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?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
some people just don't get it...
Collapse
X
-
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
Comment
-
So if someone started wearing a swastika armband, that would be peachy with you?
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,
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.
Attacking gay marriage is attacking gay people. Or do you think that banning heterosexual marriage would have no effect on straight people?Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
you are definitely hurting your chances of scoring with this chick with all this nonsense.
(who are cuter anyways.)Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Comment
-
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.Only feebs vote.
Comment
-
And I suppose an ad-hominem is enough to dispense with the issues? Some philosopherOnly feebs vote.
Comment
-
Skywalker, the poor misunderstood intellectualEventis is the only refuge of the spammer. Join us now.
Long live teh paranoia smiley!
Comment
Comment