Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[latenightapplepie]

Well in reality you only ever have freedom of speech to an extent.

Exactly right. Completely free speech exists in no country on this earth. Defamation and hate-speech laws limit freedom of expression somewhat, which in my opinion, is a good thing. That said, freedom of speech in general is a good thing.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Australia doesn't have an explicit constitutional right to free speech and we're fine. Don't need it. Cops won't arrest you for sitting in a shop and saying why you think our Prime Minister is bad.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

 

[GodsAndFishes]

freedom of speech is fine as long as you obey Rule 0: Don't Be A Dick

 

[LockHeart]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

Well in that case we might as well just monitor the lives of everyone, every second of every day. One of the cornerstones of Common Law legal systems is the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty - what you're embracing is a step towards authoritarianism.

Let me tell you again, free speech has no limits. You cannot have a 'slight lack' of free speech, not noticing the loss of it is irrelevant. If I didn't notice that someone had stolen my watch or my phone, it wouldn't mean that it's acceptable for them to do so.

 

[cartzo]

freedom of speech seems like a good thing but then you get people like micheal savage who abuse the right they have been given to preach hate and intolerance.

the only solution i can come up with is to just tell people they have freedom of speech, but have a secret government organisation to keep people like micheal savage under control using poison darts and various other lethal objects, but obviously this will have its drawbacks (i think).

but dont read too much into that idea because i havent thought it through fully yet.

Or, and I know this will come as quite a shock, turn off the radio.

Or even better, create your own radio show and present the facts as you see them. If you have evidence he's a crazy liar, present it.

You cannot silence people because you think their ideas are foolish. Sooner or later, that logic will apply to everyone, and no one can say anything that crosses the party line.

i'm not really saying that because his ideas are foolish he shouldnt be allowed free speech, what i am saying is that the only idea i can come up with to get around the drawbacks of free speech is to secretly limit his right and to free speech and that of others like him to prevent him from preeching his ideas of hate and intolerance. but like i said i havent thought this idea through completely yet.

Or, publicly rebutt his viewpoints. Not every member of the public is an idiot who's going to be taken in by some rabid radio presenter.

Free speech has to be taken as a whole, drawbacks and all, or it isn't free speech.

As Agayek said, the moment you start limiting people's right to free speech, you move closer and closer to the concept of thought crime, a la 1984, and can be locked up or 'disappeared' by the government for having a dissenting opinion.

i know that not everyone is an idiot who is going to be taken in by a rabid radio presenter, but there are still alot of idiots out there, aswell as other fundamentalist christians that may be looking for ways to make themselves a better person. and of these potentially billions of people it only takes one to press a detonator, (i am terribly sorry if that comes across as a bit strong and i asure you there is no anger meant in that at all).

also i dont think that if the public dont know about there slight lack of free speech it will make much of a difference.

Well in that case we might as well just monitor the lives of everyone, every second of every day. One of the cornerstones of Common Law legal systems is the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty - what you're embracing is a step towards authoritarianism.

Let me tell you again, free speech has no limits. You cannot have a 'slight lack' of free speech, not noticing the loss of it is irrelevant. If I didn't notice that someone had stolen my watch or my phone, it wouldn't mean that it's acceptable for them to do so.

not watch them every second of every day just whenever they are speaking on radio or television or any other broadcast.

also i dont think that you can compare material loss to the loss of the right preech hate. but either way micheal savage who i mentioned way back has the right to preech his hate and intolerance on the radio as much as he likes in america, but in the uk (a country that is accepted world wide to have freedom of speech) this is illegal, this means that the uk does not have complete freedom of speech so i guess in a way what im really doing is defending the modern uk laws on these matters.....yeah i think i'll go with that.

back in the 80's the uk laws on freedom of speech were exactly the same as modern american laws on freedom of speech, but back in the 80's the uk was a deeply prejadice country, many bradcasters had micheal savage like views, there was alot of racism, and alot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed, so we drew a line.

 

[LockHeart]

*snip*

not watch them every second of every day just whenever they are speaking on radio or television or any other broadcast.

also i dont think that you can compare material loss to the loss of the right preech hate. but either way micheal savage who i mentioned way back has the right to preech his hate and intolerance on the radio as much as he likes in america, but in the uk (a country that is accepted world wide to have freedom of speech) this is illegal, this means that the uk does not have complete freedom of speech so i guess in a way what im really doing is defending the modern uk laws on these matters.....yeah i think i'll go with that.

back in the 80's the uk laws on freedom of speech were exactly the same as modern american laws on freedom of speech, but back in the 80's the uk was a deeply prejadice country, many bradcasters had micheal savage like views, there was alot of racism, and alot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed, so we drew a line.

