Freedom of Speech!!!

[Shanti418]

MMMM, I LOVE WORMS!!!!!

Just thought I'd stick my head in the middle.

God forbid the Christianity/Islam thread get clogged up with people arguring back and forth, right??






Actually, I think WE have touched on this before, the last time I can remember was when someone (Emvee, I think) found some Neo Nazi message boards, and Ultimate Weapon got totally pwned in arguing, and subsequentally left.



Anyways.....free speech? What of it?

[Best First]

i'd say there should probably be limits for attacking people based on what they are.

by which i mean the (more or less) unchangeable: Race, gender, sexuality (please don't tell me people choose to be gay - why would they with teh amount of sh*t that you get?).

Possibly nationality, although thats really a human construct.

Inciting people to violence, but this shuld be in a direct sense. Not just saying 'i think he is a tw*t'.

anything else is either something you have chosen to adopt or you have been forced to adopt and is therefore open to scrutiny, including mockery.

and if you can't deal with it then its your problem.

[Kaylee]

I suppose you must have some restrictions on it, particularly if you take 'speech' to cover printed and recorded word. New Scientist recently published the results of a study which demonstrated particularly television can have an astounding affect on the minds of those who watched it- particularly influencing views and opinion. If that's the case, I guess that means we need to be careful what we say on it since we can't force people to watch multiple viewpoints or take on all aspects of a subject.

For example a television channel devoted solely to racism and promoting/self reinforcing latent racist attitudes, stereotypes, myths and conspiracy theories. Most people (I would hope) would ignore it having recognised it for the twaddle it is, but what harm might it do amongst the minority who think otherwise?

Or what if one media mogul somehow gained control of an entire broadcast network and were able to use it to pump out a particular message... issues of unbiased reporting and bipartisan programming are one huge part of it, particularly though I'm thinking of the ends such a powerful medium could be turned to- there must be some extremes which would just have to be off limits by law I suppose?

That then turns it into a grey region... if some things are okay and others aren't, who's going to decide? How do we make sure we only disallow things that are really suitable for disallowance (since restricting freedoms is an incredibly powerful tool and should be very rarely used imo) rather than just responding in knee-jerks to issues or caving in to minority/single-interest pressure groups?

I suppose one way of judging it would be whether the speech being questioned is actually worth something- if it has value, then it shouldn't be censored. However that just runs into even more problems- what one person values may not be shared by another and it assumes all speech is inherently worthless until demonstrated otherwise.

Prickly.

edittalage- for besty, we'd need to work out criteria for an attack I think. For example, would the scientist (I forget the chap's name) who reported last year that biologically speaking men may be better than women at certain tasks (and presumably vice versa) be considered an attack on the female gender? Some groups certainly took it as such. If we could work out a set of criteria for what constitutes an attack rather than a statement, question etc. we could have a possibility going with the 'inherent' type issues, things which people can't change.

Are there perhaps more things that should go in there though? Mental illness for example? That then runs into a tricky spot with certain crimes though possibly... some criminals are psychologically damaged, some rapists and paedophiles for example. I'd guess that they aren't suitable elements to be put beyond lampoonery etc.

I say again... prickly.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I think we should make cartoons about Islam & Allah everyday untill they realise - its just a cartoon and you need to behave like no religious ppl!


Personaly, i think ppl can say what they like - what I think its important is the punishment u attach. common sense in law? hmm...

[Dead Head]

Anyways.....free speech? What of it?

Quite honestly I haven't fully thought out my position on 'ultimate free speech!'.

So on a separate but related point, I say that the specific case of religion (i.e. a total fiction) should have ZERO shielding from free opinion/satire/criticism/et cetera.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yes - why cant I take the piss out of what cannot be proved?

[Metal Vendetta]

I should be able to say what the [composite word including 'f*ck'] I like without being ****ing censored all the ****ing time.

[Best First]

quiet you.

[Autobot 420]

censorship sucks it's bulls***. you should be able to speek your mind and say what ever you want but freedom is a two way street if you say something that offends someone you better be ready to hear something that offends you. so yeah you should be able to say what ever you what so long as it's the truth. lies and slander are not free speech they are lies and slander. prior restraint is for despots.

[Scraplet]

The problem with censoring unsavory aopinions is that it doesnt stop people thinking them.

Then they fester away, insulated in oprganisations of like-minded people, and slowly they grow. Look at the current growth in neo-natzis groups across Europe.

The only way to get to the root of these problems is to allow them freedom of speech. They cannot then argue that they live in a society with secret agendas, and their view-points can be argued against in an open forum. These viewponts can then become maginalised by public opinon and education.

Thats the only way things move on. Censorship hides problems that will bite us on the arse later.

An example is the race-relations / muliti-ethic community debate. PCness has meant that many opinions rightly or wrongly held by many people have not been discussed for years. And now we have a rise in racial tensions, cultural mistrust and violence. Who has capitalised on this, but the BNP?

We could have wiped them and thier ilk out years ago if there was the will to confront all their opinions in the open.

Theres no sensible debate about pedophillia, inj case you offend Mother Against Murder, or some such group. So instead we tooerate our roads being clogged up by people driving 500yrads to drop their kids off at school, in an era when they have arguably never been safer!

Censorship stiffles debate and creates problems. We need to recognise that, sometimes, well-meaning people have to be offended to create a better place.

Anyway, rant off. Hope that makes sense

[Best First]

it does.

although sadly allowing someone to say what they are thinking and being abel to engagethem in debate are not the same thing.

[Scraplet]

it does.

although sadly allowing someone to say what they are thinking and being abel to engagethem in debate are not the same thing.

Fair point. But if we are able to engage the public we can still marginalise the nutters. We don't need to convert the nutter, just ensure that popular opinion sees them for what they are. That can only happen if the media and public feel able to discuss sensitive opinions.

[Best First]

agreed.

which means i potentially revise my opinions on this matter.

although of course the next concern is whether the public are actually as egalitarianly minded as you are.

[Legion]

although of course the next concern is whether the public are actually as egalitarianly minded as you are.

i'd wager that they're not...

[Scraplet]

although of course the next concern is whether the public are actually as egalitarianly minded as you are.

i'd wager that they're not...

Me too, unfortunatly. But someone has to be the idealist around here. I nominate myself as benevolent dictator for life. That'll sort it out. Anyone up for a coup?

[Best First]

I nominate myself as benevolent dictator for life.

sorry, i have first dibs.

since, like, ages ago.

[Scraplet]

I nominate myself as benevolent dictator for life.

sorry, i have first dibs.

since, like, ages ago.

I think that makes you first against the wall.........oh wait, I'm being benevolent aren't I. Damn.

Right, I'll have to win via charm and persuasion
Thats me f*****, then.

[Shanti418]

agreed.

which means i potentially revise my opinions on this matter.

Wasn't their some post a while ago we were supposed to throw in your face when you did that? Or was it concerning hypocrisy? Damn me and my bong resin filled brain.

[Best First]

that's when i get agitated and rude on a topic.

your inability to remember stuff that i can remember marks you out as the inferior candidate for WORLD LEADER.

i am a shoe in.

[Pissin' Poonani]

i am a shoe.

That explains why you got sole, then.





Sorry.

[Shanti418]

Really? Here in America, forgetting things from both the distant past (lessons of Vietnam) and the recent past (Iraq has WMD) is a job requirement.


But yeah, I'll support your candidacy. Which was really the only thing hold you back from the position, anyway. :P