Poll: Free Speech, Necessary?

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

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

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.

I think my last post gives me a cast-iron defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity", no matter what I am charged with. Of course, if you go on my post / rant up there, any doctor who could support that theory would also have no right to free speech themselves...

 

[Agayek]

No, parliament is a two party system where the ruling mob out-shouts the other mob in order to satisfy their voters, not progress the country.
May want to learn a bit about the problems of implementing democracy, you forgot to mention that Parliament costs of parties.

You're assuming everyone in your council will always agree on everything. Sorry to say, that's not the way life works.

People will divide into groups based on their opinions on various issues. And guess what happens then? You have political parties.

Where is your proof for your fact? There is an actual psychological experiment which has proven that cooperation will always get you further than doing something for your own gain.

I'll see if I can find the article that was talking about. Basic summary was a psychologist wanted to see how prisoners react to prison, so he got a bunch of students at his university together for the experiment over the summer. It took about 3 days for the students in place as "guards" to rather horrifically abuse the "prisoners". And the 2 week experiment ended up being canceled before the first week was out.

The problem is you think that by helping yourself, you won't help other people, which just isn't true - certain qualities like honour and morality generally overcome personal want. And what you fail to see is that with Martin Luther King etc that even though a small part was for personal gain, they made such a big difference that any personal gain is outwieghed by what the majority gains.
You seem to illogically think that something done for your own gain is always bad, which just isn't true.

When did I say that? I said people are motivated by personal gain. I made no judgment on the morality of same.

You seem to think that everyone is equal and everyone's opinion is valid which is utter *****. A thug from Liverpool's opinion is not as valuable as a hard working business man, or a person of a low intellects ideas are not as valuable as someone who is brighter. It's simple. Some people are smarter, and so will make better decisions than others. The thick/average person likes low taxes. But anyone with a brain means low taxes means less money for the government so a decline in standards somewhere along the line.
Thinking that everyone's voice is valuable just isn't true.

Nope. People are not equal. And people's opinions are very frequently invalid. I have never once said that all opinions are of equal value/validity/applicability.

All I have been saying all along is that you have no basis to deny them their right to express that opinion. Just because it's a stupid opinion doesn't mean they can't have it, or express it. It doesn't make it an intelligent position to hold, but the decision to hold it is theirs, not yours.

If a council of, say, 50 was elected say by the top business men and intellects, you cannot say that your decision, or anyone else's is more valuable, or just as valuable as there's. Simply put, they are brighter and so will make better decisions as they have a better comprehension of the future & how the world works. If you think that a plumber from Warrington's views are just as valuable, I ask how?

You honestly have no idea how the world works do you?

Those top business men and intellectuals will simply vote for the people that will further their goals. The common people will be horribly oppressed and eventually a revolution will spark.

This isn't about all opinions being equal. This is about the basic human right to think, feel, and say what you want. Of course some redneck from podunk Alabama will be completely useless for political discourse. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to say "I hate Obama!".

What you are trying to do is oppress any ideas that you think are foolish. That is the very heart of totalitarianism, and goes against almost every major Western political philosophy of the last 200 years.

 

[Kiutu]

In another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.112660], I discussed human rights in Saudi Arabia. Here, The Topic is Freedom of speech, is it good or bad?

Of course, the awnser by the majority will be yes, (I'll be among them) 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, I can think of many flaws in their argument, but I'll stop a wall of text, and let you guys awnser.

Its those who wish to hinder our speech who GIVE the power to the bigots. Swear words are only bad because people treat them so. Sure if I said' Fuck you" to you, it wont make you feel good (generally) but if people freaked if I said "Funkle you" and I used it in a mean way, it would be just as bad.
Free speech however, also lets flaws in other things be shown. If no one speaks out against a wrong, it is not likely to get fixed.

 

[wordsmith]

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

Good luck defending yourself in a courtroom, buddy.

I think my last post gives me a cast-iron defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity", no matter what I am charged with. Of course, if you go on my post / rant up there, any doctor who could support that theory would also have no right to free speech themselves...

Nope, I'd say you'd get declared fully sane, just heavily opinionated (which, of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with). My point is that Lawyers are your legal mouthpiece for when you DO end up in court, and so silencing them is a bit like throwing away a microphone to talk to everyone at a concert. A loud concert.

 

[A random person]

The problem with censorship is how easy it is to abuse and in defining what is harmful speech. Someone is going to use it for personal good.
Besides, if we banned bigots from speaking, it may be good at first, but things would be boring. If I didn't have people who were too stuck in tradition or close minded, I would be bored out of my fucking mind.

 

[Blood_Lined]

Free speech is obviously a good thing; and it IS as simple as that.

