Free Speech - morally wrong?

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Scotland
The issue of the ACLU and NAMBLA came up in another thread, so I'd like to re-examine the issue from another aspect.

Is Free Speech morally wrong?

Here in Britain we do not claim to have Free Speech, and we never claim we do. There are laws that can be enforced for saying the wrong things - for example, for incitement to do violence, or simply to hate.

You see, we have learned through experience that ideas such as the Final Solution are not pleasant, and their promotion is not to be tolerated, because ultimately they seek to discriminate against and cause harm to specific social/cultural groups of people.

Yet in the USA Free Speech has become it's own secular god. Everyone is allowed to express an opinion, no matter how worthless that opinion is, and no matter what harm is intended in that expressed opinion.

For example, the NAMBLA seeks to promote paedophile behaviour. Surely it should not be a matter of national recourse that such an association be allowed to promote such a view that is already clearly so morally repugnant and already legislated against with severe penalties?

Therefore has the issue of Free Speech not become a way of ensuring personal and social freedoms, as much as a tool for the malcontent, who would seek to use such a liberal system for the self-promotion of socially unacceptable views - often inciting harm, metal and physical, to others?

Surely a society that says that the KKK, NAMBLA, Neo-Nazi groups, and variously similarly concerned organisation are valid and worthy of expressing abhorrent views upon society?

The lesson of World War 2 wasn't that Hitler was an exceptional evil - he was merely the product of his cultural environment, not least the rampant anti-semitism that so plagued Bavaria and Austria in those days?

Surely this therefore means there's a moral lesson in accepting that certain views should not be expressed, because it allows them to breed and foster and merely await yet another social weakness so as to rise up again for a fuller expression?

Freedom of speech, as a literal principle, is therefore morally wrong, yes?

A starter for discussion. :)
 
The problem is that the free-speech provisions of the US constitution were drafted in the 18th Century, at a time where free speech was in fact suppressed. They were certainly necessary then. Applied literally at the present time, they lead to very strange conclusions. This is a debate of statutory/constitutional interpretation that will not soon be solved.

There is a big legal battle coming/starting in the US about free speech vs privacy. The right of privacy is not literally included in the US constitution, but a lot of jusrists have concluded that it impliedly is. Basically, free speech very often interferes with privacy.

My personal opinion is that free speech has been much too much supported in the US, up to the point of making them look weird to the international community. The current argument about the "do not call" list is clearly a good example of this.

Baud
 
There is a phrase I once heard
"Those who speak loudest have least to say"
Perhaps Free Speech is intended to protect those with lesser voices but it is those with the loudest who defend their own right to say least.
 
We claim to have free speech, but it has an asterisk by it. While there is none in the constitution the courts have limited it. For instance I cannot threaten the lives of certain government employees in a forum without getting a visit by Secret Service person. (They visit you are work, not at home to add to the intimidation.)

You cannot yell "Movie!" in a crowed firehouse, or "it looks like the twins have put on some weight Mr. President."

The restrictions are numerous. They include advertisng bans on certain products in certain media (cigarette ads on TV for example.)

We are at best hypocrites when it comes to this free speech thing. Most of us still believe Orwell wrote about somebody else.
 
@ dave the web "Those who speak loudest have least to say" does this include jesus and mohammad ?

free speech as has been outlined has its limits but as long as we can talk about what we want in the privacy of our own homes then free speech is alive and kicking .i know in the US since the patriot act free speech does not exsist in the us even what is said in your own home is subject to the patriot act .the constitution which protects free speech in the us (even though its now not worth the paper its been written on ) has been revoked in the pass when it suits the president or the sittuation so what good is a constitution that is not always and forever ?
the legal president of free speech in the us was set to protect KKK meeting (from top of head cant remember case name )

but here in the uk free speech only exsists in a few places , one being in your house its the only place we can threaten someones life and still be inside the law ,two speaker corner but even then enciting a riot is still illegal ,most inportantly in the paliment lobby anything may be said without repercusion .also in the temple as law has no durisdiction there as the temple is where the law derives its power

but in the uk we have no bill of rights or constitution to "protect" us and i think we are better off without one .
the only problem in the uk when it comes to speech and its freedom is anything we do not say may not be said at a latter date to help ourselfs .
 
