• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Free Speech Discussion

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Let's talk about opposing someone's speech while still respecting their rights and dignity. Basically, opposing what someone says while still respecting their right to say it. I'm interested in thoughts regarding how you'd go about this and also examples. Do you feel this is something you do well or at all? Do you aim for it in your interactions with others and in your politics? I'm also interested in discussion centered around the differences between thought, speech, and action.

I'm assuming everyone believes unconditionally in freedom of thought, and I'm assuming everyone believes that action should be protected and limited by law. What are your thoughts on freedom of speech? Do you view it as an unconditional right? If you think there should be restrictions, what sort of restrictions and why? Do you think restrictions violate human rights on a fundamental level? Do you think restrictions support a type of thought policing?

Anything else related to the topic is welcome but I put this in the philosophy section instead of politics so it wouldn't turn into a shitfest.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Let's talk about opposing someone's speech while still respecting their rights and dignity. Basically, opposing what someone says while still respecting their right to say it. I'm interested in thoughts regarding how you'd go about this and also examples. Do you feel this is something you do well or at all? Do you aim for it in your interactions with others and in your politics? I'm also interested in discussion centered around the differences between thought, speech, and action.

I'm assuming everyone believes unconditionally in freedom of thought, and I'm assuming everyone believes that action should be protected and limited by law. What are your thoughts on freedom of speech? Do you view it as an unconditional right? If you think there should be restrictions, what sort of restrictions and why? Do you think restrictions violate human rights on a fundamental level? Do you think restrictions support a type of thought policing?

Anything else related to the topic is welcome but I put this in the philosophy section instead of politics so it wouldn't turn into a shitfest.

Listening to their side and holding my tongue until they finish before speaking my mind
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,711
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I highly recommend listening to this interview with a historian of Anti Fascism.

For Antifa, Not All Speech Should Be Free - On The Media - WNYC

There are many that utterly reject the Enlightenment values of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. The truth (which the historian ignores) alleged this is about Anti-fascism, but it predates the birth of fascism.

Political violence to silence opponents is as old as democracy. No platforming is just another form of using mob violence to intimidate opponents. Doxing is another.

Only a person who is insecure in their political beliefs will use violence to silence opponents.

I found the ACLU's fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for Neo-Nazis to parade through a Jewish community to be one of the greatest representations of this principle ever. I doubt they would do anything like this again, as they such values are lacking.....
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Listening to their side and holding my tongue until they finish before speaking my mind

So then would you consider yelling over someone or interrupting them in an everday conversation to be violating that person's freedom of speech? That seems unlikely from a legal perspective. What you wrote seems more like an attempt to be polite and considerate.

Political violence to silence opponents is as old as democracy. No platforming is just another form of using mob violence to intimidate opponents. Doxing is another.

Only a person who is insecure in their political beliefs will use violence to silence opponents.

I found the ACLU's fighting all the way to the Supreme Court for Neo-Nazis to parade through a Jewish community to be one of the greatest representations of this principle ever. I doubt they would do anything like this again, as they such values are lacking.....

Your definiton of violence seems to include things other than direct physical harm. Do you inherently have an issue with any "political violence" in any context, or just political violence that's used to silence others?
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'd also be interested in discussing this from a news pov. Do you think news media is obligated to report events "factually," or is that a violation of free speech or an over-simplification?

Also, imagine that people A are part of a group calling for people B to be murdered. Should they be allowed to call for that, to encourage action toward that with speech? And if people A's encouragement actually leads to people B being murdered, should people A's gathering be legally disbanded?
 

Carpe Vinum

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Let's talk about opposing someone's speech while still respecting their rights and dignity. Basically, opposing what someone says while still respecting their right to say it. I'm interested in thoughts regarding how you'd go about this and also examples. Do you feel this is something you do well or at all? Do you aim for it in your interactions with others and in your politics?

