Does Free Speech Offend You?
09 Oct 2016, 1:50 pm
Jute wrote:
Any restriction on free speech renders the speech no longer free.
Refer back to my point on right not restricting other's rights. So if I threaten someone to prevent them from expressing themselves I am restricting their expression, so this is not covered by free speech. Similarly if you ask soemone else to do it.
Not using a right is not the same as restricting it. So that guy isn't restricting his right to speech, he is just choosing not to use it.
In all likelihood at that stage, he isn't going to care if he is allowed to or not.
I get you point about allowing extremist to air their views, sunlight being the best disinfectant an all.
09 Oct 2016, 1:55 pm
Jute wrote:
Verbally harrassing a bus driver is harming nobody and the bus driver is perfectly free to stop the bus and either eject the irate passenger, or radio for assistance.
Free speech doesn't cover a persistent situation where a person is force to listen to verbal abuse.
Free speech doesn't protect the right to be listened to. it is primarily protecting you against the government taking your right to speak your mind. However you are also protected from other encroaching on your rights.
So the bus driver also has rights too.
09 Oct 2016, 2:03 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
Jute wrote:
Verbally harrassing a bus driver is harming nobody and the bus driver is perfectly free to stop the bus and either eject the irate passenger, or radio for assistance.
Free speech doesn't cover a persistent situation where a person is force to listen to verbal abuse.
Free speech doesn't protect the right to be listened to. it is primarily protecting you against the government taking your right to speak your mind. However you are also protected from other encroaching on your rights.
So the bus driver also has rights too.
Who says free speech doesn't this or that? As I've said repeatedly the minute somebody imposses restrictions, for whatever reasons, justifiable or not, it is no longer free speech, it becomes allowed speech.
The OP asked a simply question "Does Free Speech Offend You?"
My answer, again, is "No, free speech does not offend me." I simply answered a question. I have no desire to argue the point. You're all entitled to your own opinions, just as I am to mine.
_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.
Somewhere completely different:
Autism Social Forum
I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Oct 2016, 2:15 pm
Jute wrote:
Threatening to commit a mass shooting on FaceBook is a good thing, because by openly exposing that threat to scrutiny it allows the law enforcement agencies an opportunity to prevent it from happening. Woud you rather that the fledgling shooter voluntarily restricted his right to speak and instead simply went ahead and pulled the trigger, without giving any prior verbal or written warnings?
Again, threatening to kill people is good, if it allows people the opportunity to prevent it from happening. Would you prefer that the would be killer kept quiet, out of respect for other people's wishes to restrict his speech, and instead simply shot them?
You can in fact yell "Bomb!" Or "Fire!" is a crowded room, if there is in fact a bomb or a fire present, it's called a warning.
Verbally harrassing a bus driver is harming nobody and the bus driver is perfectly free to stop the bus and either eject the irate passenger, or radio for assistance.
Calling in a hoax bomb threat is lying. If people still choose to do it then I wouldn't stop them, provided that they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.
Any restriction on free speech renders the speech no longer free.
Again, threatening to kill people is good, if it allows people the opportunity to prevent it from happening. Would you prefer that the would be killer kept quiet, out of respect for other people's wishes to restrict his speech, and instead simply shot them?
You can in fact yell "Bomb!" Or "Fire!" is a crowded room, if there is in fact a bomb or a fire present, it's called a warning.
Verbally harrassing a bus driver is harming nobody and the bus driver is perfectly free to stop the bus and either eject the irate passenger, or radio for assistance.
Calling in a hoax bomb threat is lying. If people still choose to do it then I wouldn't stop them, provided that they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.
Any restriction on free speech renders the speech no longer free.
Yes it is good if someone planning to do such blabs about it, as they can be stopped...I don't think someone planning a mass shooting cares about following any rules/laws at that point. But you can also get in trouble if you threaten to commit a mass shooting but aren't really going to do it.
I meant yelling fire or bomb in a crowded place when there isn't one, you ever seen a human stampede..not something to f*** around with.
If the person is lucky the bus driver stops and tells them to get off the bus, maybe other passengers help out....and no cops are called, but the bus driver can just notify the police and have them arrested.
And I guess we disagree a bit on the meaning of free speech then, since I don't think any regulation whatsoever renders it non-free speech.
_________________
We won't go back.
09 Oct 2016, 2:33 pm
Jute wrote:
Who says free speech doesn't this or that? As I've said repeatedly the minute somebody imposses restrictions, for whatever reasons, justifiable or not, it is no longer free speech, it becomes allowed speech.
The OP asked a simply question "Does Free Speech Offend You?"
My answer, again, is "No, free speech does not offend me." I simply answered a question. I have no desire to argue the point. You're all entitled to your own opinions, just as I am to mine.
