Smut

Post Reply New Topic

Always beats me why causing physical harm to someone is automatically seen as something to outlaw, whereas causing mental damage (using words) is seen as everyone's right due to the importance of free speech. Words can harm. Words can incite hatred and then physical violence by others. Words can do a lot of damage. Of course, it becomes a lot more difficult at deciding where we draw the line, but just because its difficult doesnt mean we should give up entirely and just decide that anyone can say anything publically, whatever damage it causes.

Whenever someone talks about the importance of free speech, he is usually talking about the importance of his free speech. He wants to be protected by the TPTB against anyone who would speak ill against him but at the same time allowed to speak ill against anyone at any time.

Funny how that goes.

Nor would I, AB.

Ah, but I've eliminated any possible accusations of hypocrisy by advocating for total freedom of speech. I advocate free expression even for the sick bigots at WBC and Stormfront. I support the Marxists' right to promote their ideology. If someone speaks ill against me, I will deal with it, rather than calling in my Big Brother to protect me from "offensive" things.

How so? I have stated it quite plainly. You asked a question. I answered in the affirmative. Unless you don't understand your own question, where is the misunderstanding coming from?

So ... you should be able to verbally offend someone w/o fear of reprisal from Big Brother? If such a policy were implemented here on WP, no one would have anything to whine to the mods about. Free expression can work for you and against you. What a concept.

Slowmutant, this is a private forum. Meaning the owner (alex) gets to set the rules. Maybe an analogy would help? If I started up a newspaper, and offered to let people submit articles for publication, no one can appeal to freedom of speech if I choose to reject their article. It's a completely separate issue.

I know that.

Then what was your point?

Are you making deliberately fallacious arguments in the hopes that I won't refute them? Your posts make less and less sense.

We were talking about free expression, and it sounded like you were endorsing it. But then you reminded me who the rule-maker is around here.

So in your view we treat the symptom not the cause?

With regard to the effective banning of history revisionists I think we are falling into their trap, all we do is to push their message underground when instead it would be so easy to subject them to ridicule.

Speakers who try to incite violence are not as easy to combat, unlike historical revisionist who's claims can quite simply be shown to be false by the submission of evidence, hatemongers work within an ideology and their followers are often unable to see reason. To allow them freedom of association and expression gives them a much bigger audience, increasing their chance of success

I wonder how many members of an oppressed minority who constantly feel under the threat of violence will take succour in ideals of freedom of speech when it is that freedom that has been used to instil a sense of fear in them.

As someone with extreme leftwing views I do fear the suppression of political free speech, I would still vote for free speech to be removed from those who breed hate and violence

Sneaky. I will put it this way. Imagine there exist the Anti-Dent Association, who advocate the extinction of all things DentArthurDent. Are their opinions any less valid than anyone else? Is there anything you can do about the way they feel and think? Would you force them to keep their opinion silent, or would you rather know your foe? I like honesty...regardless of if I agree.

I come from a white middle class background and so I really cannot answer your question because I have no idea what it is like to be discriminated against, you on the other hand can answer the question (albeit only from your perspective) that you have quoted me on.

Am I still being sneaky

Nah. I was just trying to make the point that everyone has their own point of view, and no one view is more or less deserving of being heard than another. Besides, I am not certain there is still such a thing as a opressed minority in western culture, and if there is; I seriously doubt they constantly feel under the threat of violence.

Arrrgh I am getting so confused with my position on this issue, on the one hand there is plenty of evidence that freedom of speech is being eroded, there are the sedition laws here, the patriot act in the US, anti facist laws in Germany, this I know to be wrong.

I am having trouble reconciling this with being the same as preventing hate speech and speech likely too or designed too incite violence. Is it really the same? is it not possible to manage freedom of speech, or is it just a slippery slide to a police state.

I really dont know, this is why I like PPR it makes me think about issues from various angles, and gets me doing research.

I suppose what Orwell and others are trying to say is that if there are any restrictions on FOS then there is a precedent to restrict other areas, conversely if it is illegal to restrict any from of speech then our political and other freedoms will remain intact.

I really am confused because both courses of action are fraught with danger



Is there a 'this is giving me a head ache' emoticon

DING DING DING! We have a winner!


My motive for defending all speech stems partly from such practical concerns as setting precedents, and partly from principle.