I'm good at respecting people who say things that I disagree with, provided their comments aren't hateful. In practical terms, I have to moderate classroom discussions because I'm a teacher. I try my best to give everyone a voice and the freedom to express their views in a respectful manner. As a matter of fairness, I absolutely cut off students who are saying hateful things or acting disrespectfully, attempting to dominate conversations, etc.


I'm assuming everyone believes unconditionally in freedom of thought, and I'm assuming everyone believes that action should be protected and limited by law. What are your thoughts on freedom of speech? Do you view it as an unconditional right? If you think there should be restrictions, what sort of restrictions and why? Do you think restrictions violate human rights on a fundamental level? Do you think restrictions support a type of thought policing?

I can really only speak to what 'free speech' means to me as an American. In terms of U.S. Constitutional law, I'm a textualist. Going back to the Framers, free speech always entailed some restrictions. It was never conceived as an absolute right to say anything without fear of reprecussion, even though it may appear phrased that way. The Supreme Court has long upheld that certain types of speech, particularly things like libel and fighting words, were never intended to be protected by the First Amendment.

The main purpose of the free speech clause, as originally conceived, was to protect political speech, criticism of government, and the free exchange of ideas. It did not protect any right to incite violence.

Outside of the U.S., I think that free speech should be protected, but every country has to decide for itself how broadly to define the term.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
I'm pretty good at this given that I disagree with most of this site on many things and have for years.

I've always wondered if the positions were reversed and the liberal members here had to deal with a overwhelmingly conservative site, how would they fair?

Or would they even be on the site in the first place?
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The main purpose of the free speech clause, as originally conceived, was to protect political speech and the free exchange of ideas. It did not protect any right to incite violence.

What are examples of things you'd consider to be inciting violence?
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I know you are smart enough to put this together for yourself.

Strange how I'm arguably the only person on this site who makes political threads with the intention of actually listening to people and expanding my world view. Everyone else has their heads up their butts to the extent that me asking what other people's views are and not assuming gets me mocked for being stupid.

It must be fun being so self-satisfied and certain in your dismissal of other people's points of view. I hope you and your ego are enjoying your bubble.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Strange how I'm arguably the only person on this site who makes political threads with the intention of actually listening to people and expanding my world view. Everyone else has their heads up their butts to the extent that me asking what other people's views are and not assuming gets me mocked for being stupid.

It must be fun being so self-satisfied and certain in your dismissal of other people's points of view. I hope you and your ego are enjoying your bubble.

If you know the definition of incite (to make happen) and violence then you know the answer.

He's given you a perfectly good answer involving the court case. It's expected that you will do a little mental leg work. Try that.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If you know the definition of incite (to make happen) and violence then you know the answer.

He's given you a perfectly good answer involving the court case. It's expected that you will do a little mental leg work. Try that.

Different people view different concepts differently. Instead of assuming that my definition of violence is his/her definition, I'm giving them the opportunity to tell me the way they view it. I made this thread to learn about people's points of view. You should attempt that sometime.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Different people view different concepts differently. Instead of assuming that my definition of violence is his/her definition, I'm giving them the opportunity to tell me the way they view it. I made this thread to learn about people's points of view. You should attempt that sometime.

W/e
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
What like understanding the legal back drop of the debate.

Back to your own pov, eh? I see you can't view things any way else, or understand why other people would value or want something out of a discussion differently than you would.
 

DiscoBiscuit

Meat Tornado
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
14,794
Enneagram
8w9
Back to your own pov, eh? I see you can't view things any way else, or understand why other people would value or want something out of a discussion differently than you would.

I've been talking about all this stuff long enough to know that you need common definitions to discuss anything. That's why the legal background is handy.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I've been talking about all this stuff long enough to know that you need common definitions to discuss anything. That's why the legal background is handy.

Yeah, you do need common definitions to discuss anything. Thus why I ask people what definition they're going by.

If you think the legal background is handy, why not just say so initially instead of resorting to shaming the fact that I asked a question?

- - - Updated - - -

This could have been an interesting thread.

It still will be.
 
Top