|
| Thread: World Topics 2017 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted February 19, 2017 11:07 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:35, 20 Feb 2017.
|
@JJ
I already addressed that, it is not the cornerstone as in "it comes before the law historically or in priority," since it is the law that grants you free speech. But it is a key element against authoritarianism and at this point in history authoritarianism would be a degradation of where we stand regarding civil values. So, it still matters. Now, things like framing someone (but I'm talking about really framing someone as in lying to the police or false testimony in court, not fred posting that Jack Nicholson killed Heath Ledger) or abusing power through speech are beside the point anyway, since they are not categorically thought crimes. Obviously, what the video addresses is, political correctness evolving into a new censorship mechanism in some situations. And that is indeed an actual issue regarding thought crimes. Private publications or broadcasting already have the initiative to pick who they'll let speak on their platform anyway and that is their right as well, as a counter measure, anybody has the right to boycott X company/media for the opinions they allow to spread. But other than that, the state shouldn't interfere in free speech with an overzealous political correctness.
Free speech is one of the cornerstones as it creates a crucial difference between variations of civilization which are all based on some form of law and order. There is a difference between a totalitarian regime and a liberal democracy, that is not driven by having laws or not but whether those laws protect free speech or not. Now, there are parts where the video overemphasizes this dynamic, it was not free speech that caused slavery to be abolished for instance, it was industrialism. And everywhere, more rural regions with traditional values rebelled against this new "citizen" model, since their economy was dependent on slave labor unlike industrial zones. However, free speech is indeed still a crucial factor when such transformation is "in steam" because when "the times are changing" as you put it, the new values they give birth to will always face harsh reaction at first and it is only free speech that allows the circulation of new ideas and values to spread in a healthy way.
Free speech is not just some principle that looks virtuous and cool on paper, it really affects quality of life, it really affects the level of critical thinking on a society and the way it lets things breathe is indeed one of the cornerstones. I mean, look at how even a very primitive and selective version of it had affected things in Ancient Greece, why don't we quote Spartan philosophers today, were the people all less intelligent over there? Never take it for granted, you can't believe how fast things change when people start thinking like "well, they only silenced some nutcase anyway."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 11:11 AM |
|
|
That's not true. I mentioned Babylon and Hammurabi's Code of laws not without a reason. It's nearly 3.800 years ago he laid down a code of laws. Free speech? I suppose you were not allowed to offend the king or any higher-up.
Still, those laws were worth a lot more than their salt, and last time I checked the ancient empires were pretty good with architecture, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, philosophy and more.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 12:30 PM |
|
|
They are also significant in many aspects, yes, but not in the regard I mentioned. It's not a dilemma of laws OR free speech and you make it sound like one. Free speech is also a legal notion.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 12:55 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I*m not arguing against free speech - it's just not the Holy Grail of civilization, imo. Not NOW, when any nutcase can reach the whole world. When you are asked your opinion every step of the way. And when news are fabricated and combined with strong opinions, words can indeed become weapons. Starting with WW2 every critical decision has been accompanied by lots of propaganda. Free speech is, in the end, just a word like, say, "democracy" or "justice" or "equality". It's basically an idea of a principle that a constitution (the law and jurisdiction) should respect and address, in the interest of freedom. Still, free speech will do squat against, say, a law making gay relationships illegal.
In the end, think about religion - which is also free speech (in the sense that a book is written speech). People CLAIM, a creator being said this and that and ORDERED them to do this and that, deckared this and that sin. And as soon as people start to ACT on those words, things start to become crappy. "Free speech" always comes with the problem that it may people bring to do something silly.
That is no argument against free speech, but only the opinion, that free speech must be part of the system of checks and balances as well. It is therefore just ONE piece in the big puzzle of civilization, not THE CORNERSTONE.
