Freedom of speech

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian


You are talking about restricting free speech. That means the gummint, does it not?

-Arrian

Nonsense Corporations can do the same better.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The only limit I can support wrt free speech is when it creates an immenent threat of violence (like "FIRE" in a threater or "kill that guy RIGHT NOW").

Otherwise, it should be free and open. Art being able to influence others is not a good reason to ban it. That influence need not be a bad thing. And if you believe it is bad, then you can use your own free speech to counter those effects.

I agree. There are some forms of speech that are less protected than others (child porn is a good example - that is banned mostly everywhere). Another exception is when something is intrusive in somebody's privacy (hence it's okay to regulate somebody broadcasting their views via megaphone outside your door at 3 a.m.).

Less clear is how you draw the line for public expression. If a porno mag is okay in a person's bedroom, then is it okay on a billboard? This is even blurrier on the Internet, where there are so many sites and people generally have to do something (enter a URL or search term, or click through to a link) to see them.

But on the whole in a western style democracy it should not be a big government function to vet expression that isn't public. Sometimes this is necessary but if Free Speech is your goal then it wants to be limited.

As for that cartoon strip, it's definitely not even close to the most offensive thing I've seen on the net. It's pretty stupid and there isn't much that redeems it but that's a call for readers to make.

And who wastes their time writing in to complain about something they saw on the Internet?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Inciting violence and hate speech, though, are two different things. I don't think that saying hate in a speech should be banned, but if it crosses over into the incitement of a group towards violence, then it goes too far.

My problem is, what is "hate speech"? Are people trully advocating some form of radical societal or political reform, which I think should be allowed under the idea of political Liberty, or are they simply voicing their own xenophobias? I don;t think the two acts are of equal worth, as one is theoretically a reasoned idea (thought many times this isn't really true) while the other is nothing more than a voicing of some strong violent emotion.

Since I don't believe in any such thing as absolute natural rights, what is the gain of having a policy of letting everyone vent strong emotions consequence free? An emotionally tense and charged atmosphere is not something that benefits a "free exchange of ideas", which is the supposed benefit of Free Speech.

[Alinestra Covelia]

double post

[LotC]

I don't think that site should be banned. If more than a handful of people regularly visit the site I would be surprised (well, not really). It's terribly unfunny, and I don't mean in an offensive way; it's just not funny. I have a twisted and dark sense of humour but that just doesn't tickle my funny bone. I think the guy who does the comic should take some art lessons.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by LotC
I don't think that site should be banned. If more than a handful of people regularly visit the site I would be surprised (well, not really). It's terribly unfunny, and I don't mean in an offensive way; it's just not funny. I have a twisted and dark sense of humour but that just doesn't tickle my funny bone. I think the guy who does the comic should take some art lessons.

QFT

[GePap]

I am sure that the individual who posted that site agreed to terms when he rented his own little bit o cyberspace from some private concern. That person then posted materials meant to offend someone. Someone did find offense, and complained to the private concern that hosted his materials. That private concern decided that their private business interests were better served by not hosting this material any longer, and likely using some term that the individual agreed upon from the start, kicked him out of their web space.

Whose "Liberty" was infringed in this whole ordeal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
My problem is, what is "hate speech"? Are people trully advocating some form of radical societal or political reform, which I think should be allowed under the idea of political Liberty, or are they simply voicing their own xenophobias? I don;t think the two acts are of equal worth, as one is theoretically a reasoned idea (thought many times this isn't really true) while the other is nothing more than a voicing of some strong violent emotion.

Since I don't believe in any such thing as absolute natural rights, what is the gain of having a policy of letting everyone vent strong emotions consequence free? An emotionally tense and charged atmosphere is not something that benefits a "free exchange of ideas", which is the supposed benefit of Free Speech.

I think even strong violent emotion should be protected. I don't think that freedom of speech should only protect 'reasoned ideas'. Emotional appeals are important and people usually use them to change other people's minds. I think they should be protected as well. There is a line when it becomes incitement, but I'll admit, its a fuzzy line (case by case really).

I think the venting of strong emotions allows people to get what they really feel off their chests. I mean, it is all well and good to have these reasoned free exchange debates, but if people feel otherwise underneath, the best way to deal with it is to get it out in the open and challenge those emotional feelings (and yes, even though they are emotion, they can be challenged... look at the difference in how certain minorities are seen). Emotionally tense and charged atmospheres can result in some real progress because it gets to the base of the feelings, which reasoned argument can only be a superficial articulation of feelings.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I think even strong violent emotion should be protected. I don't think that freedom of speech should only protect 'reasoned ideas'. Emotional appeals are important and people usually use them to change other people's minds. I think they should be protected as well. There is a line when it becomes incitement, but I'll admit, its a fuzzy line (case by case really).

