Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[cthulhuspawn82]

Being offended is a choice. You cant blame someone else for a choice you made.

I also think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, whatever trouble this may cause. It needs to happen because this line is always used to shut down free speech in totally unrelated ways. E.G. you cant say that trans-women aren't really women because you cant shout fire in a public theater. Like how the hell are the two even related?

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Hmmm no not really, being offended is to do with feelings, people don't actively go out of their way to choose to be offended.

You don't shout at a girl that she's a fucking n***** that needs to die when you see her walking down the street then watch her choose to be offended, she just will be.

And what happens if you shout that at a girl and she doesn't get offended? If being called a "fucking n*****" is an offensive statement that leaves one no choice but to be offended, then how is that person not offended? Can you explain it without attributing that person with some indeterminable quality such as "privilege"?

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Hmmm no not really, being offended is to do with feelings, people don't actively go out of their way to choose to be offended.

You don't shout at a girl that she's a fucking n***** that needs to die when you see her walking down the street then watch her choose to be offended, she just will be.

And what happens if you shout that at a girl and she doesn't get offended? If being called a "fucking n*****" is an offensive statement that leaves one no choice but to be offended, then how is that person not offended? Can you explain it without attributing that person with some indeterminable quality such as "privilege"?

Yes, feelings, just like the first girl.

People feel differently in different situations. Like almost everything to do with human emotions, it's not about choice.

You must understand that your hypothesis is unscientific as it is not falsifiable. You claim the reason that the first girl gets offended and the second does not is due to them having different feelings. Surely, if the second girl had the same feelings as the first, she would have been offended as well. The way to refute this scientifically would be to find a girl who has the same feelings as the first girl, yet who is not offended by being called a "f****** n*****". But this is impossible because with any such girl who I may find, you could simply make the arbitrary claim that she obviously doesn't have the same feelings. It's much like a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Something Amyss]

Surely, if the second girl had the same feelings as the first, she would have been offended as well. The way to refute this scientifically would be to find a girl who has the same feelings as the first girl, yet who is not offended by being called a "f****** n*****".

The scientific process would be to evaluate such claims based on the evidence provided. Don't tell someone they're making an unscientific, unfalsifiable statement and then say something that is, in itself not scientific.

The first step would very likely be defining our terms. Before hypothesis, before testing, before attempting to "refute" anything, we would need to look at what you mean by "feelings." Because in my book, it's self evident that a person who gets offended by something has different "feelings" on the matter, but perhaps you mean an emotional response to stimulus? This would also seem to be readily falsifiable, as we can get emotional reactions even out of animals we do not particularly consider to have higher intellect. And, strangely enough, they don't all react the same way.

The alternative that I can see is that offense and other feelings are reasoned responses from the rational portion of our brain, which seems rather absurd and I doubt you would agree with. What is your proposed alternative?

 

[McMarbles]

No, of course not.

But acknowledge that, while people do not have the right to not be offended, they do have the right to BE offended. Free speech doesn't end with you. I get the feeling some people don't realize this, that the only free speech they're concerned with is their own, that they should be free to be as offensive as they want without having to suffer any negative consequences.

 

[maninahat]

Depends on the discussion entirely. So sometimes yes. Basically the same logic Escapist forum moderators go by.

 

[someguy1231]

Who decides what is "offensive"? And even if something is "offensive", so what? People can be "offended" by anything for any reason.

 

[maninahat]

Being offended is a choice. You cant blame someone else for a choice you made.

I also think it should be legal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, whatever trouble this may cause. It needs to happen because this line is always used to shut down free speech in totally unrelated ways. E.G. you cant say that trans-women aren't really women because you cant shout fire in a public theater. Like how the hell are the two even related?

You're saying that we should allow people to shout fire to prevent false equivalence arguments? Shouting fire is illegal because people tend to get injured or killed in the ensuing disruption - that would be an obvious scenario where it is totally pragmatic to prohibit someone from saying certain things. That will be why people are drawing the comparison between being prohibited from saying harmful things in one situation, and saying harmful things in another.

 

[viscomica]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if you're answering the thread title instead of the OP's question but how exactly do you find that to be the legal viewpoint?

 

[Poetic Nova]

No.

But it won't hold me back from giving my own extreme views in responce though.
So they pretty much can expect it to backfire if I do decide to give my opinion about whatever topic it is.
Extremely defensive to anything LGBT related for one. And my view on religion is rather extremely negative.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Surely, if the second girl had the same feelings as the first, she would have been offended as well. The way to refute this scientifically would be to find a girl who has the same feelings as the first girl, yet who is not offended by being called a "f****** n*****".

The scientific process would be to evaluate such claims based on the evidence provided. Don't tell someone they're making an unscientific, unfalsifiable statement and then say something that is, in itself not scientific.

The first step would very likely be defining our terms. Before hypothesis, before testing, before attempting to "refute" anything, we would need to look at what you mean by "feelings." Because in my book, it's self evident that a person who gets offended by something has different "feelings" on the matter, but perhaps you mean an emotional response to stimulus? This would also seem to be readily falsifiable, as we can get emotional reactions even out of animals we do not particularly consider to have higher intellect. And, strangely enough, they don't all react the same way.

