Originally posted by Fire
Freedom of speech is idiotic, there are tons of limitations that should be in place in my opinion. I won't start to name them all, but there will be prolly be a lot more than most forum members agree with. Freedom of thought is absolute freedom of speech is not
of course and still i highly doubt there's absolute freedom of speech anywhere.. media really matters to ppl... and they'd believe anything that it says...
Freedom Of Speech
I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.
Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.
Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?
What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?
Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.
What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?
Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...
Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.
The law in Canada is you can't go on public waves (radio,tv and such) and make start saying racist things. The owner of the station can lose its license as some people have seen happen in Quebec. However public demonstration of so called "white power, Nazi groups are legal" but won't happen because it started one big fight last time.
So if i go on radio and saw Jews drink the blood of baby's, the radio has to cut that out and cut that person off. If not the station is charged. I heard otherwise in the US where all sorts of people call each other many names on the radio. It should be controlled because who wants to hear the bull crap of neo-nazis groups and such.
Every Western country should have equality rights section in their Constitution. Lol they most oddest people are those who say whites have no power. Ha HAHHAHA Thats the dumbest thing i heard. STupid racist idiots!
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.
Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?
What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?
Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.
What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?
Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...
Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.
Freedom of Speech, as it is defined in the US Constitution, grants the right to say what you please until it infringes upon the rights of another person. Most American's don't realize this, though, which is why we have problems with racist groups who say that they're only practicing their freedom of speech. Truth is, promoting such ideas as hate organizations generally do is infringing upon the freedoms that the people they speak out against have.
The one thing that really bothers me is censorship. Pay attention to what your ****ing kids are watching on TV and stop bitching.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.
Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?
What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?
Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.
What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?
Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...
Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.
I do believe in freedom of speech but as you said it does have it's pros and it's cons.
When it comes to general media, it should be allowed, even radical groups such as the KKK, and the Nazis. If you do not wish to read, watch, hear it then you just don't and however stupid these groups might be, those who wish to hear, watch, read, etc. should be able to.
Now when it comes to political secrets, I think only if the 'secret' puts in immiate danger to an individual, it shouldn't be 'released'.
And I know there would be people offended, but they should really think about it, if they want their culture, believes and ideals to be public, isn't it right for others to have the same rights? I know, 'our believes do not include killing every jewish man on earth' but having the ideals published don't kill people, people kill people.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sadly, the spreading of such ideas DOES kill people.Besides, by any logic it should be illegal to incite illegal acts.
how about the Anarchist cook book... it's not illegal in the states.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless, incitement is still an issue.
It is, and the main one as regards freedom of speech.
From a civil liberties perspective- we can do that which is not outlawed- there often appear to be infringements upon our freedom of speech, and that is generally when people begin to question the correctness of impediments to free speech.
In the human rights paradigm, as in the UK, there is a more amenable balance. Freedom of speech is protected under Article 10 of the HRA, but it must be balanced against other rights such as Article 8, the right to privacy and family life.
One right against another.
The same concept is at the heart of incitement laws, which also technically limit freedom of speech, but with a view to preventing harm.
To this extent there must be limits. It would be impossible to have complete freedom of speech in any case, because it would also overlap with many other offences, such as abetting, counselling or procuring.
Re: A bill in Congress
Originally posted by ESB -1138
A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.How in the world is that right!? That is against our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!This is a complete outrage!
That's why I'm an atheist.
Also, like Casey said, this should be in the Religion Forum.