Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[ParkourMcGhee]

How about the freedom of speech of other countries (any and every country, no matter whether Saudi Arabia, european union, asia, oceania or wherever to stick two fingers up to America telling everybody what to do and how to run their countries?

 

[Valiance]

My boy, you suggest a forced Utopia, which would not be a Utopia at all.

 

[Agayek]

There's a difference between being bright and conceited.
Your idea works on the belief that people are power hungry & will only act to better their position. This isn't true.
Look at South Korea's military dictator from the 1960's onwards (I think from then) who made everyone work 7 days a week, not to line his own pocket, but to bring the country into the modern world.
Look at Ataturk. Did he bring Turkey into the western world for personal gain? No, for his country, and to this day, the country still upholds those ideals.
If there was a council, it'd have to be composed of people who put the good of the nation & country before themselves & they do exist. In that way, and a large enough council, no one would be able to, or essentially want to, manipulate others for power.
The great thing with people is you can limit speech & a lot of them wouldn't care over time. It's only a social mindset which has people value free speech. End of the day if I was to use my right to free speech and say Gordon Brown is a ******, it doesn't matter. 99% of the time free speech is frivolous and not really anything of value.

Do you have any concept of history? At all?

You are proposing something that simply does not happen. Ever.

What you are suggesting, in the form of a council, already exists. It is called Parliament, or Congress, depending on where you live. Yet time and again they've proven their corruption and ineptitude.

People are people. You cannot say "Oh everyone in this position will always be a virtuous flower child and never do any wrong", because that simply doesn't happen. All people, in all places, are motivated by personal gain. It may not be a tangible thing they're after, but in the end, everyone does everything for themselves.

Seriously, please brush up on history, the human tendency to abuse power, and the end result of any regime that does not tolerate dissent.


Edit:

How about the freedom of speech of other countries (any and every country, no matter whether Saudi Arabia, european union, asia, oceania or wherever to stick two fingers up to America telling everybody what to do and how to run their countries?

Yup. All those countries are free to tell the US to fuck off, and I encourage it.

Until they start legally killing, maiming or otherwise physically abusing their subjects. Then they can shut the fuck up and die. Just like the US government can if they try the same.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Good, and in an ideal society everyone would have it. Unfortunately, in this complex world we live in, free speech can cause problems. It's not always possible.
So far in the modern age most countries have managed to sustain it without serious problems, and for that I am grateful. It may not always be like that though.

 

[Simonccx]

to think freely is to challenge ourselves, to talk freely is to challenge the world around us, and to be free is just challenging.

 

[ike42]

By saying that you don't want anyone to say or think something just because it conflicts with your own outlook you confirm yourself as a fascist. If you think that controlling people's thoughts is a good idea you need to read 1984. I'm not saying that it's cool to be a bigot, but people should have the right to choose. People should be able to say whatever they want, you don't have to believe it or let it affect you. It's only when they try to force their ideas on you in a public forum like legislature that is really important. Freedom is something that applies to all of us or it applies to none of us. Unfortunately that means jerks too.

 

[LockHeart]

Free speech/expression = necessary for a free society. Without the freedom to state our objection to things, our views and opinions and our beliefs, we are not living in a free society, end of.

 

[Deacon Cole]

...but many people, see free speech as a barrier to progress, a way for the bad guys to harm us, and bigots to make people evil,...

Many people are morons.

An argument is only as strong as it's opposition.

Free speech means allowing the bad with the good.

Too bad America doesn't really have freedom of speech anymore. Just ask the Dixie Chicks []

 

[JaredXE]

I believe everyone, EVERYONE, has the right and duty to speak freely. I don't care what you say, you can be KKK, neo-nazi, Ann Coulter....doesn't matter, you have the right to spout your opinion. And I have the right to ignore you. Or argue with you. Or shoot you (wait, forget that last one. Damn gun control laws).

What happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? Is it now "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will hurt my inner child forever"? You don't like what people say, then remove yourself from the situation or do something(non-violent) to shut them up.

Me personally, I'm a smart-ass. If it wasn't for Freedom of Speech, I would be locked away or stoned by the village folk. I am very glad I live in this time and this country or else I would have been burned at the stake for speaking out against authority a long time ago.