 

[Agayek]

A council wouldn't need a perfect vote all the time, and the problem with political parties is that it becomes a race to win the retarded public over, not do what is best for the public.
Yeah I know the test you're on about, which was very shocking. Just goes to show how average Joe is dangerous. Something I don't know the answer to, but would be needed is to make sure that everyone running a country put their country first, and themselves second.
I can see what you saying, that denying a person to speak is wrong. But...why? Surely it'd be better to brainwash the plebs into liking/accepting their existance allowing them to be happy/ier, rather then having them moan all the time about a concept they can't grasp. Just a thought.
Business men & intellectuals, with the right insentive, wouldn't have any goals to further, and making sure their mindset is right, they'd just further the country as a whole.
As for Western philosophy, the only good western philosophy was 2000 years ago =p

Two major counterpoints:

1) Everyone always has a goal to further. It doesn't matter who they are or what their position is. As long as they're alive, they are working towards a goal of some kind.

2) Brainwashing the masses is a terrible idea. It stifles innovation and cuts down the very heart of what it means to be human. If you want to be supreme overlord of the universe, it's a great idea, because no one will ever challenge you, but the only way for people to grow is to challenge everything, constantly, for no reason other than that they can. To be human is to think, and you can't formulate thought if the words to represent those ideas do not exist.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Your topic title and question posed aren't exactly the same.
Is it good to have? Yes.
Is it necessary for people to be happy? No.

I agree. Free speech is a right that most of us enjoy, however I don't think that its entitled to us.

Honestly? You're just fine with being told what you are allowed to say? I think you are looking at this wrong. The right question is not "are we entitled to free speech?" The right question is "who the hell has the right to deny us free speech?"

 

[Bobkat1252]

Free speech is to me one of the most important freedoms. It was said earlier on in this thread but I'll reiterate it, read [i/]1984[/i] and you will truly appreciate free speech for what it is.

Someone said earlier in the thread that free speech is not entitled to people and is not necessary to be happy, I must respectfully disagree, every person has the right to freedom of speech, expression, and their lifestyle choice no matter who they are. Sure, people can disagree with your ideas, choices, and beliefs, in fact I encourage people to express their disapproval (freedom of speech again) but they however do not have the right to impose their way of life on you. This goes for governments as well.

In short: People have the right to live their life their way and to say what they want to so long as it poses no grievous threat to another person's safety or well being or infringes upon another person's individual rights.

At least, that's my opinion.

Your topic title and question posed aren't exactly the same.
Is it good to have? Yes.
Is it necessary for people to be happy? No.

I agree. Free speech is a right that most of us enjoy, however I don't think that its entitled to us.

Honestly? You're just fine with being told what you are allowed to say? I think you are looking at this wrong. The right question is not "are we entitled to free speech?" The right question is "who the hell has the right to deny us free speech?"

Couldn't agree with you more S.H.P.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Necessary to live a happy, good life.

I'd beg to differ on that. Sure it helps, but if you've got free speech and no food you probably won't be very happy [/nitpicking]

In all seriousness, I think freedom of speech is typically the most abused freedom, because unfortunately most people don't seem to want to take responsibility for what they say, and any time the government or someone else tries to put responsibilities on what they in all accounts are still free to say, they run around waving giant freedom banners ranting on about how the school principals are trying to turn the place into a fascist dictatorship (true story). In short, yes I do believe we should be free to say what we want, but we must also accept the responsibility of possessing that freedom. I've got a good article that discusses what I've been talking about, if I find it I'll add it to my post.

Interestinng, and true.

Here is the article, you may find it a good read. It's interesting to say the least

http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/learning-self-discipline.htm

 

[CosmicCommander]

PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH:
- Ron Paul.

Hell Yeah

 

[JWAN]

how do you run a country if you don't know the needs and wants of its people?

but let me say that their is also a fine line between free speech and slander/libel

 

[traceur_]

Just look at North Korea... Do they have free speech? No. Is it a fucking awsome country? Yes.

No, no it is not, just no.

For as long as kim jong il is in power it will not be an awesome country, people have been shot for trying to leave.

 

[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.

 

[roboosh]

Just look at North Korea... Do they have free speech? No. Is it a fucking awsome country? Yes.

Okay...

I think your referring to South Korea...

I am referring to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Stop it. Now.

 

[Agayek]

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.

 

[Sewblon]

Without free speech this website probably would not exist so I voted yes. They only way to really eliminate bad ideas is to show everyone how flawed they are and that doesn't happen if you can't discuss them publicly to begin with.

 

[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.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There are bad things that come with freedom of speech. There are worse things that come without it. Pick your poision. Me? I'll take my freedom and it's ills.

 

[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.