User Tag List

12311 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 126

  1. #1
    militat omnis amans magpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    614 sx/so
    Posts
    3,285

    Default Free Speech Discussion

    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.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    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
    Likes magpie, Bush Did 9/11 liked this post

  3. #3
    breaking out of my cocoon SearchingforPeace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    6,461

    Default

    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.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Archilochus
    The fox knows many things--the hedgehog one big one.
    And I am not a hedgehog......

    -------------------

    Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" not "blessed are the conflict avoiders.....

    9w8 6w5 4w5 sx/so
    Likes Xann, SpankyMcFly liked this post

  4. #4
    militat omnis amans magpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    614 sx/so
    Posts
    3,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anaximander View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SearchingforPeace View Post
    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?
    Likes Xann liked this post

  5. #5
    militat omnis amans magpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    614 sx/so
    Posts
    3,285

    Default

    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?
    Likes Xann liked this post

  6. #6
    Senior Member Carpe Vinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    826 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LIE Te
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    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.
    Likes magpie, Xann, Population: 1 liked this post

  7. #7
    Meat Tornado DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    13,958

    Default

    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?
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so
    Likes Carpe Vinum, Xann, SpankyMcFly liked this post

  8. #8
    militat omnis amans magpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    614 sx/so
    Posts
    3,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anaximander View Post
    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?
    Likes Xann liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member Carpe Vinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    826 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LIE Te
    Posts
    195

    Default

    .

  10. #10
    Meat Tornado DiscoBiscuit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    13,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by magpie View Post
    What are examples of things you'd consider to be inciting violence?
    I know you are smart enough to put this together for yourself.
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
    - Edmund Burke

    8w9 sx/so

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO