|
| Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted September 01, 2009 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:50, 01 Sep 2009.
|
Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas]
Freedom of speech
The US founding fathers had the concept that all of the rights of man are granted to man are from God, not from the state. In fact they said that the power of the state is from the people and thus the state has no rights to grant. In the First Amendment of the US Constitution the founding fathers said the government was to keep its hands off our religion, our ideas, and our ability to express those ideas.
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech is an important part of human dignity. One that thankfully they recognized.
What is free speech?
Free speech is simply the ability to express one's ideas freely without consequences from the government for expressing them.
Why free speech is important
Free speech is highly important in free societies as free speech is a fundamental building block of a free society. Without free speech freedom can't exist. As limitations on free speech begin to be imposed in a community the society rapidly slides into censorship and tyranny.
Free speech is a way of protecting the discovery and communication of the truth. Without free speech it is more difficult to discover the truth. An idea that is not expressed can't be embraced or rejected and so can't enlighten you. In Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth." I submit this applies to more than political truth.
Free speech is a means of checks and balances of the government. The three branches of the US government are the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. They are to act as checks and balances to each other. But the ultimate power is to rest with the people from whom the power of the government is derived. The people are the ultimate check of the government and free speech is one means of preventing corruption and tyranny. The right of free speech is one reason there has been no need for a second American Revolution.
Free speech encourages one to express his ideas and opinions and results in more ideas being put forward. This is one reason why free societies tend to be more advanced and well off that repressed societies. Free speech promotes knowledge and learning. Repressing free speech stifles knowledge and learning. Freedom to speak one's thoughts and imaginations is intimately related to human creativity. The expression of hopes and dreams expands the boundaries of what humanity can accomplish and enables a society to advance socially and morally and to cast off shackles placed on it in the past by false ideas.
There should be a free marketplace of ideas. Banning an idea seeks to impose an idea of what is true on others instead of peddling the ideas in the open marketplace for scrutiny in competition with other ideas. Free speech allows everyone to stand up and be counted and to challenge the ideas of all others. The "consumer" can examine the ideas and determine which ones he will "buy."
Those who have "purchased" differing ideas will "fight" over which idea is the better one.The "war of words" in a free society typically are to get someone to do something or to believe something. Such a battle of words has the benefit of allowing one to bring about a revolution from slinging words instead of slinging stones. Words don't draw blood.
Some defenders of free speech
François-Marie Arouet ( Voltaire) was a French Enlightenment philosopher who is known for his defence of civil liberties. He defended freedom of religion and the right to a fair trial and was an outspoken supporter of social reform. One of his famous quotes is:
Quote:
"I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
John Stuart Mill in Chapter II of On Liberty wrote:
Quote:
If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)
Quote:
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)
If such liberty does not exist for every subject matter, we don't have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (1978, 11).
Noam Chomsky, an American philosopher, wrote "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like."
Justice Thurgood Marshall in Procunier v. Martinez did write: "The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression."
Why free speech is limited in some societies
There are different reasons why free speech is suppressed in some societies.
First, the ruler may hold a particular view of religion and want to suppress all other viewpoints. This was done for example in the USSR. The official state religion was atheism and other religions could not be expressed freely. Some such societies may say that religious views may be expressed, but only in the confines of a church. Some will even go so far as to require ministers of churches to be licensed by the state and place someone in the pastorship who is not even an actual believer in the religion to push the propaganda of the state.
Second, the ruler may be afraid of the political views of the population. Most people don't want to live under a dictatorship. The dictator does not want his right to rule to be challenged. He suppresses the views of the opposition and sometimes imprisons, kills, or exiles them to keep them silent.
Third, the ruler does not want to be held accountable for his actions. His indiscretions must not be exposed. He may suppress the right of the press and the population to criticise his actions and decisions. His decisions must not be challenged. Newspapers may only express the official views of the state.
Fourth, some societies have begun to limit freedom of speech due to cultural relativism. Cultural relativists often argue that the culture and values of others can't be critiqued and label that as "hate speech."
Fifth, freedom of thought and expression promote autonomy. That can be "dangerous" to the rulers of repressed societies. The people must be a "collective" that acts and thinks as the state dictates.
Dangers
I have seen disturbing trends recently in the US by a particular political party to say that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. That party has expressed a desire to limit free speech on "talk" radio because most such radio programs are conservative and so far no liberal radio talk show has been successful on a national level. There is also an effort to give the US President the power to shut down the internet in the US in the event of a cyber attack.
I've also found the establishment of "free speech zones" in some American cities to be rather disturbing. "Sure, we'll let you speak your mind. The place designated for doing that is behind the old warehouse on 14th Street."
A resolution came close to being pushed through the UN that would have made criticism of Islam a crime punishable by death or imprisonment.
Conclusion
There is a natural desire on the part of people to want to censure what others can say to sweep away all opposition to one's ideas. This impulse must be resisted. For most of the world's history most of the world's governments have not resisted this impulse and have played the role of the "benevolent censor" or the evil dictator. The US founding fathers rejected this impulse and wanted to guard against future censorship.
In order for our arguments to be be pushed to their logical limits full and unimpeded freedom of expression must not be diluted. All ideas must have a level playing field and be equally challengeable or the emergence of truth is impaired. This is obviously detrimental to a free society. The truth will not prosper under censorship.
Limitations on the expression of one person to express his ideas is a limitation on all. America has succeeded not because of strength of arms but because of the freedoms enjoyed by her people. Freedom of speech must continue to be guarded with due diligence.
Allowing some thoughts to be suppressed means the end of free thought. The end of freedom.
Quote:
I think as I please
And this gives me pleasure.
My conscience decrees,
This right I must treasure.
My thoughts will not cater
To duke or dictator,
No man can deny --
.Die gedanken sind frei (thoughts are free.)
-- German 16th-century peasant song (revived as a protest anthem against the Nazi regime)
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 04:55 AM |
|
|
Any part I don't quote I will just say I agree with completely. Any other parts I mostly agree with but see things slightly differently. Difference of opinion is what makes out societies strong =D
Quote:
What is free speech?
Free speech is simply the ability to express one's ideas freely without consequences from the government for expressing them.
With the exception of death threats or realistic plans to kill lots of people of course.
Quote:
Why free speech is important
Free speech is highly important in free societies as free speech is a fundamental building block of a free society. Without free speech freedom can't exist. As limitations on free speech begin to be imposed in a community the society rapidly slides into censorship and tyranny.
Which reminds me of a video courtesy of Harry Truman.
Quote:
Free speech is a way of protecting the discovery and communication of the truth. Without free speech it is more difficult to discover the truth. An idea that is not expressed can't be embraced or rejected and so can't enlighten you. In Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: "freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth." I submit this applies to more than political truth.
Free speech is a means of checks and balances of the government. The three branches of the US government are the legislative, judicial, and executive branches. They are to act as checks and balances to each other. But the ultimate power is to rest with the people from whom the power of the government is derived. The people are the ultimate check of the government and free speech is one means of preventing corruption and tyranny. The right of free speech is one reason there has been no need for a second American Revolution.
Also no revolution could be successful, people are too divided in opinion now. In little pieces. People do need to be able to express what they think but also be fully welcome to not be persecuted or prejudiced against.
Quote:
There should be a free marketplace of ideas. Banning an idea seeks to impose an idea of what is true on others instead of peddling the ideas in the open marketplace for scrutiny in competition with other ideas. Free speech allows everyone to stand up and be counted and to challenge the ideas of all others. The "consumer" can examine the ideas and determine which ones he will "buy."
Those who have "purchased" differing ideas will "fight" over which idea is the better one.The "war of words" in a free society typically are to get someone to do something or to believe something. Such a battle of words has the benefit of allowing one to bring about a revolution from slinging words instead of slinging stones. Words don't draw blood.
Too bad some people of certain minorities get arrested and deported just for researching or repeating Jihaadist ideas they do not even agree with. Another example of current government tyranny.
Quote:
Third, the ruler does not want to be held accountable for his actions. His indiscretions must not be exposed. He may suppress the right of the press and the population to criticise his actions and decisions. His decisions must not be challenged. Newspapers may only express the official views of the state.
In many cases this already happens, only it's Newspapers and TV stations only expressing the views of the parties their owners support. Really the same thing. Fox and MSNBC. Same diff. Corruption at work.
Quote:
Fourth, some societies have begun to limit freedom of speech due to cultural relativism. Cultural relativists often argue that the culture and values of others can't be critiqued and label that as "hate speech."