There is a difference between promoting the ideals of freedom of speech, and acting upon them.

I agree with freedom of speech - in theory.

To most people of a faily thoughtful capacity, a heated debate on something or some similar demonstration of active discussion and partial action is all healthy and normal. Similarly the advertising with cigarettes and tobacco industry. I am quite opposed to smoking as where I live people tend to smoke on buses and in other non-smoking zone and this irritates me. However, I see no need to ban cigarette advertising, but included in the freedom of speech clause the same people are allowed to campaign to why smoking doesn't work. It is the competition of different groups and organizations that I agree with. More often than not people who smoke, do it because of their circumstances and not because of huge advertising (well, to my knowledge in the UK anyway). This is why I think that you should have freedom of speech, raising your own opinion and awareness and listening to what others have to say, regardless of rascist or abusive content.

However, it's when people start grouping together and rallying behind these values that the ideal that is freedom of speech begins to crumble. People such as the KKK and neo-nazi fringe splinter groups rally behind this open call and persecute and discriminate against their various enemies. It is all very well pointing out why you think something, but to have someone shun that point of view, kill or maim you, burn your house down or do other such acts - it undoes the heart of what is seen in "democracy" in the known world. To this extent I do not agree with freedom of speech.

To me it is another one of those loopholes. People see and utilise the ideal of freedom speech, but most do not use the loophole. However, there are always people who exploit something because they can, and this is one such example. It is to this greater extent that I do not agree with.

It is because of this that the May Day parade in Britain often descends into riots and anarchy as a few individuals take it upon themselves to use the opportunity to prove a point to others by rioting rather than protesting. This is often the difference between extreme political groups and the extent to which they want to use violence or protest to use the message - and who would use speech and thought provocation the most?
 
Yet in the USA Free Speech has become it's own secular god. Everyone is allowed to express an opinion, no matter how worthless that opinion is, and no matter what harm is intended in that expressed opinion.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely accurate, although I appreciate where it is coming from.

Someone else mentioned the little voices being allowed opportunity to express. If all that were heard were the majority voices, what room for advancement or opportunity for disagreement? A small voice today can become a majority opinion later.

I agree the concept frequently gets abused. Increasingly in the US, laws are being passed that limit those abuses. But censorship also carries connotations of a morality police. Is this preferable?

When "free speech" competes with a specific law, there are limits coming into place to curb those abuses, but it is on a case by case basis (pedophilia, cigarettes, hate). As an American, perhaps I am biased and ignorant of how things might be otherwise. But my understanding is that one is generally free to "speak", but where the law comes into play is in acting on that speech. Inciting a riot is not free speech.

Further, while one may be free to speak, they are still accountable to the masses. An unpopular opinion might be spoken, but the repercussions of the "masses" generally keep such speech at bay. Free speech does work both ways.
 
I said:
The lesson of World War 2 wasn't that Hitler was an exceptional evil - he was merely the product of his cultural environment, not least the rampant anti-semitism that so plagued Bavaria and Austria in those days?
Click to expand...
Again, Hitler was not evil. It's about time you abandon the lies told about NS Germany. The German anti-semitism of that time was an anti-reaction to the growing power of jews on the German economy and the racist behaviour of many zionists. Hitler wanted to force all jews to migrate out of Germany, so the Germans could again get hold of their own economy. At the beginning of WW2, all jews were considered to be political oposition, and they were transported to work camps, like the other political oposition. Most of the jews who died in the camps, died out of undernourishment of disease. He never wanted to exterminate them. Surely, it may be considered immoral to lock political oposition behind bars. However, this is standard procedure when founding a new state system. Lenin had the same thing done.

