Free Speech - morally wrong?

I seriously don't know why or how the topic got to this point, but, the original question being whether or not free speech is 'morally wrong', yes it's hypocritical, to the degree that capitalism or communism or democracy or totalitarianism might be considered hypocritical in the sense that when it comes down to the details, there are serious contradictions. So, as it's been said before, I'm all for the idea, but with the understanding that 'free speech' is not to be taken literally, but as a symbol of my right to think and speak with less limitations, compared to times past and compared to other nations who might be more strict about their policies.
 
Mirror in the fog:

Thanks for your post. Couldn't have said it better myself. Your view is so enlightened and obviously you've given this quite a bit of thought. Enjoyed reading what you said.
 
guys,

illusions667 (and his alter egoes "disruptor" etc) got banned after insisting on interpreting the site rules as meaning that he could engage in antisemitic and holocaust-denying rhetoric under the banner of free speech. free speech is not a free-for-all. amazing how many people are so pro free speech and so anti responsible speech. i believe it was this topic that got him started, then he decided that we were censoring his right to talk racist bollocks. don't worry about it and welcome to the site.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Oh my, oh my... it seems that quite a lot of people have quite a lot of growing up to do.. Free Speech, as strange as it may sound, is the freedom to vent an opinion. Having sex with children or collectively smashing up a city center or burning an ethnic minority in gas ovens or entertaining a certain economic system is a different issue altogether. It's freedom of speech. Words. Sounds emanating from the human larynx. To speak and to act is wa-a-a-ay different.
 
Ratatosk,
Your words are far outside my mentality.
My senses tell me they create pain.
Is there not enough pain in this world already.
There is no question, free speech is necessary liberation for the human condition but format of language as expression is needed to enhance spiritual liberation.Why bring degradation that feeds the pain that already exists, when there is possibility to rise above the equation.
 
I think free speech is far too important a principle to damn simple because it is abused. The idea behind free speech is to promote democracy and understanding. So the little voices can be heard. So some individuals and groups use the privilidge of free speech in moraly repugnent ways. Free speech itself remains a shining example of understanding and tolerance. We tolerate people who claim the holocaust never took place even though their assertions are teribly offensive to relatives of the victims, scholars who have studied and concluded it did occour, and just about any one who agrees with those said scholars.

Their is another reason to defend free speech and that is progress. Human culture cannpt grow and evolve if only established thought is acceptable for discussion. That would be a far quicker route to totalatarianism and represion than the risk that a few crazies with crazy ideas might somehow infect the rest of us with their ideas.

I use the slippery slope, or the thin end of the wedge arguement.

Say, we decided that to protect the free worlds democratic way of life we had to restrict free speech further than it already is. We might decide for instance the admiral setiment that anti sematism is moraly repugnant and pro anti semit talk should be banned. Talking about your belief that the holocaust never occoured becomes illegal. People who just can't help themselves and feel the need to express this anyway are locked up and carted off to prison. Sooner later as always happens some person uncovers something or other about the Jews that they think is dodgey. For instance somone might write that the Jews were behind a conspirace to invade Iraq. I know of at least one journalist who has noted the presence of many powerful rich Jews amongst the Iraq hawks in the US administration(See Bushwacked by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose). Be these people crazies or of sound moral mind just pointing out something they think is concerning we will never know because they will be carted off to prison so fast your head would spin. The problem becomes one of were to draw the line. Yesterday it was illegal to say the holocaust didn't happen today it becomes illegal to say a prominent politician who is also a Jew used his position inapropriately. Please do not misunderstand me. I am only using a Jews as an example. I am not anti Jew. It would be equaly likely for any other group to use their power to restrict public discussion to their own advantage. You can bet that the group that is put in charge of deciding where to draw the line will very easily become corupted. The only solution is to allow full unadulterated free speech with the no-holocaust nutters protected along with everyone else. Free speech is far to important to ditch just because of a few people that abuse it. The trouble with restricting free speech and public discourse is that it protects the very people who need to be examined the most. I mean the people at the top who make the laws.

Free speech also comes with responsibiites too but that is another topic I think.
 
Wow Illusion stated the case with every word he wrote. Correct me if Im wrong but didnt a lot of messianic jews die during the holocaust?

I agree that free-speech is abused everday in the US. Its the first thing cried out by abusers of it. I think alot of people would be better off shutting up and listening to someone else speak rather than be so concerned that they be heard. The key to being a good communicator is first being a great listener.
 
ObeyTheCowGod said:
Say, we decided that to protect the free worlds democratic way of life we had to restrict free speech further than it already is. We might decide for instance the admiral setiment that anti sematism is moraly repugnant and pro anti semit talk should be banned. Talking about your belief that the holocaust never occoured becomes illegal. People who just can't help themselves and feel the need to express this anyway are locked up and carted off to prison.
Click to expand...
I believe this is already the case across much of Europe - precisely because of past experience of what "free speech" delivered.

Btw - welcome to CR, ObeyTheCowGod. :)
 
Thank you. I, Brian.


I guess in the age of the internet whether free speech be alowed or not is a moot point. It would be near impossible to stop. On second thougts I could be wrong on that one. Afterall efforts are being made to make the internet easier to police.
 
Google actually filters its Google News service to Chinese providers, to try and stay within state censorship. I believe the Chinese authorities also have one mean Firewall up to block access to various sites.
 
Hi,

Can't see that anyone else has made this point so here goes:

To return to the OP:

People should have freedom of speech; of course whether or not they truly have it is another matter. But freedom of speech is only one side of the coin. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, or at least it should. We should be aware, take responsibility for our speech, aware of what effect it may have, how it may result in ill feeling or detrimental behaviour. When we speak (when we are being serious) we should ask ourselves

1. Is it the truth?
2. Is it an appropriate time to say it?
3. Is it beneficial?

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi,

Can't see that anyone else has made this point so here goes:

To return to the OP:

People should have freedom of speech; of course whether or not they truly have it is another matter. But freedom of speech is only one side of the coin. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, or at least it should. We should be aware, take responsibility for our speech, aware of what effect it may have, how it may result in ill feeling or detrimental behaviour. When we speak (when we are being serious) we should ask ourselves

1. Is it the truth?
2. Is it an appropriate time to say it?
3. Is it beneficial?

s.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I guess Hitler, the KKK, and whoever the hell else would answer yes, yes, and yes
 
Yup, everyone has their own truth don't they... It comes down to opinion... Jews and blacks should be treated equal and as human beings... that is the truth.....

Hitler... Uhm, no that isn't the truth... They shouldn't be equal!


Truth I think is just another word for opinion... ;\
 
cavalier said:
Ok, but I guess Hitler, the KKK, and whoever the hell else would answer yes, yes, and yes
Click to expand...


Hi,

Well they would wouldn't they?! I of course, along with a few others, would say no no and no. Conscience guides. We may ignore it, twist it or be unaware of it; but it is there.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Hi,

Well they would wouldn't they?! I of course, along with a few others, would say no no and no. Conscience guides. We may ignore it, twist it or be unaware of it; but it is there.

s.
Click to expand...
Ok, so would conscience guide us to try and shut up the KKK or, were he still alive, Hitler?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top