ChatterBank1 min ago
How far do you take free speech?
21 Answers
I think most people would agree with the idea of free speech. Basically, I can say what I believe and you can disagree with me and vice versa. Should we all be big enough to take another persons viewpoint and brush it off if we don't agree, or should we be allowed to censor their views/comments?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by styley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It depends on the speech, and its context.
As Oliver Wendell Homes' famous quote advises, free speech does not defend a man who falsly shouts 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
So - are you entitled on here to say that you thought the Final Solution was a good idea, stopped before its fruition? Absolutely - it's f roum for debate and discussion.
Shoould you be allowed to say it to a group of Holocaust survivors? That's a different issue, which illustrates my point about time and place.
Free speech is to be appluaded and protected, but as with all freedoms, it comes with responsibilities - you cannot exercise one without recourse to the other.
As Oliver Wendell Homes' famous quote advises, free speech does not defend a man who falsly shouts 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
So - are you entitled on here to say that you thought the Final Solution was a good idea, stopped before its fruition? Absolutely - it's f roum for debate and discussion.
Shoould you be allowed to say it to a group of Holocaust survivors? That's a different issue, which illustrates my point about time and place.
Free speech is to be appluaded and protected, but as with all freedoms, it comes with responsibilities - you cannot exercise one without recourse to the other.
There are two main issues - the first is I would think obvious. Free speech does not extend to revealing information that is restricted for reasons of security or personal privacy. Unless there is an overriding public interest case (and that doesn't mean that the public is interested in it!)
The more difficult case is in expressing opinions.
There is a blurry line between expressing your opinion and encitment to a breech of the peace.
To a large extent it revolves around provocation - If a reasonable person would expect that voicing a certain opinion in a certain circumstance would be likely to cause a breech of the peace then that should not be permitted.
Such a test protects the stand up comics in private clubs but it still gives grounds to prosecute people who are out looking for trouble
The more difficult case is in expressing opinions.
There is a blurry line between expressing your opinion and encitment to a breech of the peace.
To a large extent it revolves around provocation - If a reasonable person would expect that voicing a certain opinion in a certain circumstance would be likely to cause a breech of the peace then that should not be permitted.
Such a test protects the stand up comics in private clubs but it still gives grounds to prosecute people who are out looking for trouble
What about the Frankie Boyle joke being discussed in another thread? Does that come under the freedom of speech banner? http://www.theanswerb...s/Question904809.html
Where was it? Commedians in a club or concert where people have paid should have pretty much free rein.
Grown ups know commedians are sometimes offensive - you chose to see them.
If it's broadcast or in public that's different - probably should come under broadcasting standards rules for broadcast.
In public it depends on the context - if it was deliberately intended to offend that's different from a miscalculation
Grown ups know commedians are sometimes offensive - you chose to see them.
If it's broadcast or in public that's different - probably should come under broadcasting standards rules for broadcast.
In public it depends on the context - if it was deliberately intended to offend that's different from a miscalculation
The answer is in the question. //Basically, I can say what I believe and you can disagree with me and vice versa.//
Stifling free speech doesn't encourage dialogue and therefore it doesn't educate, and consequently it doesn't cure the problem - it simply denies there is a problem by shoving it under the carpet. We can legislate to stop people talking, but no amount of legislation will ever stop them thinking.
Stifling free speech doesn't encourage dialogue and therefore it doesn't educate, and consequently it doesn't cure the problem - it simply denies there is a problem by shoving it under the carpet. We can legislate to stop people talking, but no amount of legislation will ever stop them thinking.
Personally, I draw the line at threatening to do physical or bodily harm against another's property or person while reserving the right to make known my intentions to defend myself from such threats or actions. Here determining the one initiating the threat becomes key.
Libelous or slanderous statements also need to be carefully weighed as to the degree of potential harm inherent in those statements. I go out of my way to avoid making such a distinction necessary.
On the other hand, I have been known at times to cross into a grey area by saying, "If I were not the kind of person then I am for these reasons then I would have just, etc, etc . . ."
In any case, freedom is never completely free from some form of essential inherent limitations. There is always a responsibility that inexorably accompanies any form of hard won freedom we have secured the right to exercise. One must learn to be rational if one ever hopes to be treated with a mutual commensurate degree of rationality.
Libelous or slanderous statements also need to be carefully weighed as to the degree of potential harm inherent in those statements. I go out of my way to avoid making such a distinction necessary.
On the other hand, I have been known at times to cross into a grey area by saying, "If I were not the kind of person then I am for these reasons then I would have just, etc, etc . . ."
In any case, freedom is never completely free from some form of essential inherent limitations. There is always a responsibility that inexorably accompanies any form of hard won freedom we have secured the right to exercise. One must learn to be rational if one ever hopes to be treated with a mutual commensurate degree of rationality.
. . . ^ that's ^ not generalisation, that's equivocation. No one should be classified and judged based on un-chosen relationships. When one ceases to treat others as unique individuals to be judged solely on their own merits, one forfeits their own right to be judged accordingly, segregating themselves from any reason why they should not be judged by any characteristic they share with the lowest common denominator.
This > is a generalisation: > Those who discriminate based on race have excluded themselves, through their demonstrated inability to discriminate right from wrong, from the race defined by reason, the human race.
This > is a generalisation: > Those who discriminate based on race have excluded themselves, through their demonstrated inability to discriminate right from wrong, from the race defined by reason, the human race.
