Does Free Speech Offend You?

Post Reply New Topic

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?

Censorship isn't immature; it's an exercise of power.

I totally agree, censorship is simply imposition of one view point at the expense of all others, f**k censorship.*

* And there's the proof. I wanted to write F-u-c-k but someone else has imposed their view of what is permissable and censored what I chose to write.

My first point is that free speech, as a right, is actually a federal issue. Locally, communities and campuses can unfortunately do whatever they want. I don't think I would change this either, because then we would have a slew of cases being handled by the federal government, and the federal government is already too large and two overarching for my taste.

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.

On the other hand, you know who I believe should be censored, or at least counterbalanced? Teachers and professors. They strongly influence their students when they espouse specific political beliefs. For the sake of critical thinking and a less biased education, I think they should be required to present more than one side of each issue.

This is a privately owned website if they want to sensor vulgar words here they can if you don't agree with it you don't have to continue posting or you can just live with f*** being censored here. Also freedom of speech doesn't give the right to say whatever you want wherever and whenever you want regardless of anything...

-try to yell bomb on an airplane or in the movie theater, when there isn't one
-try yelling at or verbally harassing a bus driver.
-tell a cop pulling you over to go f*** himself
-try threatening to commit a mass shooting with no plans to do so

all things that will probably get you in trouble no matter how much you site your right to free speech and how it should protect you from any consequences for those things.

In fact, the First Amendment right of Free Speech has been incorporated to the states by the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the matter of Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta). The Court held previously, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, that states were free to enforce statutes that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and that the federal courts could not interfere with the enforcement of such statutes. Gitlow partly reversed that precedent, and, under the Fourteenth Amendment right of Due Process, began a trend toward its nearly complete reversal. The Court now determines that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v. ... orporation ).

I already know that this is a privately owned website and as such they are entitled to set their own rules, I didn't require someone else to condescendingly point it out to me. I was simply using the word f**k as an example of the censorship here to illustrate the point I'd made in the same post, that censorship is the imposition of one viewpoint at the expense of any others. So why are you extrapolating that into ludicrous scenarios?

At least you've inadvertently answered the OP question, because it seems that free speech does offend you.

Not sure how any of what I said implies free speech offends me....yes I am so offended people can express opinions and thoughts and even disagree with the government without any legal consequence. that doesn't even make sense.

Is it a trick question like if you think any limits/regulations pertaining to 'free speech' are perfectly legal then it means you're offended by the concept of free speech?

Also how exactly is censoring vulgar terms on a site like WP imposing one view point at the expense of others?...f*** isn't really a view point. I mean if it were up to me I wouldn't have it censored because I don't care but don't really see how censoring vulgar terms is imposing any viewpoint at the expense of others.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that. Is it still fair though to say that in practice, local communities, campuses, workplaces ETC. are within their legal rights to regulate speech?

There is no such right.

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.

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.

Free speech by definition is free. Any restrictions on it render it no longer free speech, it becomes "allowed" speech. I never said that my use of the word f**k was expressing a viewpoint. I used it merely to illustrate a point about censorship. If free speech truly existed there'd be no need to justify the use of any word.

rights can be divided into three categories:
1. Fundamental - the atomic right like freedom of expression
2. Derivative - based on the fundamental rights e.g. freedom to associate
3. Pseudo-rights or Privileges - These may or not have legal standing but are not fundamental or derivative. These are not required for the functioning of society an can be detrimental.

One person right should not undermine or violate another's, that is why there are few fundamental rights: Expression, movement, due process, self-determination, information, etc.

Therefore "freedom not to be offended" can never be a right, becuase it would undermine others rights by implication. Offense is subjective.

You have a right to be offended (via expression), but you don't have a right not to be offended.

Literally true, but the Magna Carta defined in 1215 within its Article 42 that the freedom of movement anywhere by any one living as a resident of the English Kingdom. I doubt, however, that the nobility who protected this right meant it to be used by strangers to move about freely on the nobles' estates. Put simply, there are natural limits to natural laws.

In the United States, speech is limited (engaging in speech which would likely cause mayhem, incite riots, is obscene or can be defined as "fighting words") under federal Supreme Court restrictions.

Hm. Are you referring to the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America? I would call them somewhat "pseudo-rights and privileges" because they remain undefined.
Indeed. Speech itself can be criminal under certain circumstances. Assault, libel, slander, threat and extortion all rely on verbal or written speech. We shouldn't allow such crime because the First Amendment simply says so. It is an innocent interpretation of the amendment to think so.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 09 Oct 2016, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.