some people just don't get it...

[BeBMan]

But wouldn't the girl be free to express her opinion, even if this opinion says that others shoudn't be free to do so?

[MrFun]

Bebro, you're a damn fascist!

[BeBMan]

No, actually I blame Kucinich for shouting at her in the first place, because this was an attack on her right to free speech, which includes the right to attack other people's rights

[MrFun]

you're a freedom-loving fascist then

[BeBMan]

[Verto]

Originally posted by BeBro
No, actually I blame Kucinich for shouting at her in the first place, because this was an attack on her right to free speech, which includes the right to attack other people's rights

Then why are you blaming Kucinich? Are you not now going after his own rights?

[BeBMan]

Ha! I know what you're trying to say! But don't imply I can't attack him, since that would be against my right to free speech!

*BeBro gets confused and decides to go to bed soon*

[monkspider]

Down with homophobes!

Fight the system!


PS Kucini, you are definitely hurting your chances of scoring with this chick with all this nonsense.

[Ben Kenobi]

So if someone started wearing a swastika armband, that would be peachy with you?

Aggie:

Why is it wrong for prolifers to make a comparison between abortion and the holocaust, but it is right for you to make a comparison between prolife folks and Nazis?

People who discriminate against homosexuals are simply wrong. They don't have anything other than religious belief to back themselves up,

How are these prolife folks discriminating against homosexuals?

At root, people who want to impose their religious views on the law are theocratic fascists. That's what the ACLU is attacking. It's completely consistent, as anyone who reflected on the matter for more than ten seconds would realize.

And I suppose an ad-hominem is enough to dispense with the issues? Some philosopher.

Attacking gay marriage is attacking gay people. Or do you think that banning heterosexual marriage would have no effect on straight people?

There are straight people who do not get married. I don't see why one being straight forces one to get married.

[Ben Kenobi]

you are definitely hurting your chances of scoring with this chick with all this nonsense.

But he's warming up the prolife chicks.

(who are cuter anyways.)

[MrFun]

Oh yeah, I forgot -- I also support the right of the willingly ignorant to express their opinions about sexual orientation and gay issues as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by Agathon
You are asserting a moral equivalency between the two. We are justified in banning hate speech, like that of the Nazis, because they are wrong.

According to you. Basically, you are assuming you are infallible. You are so right, that you can in fact make it illegal to disagree with you. Yay! Freedom to say something that Agathon agrees with!

Nice straw man.

That's not what I am saying, which you would realize if you had read my post properly.

Every society operates according to some norms. A liberal society operates according to the principle that people are free to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others (Mill's principle). To that end we have constructed a series of rights as a rough guideline as to what is allowed.

Racist speech does harm others, which you would know had you ever been the victim of it. Imagine if you were black and had to work in a place where posters detailing the evils of "******s" were everywhere.

Most people agree that Mill's principle is correct and good arguments can be marshaled for it. It mandates a fair amount of tolerance (which is the central value of liberalism). But there are intolerant people in our society who make it their business to try to undermine Mill's principle. Usually they add a rider to it such as "people are free to do what they want as long as they don't harm others unless those others are blacks, Jews, etc."

The secret is that Mill's principle allows for a fair degree of tolerance except in the case of the actions of those who are intolerant of the principle. In that case it mandates intolerance towards those actions. If it didn't what would be the point of the principle in the first place? This applies equally to any society which is organized according to rules (i.e. all of them). A realistically free society will limit certain freedoms in order to preserve others. There is no such thing as an absolutely free society, for there would be no shared norms and hence anarchy.

You wouldn't be very happy if we banned the Communist Manifesto just because it's wrong.

Why would you ban it? Whose rights does it violate? I don't think there is any more reason to ban that book than there is to ban The Wealth of Nations. There's a world of difference between literary works that might lead some people to violate Mill's principle and actions which violate it by being the sort of actions that they are.

You seem to think that I am legislating my personal taste. That is not true. Every society legislates some norms, or it wouldn't be a society and couldn't function properly. It so happens that most of the time people saying what they like does not harm others, but in some cases it does. According to the kind of society we have which is based on Mill's principle (which I think is roughly the right sort principle, and I bet you do too), it is justifiable to restrict certain activities because they harm others. No one could reasonably assert that racist speech does not harm its victims, nor could they reasonably assert that banning people from making racist comments in the public sphere (such as at work or school) will inevitably lead to all sorts of other speech being banned (that's a slippery slope fallacy).