But of course, in Europe, it's illegal to speak about this. In Europe, it's illegal to tell the real story about national socialist Germany. So the lack of freedom of speech has given official history a weird twist.





Further, I think it's normal for a state to decide which information is harmful. This is different for different ideologies. To me, NAMBLA and the KKK are harmful organisations, but also the christian church and the gay pride movement. To you, perhaps, the national anarchist movement which I support may be considered harmful. Probably all organisations are harmful in the eyes of someone. That's why the US do not wish to pick out those they think are harmful, unless they've really posed a threat to them. And I think that may just be the most fair attitude.

So I'm a bit mixed about the entire issue.
 
Free speech is like Communism. It looks great on paper, but is the cause of many woes in the world. For proof of this see IlluSions post above mine. LOL
 
Mus Zibii said:
Free speech is like Communism. It looks great on paper, but is the cause of many woes in the world. For proof of this see IlluSions post above mine. LOL
Click to expand...
So because I believe something contrary to your beliefs, you believe I should not have the right to speak? Very openminded of you :p
 
The idea of liberal democracy stands on the firm belief that the system should respect citizen's right to think and express themselves. Thefore, we only should control what people *do* in relation to other while what people *think* is sort of sanctuary which no state should mess with.

As of Germany, the german economy collapsed due to the combined influence of the global great depression and the huge financial burden Germany was placed under WWI indeminity settlement. The idea that it is a fault of minority ethinic group is absurd.
 
Vapour said:
As of Germany, the german economy collapsed due to the combined influence of the global great depression and the huge financial burden Germany was placed under WWI indeminity settlement. The idea that it is a fault of minority ethinic group is absurd.
Click to expand...
It's not who caused the depression which is the issue, but who profited from it. During the hyperinflation, wealthy capitalists earned fortunes by means of speculation, while the rest of the Germans were starving. Many of those wealthy capitalists were jewish zionists. Jewish zionists had quite a lot of power, and the national socialists had the intention to take that power back. Because they believed that greed and capitalism were inherent to the jewish people (backed by scientific racial theories of those days), they wanted the jews out of Germany (and not murder them).
 
so let me get straight. It's all about collective responsibility, isn't it. So English is entitled to get rid of entire German from u.k. because Karl Marx wrote Da Kapita. Hmmmm...English might find that idea very tempting.
 
Anyway!

I was reading an article on religious law, Abrahamic relgious law, namely Shariah and how Sayyid Qutb felt it was a reasonable solution for American decadence. The problem with this (as the author of the article suggested) is that enforced virtue is not virtue. Cutting off the hand of a thief does not cure covetness, greed, etc. Putting a veil over a prostitute or a woman who would otherwise choose to dress provocatively doesn't make her any less immoral. Without the choice to be good or evil, there can be no conception of good and evil.

This can be applied to freedom of speech, I think. Though the people who enjoy freedom of thought and choose to be peaceable and logical are fewer than those who choose to exploit their freedom (cough, Michael Moore), they have made the conscious decision to be thus. Rather than, say, having speech and thought reigned in by legal limitations.
 
Vapour said:
so let me get straight. It's all about collective responsibility, isn't it.
Click to expand...
It was much more than that. They were oposed to the entire jewish belief system, and they were totally convinced that anyone who was born jewish was a convinced jew, zionist and kapitalist. Half-jews were tolerated and were treated like full Germans, if they denounced judaism. It was an ideological issue, and not a racial issue.

Mus Zibii said:
Um, yeah, you got a lot of growing up to do, kid. Here's the last I'm going to say in the way of entertaining your ideas.
Click to expand...
Concerning the first pic, what is the origin of the pic and why are these kids in this condition? Give me one reason to assume that these pictures are made in a German concentration camp and that these kids are not in this condition because of undernourishment and desease. Surely, you're gonna say that the Germans intentionally starved people, right? Well, preserved internal camp documents say otherwise.

