Should the government allow complete freedom of speech?

Post Reply New Topic

Freedom of speech is fine by me as long as it is not hate speech!

I completely disagree on both.

First of all, Political Correctness has no place in society and I will not conform to it's stupid generalizations to make others happy, and second, If black guys don't want us saying n****r, then don't say it yourselves, the argument of "reclaiming" the word is a load of bollocks, don't even try to justify it.

The government allowing complete freedom of speech would involve not letting a forum such as this one have moderators, wouldn’t it?

Not so. This is a privately-owned website and subject to its own rules - like how guests in your house are expected to behave in accordance with your rules.

Theoretically governments could forbid private organisations from censoring people. Perhaps there are some free speech fundamentalists who would like that.

That’s the point. Where exactly is the government supposed to “allow” or “disallow” free speech?

I don't think expecting a guest in your house behave in a certain way and not throw your plates against the wall or kick your puppy is censorship - but if a government was ever in a position where it could force people to say, do or believe what it wanted, irrespective of where or what people were doing, then there would be very much more serious things to worry about.

They're not supposed to allow it. They're just not supposed to disallow it. The former is active and involves the government doing something, the latter is passive and involves the government staying out of other peoples business. That is, they are not supposed to make any laws regarding what people can say (barring the obvious clause of reckless endangerment which forbids shouting fire in a crowded theatre, though theoretically that itself could be dealt with privately by having a contract signed by everyone entering the theatre...). If a private city (something which I expect would become quite common in a laissez-faire situation) decides that it's going to ban "inflammatory" language, then they would be allowed to. But in public spaces (in the sense of being places where any citizen is allowed to be), then they couldn't.

In other words, if you criticize then someone can criticize you.

Nope. Killing me because of what some dumb nazi says is as dumb as killing a muslim because of what dumb cleric says. If you are not happy with what the cleric is telling, then confront the cleric. Your argument is the same as if you would say, that I should be attacked for George Bush war politics. George Bush never asked me for my oppinion, so why should I be made responsible for it.

Returning to your example: There are both reasons to stop the muslim cleric and the Nazi out of the same cause. Because of not being able to live withoput their racistic oppinions and both making innocent people responsible for their personal wars. Its not about Nazis and normal folk against, radical cleric and muslims. Its both Nazis and radical clerics, against all kind of normal poeple including muslims. So why should I fought innocent muslims, when the people atacking me and every other normal person no matter what religion, are radical clerics and Nazis?

Makes no sense to me. If I am forced to fight back, I normally fight against those who attack me, not against those that are attacked by the same bunch of ignorant people.

read the 1 st amendment very carefully. No law curtailing speech and press is for the purpose of permitting peaceful petition of government for redress of grievances. Why the qualification "for the peaceful petition for redress of grievances"? One could infer from this that only certain kinds of speech and press writings are not to be curtailed.

ruveyn

I'd say for the most part it's a good thing, however I am not to opposed to regulations against speech that might cause harm...Like I don't think verbal abuse should be covered under freedom of speech, not so sure yelling bomb or fire in a crowded building should be as that could cause people to panic and trampling could take place. But people should certainly have the right to express opinions even if they are in opposition to the mainstream or government.

Can you point us to one?

Can you point us to a libertarian calling for censorship of speech that offends them?

No, I don't know that anyone seriously holds the opinion that censorship should be forbidden for private organisations such as internet fora or tv channels. I believe they should be able to self-censor, even though if I ran a forum I would only ban things such as threats to people or clearly illegal content, or private information such as phone numbers disclosed by another person.
I consider myself nearly a free speech fundamentalist. I dislike the censorship of cusswords on tv (even though it isn't required by law here in the Netherlands, it is probably done to avoid alienating viewers). It feels as if they think I can't handle a few bad words and as if I don't know that they are swearing. Image watching The Sopranos with added bleeps, you would miss half the series. I facepalmed last week when CNN showed a video of the explosion in Boston, which was horrible to look at, and they managed to censorbleep a word from a bystander as if that would somehow ruin my day. It seemed so trivial.

I understand that non-cable television is censored by law. I'm against that, because I believe the free market gives enough incentive to have self-censored channels. F.e. the Discovery and National Geographic channels censorbleep cusswords even though they are not required to by law (Netherlands).

Ahh, your previous post seemed to convey a very different opinion.