Only extremists tend to use the "hate speech" thing lightly. Most would argue that you're just as entitled to think someone as a barbarian as they are of you. It doesn't change anything as long as you're not actually insulting them intentionally. I mean, there is some blatant hate speech out there. But nobody really needs that pointed out because it tends to be obvious. Actually, (what are the) opposite of relativists tend to also use the "hate speech" moniker as well. Both sides use it as a weapon to silence each other.
Quote:
Fifth, freedom of thought and expression promote autonomy. That can be "dangerous" to the rulers of repressed societies. The people must be a "collective" that acts and thinks as the state dictates.
People must give each other a modicum of respect, for the differences we have. I agree, trying to force homogeneous values and convert an entire nation into mindless drones would be deplorable.
Quote:
Dangers
I have seen disturbing trends recently in the US by a particular political party to say that everyone who disagrees with them is a racist. That party has expressed a desire to limit free speech on "talk" radio because most such radio programs are conservative and so far no liberal radio talk show has been successful on a national level. There is also an effort to give the US President the power to shut down the internet in the US in the event of a cyber attack.
The United States is no stranger to stifling dissent. Using words like Unamerican. A lot of people see this new "racist" card as just an extention of the previous government. Fundamentally, the Democrats and Republicans are the same. They just want power. The Bush administration forced censorship on the major networks just like Obama is. Executive Privilage has existed since Nixon and has been abused ever since.
You're fooling yourself if you think this is a problem only by "a particular political party". It's by both. They are in cahoots. One side angers the other, gets its behind tossed out of office and the victor ravages the constitution while the people, the "winners" celebrate. They take turns at cat and mouse but they're really all just wolves.
Quote:
I've also found the establishment of "free speech zones" in some American cities to be rather disturbing. "Sure, we'll let you speak your mind. The place designated for doing that is behind the old warehouse on 14th Street."
As I linked previously, Bush started those. Again, it's bi-partisan oppression. It's not going to stop when you toss Obama out, or his successor, or theirs, or theirs, until people actually come to their senses.
Quote:
A resolution came close to being pushed through the UN that would have made criticism of Islam a crime punishable by death or imprisonment.
Actually, the resolution which was proposed is one that prevents the defamation of any religion at all. It does not impose a death penalty. That is nowhere in the resolution. Countries that would permit such killing already do. The UN is a mostly useless body when it comes to social issues and is primarily a border police when anything sparks. Useless for nearly everything else.
Quote:
Conclusion
There is a natural desire on the part of people to want to censure what others can say to sweep away all opposition to one's ideas. This impulse must be resisted. For most of the world's history most of the world's governments have not resisted this impulse and have played the role of the "benevolent censor" or the evil dictator. The US founding fathers rejected this impulse and wanted to guard against future censorship.
And current/past censorship!
Quote:
In order for our arguments to be be pushed to their logical limits full and unimpeded freedom of expression must not be diluted. All ideas must have a level playing field and be equally challengeable or the emergence of truth is impaired. This is obviously detrimental to a free society. The truth will not prosper under censorship.
All forms of theism and atheism are equally challengeable, in that they are not possible to disprove. Ideas as you say, all must have an even footing and I agree. Even a Jihaadist should have the right to speak if they are only doing so on a fringe, non-violent level. They are the same as the KKK. I find their ideas revolting, but we can't take away their rights to an opinion as long as they aren't violent.
Quote:
Limitations on the expression of one person to express his ideas is a limitation on all. America has succeeded not because of strength of arms but because of the freedoms enjoyed by her people. Freedom of speech must continue to be guarded with due diligence.
Allowing some thoughts to be suppressed means the end of free thought. The end of freedom.
Hence those two videos I linked from Archive.org =D
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 06:16 AM |
|
|
While I disagree where the freedom of speech comes from, I am all for freedom of speech. Sometimes, around children there are exceptions, but to be honest it should never come to that. People should be decent enough to watch themselves.
If I am talking face to face with the president (well the secret service also), and I want to call him a two faced idiotic sellout I should be able to without fear of being thrown in jail.
However, this is a two way street. What about the KKK? Black Panthers? Any other 'hate' group. Shouldn't they have the 'right' to free speech also? Anti-Theist...what about them? No people want SELECTIVE free speech. IE their 'group' gets free speech, everybody else has limits.