The OP asked a simply question "Does Free Speech Offend You?"
My answer, again, is "No, free speech does not offend me." I simply answered a question. I have no desire to argue the point. You're all entitled to your own opinions, just as I am to mine.
I didn't say otherwise. I'm just saying that idea is somewhat wrong, becuase no persons right should limit another person rights. So a direct threat to liberty is not covered by free speech.
You are able to utter the words "If you don't shut up I will stab you" but being a credible treat is still a crime.
Otherwise you could argue that the police are not allowed interview someone who make a credible threat such as to to a mass shooting or monitor them as that could be deemed to be interfering with their right to express themselves.
Also freedom of speech is derivative of expression. So you could argue that carrying out the threat is an expression.
Obviously stabbing someone limits that person's rights so cannot be protected.
09 Oct 2016, 2:38 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
Is it still fair though to say that in practice, local communities, campuses, workplaces ETC. are within their legal rights to regulate speech?
Mmm, only if the speech includes obscenities or "fighting words" (speech which causes ordinary people to react angrily and physically towards the speaker(s)).
No need to apologize. It is difficult to remember every nuance.
OK, thanks.
I'm confused though. Are you saying that any time an employer tells you not to discuss politics in the workplace, or any time a professor restricts what you can say in their classroom, they're breaking the law? If not, please clarify.
09 Oct 2016, 3:04 pm
Free speech as a concept doesn't offend me.
Offensive speech does offend me.
I am free to be offended and my freedom of speech guarantees that the government can't stop me from saying so.
Only in my own home, business or other private institution may I restrict the speech of others to prevent them from saying things that offend me.
If, for example, I invite you to dinner and you start talking about how wonderfully charismatic you are and how this entitles you to walk up to women and grab them by the p***y, I am free to be offended and to tell you to leave. If you don't leave, I may call the police to have you charged with trespass.
You have free speech rights that protect you from government interference in your speech. You have no such right to say whatever you want in my house or in a private enterprise.
_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.
09 Oct 2016, 3:38 pm
DataB4 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
Is it still fair though to say that in practice, local communities, campuses, workplaces ETC. are within their legal rights to regulate speech?
Mmm, only if the speech includes obscenities or "fighting words" (speech which causes ordinary people to react angrily and physically towards the speaker(s)).
No need to apologize. It is difficult to remember every nuance.
OK, thanks.
I'm confused though. Are you saying that any time an employer tells you not to discuss politics in the workplace, or any time a professor restricts what you can say in their classroom, they're breaking the law? If not, please clarify.
Sorry. I was a little too brief. Various governments and governmental agencies like public schools and colleges may follow the federal model and prohibit obscenities, threats, slander, libel and "fighting words" if they choose to do so. Businesses may restrict speech as a matter of contractual obligation among their employees and, sometimes, contract workers. Other private facilities and lands, like churches or social groups may also adopt restrictions if they choose to do so.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
09 Oct 2016, 3:57 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
Is it still fair though to say that in practice, local communities, campuses, workplaces ETC. are within their legal rights to regulate speech?
Mmm, only if the speech includes obscenities or "fighting words" (speech which causes ordinary people to react angrily and physically towards the speaker(s)).
No need to apologize. It is difficult to remember every nuance.
OK, thanks.
I'm confused though. Are you saying that any time an employer tells you not to discuss politics in the workplace, or any time a professor restricts what you can say in their classroom, they're breaking the law? If not, please clarify.
Sorry. I was a little too brief. Various governments and governmental agencies like public schools and colleges may follow the federal model and prohibit obscenities, threats, slander, libel and "fighting words" if they choose to do so. Businesses may restrict speech as a matter of contractual obligation among their employees and, sometimes, contract workers. Other private facilities and lands, like churches or social groups may also adopt restrictions if they choose to do so.
OK, that makes sense. Then local governments also most respect freedom of speech.
09 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm
DataB4 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
Is it still fair though to say that in practice, local communities, campuses, workplaces ETC. are within their legal rights to regulate speech?
Mmm, only if the speech includes obscenities or "fighting words" (speech which causes ordinary people to react angrily and physically towards the speaker(s)).
No need to apologize. It is difficult to remember every nuance.
OK, thanks.
I'm confused though. Are you saying that any time an employer tells you not to discuss politics in the workplace, or any time a professor restricts what you can say in their classroom, they're breaking the law? If not, please clarify.
Sorry. I was a little too brief. Various governments and governmental agencies like public schools and colleges may follow the federal model and prohibit obscenities, threats, slander, libel and "fighting words" if they choose to do so. Businesses may restrict speech as a matter of contractual obligation among their employees and, sometimes, contract workers. Other private facilities and lands, like churches or social groups may also adopt restrictions if they choose to do so.
