Where I sit on freedom of speech (poll)

[Pastek]

I voted 3 : There should be some restrictions to stop people demeaning and demonising others

But putting in risk people's other lifes is also wrong.

 

[Wirey]

As a member of a minority group that is on the receiving end of a lot of verbal and physical violence/inciting...I feel that allowing people to say whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want is dangerous.

You mean because you're Portugese?

 

[Oldsoul]

Where I sit on freedom of speech (poll)

Is it me ...or do all thread topics with the word "Poll" seem awfully suggestive..?

I think you guys are doing it just for a thrill..

Now..
I have noticed however ..Thread topics with the word "Poll" seem to thrive.

Are we subconsciously attracted to the word "Poll" or do we really like taking poles?

Opening poster. .

No sitting on poles please.

Thank you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Where I sit on freedom of speech (poll)

Is it me ...or do all thread topics with the word "Poll" seem awfully suggestive..?

I think you guys are doing it just for a thrill..

Now..
I have noticed however ..Thread topics with the word "Poll" seem to thrive.

Are we subconsciously attracted to the word "Poll" or do we really like taking poles?

Opening poster. .

No sitting on poles please.

Thank you.

Near as I can remember, this is the first poll I've raised in many thousands of posts here. Given that i think the topic is worthy of discussion, I'm giving myself a 'pass' on this occassion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Two related questions:

1. Does hate speech facilitate hate crimes?
2. Are hate crimes more likely in an environment in which hate speech is unfettered?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let me posit to you, for the moment, the idea that there can be no such thing as freedom of speech. It simply does not, and cannot, exist.

There is a 'given range of speech' both individually and collectively, but not 'free' speech.

Our words are, generally, formed by thoughts. What we say is a function of what we're thinking. But you can't have freedom of thought, so you can't have freedom of speech either.

The reason you can't have freedom of thought is that everything you think and feel is as a result of the experiences and influences you've accumulated over your life time from your environment. The Media, Literature, Entertainment, School, Your Parents, Your Friends, your Subcultures (ie: Religion), direct environmental experiences (you were once, for example, traumatised when the cat dropped a savaged bird onto the kitchen floor), fortunes, misfortunes, loss, tragedy, gain, etc. etc. etc. All of these things make up your value systems, your personality (to a large degree), your behaviour (to a large degree) and, basically, they all influence what and how you think.

Cumulatively all of this generates your frame of reference. And your frame of reference is limited.

If you went to a chieftain of an uncontacted tribe and said: 'What do you wish for? Choose anything. In the whole wide world, whatever you want, you can have.' He is not going to choose a BMW, a villa in spain and an offshore banking account filled with unmarked dollars. He simply can't because all of those things are outside of his frame of reference. What he will do is choose something like a better harvest, sharper spears, a better witch doctor, a cure for a particular disease that plagues that tribe. He will do so because those things are within his frame of reference.

Our frames of reference may be greater, but they're still limited. You can't, for example, think about new methods of ion propulsion in space unless you have the background and knowledge for that. You can't, again, think about a new design for a room-temperature superconducting artificial intelligence unit because, again, that is wholly outside of your frame of reference. And because of this, you can't speak about these things either. Your speech is limited in so many areas.

So if you can't think freely. Then you can't speak freely.

Food for thought!

Interesting post.
In terms of my reference points, freedom of speech refers to the ability to freely say what you wish rather than the knowledge or lack thereof which effectively ringfences anyones topics of conversation.

To my mind freedom of discussion is a key means of slowly expanding those ringfences, but i readily acknowledge we all hold a point of profound ignorance beyond which conversation is impossible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Two related questions:

1. Does hate speech facilitate hate crimes?
2. Are hate crimes more likely in an environment in which hate speech is unfettered?

They are good questions. For what it's worth I am vehemently against hate speech (with acknowledgement that we are talking generically here) but find attempts to effectively legislate against it somewhat problematic.

I tend to think direct criminal action, plus any sort of exhortation towards criminal action is the line. I'm happy for those to be dealt with exceptionally harshly...for example if an assault is clearly established as 'gay-bashing' or 'muslim-bashing' or whatever, I'm okay with the penalty being above and beyond a 'normal' assault.

But I dont want to legislate against people saying they dont like gays and think they're immoral, or devilspawn or whatever. I'd ratger just argue with them. As has been pointed out earlier, this position is easier to take for me than others as I am less commonly faced with hate speech.