Similarly, we could be justified in banning homophobic agitation because it infringes on the rights of homosexuals to live unmolested by bigots who wish to impose their theological beliefs on others.

Can we ban antireligious agitation because it infringes on the rights of religious people to live unmolested by bigots who wish to impose their theological beliefs (or rather, the lack thereof) on others, like no public prayer in school?

That old trick. No one is imposing a belief on religious people. It so happens that society is better off when there is a separation between church and state. People disagree over which religion is the right one. Those people who agitate for religious practices in the public sphere ignore the problem of whose practices we are to adopt (they just think it's theirs).

In banning prayer from public schools we are in no way privileging atheism, since what is being banned is religious behaviour and that includes atheist proselytising. The state is not taking a position pro or contra religion any more than I am taking a position against fashion by making students wear school uniforms. People are free to practice their religion privately because attempts to make it public lead to ridiculous conflicts.

Free speech is not an absolute right. We have free speech rights because in most cases everyone is better off without censorship. However, people also have other rights which may come into conflict with free speech rights.

Such as? You don't have to listen.

If free speech includes the ability to paint a giant swastika on your house so that the holocaust survivors over the road have to see it every time they leave through their front door (this actually happened), then that argument fails.

And in this case it is clear that the harm done to homophobic bigots by preventing them from putting up posters in school is a lot less than the harm done to homosexuals by allowing that to happen.

1) it wasn't anti-gay marriage, it was anti-abortion. And it wasn't even really attacking any people.

Then that's fine by me.

2) if you're "damaged" by a bumper sticker (which isn't even in school, obviously) that says "marriage = man + woman", don't read it! When did people get a right not to be offended or have their feelings hurt, anyway?

Look, if you are a holocaust survivor or black, and the Klan is conducting cross burnings across the road, you will be scared ****less. Ask gay people how it feels to live in a homophobic society. It's not nice. Just because you are a white guy, you don't suffer this crap. But other people do. So ask yourself whether racists have more rights to be racists than their victims do to live free of racial discrimination. Racism is about harming other people. Preventing racists from committing racist acts prevents that harm - and by Mill's principle is entirely justifiable.

The same goes for racists and other people who appeal to rights while trying to trample on those of others. No sensible person agrees that racism is morally justifiable and tolerating racists undermines the very freedoms we seek to protect in doing so.

Like freedom of expression and association? We shouldn't tolerate opposing viewpoints?

It depends. We can and do tolerate a fair amount of opposing viewpoints because in those cases no one is really harmed, or the harm is negligible compared to the harm that would be caused by suppressing the dispute. However, it's pretty hard to make that case about racist or homophobic behaviour. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that society would somehow be worse off if there were no homophobes or racists. Of course homophobes and racists would argue that they were worse off, but that's a bit like a rapist saying that he is worse off because he can't rape anyone.

And people talking about legalizing marijuana does not single out a minority for persecution, unlike racist or homophobic speech.

But surely, the harm done by allowing people to support legalizing marijuana (they might even convince the majority of the population!) would be greater than simply not letting them support it, wouldn't it? I mean, using drugs is just wrong.

Not according to Mill's principle it isn't. People can smoke pot without harming others or at least the question of harm to others is debatable. However, racism and homophobia explicity harm their victims - they are intended to - it's not as if the harm is incidental or accidental, it is essential to the act - you can't be a racist without wishing ill to those of different race.

The moral of this story is that "anything goes" is a non starter as a rule for a society. If that's true, then we are always going to have to prohibit some actions.

[Agathon]

And I suppose an ad-hominem is enough to dispense with the issues? Some philosopher

Yet again, someone who doesn't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. What I did is make a claim - that's not an inference, so it's not subject to fallacy.

[Nubclear]

Skywalker, the poor misunderstood intellectual

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


But he's warming up the prolife chicks.

(who are cuter anyways.)

Hmm, sometimes.

But cute Goth chicks are usually pro-choice, so it's a toss-up.