I think the venting of strong emotions allows people to get what they really feel off their chests. I mean, it is all well and good to have these reasoned free exchange debates, but if people feel otherwise underneath, the best way to deal with it is to get it out in the open and challenge those emotional feelings (and yes, even though they are emotion, they can be challenged... look at the difference in how certain minorities are seen). Emotionally tense and charged atmospheres can result in some real progress because it gets to the base of the feelings, which reasoned argument can only be a superficial articulation of feelings.

I agree with you on the value of Catharsis, as well as the idea that in order to make real progress, it is important to bring to the fore the underlying rationales or emotions for certain positions. I do have a problem with thinking that every emotionally charged statement is made in order to gain Catharsis, or serves to bring to the fore these underlying feelings. Uncontrolled venting is not always going to lead to either of these things. As such, there should be a certain level of Control, or barriers and limits that help bring about worthwhile exchanges.

I was glad in college to have a number of classes in which there were some tense discussions which proved very useful, but that could only happen because that classroom was actually a controlled situation. While the Professor never censored anyones ideas, I don;t doubt that he would have stepped in to stop Ad hominem attacks or other statements that would have served simply to hurt others. And sometimes that is exactly what some speech is meant to do, to hurt, to lash out in a moment of emotion. The reason I do not support some absolutist or near-absolutist notion of "Free Speech" is because sometimes people speak maliciously, with the intent to cause harm or inflame passions. There is no societal value in telling people that is they engage in such speech they will face no collective consequence for their chosen action.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason I do not support some absolutist or near-absolutist notion of "Free Speech" is because sometimes people speak maliciously, with the intent to cause harm or inflame passions. There is no societal value in telling people that is they engage in such speech they will face no collective consequence for their chosen action.

Well, they will face social disdain for harmful or inflaming speech. And I believe that there is a marketplace of ideas (or outward emotion if you will) and the best thing to do is to put this speech out and let it be mocked and laughed at. Let the Klan march in Illinois and let the rest of the country see how hated and scorned they are and let them see how marginal they are.

If anything, the people making such emotional appeals will see how few actually agree (in that respect I can understand problems with "political correctness" [even if in certain cases I do not share them] in that it allows those people to claim the government is preventing people from indicating their true beliefs. For example the Fred Phelps group is almost universally mocked.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, they will face social disdain for harmful or inflaming speech. And I believe that there is a marketplace of ideas (or outward emotion if you will) and the best thing to do is to put this speech out and let it be mocked and laughed at. Let the Klan march in Illinois and let the rest of the country see how hated and scorned they are and let them see how marginal they are.


If anything, the people making such emotional appeals will see how few actually agree (in that respect I can understand problems with "political correctness" [even if in certain cases I do not share them] in that it allows those people to claim the government is preventing people from indicating their true beliefs. For example the Fred Phelps group is almost universally mocked.

Well, this is when different freedoms come into clash. Lets take this website as an example; no governmental action was taken against it. What happened is that free individual saw this site, and freely chose that instead of just mockery and disdain, they would express their disapproval for the speech by telling the private host of the site that their wish to ostracize this individual would be extended to those that through their actions of inactions allowed this individual to further their speech. The host of the website freely decided that continuing to host this site was not worth it.

It is not possible to expect that the only response that free individuals will take against speech they disapprove of is ridicule. Is the freedom of actions of the speaker greater than that of the listener?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, ridicule is not the only disapproval. They could vote with their wallets (in the form of boycotts) or tell the host they aren't going to associate with him anymore or what have you.

That's their free speech right as well.

The question was, however, whether this site should be banned. Not whether the host should or should not be petitioned to not host said site anymore.

[SlowwHand]

What about something along the lines of, "I'm going to blow your head off"? This is the same as Imran, for one, noted.
That's assault, as well as making terroristic comment.

SOME people are like little kids. Always pushing the situation to see what they can get away with.

The Ku Klux Clan, Nazi's, radical Black Panthers and all equivalent organizations have the right to free speech, and yet, I find it hard to believe that any congregation of one of these groups is harmless.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Inciting violence and hate speech, though, are two different things. I don't think that saying hate in a speech should be banned, but if it crosses over into the incitement of a group towards violence, then it goes too far.

Doesn't that kind of raise the issue of whether we should allow free speech for principle sake or just out of practicality. If it's just for practicality we should probably limit more speech than just speech that directly incites violence.

[Kuciwalker]

Imran's first post was spot-on.