What are your thoughts on free speach? Personally I have no problem with anyone expressing opinions that are different to mine, but I do have a problem especially with organisations publishing through various media making statements that are factually wrong or generally misleading.
Freedom of speech very rarely exists. Does a Nazi have the right to speak his opinion as it will offend many people? In the same way some peoples opinions offend nazis. No i hate the who nazi idea, but thats my opinion. If i was a nazi i would hate my opinion. who is right? The only example ive ever heard where it was true freedom of speech was the Lib Dem MP who got 40 letters telling himher should die. The papers worte a story saying how terrible this was. The MP the complained to the paper saying that as an MP he must listen to peoples views and as they weren't threatening him just telling him he should die, that they had the right. nice post btw very thought thunking
I would like to add that robust debate is a healthy thing and uniformity of opinion is a very dangerous thing.
I'll try and incite some debate with a question.. Does free speech have consequenses or limits? Choose one and explain why, at the same time say why not the other.
Free speach is a gift that should not be afforded to racists as they are contradicting the freedom of others, particularly the Nazis who have caused many to be unfree of fear. The Nazi ethics are clearly the workings of a deranged mind. The things that Nazis and racists do are not merely "insulting" they have KILLED people for being how they want to be, therefore they have forefieted the right to free speach. YOU CAN`T EXPECT FREEDOM WHEN YOUR TAKING IT FROM OTHERS. NAZIS AND RACISTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
Why use the Nazis as the example? Meh, the bigger one (mainly in the US) would be the 'K'lan. People are always trying to stop their marches...but they take them to court and win and are allowed their marches. And it may not be a good thing for the black folk, but it's freedom of speech...
As far as th Klan are concerned you can't expect to protest against freedom and expect it for yourselves.
"True "free speech" is a double edged sword.As it should be." As it should be brother! Amen! However, I'm afraid I feel like free speech is dwindling in the US of A. Seems like Bush is trying to take it away in the guise of "protection"
you can not say a group like the klan or nazis should not be allowed to talk cos their views are warped.....that is your view....to them they feel in the right and probably think your views are warped so does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to speak? As its been stated its a double edged sword. Only in a truely free speach country can groups like that exist and speak freely....but i do agree that they shouldn't have freedom of actions...! personally though yeah i agree they need shooting, and i can say that cos im not personally a free country!
Freedom of speech is absolute. Either you have it or you don't. The only limits to true fredom of speech are where it would cause actual harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre or inciting violence. The KKK might be a bunch of ignorant racists, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to express their ignorance. If you take away their right to express their unpopular opinion, whose unpopular opinion will be next? It could be yours! Instead of calling on the government to take away their rights, why don't you just use your own rights to tell them what worthless pricks you think they are. You have that right, you know.
you said almost exactly what i was bout to say. basically everyone can say whatever the hell they want cuz if they are offending you or just plain ignorant, it really doesn't have to affect you until they start acting upon it. freedom of speech should mean what it says. our actions are really what tell the most. not our words
The KKK are requesting the freedom to contradict the freedom of others and put alot of people in fear, this should not be allowed.
So you have only free speech if it's sanctioned by whoever is in charge? Is it in that case even free? Free speech is a RIGHT, not a priviledge, and as such cannot be taken away from ANYONE, regardless of what they might say.
There are two aspects to the free speech issue. The first question is whether a person may say whatever they want. I agree that they should be allowed to say what they want except for example in cases like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowd as someone said above. There are also other such cases. But placing restraints is a slippery slope if you're not careful you end up in a situation where it's not possible to say anything at all. And different people have different feelings about where the line should be drawn. What happens in fact is basically the more powerful party wins. But there is a whole second aspect about free speech and that is whether the power and money to widely spread one's word constitutes free speech. The current position in this country is that $$$ = free speech. In other words if I have a million dollars or whatever means to spread my word around that's free speech and if you don't well that's too bad. In my view this current idea is totally wrong and everybody needs to make an effort to get things changed. It's also a very complex issue but that doesn't mean things don't need to be rectified. If you're not fucking worked up about the importance of this problem --the wealthy and powerful having the means to spread their word around and others not having this capacity -- you fucking oughtta get worked up about it.
So far no one has made any comment on disinformation to back up a argument. To give an example of disinformation is this article by George Monbiot in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,865087,00.html He quotes people who state that it takes 100,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of beef.This is the amount that is calculated on beef that is raised irrigation land. However most beef is raised on dry land that could not be used for crops. Therefore such statements are highly misleading. Another case of disinformation is when Pauline Hanson (anyone remember her?) started going on about aborigines practising canablism.With the death of a loved child some tribes would eat part of the flesh of the child as a funeral rite, something they always found disgusting in itself.The fact she failed mention any of the relavent details is again highly misleading.
The founding fathers wanted to make sure that people could speak out against the government of certain government policies without fear of reprisal. For example, if you don’t like George Bush’s policy for war in Iraq, you can assemble publicly to discuss it or you can publish you opinion. The founding fathers did NOT intend to allow people to say and do any kind of “offensive” thing they want and call it free speech (e.g. KKK parade, Howerd Stern, Pornography and ect.). I’m not saying that these things should be stopped; I’m just saying that they aren’t what the founding fathers had in mind when they thought of free speech. Howerd Stern for example, isn’t talking out about some political policy that he doesn’t agree with, he is just talking about dick length or lesbians.
The fact is that the constitution says we have the right to speak freely. It does not limit that to "unless other people are offended" or give a right to not be offended.