So in other words, establish a political censor who dictates what can and cannot be aired? Niiiice. God, jackboots are so in aren't they?

I don't really see the difference between my example and yours, in both cases someone has had something taken from them without their ebing aware of it. In both cases, this does not mean that the person doing the taking was not wrong in doing so. There's a quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall that I live by: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I know about the UK laws covering freedom of speech, I'm studying them at the moment. Just because I live here doesn't mean that I agree with the laws my country has (far from it). Yes, freedom of speech here is a qualified right, but it should not be, else it is a contradiction in terms.

Is there a direct causal link between the views of 'many broadcasters' and the 'fact' that 'a lot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed'? I doubt it. But please, don't let me put you off finding evidence to support it.

 

[Cortheya]

Is it always good? No. Is it always necessary? YES!!!! Freedom CANNOT exist without it. People deserve to run around SCREAMING their terrible EVIL ideas all that they want, as long as they don't break any laws. Free speech is necessary

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Remember that someone, somewhere, thinks that YOU are evil and should be silenced for the good of all.

Should they be allowed to do so?

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Remember that someone, somewhere, thinks that YOU are evil and should be silenced for the good of all.

Should they be allowed to do so?

Thank you, now I don't have to say it.

You can't take away the free speech rights of those you perceive as idiots and leave the rights of those you perceive as "intelligent" intact. It doesn't work that way. It's either Free Speech for everyone or for nobody. Without that, well, we might as well be back in the era of American slavery, where people had rights based on their skin color (which is not to imply that there wasn't slavery elsewhere during that time period, because there was.)

Simply put, we should all have the same rights or all have NO rights. The claim that somebody's opinion is more valuable that somebody else's is completely subjective. Even IQ tests are not an accurate way of gauging intelligence, and judging something so important as the human right to speak one's mind based on a lesser, more intangible criteria (like popular opinion or personal bias) would just be moronic.


It's definitely all or nothing, and I absolutely think the right to Free Speech is necessary. Well, my computer is messing up, so I gotta go.

 

[z121231211]

I've lived in America my entire life so I'm a bit biased, but I love free speech and can't understand how countries get by without it.

 

[Darkmark44]

Good and Bad. I seen freedom of speech being abused by assholes that ruin something good, and then restricts enjoyment because of there freedom of speech.

However, its good to at least be able to speak out against something you do not agree with.

 

[cartzo]

*snip*

not watch them every second of every day just whenever they are speaking on radio or television or any other broadcast.

also i dont think that you can compare material loss to the loss of the right preech hate. but either way micheal savage who i mentioned way back has the right to preech his hate and intolerance on the radio as much as he likes in america, but in the uk (a country that is accepted world wide to have freedom of speech) this is illegal, this means that the uk does not have complete freedom of speech so i guess in a way what im really doing is defending the modern uk laws on these matters.....yeah i think i'll go with that.

back in the 80's the uk laws on freedom of speech were exactly the same as modern american laws on freedom of speech, but back in the 80's the uk was a deeply prejadice country, many bradcasters had micheal savage like views, there was alot of racism, and alot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed, so we drew a line.

So in other words, establish a political censor who dictates what can and cannot be aired? Niiiice. God, jackboots are so in aren't they?

I don't really see the difference between my example and yours, in both cases someone has had something taken from them without their ebing aware of it. In both cases, this does not mean that the person doing the taking was not wrong in doing so. There's a quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall that I live by: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

I know about the UK laws covering freedom of speech, I'm studying them at the moment. Just because I live here doesn't mean that I agree with the laws my country has (far from it). Yes, freedom of speech here is a qualified right, but it should not be, else it is a contradiction in terms.

Is there a direct causal link between the views of 'many broadcasters' and the 'fact' that 'a lot of homosexuals were beaten and even killed'? I doubt it. But please, don't let me put you off finding evidence to support it.

i never really said that there was a direct link between the views of broadcasters and 80's prejadiced violence, but think about it, that is what it was like before the line was drawn, afterwards however statistics of these racially and homophobically motivated attacks have fallen dramatically, dont know if it was gradually or instantly but they definately have fallen. in america however a line has never been drawn, and their statistics on prejadiced violence (which are shockingly high) have never really changed.

also you seem to say that what we have in this country should not be called freedom of speech, may i say part of the plan i stated was that the public should never under any circumstances know that they dont have complete freedom of speech, can you imagine what the reaction would be if the government told the public that none of them have complete freedom of speech.

p.s. what are jackboots?

 

[Agayek]

[i never really said that there was a direct link between the views of broadcasters and 80's prejadiced violence, but think about it, that is what it was like before the line was drawn, afterwards however statistics of these racially and homophobically motivated attacks have fallen dramatically, dont know if it was gradually or instantly but they definately have fallen. in america however a line has never been drawn, and their statistics on prejadiced violence (which are shockingly high) have never really changed.

also you seem to say that what we have in this country should not be called freedom of speech, may i say part of the plan i stated was that the public should never under any circumstances know that they dont have complete freedom of speech, can you imagine what the reaction would be if the government told the public that none of them have complete freedom of speech.

p.s. what are jackboots?

What you're failing to understand is that it doesn't matter if the public is aware of it or not. Whether they know it or not, you are still limiting what ideas can be expressed and therefore there is no free speech.

It is not a very large step to go from "He's preaching hate, we must silence him!" to "He's preaching against society, we must silence him!". And as soon as that line is crossed, any form of free thinking becomes outlawed.

 

[Vash108]

Yes it is good.

It protects peoples rights to be as much of a jackass as they want. It allows people to protest against things they do not agree with. It allows the 2 majority parties to act like little children bickering and pointing fingers at each other and everyone else.

Being told what you can and cannot say is ridiculous.

 

[cartzo]

[i never really said that there was a direct link between the views of broadcasters and 80's prejadiced violence, but think about it, that is what it was like before the line was drawn, afterwards however statistics of these racially and homophobically motivated attacks have fallen dramatically, dont know if it was gradually or instantly but they definately have fallen. in america however a line has never been drawn, and their statistics on prejadiced violence (which are shockingly high) have never really changed.

also you seem to say that what we have in this country should not be called freedom of speech, may i say part of the plan i stated was that the public should never under any circumstances know that they dont have complete freedom of speech, can you imagine what the reaction would be if the government told the public that none of them have complete freedom of speech.

p.s. what are jackboots?

What you're failing to understand is that it doesn't matter if the public is aware of it or not. Whether they know it or not, you are still limiting what ideas can be expressed and therefore there is no free speech.

It is not a very large step to go from "He's preaching hate, we must silence him!" to "He's preaching against society, we must silence him!". And as soon as that line is crossed, any form of free thinking becomes outlawed.

but like i said earlier, in the uk it was made illegal to preech hate on radio or television in the late 80's, if what you say is true then free thinking in the uk should have been outlawed by now.

also its not that im failing to understand that it doesnt matter if the public is aware of it or not, its just that i dont really think thats the case, i can see why you beleive that, to borrow a simile from my good friend lockheart if a man steels a watch but the owner doesnt notice then yes the watch has still been stolen, but since the owner didnt notice the only conciquence i can think of is that some f$%8#r has gained a free watch.

 

[teutonicman]

Yes that's true about the bigot's and what not. But NOTHING is 100% completely god or evil, it's all about the grey.

 

[Agayek]

but like i said earlier, in the uk it was made illegal to preech hate on radio or television in the late 80's, if what you say is true then free thinking in the uk should have been outlawed by now.

I never said it was a guaranteed, or swift, progression. It may take a long time, it may happen overnight, or it may never happen. I, for one, don't trust the government to be eternally altruistic though. And if you do, well I'm sure there's some headlight fluid I can sell you around here somewhere.

Also, I meant "impossible", not outlawed. As soon as you shut down any form of speech, you curtail the creation of ideas, and this leads directly to limiting thought.

 

[JodaSFU]

Is it necessary? No, it is not imperative to have free speech. But it is important in order to maintain the level of welfare and prosperity we have in the Western part of the world today (espcially Europe). But there are several other world views than what we take for granted i.e. fascism, nazism etc.

 

[cartzo]

but like i said earlier, in the uk it was made illegal to preech hate on radio or television in the late 80's, if what you say is true then free thinking in the uk should have been outlawed by now.

I never said it was a guaranteed, or swift, progression. It may take a long time, it may happen overnight, or it may never happen. I, for one, don't trust the government to be eternally altruistic though. And if you do, well I'm sure there's some headlight fluid I can sell you around here somewhere.

Also, I meant "impossible", not outlawed. As soon as you shut down any form of speech, you curtail the creation of ideas, and this leads directly to limiting thought.

you may be right to say that to shut down any form of free speech is to curtail the creation of ideas, but shut down a form of free speech (i.e the preeching of hate on broadcast) is exactly what we have done, and statistics show that it has saved alot of lives.