Concerning the second pic, it says "We're riding to Poland to thrash jews". This is obviously a wagon used for troop transport. This can be easily compared with the "born to kill" and other macho phrases you find on many contemporary soldiers' uniforms, helmets or vehicles. All soldiers use this kind of macho phrases. Notice that these Germans clearly said "thrash" and not "kill". Obviously to them thrashing already was brutal enough.
 
No, that was not what happened in practice. Jewishness was determined on the basis of blood. To add further, if you link culture to race/gene, culture is merely convinent way for someone to veil his/her racism.

Also, this apply to your other ideas. There is a huge difference between reading source material (academic papers/journal, historical archive) and secondry materials (textbook, edutainment books, ***** for dummy).
 
Vapour said:
No, that was not what happened in practice. Jewishness was determined on the basis of blood.
Click to expand...
As I said, they were totally convinced that anyone who was born jewish was a convinced jew, zionist and kapitalist.

Vapour said:
To add further, if you link culture to race/gene, culture is merely convinent way for someone to veil his/her racism.
Click to expand...
It is actually related. Ask any Jew or Muslem about the link between their beliefs and their heritage. And they're not the only ones who feel that way. Most white people however, have lost this because of the influence of Christianity and humanism.
 
Well, then whether someone is racist or culturalist makes no difference does it. Someone Culturalist is racist by default.

As of Nazi history, let just say, you need to do bit more study in history. And if you want to complain about supposed bias of history text, then you should do what you call source reading or souce critics, rather than reading books biased in the way you like it (David Irving, for example).
 
Vapour said:
Well, then whether someone is racist or culturalist makes no difference does it. Someone Culturalist is racist by default.
Click to expand...
I believe that it is important for different cultures and races go their own way. Yesterday I saw a documentary about Bantu families which were exported from Somalia to the US as refugees. I thought is was sad. These people didn't want to go to the US. These people didn't want to be seperated from their community. These people just wanted to be able to educate their children, have enough food and a decent roof over their heads.

If every culture has an independent economy and a decent independent leaderschip approved by the international community, there will be a lot less migration. People would stay in the country they're born. There are so many immigrants from Morocco and Turkey in my country. Many of them still go to the country of orrigin every year. They do not adapt to our culture. The only reason they came to live here, is because they hoped their lives would improve. And that's bad. This causes many social conflicts.

If someone decides to move to another country with people from another race because of cultural reasons, I don't see why - as freedom loving persons - we should prevent this. They would fit in perfectly, and racism towards them would be minimal because of this. But they would be a small minority.

Vapour said:
As of Nazi history, let just say, you need to do bit more study in history. And if you want to complain about supposed bias of history text, then you should do what you call source reading or souce critics, rather than reading books biased in the way you like it (David Irving, for example).
Click to expand...
I try to read as much info as I can, from different sources. Some are revisionist, some are official historical info. I always try to compare several sources to make up my own conclusion. I even have a 1942 Dutch version of Mein Kampf and a 1942 version of racial/cultural theory specified for my people in my posession, to read about national socialist theory from first hand. I still have to read them though.

I always try to stay sceptical to the conclusion I come up with. At the moment I'm very much convinced my conclusion is the right one, but if people come up with enough evidence to counter my conclusion, my conclusion will change. I'm not easy to convince of something, but some have tried and succeeded. I have a very open mind. I love these discussions because you always learn something from it.

Until now, I've not found any credible evidence to conclude that the "final solution" was not forced migration but extermination of the jewish people.
Still, I agree that the NSDAP were very repressive. But this is normal in the evolution from a pseudo-democratic kapitalist society to a cooperative state of any kind. The Russians did so too. But unlike the Russians, Hitler was on the right track. Unfortunately his insight in military tactics were very poor, as was his insight in the minds of foreign leaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top