It's very much cornerstone. Free speech is the gateway to change and it chronologically precedes it (most of the times and in legal circles). A law before it is given is presented, argued about and voted on through freedom of speech. If the law is passed and many people oppose it, there will be riots and protest through freedom of speech. What happened recently in my country with regards to legalizing corruption and affecting the justice system is proof that freedom of speech is a foundational principle. Hundreds of thousands of people were able to make a difference through freedom of speech. The fact that you opinate on it differently is also because you have freedom of speech.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 04:25 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
That's not true. I mentioned Babylon and Hammurabi's Code of laws not without a reason. It's nearly 3.800 years ago he laid down a code of laws. Free speech? I suppose you were not allowed to offend the king or any higher-up.
Still, those laws were worth a lot more than their salt, and last time I checked the ancient empires were pretty good with architecture, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, philosophy and more.
Hmm so you're not focused on modern life/civilization at this point? Today the focus of Modern-Civilization should be on people not Kings. Although we've got some Hammurabi's that glory in themselves today and seem to be getting more.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 04:33 PM |
|
|
Here's an example of the high cost to a society when people cannot freely speak the truth. Yet, in the West people like myself enjoy Chocolate, without knowing a thing about how a sweet product is wrapped in Gold after it's made in blood. Because Truth is crushed for profit and the Power in another land reigns...the following is happening to children sold or duped to the Ivory Coast.
Documentary. The Dark Side Of Chocolate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vfbv6hNeng
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 06:40 PM |
|
|
Free speech is ONE point of quite a few in the human Rights declaration, so if anything IS the cornerstone of our current civilization then it's human rights declaration from 1948. Freedom of speech (and all pertaining variants) are laid down in article 19 of the HRD.
However, it's not an absolute right. Article 19 also says that the exercise of these rights carries special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.
So there is no absolute freedom of speech, has never been and won't ever be, and that*s because the powers that are can always limit it. We have as much freedom of speech as we have "democracy", in other words.
Now, if I interpret things right, the video says, that "political correctness" is undermining that right, probably because we somehow cannot say what we want to say.
But is that really right? What is it what we cannot say? That we should kill all Jews, sorry, Muslims, because they are the evil of the world, and if they are all dead we'll all be in paradise? That we are all reigned by multinational corporations and their political lackeys? That we should kill all capitalists - say, everyone owning more than 50 million?
Anyway, for me, Freedom of speech is on the same level as freedom of religion, but for me there are definitely more important human rights. All human beings are created equal trumps those two, which means, both freedom of religion AND freedom of speech must bow to that and MUST NOT be allowed to "preach" into action in a way that would violate the equality pinciple.
So once again, no. As there are different qualities of "infinities" in mathematics, there are different qualities in human rights, and freedom of speech is not on the highest level.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 07:04 PM |
|
|
This phrase of yours: "there are different qualities in human rights, and freedom of speech is not on the highest level." does not necessarily contradict this phrase of mine: "freedom of speech is a foundational principle.", so you're saying "no" just to be adversative. All human rights are very important, your personal ranking is besides the point.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 07:18 PM |
|
|
New Topic
If you have not watched the video I posted "The Dark Side of Chocolate" and you eat chocolate? I think you MUST watch all of it.
We have people in the State hollering about Civil-War slavery all the while they are totally unaware of what IS happening NOW.
I will call it "The Blood in our Chocolate".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 08:09 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
This phrase of yours: "there are different qualities in human rights, and freedom of speech is not on the highest level." does not necessarily contradict this phrase of mine: "freedom of speech is a foundational principle.", so you're saying "no" just to be adversative. All human rights are very important, your personal ranking is besides the point.
I have a different opinion. And you should check OP again.
It should also be obvious that a human right that is subject of a lot of restrictions is on a different level than a human right without. And there are no restrictions, for example, for the equality right.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 08:42 PM |
|
|
You can have any number of opinions no matter how biased, irrational or untrue. The fact that freedom of speech is a cornerstone right of major importance is not even up to debate, let alone opinion. But go ahead and help yourself on whatever belief you see fit, it's within your rights. Just let the irony not escape you.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
AnkVaati
Famous Hero
Nighonese National Front
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 09:08 PM |
|
|
Human rights are just so 1945. Nowaydays we have Game of Thrones to watch and gory video games to play. Come on people.