Saying things is ok (with some limitations) but there are time things should be left unsaid. Not everybody recognizes that. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 10:05 AM |
|
Edited by Rarensu at 10:06, 02 Sep 2009.
|
Freedom of speech for the KKK is the most important kind. If you deny them this freedom, then you could easily deny it to communists. And then you could, without too much trouble, deny it to revolutionaries in general. Soon you are denying freedoms to even mildly radical thinkers. How do you stop yourself from taking away freedom in general?
My point is, if you can fight for the KKK's freedom and win, then you know that your own freedom is safe also. Draw the line and hold it, because the slope of morality is very slippery indeed.
Quote:
"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemöller
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
|
Comparing communists and KKK is a dangerous thing.
The KKK's ideology is clearly against the constitution (racicsm), while I can't see how communitst harm and discriminate a specific group of people (except the capitalists  )
Freedom of speech is fine as long as you do not harm others.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
|
Free Speech = You are free to speak whatever you want without the government taking measures against you.
However, I don't think that the government has to protect you in any special way if you offend someone.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom of speech is fine as long as you do not harm others.
I disagree. I think that "harming" someone is purely subjective and can lead to ANYONE claiming he is harmed at ANYTHING. Who establishes when someone is "harmed" verbally? (since we know that such a thing doesn't exactly exist, with the exception of children)
I can say, I am harmed if people speak the word "Heroes Community" for example. Should the government punish anyone who speaks the word when I hear it or directed at me?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 07:02 PM |
|
|
I thought it was OBVIOUS that "harmed" was refered to others RIGHTS......
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 07:05 PM |
|
|
I don't recall any right, at least in public, that speech can break.
In your home, it's not speech, it's noise pollution. It's not the CONTENT but the sound itself.
Content can't break any right.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 08:25 PM |
|
|
Well, harm would be if you have a large following, you say your followers should bring guns and wave them around and scare people until they shoot or get shot. Or if you advocate fist fighting to resolve differences to your followers and somebody small and meek gets hospitalized/killed. That would be harm. Free speech is fine as long as it doesn't advocate violence.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 08:39 PM |
|
|
Then the ones doing wrong would be your followers, not you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 09:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then the ones doing wrong would be your followers, not you.
Exactly.
Saying that "it's fine as long as it doesn't advocate X" is like saying "it's fine as long as it doesn't advocate anti-government stuff" like in communism. Both draw some arbitrary lines, it's either free speech, or it isn't
also please note that I did say, I exclude children from it, which CAN be harmed psychologically and socially. (children usually means below 10 years of age, or higher for some, 12 is limit IMO)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't recall any right, at least in public, that speech can break.
Maybe I am in the wrong thread here, but do you really mean if someone in public says to you "You're a snowing piece of s**t, your mother is a wh**e, and your father is retarded!", it is all fine and no problem at all? No harm done? No rights violated?
Maybe I underestimated the way people in romania act towards each other...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2009 11:16 PM |
|
|
Of course, I would disapprove, but he would indeed not have broken any rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 04:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Then the ones doing wrong would be your followers, not you.
So it wasn't Hitler's fault that he told his followers to kill people and they actually did it?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 04:37 AM |
|
|
Before he came to power - no. After he came to power - yes, because he was the head of the government.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 04:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Before he came to power - no. After he came to power - yes, because he was the head of the government.
So as long as they are not a governmental head it's okay for anybody to advocate violence?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 10:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course, I would disapprove, but he would indeed not have broken any rights.
Uh? As far as I know, insulting a person means breaking a law, it is called "inviolableness of the personality".
Same goes with racism. If I call a black person a ni****, I surely broke a right, don't you think so?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 12:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Before he came to power - no. After he came to power - yes, because he was the head of the government.
You forget something, he never ordered the population to do it. He ordered a few specialized people who was working on it. He had propaganda on discrimination, but that was really it. So yeah
____________
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 03, 2009 02:10 PM |
|
|
i just wanted to point out that imo,least hippocritcle realigion is the aincent greek,olympian gods. sometimes i prey for zeuz! /ot..
where do you find the border between free speach and haressment death?
can i go say lies about you in public? is it my right?
____________
types in obscure english
|
| |
|
|