 

[Lord Honk]

free speech is probably the worst solution,
apart from the alternatives...

i really think that free speech is somewhat of a farce cause those with charisma can turn (nearly) every crowd, regardless of their (the charismatic ones) ambitions. therefore, yeah, kinda sucks, but still better that total censorship. history has shown us many examples that that's NOT the way to do it.

 

[KillerScott]

Definatly Not

 

[Sugarfluff]

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Which is why I think that democracy needs to be modified. Turning 18 should not justify ones right to vote (not sure on how it works in other countries, in Sweden we vote at 18). They should really have a voters test (sort of a drivers test) that one has to pass to be able to influence the direction of ones nation.

As for Freedom of speech. It's something that belongs with that Utopian dream that will never completely become reality.

 

[JaredXE]

There's a difference between being bright and conceited.
Your idea works on the belief that people are power hungry & will only act to better their position. This isn't true.
Look at South Korea's military dictator from the 1960's onwards (I think from then) who made everyone work 7 days a week, not to line his own pocket, but to bring the country into the modern world.
Look at Ataturk. Did he bring Turkey into the western world for personal gain? No, for his country, and to this day, the country still upholds those ideals.
If there was a council, it'd have to be composed of people who put the good of the nation & country before themselves & they do exist. In that way, and a large enough council, no one would be able to, or essentially want to, manipulate others for power.
The great thing with people is you can limit speech & a lot of them wouldn't care over time. It's only a social mindset which has people value free speech. End of the day if I was to use my right to free speech and say Gordon Brown is a ******, it doesn't matter. 99% of the time free speech is frivolous and not really anything of value.

Do you have any concept of history? At all?

You are proposing something that simply does not happen. Ever.
[ Sorry, look what you just quoted.... ]

What you are suggesting, in the form of a council, already exists. It is called Parliament, or Congress, depending on where you live. Yet time and again they've proven their corruption and ineptitude.

People are people. You cannot say "Oh everyone in this position will always be a virtuous flower child and never do any wrong", because that simply doesn't happen. All people, in all places, are motivated by personal gain. It may not be a tangible thing they're after, but in the end, everyone does everything for themselves.

Seriously, please brush up on history, the human tendency to abuse power, and the end result of any regime that does not tolerate dissent.

I just gave you historical cases, and you then follow them up by saying "that never happens"?? How'd you figure that one out?
If you really think parliament is anything like what I just described, you need to brush up on the political system. Parliament is full of self righteous snobs that do what they want for business, not the good of the country.
I clearly didn't say everyone in that posistion would be perfect, but I'm saying it would be possible to find people who have the right goals and motivations. You seem to think that power instantly corrupts everyone like some kind of Midas Touch.
Plus it's been proven that to act for your own gain will never get you as far as co-operation. Ever. So it is in people's best interest to work with each other.
Less Nietzschean thinking that everyone is out for themselves. A lot of people are, but as we've agreed, the average person is an idiot & so can't be trusted.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Betterment of the structure at the expense of the people is not necessarily the best choice. Now I know that there can be cases made for and against, but in general, those that seek power are the ones who should never have it.

You mention the the South Korean military dictator, Park was his name btw, and the economic reform he instituted. Well, the dictatorship was not so much a dictatorship, but the military holding the reigns for 2 years following a disasterous 8 month regime until they voluntarily opened up presidential elections. Since 1948, S.Korea has been primarily a democracy. And those economic reforms? Park co-opted them from the previous elected government, who never got around to implementing them before the coup.

Very few governments: elected, parlimentary, republic, dictatorship, or military junta, EVER have the betterment of the people in mind. Or when they do, it's the betterment of THEIR people, and screw everyone else. People are inherently greedy, horny, stupid and selfish. Why do you think Marxism never works? It's fine on paper, sure. But put it into practice and you see people placing themselves above others, being "More Equal" amongst equals.

 

[Agayek]

I just gave you historical cases, and you then follow them up by saying "that never happens"?? How'd you figure that one out?

What the guy above me said.

If you really think parliament is anything like what I just described, you need to brush up on the political system. Parliament is full of self righteous snobs that do what they want for business, not the good of the country.
I clearly didn't say everyone in that posistion would be perfect, but I'm saying it would be possible to find people who have the right goals and motivations. You seem to think that power instantly corrupts everyone like some kind of Midas Touch.
Plus it's been proven that to act for your own gain will never get you as far as co-operation. Ever. So it is in people's best interest to work with each other.
Less Nietzschean thinking that everyone is out for themselves. A lot of people are, but as we've agreed, the average person is an idiot & so can't be trusted.

