NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
You can't arrest them for freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech - Going too far?
- Thread starter Last Hope
- Start date
You can't arrest them for freedom of speech.
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Various racist groups openly exists in the US. They distribute 'literature' about their views and what they want.
888jamie888
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,106
- Reaction score
- 0
I suppose, freedom of speech is one of your founding rights? correct?
NeutralCitizen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 0
How do you think the Ku klux klan is allowed to protest publicly ? Freedom of Protest and Freedom of Speech even for those who you don't agree with.
anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
The freedom of speech even if it goes too far is based on firm logic and jurisprudence.
Even though it is always desirable that truly diabolic speech should be censured,the censuring in itself raises some important questions.
The most important of them would be deciding the parameters on which Censuring should be done.How would one differentiate between criticism and slander.How would one differentiate between activism and lampooning.How would one differentiate between art and ****.
The other one is the subjectivity and cultural difference of matter at helm.A Object of just ridicule in one culture may be blasphemy in another.An expression of creativity for somebody may be slanderous for someone else.There may be many cognitive biases involved.How would one differentiate sarcasm from threat.During the opening ceremony of 2004 summer olympics which were held in athens,some americans complained of indecency to brodcasters.Now in order to satisfy those fundamentalist morons should olympics be banned.
another issue is that of equality.What would give a person even if he is head of state a right to know what is good for general populace.Right to censure is a recognition that the censure whether it is issuer of decree or the person who would sift through the data has greater understanding of the matter at hand.
So even though it may be desirable that hate speech is censured,censuring it would eventually lead to curtailment of human rights.
Even though it is always desirable that truly diabolic speech should be censured,the censuring in itself raises some important questions.
The most important of them would be deciding the parameters on which Censuring should be done.How would one differentiate between criticism and slander.How would one differentiate between activism and lampooning.How would one differentiate between art and ****.
The other one is the subjectivity and cultural difference of matter at helm.A Object of just ridicule in one culture may be blasphemy in another.An expression of creativity for somebody may be slanderous for someone else.There may be many cognitive biases involved.How would one differentiate sarcasm from threat.During the opening ceremony of 2004 summer olympics which were held in athens,some americans complained of indecency to brodcasters.Now in order to satisfy those fundamentalist morons should olympics be banned.
another issue is that of equality.What would give a person even if he is head of state a right to know what is good for general populace.Right to censure is a recognition that the censure whether it is issuer of decree or the person who would sift through the data has greater understanding of the matter at hand.
So even though it may be desirable that hate speech is censured,censuring it would eventually lead to curtailment of human rights.
Chogy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,228
- Reaction score
- 0
It's better that someone's feelings be hurt, than thousands of voices be silenced by the State.
This stuff has caused a huge disconnect with much of the world. Qur'an burning is the perfect example. Burning a particular book, or a flag, is acknowledged as a form of protest, and cannot be legislated. On one day, they'll burn Qur'ans, the next day, someone will burn Bibles and U.S. flags here, and it is all protected speech.
Why is this? Because in the end, it would be those in power who get to decide what is hate speech and what is not, and we've never trusted them. It is far too easy, once "hate speech" and the like become illegal, for the powerful to muzzle the people. The Constitution prevents, for example, a Republican administration from passing a law that makes it illegal to criticize the Republican party. Or the President. Or any elected official.
This stuff has caused a huge disconnect with much of the world. Qur'an burning is the perfect example. Burning a particular book, or a flag, is acknowledged as a form of protest, and cannot be legislated. On one day, they'll burn Qur'ans, the next day, someone will burn Bibles and U.S. flags here, and it is all protected speech.
Why is this? Because in the end, it would be those in power who get to decide what is hate speech and what is not, and we've never trusted them. It is far too easy, once "hate speech" and the like become illegal, for the powerful to muzzle the people. The Constitution prevents, for example, a Republican administration from passing a law that makes it illegal to criticize the Republican party. Or the President. Or any elected official.
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Zabaniyah
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 14,925
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
Similar threads
- Article