____________
Ank's Old School (kinda) H8 proposal <- best thing evvah, trust me
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 19, 2017 09:28 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
You can have any number of opinions no matter how biased, irrational or untrue. The fact that freedom of speech is a cornerstone right of major importance is not even up to debate, let alone opinion. But go ahead and help yourself on whatever belief you see fit, it's within your rights. Just let the irony not escape you.
You are in the wriong thread. Everyone can believe whatever they want, even if it was forbidden.
In fact I think you have a problem to understand what this is all about - but that's of course within YOUR rights.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 01:24 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 02:02 PM |
|
|
So truth is a matter of choice now.
This is quite interesting, also with a view on the free speech discussion. Will we now get kind of a competition for "truth" - for what actually happened, and will everyone be able to pick their own?
What will happen with kids in school - which truths will they learn, and will that depend on the school they are visiting (even more as it already does)?
And will we lose reality as we know it, with everyone living in their own for real, since fact and fiction will merge, until no one will be able to say for sure what heppened?
It's a pretty disturbing thing to watch right now, how reality and truth seem to dissolve into alternative universes. 
Consider this as well.
The president declares the main stream media to enemies of the people?
So not only we have "alternative truths" now, the real nows are the fake news now, and their makers are the enemy. As a result it would seem that two thirds of the US population has lost faith in the media.
So - are the US enroute to 1984's Oceania?
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 03:00 PM |
|
|
Of course, the Guardian paints the picture as if it's a battle over absolute truth when in fact it's a battle between two propaganda machines and their media outlets. I can readily tell whose side they're on. But in reality, this is less about free speech and more about political partizanism.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 03:12 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 15:15, 20 Feb 2017.
|
JollyJoker said:
And will we lose reality as we know it, with everyone living in their own for real, since fact and fiction will merge, until no one will be able to say for sure what happened?
It's already happened JJ and in a big way here in the States. I don't know about Germany's press but here in the USA investigative journalism is damned near dead.
When News-Media is not independent?, Truth dies and Propaganda reigns. American mainstream-news is OWNED. We've seen it before in the past but never has Reporting been near like it is now...in my lifetime. Chris Hedges and John Pilger, though I don't always agree with what they think, what they have revealed is inescapable. There are not many like them now.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 03:29 PM |
|
|
Is digital media good for democracy? BBC News
link
Not much on the BBC anymore but I'll share this anyway.
<imo> The first man nails today's issues.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 03:46 PM |
|
|
Those are two completely different things:
1) Just presenting a SELECTION of facts that actually happened (there is always a selection process, and their is a weighing process of how much room you give a news) and not maybe not bothering (for whatever reason) to get behind the WHOLE truth of a story;
2) Making up facts and claim THE OTHERS were making up facts (and were enemies of the people).
The first point has always been a point of criticism, as long as there are news. What is reported and what is not. What is given a wide space and what is not. Who is interviewed to comment on something and what questions are asked. You can always argue about that, and I suppose there was a time when THAT was the difference between news outlets. Who had what headline with which comment, and so on, meaning, not the FACTS were disputed, but their INTERPRETATION.
Now, though? ALternative TRUTH? That's a step farther, and a big step as well.
There is also this strange process of establishing a different kind of political correctness. Now there those that say, we must be allowed to speak out the awkward truths because allegedly "the population" thinks that way, freedom of speech and opinion as such, but when they are called for what they are, say, racist, the outrage is big - after all they just speak what the population is too intimidated to speak out loud.
Now, I'd understand all this talk about corruptness and destroying it, when it wasn't absolutely obvious that those crying loudest about it and are now are in power, are making things WORSE. A lot worse, actually, and they haven't even really started.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2017 04:03 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:04, 20 Feb 2017.
|
I get what you're saying JJ and I dont necessarily disagree, "post-truth" was Oxford Dictionary's pick as the word of the year in 2016 but have you ever checked on John Pilger, what he brings to attention can't be exactly categorized as what you're talking about above, the scales are much higher. Take this article for instance, it's long but it's extremely right on spot and the guy really does his homework: Link
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