I'd have to consider your second point further, but in most places which legislate against hate speech, they are really legislating against SOME hate speech. Also hard to compare before and after on incidences of hate speech when it was originally legal (and therefore only anecdotally noted) then illegal (resulting in criminal statistics).
So...a good question, but I'm somewhat unsure on a good way to answer.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

It's impossible to legislate not to offend because we are all human and what offends one doesn't offend another. All that I feel we can do is teach courtesy in schools so that people can learn to express their view openly and frankly but with courtesy. There is nothing wrong with courteous criticism. I don't feel if we are articulate then we need to use abusive or insulting language so educating people to be articulate and courteous and polite then there is no need to worry about freedom of speech.

Moderation and tolerance are what the Baha'i Teachings say with regards to speech

Are you sure of that? The founder of baha'ism, Baha'u'llah, would refer to his deniers and critics as donkeys, pigs, and animals. Do you think this attitude shows the slightest amount of courtesy:

http://www.bahaibahai.com/eng/index.php/articles?id=86

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are you sure of that? The founder of baha'ism, Baha'u'llah, would refer to his deniers and critics as donkeys, pigs, and animals. Do you think this attitude shows the slightest amount of courtesy:

http://www.bahaibahai.com/eng/index.php/articles?id=86

I teach my kids to be courteous, and manage this myself ALMOST always. I guess it depends if he claimed perfection.

 

[spirit_of_dawn]

I teach my kids to be courteous, and manage this myself ALMOST always. I guess it depends if he claimed perfection.

He does and is regarded as infallible by his followers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He does and is regarded as infallible by his followers.

They're claims I invariably find ridiculous, whomever makes them. I wonder if he's a scruncher or a folder?

 

[Penumbra]

I voted option two, since it's the closest to my views. Unfettered except against directly advocating violent behavior.

I'd add harassment to that, though. Someone shouldn't be able to target someone and harass them indefinitely, like following them around, calling their employer, calling their family, even if they just stick to words and aren't technically threatening violence or anything. And there are things like contract agreements not to reveal secret information, and defamation. The third option in the poll is too broad though, imo, so I wouldn't vote for that.

There's also a difference, which many people seem not to realize, between freedom of speech from the government, and freedom from social and economic consequences of speech. Freedom of speech in this context simply means the government can't do anything about you for expressing yourself unless you violent certain very specific categories. But a person could still be fired for what they say in many contexts, (as, for example, maybe a company doesn't want a neo Nazi being their VP of Communications), or they could be boycotted, or they could lose friends, etc.

 

[Nous]

I voted "Other" because I have no problem with laws restricting or liability for speech such as that constitutes true threats, incitement, defamation, false advertising, false or deceptive labeling, plagiarism, criminal conspiracy, perjury, disclosure of trade secrets and insider-information.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm somewhere between the first and second options. I think there are obvious reasons to limit free speech, such as yelling fire in a movie theater, but I don't believe all advocating of violence should be restricted, for example, there's a difference writing a blog post calling for someone's execution and inciting a lynch mob to execute someone. In certain situations advocating violence is wrong and in others it isn't, I believe.

 

[dgirl1986]

You mean because you're Portugese?

Hahahahahahahahahaha. That would be an insult to the portugese lol.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hate speech is one of those concepts that turned out bad.

In practice, it is just an attempt to label some subjects as inherently unfair. That ends up leading to lots of drawbacks and hardly any benefit.

So-called hate speech is just plain vanilla xenophoby and unchecked tribal thinking, with a topping of intellectual laziness and dishonesty for flavor. Attempts to 'outlaw' it serve only to make it more passionate, more ignorant and more clandestine.

While the attempt to categorize certain subjects as fair game for discussion while others fall under hate speech is often done, it is also worse than useless, bringing lots of somewhat subtle harm and no benefit at all.

Proper treatment of hate speech is convincing people. Law is no tool for that.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I voted "There should be some restrictions to stop people demeaning and demonizing others". I corrected the spelling for demonizing here, tho

I actually got caught between that and the second one, but I remembered that some people use freedom of speech as an excuse to intervene with people's personal lives, put words in their mouths, share words without confirming their validity, curse and cuss, etc., remembering that people are so very diverse in self-respect and education.

I mean, say whatever you want, but just don't put it in a rude way or use it for personal gain and motives.

Note:
This is not up to debate. I'm only sharing my view. Debate it and I will delete it and ignore you. You have a spare dollar?

 

[MARCELLO]

People spreading hatred should be stoned to death.Would you put mein kampf book of hitler to your library at home? Is not what Hitler saying is freedom of speech?

No,no,no to to freedom of speech,if it harms others.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Polls like this should be banned.

 

[LuisDantas]

Freedom harms people. That is part of the deal.