Should offensive opinions be censored from discussion?

[Strazdas]

I believe that a place for debate should be the last place where restrictions of opinions should be made. You are there to debate between different opinions, therefore you should allow different opinions. It is impossible to know whether an opinion is wrong or right without it being challenged, and this includes opinions that some people may find offensive. Not to mention that offensive subjects are in themselves very subjective. For example i do not consider medical illness offensive but i know people that do[footnote]Like these people legitimately think that saying "he has cancer" is offensive and should be censored[/footnote].

There are obviuos limits, such as inciting somone to go kill others should not be permitted, but when your purpose is to discuss and somone wants to discuss opinion you dont like - tough shit. make your points, present your case, and hopefully you refute that opinion. or leave.

Regarding free speech, id like to present a short video for you to watch:

 

[Buckets]

People are always going to hold different opinions no matter what, so censoring is pointless overall for someone taking offence.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No. By all means ban homophobic, racist etc comments. But just because someone says something that could be deemed offensive, doesnt mean it should be censored. After all we are all offended by different things and would mean this forum wouldnt exist.

 

[Fallow]

No. By all means ban homophobic, racist etc comments...

This means something very, very, very different depending on whom on the forums you ask. Consider the following arbiters of what's homophobic or racist. Is anyone qualified? Donald Trump? Jessica Valenti? Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un? Christina 'Based Mom' Hoff Sommers?

Shall we consider only the words themselves? There are some on this forum that are very proficient in implying stuff without outright saying it. Does that count? And if so, is it the intent of the author that counts? Or is it the interpreter that should make the call?

 

[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.