Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nullBolt]

Since Gregory Alan Elliot has been declared not guilty (which is really no sort of a shock since there was nothing even approaching illegal that he did) and Germany and the Netherlands having some serious problems with freedom of expression lately, I think a free speech thread might be an idea.

So, guys: What do you think should be protected under freedom of speech? Should it be everything? Everything except violence? Everything except anything offensive? Where should the limitations on freedom of speech be set? Is it inhibiting someone's freedom of speech for a customer to get someone fired based on their political opinions?

Just some seeder questions for you guys.

P.S. Be excellent to each other.

[Bortness]

Free speech MUST include everything.  Else it is useless.
The only speech that needs protecting is the stuff that people don't want to hear.  Therefore, ALL expression must be protected lest it be totally useless.
Free speech for everything "except" certain topics is precisely what you get in totalitarian nations - the only question is, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable drawn?

[Egan_BW]

I will exercise my right to free speech to shitpost in this thread.
john madden john madden john madden john madden john madden john madden john madden

[nullBolt]

Free speech MUST include everything.  Else it is useless.
The only speech that needs protecting is the stuff that people don't want to hear.  Therefore, ALL expression must be protected lest it be totally useless.
Free speech for everything "except" certain topics is precisely what you get in totalitarian nations - the only question is, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable drawn?

My university has a policy along the lines of "in order to allow freedom of speech, we will not tolerate any guest lecturer with views that disagree with freedom of speech".

So, to enable freedom of speech, they have disabled freedom of speech. It's just a very situation.

I will exercise my right to free speech to shitpost in this thread.

Funnily enough, this is actually a part of the debate. Is filibustering (or trolling or shitposting) freedom of speech or the limiting of other people's freedom of speech?

[Bortness]

Free speech MUST include everything.  Else it is useless.
The only speech that needs protecting is the stuff that people don't want to hear.  Therefore, ALL expression must be protected lest it be totally useless.
Free speech for everything "except" certain topics is precisely what you get in totalitarian nations - the only question is, where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable drawn?

My university has a policy along the lines of "in order to allow freedom of speech, we will not tolerate any guest lecturer with views that disagree with freedom of speech".

So, to enable freedom of speech, they have disabled freedom of speech. It's just a very situation.

I will exercise my right to free speech to shitpost in this thread.

Funnily enough, this is actually a part of the debate. Is filibustering (or trolling or shitposting) freedom of speech or the limiting of other people's freedom of speech?

The very word "university" is a sick joke these days.

[mainiac]

Free speech doesn't mean you are required to promote views you oppose.


Alttext: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

The very word "university" is a sick joke these days.

I find that all institutions that have differing views from mine are sick jokes these days.

[nullBolt]

Free speech doesn't mean you are required to promote views you oppose.

No, but it does suggest that if you don't then you're scared of what those opposing views may have to say.

<snip>
Alttext: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.

Really probably the worst XKCD comic I've ever seen.

I find that all institutions that have differing views from mine are sick jokes these days.

A lot of people believe that universities shouldn't have a view, though, or at least not a dominant and codified one. That's the reality of it.

[mainiac]

I notice you didn't include any child pornography in that post.  Please, tell me why you didn't.

[Bortness]

Free speech doesn't mean you are required to promote views you oppose.

There is a big difference between promoting a view, and forcing a person expressing that view to shut up.

The very word "university" is a sick joke these days.

I find that all institutions that have differing views from mine are sick jokes these days.

Are you seriously not able to comprehend the "universalism" that is implied in calling an institution of higher learning a "university"?  This has nothing to do with "differing views from mine."

[Bortness]

I notice you didn't include any child pornography in that post.  Please, tell me why you didn't.

Perhaps because child porn is not intended to communicate a concept between parties.

[mainiac]

There is a big difference between promoting a view, and forcing a person expressing that view to shut up.

There sure is.  And that big difference is probably why only one is covered by law.

I notice you didn't include any child pornography in that post.  Please, tell me why you didn't.

Perhaps because child porn is not intended to communicate a concept between parties.

Ah, so it's an absolute, sacred principle which you reserve the right to decide the applicability of.  What a convenient thing for your moral absolutism!  It allows you to condemn others but the rule is not allowed to be used in judgement on you.

I notice your post didn't include any calls for jihad against the west and excecution of journalists, a reprehensible political stance but certainly one that can be considered communication of a concept between parties.  Care to explain?

[nullBolt]

<snip>

Probably because it's irrelevant to the discussion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If there's a discussion on the necessity of the economic poor, there's a world of difference between including what you're saying and including all sides of a debate. You're just be facetious for the sake of being facetious.

There sure is.  And that big difference is probably why only one is covered by law.

What about if people prevent people attending a speech by someone they disagree with? That's not censorship? If I were to pull the fire alarms on a speech that you wanted to attend so that you could not attend it, that would not be censorship?

[Bortness]

There is a big difference between promoting a view, and forcing a person expressing that view to shut up.

There sure is.  And that big difference is probably why only one is covered by law.

Actually, the law only covers Congress making additional laws.  It does not apply to private institutions in the least.  The argument in this sense is merely a moral one about a supposed center of higher learning and debate shutting down all debate over some ideological leaning.  This is not illegal, it is merely crappy.

I notice you didn't include any child pornography in that post.  Please, tell me why you didn't.

Perhaps because child porn is not intended to communicate a concept between parties.

Ah, so it's an absolute, sacred principle which you reserve the right to decide the applicability of.  What a convenient thing for your moral absolutism!  It allows you to condemn others but the rule is not allowed to be used in judgement on you.

I notice your post didn't include any calls for jihad against the west and excecution of journalists, a reprehensible political stance but certainly one that can be considered communication of a concept between parties.  Care to explain?

Care to explain?  What in the world is wrong with you?  It's because I don't believe in those viewpoints.  Others who do believe in those viewpoints say that kind of stuff quite regularly.

[mainiac]

Probably because it's irrelevant to the discussion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So to recap:
People dont express what I want = oppression
People dont express what I dont want = pragmatism

The best sacred, inviolable standards are those that are completely subjective.

Care to explain?  What in the world is wrong with you?  It's because I don't believe in those viewpoints.  Others who do believe in those viewpoints say that kind of stuff quite regularly.

You just accused people of censorship for not promoting views they disagree with.

There is a big difference between promoting a view, and forcing a person expressing that view to shut up.

Grrrrr, why are you promoting censorship 

[Bortness]

Ah, so it's an absolute, sacred principle which you reserve the right to decide the applicability of.  What a convenient thing for your moral absolutism!  It allows you to condemn others but the rule is not allowed to be used in judgement on you.

I notice your post didn't include any calls for jihad against the west and excecution of journalists, a reprehensible political stance but certainly one that can be considered communication of a concept between parties.  Care to explain?

This is a farce.  You are essentially arguing that being a supporter of absolute free speech requires me to personally espouse concepts that I find abhorrent.  That is a ludicrous position to take.