Parliament is exactly what you described. A ruling council that sets the laws and works for the betterment of the people. The problem is the people that fill it. And since we've already agreed people are idiots, why do those idiots have the right to tell me what to do?

People given power will abuse it. That is a psychological fact.

You're right at the end though, cooperation will get you much farther than working on your own. But then, working together is working for your own interests. There isn't a single person, past or present, who has ever done something for no personal gain. Let's look at the normal examples people provide to prove me wrong:

Ghandi: Freed his people, and consequently himself, from British oppression.

Mother Theresa: Felt the need to help the poor. Went out to help them to fulfill that need.

MLK Jr: Saw oppression, went out and fought to bring equality.

Not a single one of them did anything that wasn't for personal gain.

Humans are selfish creatures. It's natural, and it's not a bad thing, but that is the way we are.



Also, even if you disagree with all of my points, who would choose this almighty council of the virtuous? And if it's anything other than "the people" (which would make it Parliament), why do they have the moral authority to choose who fills such powerful positions?

No matter what you think, no one has the right to be better than the rest of society, as you suggest.

 

[Agayek]

As with the other thread, your question is too simplistic. Is unlimited free speach good? No. Is free speach with reasonable limits good? Yes. Is the lack of any right to free speach good? No.

How is unlimited free speech bad?

The only scenario I can think of would be the classic "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater", but that I see more as inciting panic (similar to firing a gun in the same theater) than falling under the "free speech" category.

 

[Thegoodfriar]

There are bad people... That's a fact, Timothy McVeigh or Jeffry Dommer prove that fact. But as much as people can use free speech as a way to try to frighten people, that's all they can do.

Also there is a limit to free speech, I live in a fairly racist area of Indiana and it is not uncommon to see a KKK rally, or them demonstrating at public events.

Although I completely disagree with their viewpoints it is unfair to take away their rights. Yet the second it becomes threatening it can be viewed as conspiracy, and people can be arrested.

All in all, free speech is necessary. At least in a democratic format like the U.S. or other such countries.

 

[scotth266]

Of course free speech is important. It's also important to be civil though: that's the part people have trouble grasping.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes, it's good. Yes, it's neccisary for a function goverment. Yes, you should be able to say what you want. I really would like to see someone's arguement for it being a bad thing though.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Well everyone seems to agree that free speech is generally a good thing but open to abuse. Let's be a bit less diplomatic, and a lot more specific, shall we?

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Ron Perlman.
- Ron Paul.
- Ron Atkinson.
- Come to think of it, just about anyone whose first name is "Ron".

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Fourteen-year-olds on gaming servers.
- Anyone, no matter what age, who uses any of the following phrases online, in any forum whatsoever: "LOL", "ROFL", "ROFLMAO" or "PWNED".
- Apple zealots.
- Linux zealots.
- Any other technology zealots.
- The campaign for bilingual road signs in Wales. ("And you have to put the Welsh above the English please.")
- Britney Spears.
- The Westboro Church Foundation.
- Any wretched scum-of-the-earth lily-livered pierced-eyebrowed pink-shirt-wearing glue-sniffing floppy-haired fatherless barefooted so-called human being whose life's ambition is to go into any of the following trades: marketing, public relations, policy analysis, civil service.
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.
- David Beckham.
- Anyone who uses the phrase: "It's only a game, innit?"
- Victoria Beckham.
- Anyone who thinks the illegal immigrants are doing them out of a job.
- Anybody who thinks they're just a little bit better than anyone else. (Also see: anyone who talks to their friends like Barney the purple dinosaur would.)
- Anybody who uses any of the following words in casual conversation: "Indubitably", "Prescient", "Monopoly" or "Coalition".
- "Persecuted" smokers.
- Anyone who uses their kids as an excuse for being a bad person.
- Anyone who thinks the world owes them a break.
- Gossip columnists of any description. (Come to think of it, they probably shouldn't have the right to life either.)
- Anyone not covered in the above, apart from me.
- Me. (For evidence of why I shouldn't be allowed free speech, look at everything above this line.)

Soooo... I guess I'm anti-free speech then!

 

[wordsmith]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Lawyers. Just lawyers.

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.