OK, that makes sense. Then local governments also most respect freedom of speech.
Yep. Incorporation to the states includes all a state's counties and municipalities.
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,465
Location: Long Island, New York
09 Oct 2016, 4:58 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
DataB4 wrote:
At the university level, I believe that trigger warnings have their place, so that at least someone who is suffering with mental health issues will have some idea what they are about to experience. That said, I think universities have gone too far, and it's not healthy to avoid uncomfortable topics. We can't water down everything, just because a small subset of students will have difficulty with it.
Trigger warnings lack efficacy. Expert on PTSD say trigger are not an effective way to overcome these issues. Basic understating of conditioning will tell you the worst thing you can do is reinforce the idea you are constantly under threat. This is not a coping strategy that will work long term.
Aslo PTSD has been largely misappropriated. It is simply one of many very different mental condition that can result. In fact the say the majority don't develop it.
There is also an assumption you can predict what may trigger a flash back, this is not necessarily the case. The most innocuous thing me do so or not. This is not something anyone else could resoably control, so it not a realistic strategy to attempt to.
The problem is trigger warning aren't being used to help people genuinely they are being used to create a taboo, in order to limit what people can do or say, and dictate an 'appropriate' way of doing so.
Taboo is a very effective form of propaganda. It has been used multiple regimes to control the population.
Actually it is useful for PTSD to try and figure out what things trigger it and what not, so you can approach those things with more caution. It's not about reinforcing the idea you're constantly under threat but rather identifying things that set you off to feel like you are under threat....so you can exert more control. Obviously endlessly avoiding any and all of those defined 'triggers' is not useful the next step is to find ways to cope/handle those things without it setting you off. But yes it does serve a purpose when it comes to PTSD to know what triggers you and limit exposure to such things till you can deal with it.
Not sure how it came to be that now 'trigger warnings' is some widespread thing to prevent anyone feeling any offense or being upset by anything at all. Since from my understanding it was meant specifically to help people who've been through trauma avoid sudden reminders of it in situations where it cannot be adequately dealt with. Seems some people are abusing this trigger warning concept.
You are correct. Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces are legitimate concepts that have been abused and hijacked by the SJW's to point where it carries such a stigma that anybody who needs them is thought of as spoiled brats and worse. While we legitimatly descry the bullying, intimidation and censorship involved we should not forget the damage the stigma the SJW's and many of us who oppose them have created have caused.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
09 Oct 2016, 6:15 pm
dcj123 wrote:
Debate?
At what point does someone's rights to not be offended overrule someone else's right to make a point?
Is it more immature to censor what you don't like or is it more immature to ignore others who might make a point that will offend you?
At what point does someone's rights to not be offended overrule someone else's right to make a point?
Is it more immature to censor what you don't like or is it more immature to ignore others who might make a point that will offend you?
There is no right "not to be offended". Assuming that a person is not libeled or slandered he has no recourse against anyone speaking ill of him or insulting him or saying things that offend him. Anyone he is bothered by what other people say or write should not listen to what is said or read what is written. Libel and Slander are actionable so there are legal remedies.
_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????
09 Oct 2016, 7:53 pm
B19 wrote:
Some hate speech is so toxic that I am relieved there are restrictions on it.
Apart from a relative few jurisdictions in the United States, "hate-speech" laws don't exist because they would easily fall victim to court review as sometimes violative of the First Amendment. What does past constitutional muster is the idea that what many people call hate speech is actually already prohibited through existing laws against libel, slander, threat and extortion.
When I helped write and lobby successfully for the adoption of my state's hate-crime laws, we intentionally steered clear of any mention of speech ramifications because we knew that it would raise eyebrows, and, instead, stuck with the overall category of crimes (which includes speech-related violations).
_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)
Meistersinger
Veteran
Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,700
Location: Beautiful(?) West Manchester Township PA
09 Oct 2016, 9:09 pm
Free speech has never existed, does not exist now, and never will exist. Your opinions are no better than mine, or any one else. If anything, my thoughts, speech and feelings are to be severely discounted, derided, and are of no consequence BECAUSE I'M A USELESS PIECE OF SH!T who knows nothing about everything and everything about nothing!
I'm always being told I'm ALWAYS wrong, even when I'm right and can prove it six ways to Sunday.
09 Oct 2016, 11:05 pm
On the contrary, there has always been freedom of speech, provided you’re willing to face the consequences, which, more often than not, include physical aggression and probably fighting to the death.
_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Free Will or Otherwise |
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am |
| Gluten Free recipe ideas Needed |
10 Apr 2024, 10:03 am |