The alternative that I can see is that offense and other feelings are reasoned responses from the rational portion of our brain, which seems rather absurd and I doubt you would agree with. What is your proposed alternative?

Anything is a better alternative to saying being offended isn't a choice its, "In my nature"

You need a better hypotheses for why what offends you does not offend me. You cant just claim its in your nature to be offended by a statement but not in mine. This "nature" is inscrutable and as such you can simply claim it to be present every time someone is offended and absent when someone is not.

It doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry. You say, "It's in my nature to be offended". How could I refute such a nonsensical statement. I could point to a man and say, "Look, it is in his nature to be offended, yet he is not." All you would have to do is wave your hand and say, "Well, I guess its not truly in his nature."

 

[chikusho]

Yes, it's your club and you are free to exclude people from that club if you should so choose.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Yes, but only in the clearly not valid and being offensive for the sake of idiocy, though while I don't have a example off the top of my head, I think the extremes are clear to most people.

Oh, here's one. Like blaming the rape victim, yeah that kind of stupid opinion should be censored for wasting everyone's god damn time.

I think 99% of the time, no, it shouldn't be censored, but just a very select few should be.

 

[viscomica]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if you're answering the thread title instead of the OP's question but how exactly do you find that to be the legal viewpoint?

Well, there have been cases from the ECHR and the IACHR (I don't remember the names, but if you wanna I can get back to you on that) that state that unless you're promoting 'hate speech' (as in "let's kill all X") you can't censor opinions prior to being released to the general public. From the cases I've read in the past years I have been led to believe that even though no right is without limits, freedom of speech has a pretty large scope. I don't know if that answers the question.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

From a purely objective, even legal point of view I would say no. No, you can't and shouldn't supress opinions just because they can (or are) offensive (freedom of speech yo!)
That being said, from my own perspective the world does not exist for you not to get offended. Not getting offended by someone else's opinion is not a right and by living in a society you have to accept people are going to think different than you and sometimes they are going to think things which are (let's be honest) moronic at best. Still it's a pretty low price to pay for freedom of speech.

I'm not sure if you're answering the thread title instead of the OP's question but how exactly do you find that to be the legal viewpoint?

Well, there have been cases from the ECHR and the IACHR (I don't remember the names, but if you wanna I can get back to you on that) that state that unless you're promoting 'hate speech' (as in "let's kill all X") you can't censor opinions prior to being released to the general public. From the cases I've read in the past years I have been led to believe that even though no right is without limits, freedom of speech has a pretty large scope. I don't know if that answers the question.

So I'll take it you weren't talking about the club scenario the OP mentioned? Makes sense then. I think most people are replying more to the title.

 

[AidoZonkey]

Censorship of opinions is, has and always will be wrong, everybody should be able to say what they want to say without fear of being hushed up. Being offended can take many different forms. People can get offended over nothing, so saying you cant say something, just because it might offended someone, would be like censoring speech all together

However, this does not give you the right to not be punished because of what you say. If you say something, that aims to purely offended a person, the you should be punished for saying it. Punishment is different to censorship and often people forget this, you can say what you want but you cant control how people will react to what you have said

 

[Zen Bard]

Galileo had the "offensive" view that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe and that it actually revolved around the sun.

Turns out he was right.

Sometimes you can benefit from opinions that challenge your worldview.

And sometimes, you don't.

Either way, no opinion should be censored. It should be left to the individuals to decide if they want to agree with it or dismiss it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anything is a better alternative to saying being offended isn't a choice its, "In my nature"

Apparently even if it's not true.

You need a better hypotheses for why what offends you does not offend me. You cant just claim its in your nature to be offended by a statement but not in mine. This "nature" is inscrutable and as such you can simply claim it to be present every time someone is offended and absent when someone is not.

Well, that's good, because I didn't claim anything of the sort.

It doesn't hold up to scientific inquiry.

Except you're not holding anything to scientific inquiry, as I've already mentioned. Why should other arguments meet a criteria this one does not?

Are you going to address what I actually said, which actually goes to the nature of scientific inquiry, or are you going to stump me about this "nature" argument?

No.

But it won't hold me back from giving my own extreme views in responce though.
So they pretty much can expect it to backfire if I do decide to give my opinion about whatever topic it is.
Extremely defensive to anything LGBT related for one. And my view on religion is rather extremely negative.

And then we see if they take it with the aplomb they expect others to take it.

Spoiler: the answer is usually "no."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Galileo had the "offensive" view that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe and that it actually revolved around the sun.

Turns out he was right.

Sometimes you can benefit from opinions that challenge your worldview.

And sometimes, you don't.

Either way, no opinion should be censored. It should be left to the individuals to decide if they want to agree with it or dismiss it.

Err, Galileo had growing support and acceptance for the heliocentric nature of the solar system... right up until he insulted the Pope. Might have been a bad plan.

Which is what that whole thing was about, and kinda fits as commentary for how strawman-y the Internet gets.