, and the concerned citizen is correct? If you happened to be the censor, you might have censored the wrong message!

 

[Sapiens]

Can you explain that?

I could, but I feel that it is clear enough.

I've not met anyone who to claims know what we should hear. However, if you yell fire in a crowded theater is a very likely chance people will get hurt, so yes there should be restrictions in that regard (not to mention it's very disrespectful to the actors to be disruptive). And when it comes to public airwaves, do they really need to be wasted with filth that proclaims certain people need to be killed?

Yes, we really do need to be so wasted, cause I don't trust you to make that judgement, hell I don't even trust me.

Do we really need to protect the garbage speech of some small church that causes tremendous public outcry?

Yes, we really do need to protect garbage speech, cause I don't trust you to make that judgement, hell I don't even trust me.

Should we even bother with the effort to protect the "rights" of those who proclaim an innocent group to be just as dangerous as terrorists? Should we really allow a paranoid lunatic to claim a violent and fairly geographically concentrated minority is a dangerous and powerful majority who all over the world and out to get you?

Yes, we really should, cause I don't trust you to make that judgement, hell I don't even trust me.

Should we at all protect spreading fear over disease that poses very little threat?

Yes, we really do need to be protective, cause I don't trust you to make that judgement, hell I don't even trust me.