Does Free Speech Offend You?
09 Oct 2016, 12:37 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
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....
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....
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.
_________________
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)
Last edited by AspieUtah on 09 Oct 2016, 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Oct 2016, 12:39 pm
Jute wrote:
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.
Well I think reasonable regulations are fine, such as allowing private websites to censor vulgar words if they want or not, having authorities investigate if someone is threatening mass violence on social media for instance and various other examples where no limits whatsoever on any speech would not be practical.
Disagree if you want but if it can be shown that particular speech is infringing rights or safety of others I don't see the problem with some regulation. For instance if someone started yelling at a bus driver and verbally harrassing them, they'd be creating a dangerous situation for everyone hence why that is illegal to do.
are you offended I don't think freedom of speech is absolute and can have limits?
_________________
We won't go back.
09 Oct 2016, 12:41 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
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.
The Magna Carta is aimed at rebel barons not ordinary serfs.
Even the later English Bill of Rights which is very similar in language to the American one, is only really limiting the power of the king over Parliament.
It is more the general principle that was applied, but to a wide population.
09 Oct 2016, 12:44 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
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.
The Magna Carta is aimed at rebel barons not ordinary serfs.
Even the later English Bill of Rights which is very similar in language to the American one, is only really limiting the power of the king over Parliament.
It is more the general principle that was applied, but to a wide population.
Fascinating! In the United States, largely under the Fourteenth Amendment, almost all rights are incorporated to the states and, in the case of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, to the people themselves.
_________________
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)
Last edited by AspieUtah on 09 Oct 2016, 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
09 Oct 2016, 12:45 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
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....
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....
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.
Nope. I'm saying if a right is not fundamental or not derivative of a fundamental rights it is not really a right but a privilege or special status.
For instance the legal recognition of marriage is not really a right. It is a special legal status. A society could function without it.
The right to have a cultural or religious marriage comes under expression.
09 Oct 2016, 12:46 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
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....
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....
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.
Nope. I'm saying if a right is not fundamental or not derivative of a fundamental rights it is not really a right but a privilege or special status.
For instance the legal recognition of marriage is not really a right. It is a special legal status. A society could function without it.
The right to have a cultural or religious marriage comes under expression.
Yes. Of course. We recognize rights, privileges and liberties. But, I and too many others, slur the phrase into "rights." My mistake.
_________________
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, 12:58 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
Fascinating! In the United States, largely under the Fourteenth Amendment, almost all rights are incorporated to the states and, in the case of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, to the people themselves.
That's not the whole story lol. English law has a bit more to it than that and US law is based on it to a large degree.
The American Bar association send their members to Runnymede every year. The J F Kennedy memorial stand on an acre of land bequeathed tot eh US.
More interesting is the Catholic Relief Acts are not fully complete, which is why my sister was married by a catholic priest, but the signing of the register was overseen by a CoE vicar. As most people just go to the town hall they aren't aware.
A Methodist priest would do or anybody, just not Catholic. I'm not sure why they haven't got round to changing the law. Low priority.
Tbh I'm not exactly sure of the details. It may be more to do with the building/church than the witness. I just know it was an issue.
Then again I'm, against legal marriage anyway.
Last edited by 0_equals_true on 09 Oct 2016, 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
09 Oct 2016, 1:00 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
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.
What is "natural" about restrictive laws imposed by one or more people onto others? Was everyone consulted in the drawing up of the Magna Carta? No, it was an exercise in power by the nobility, wresting absolute power from the monarchy, the common people were never consulted and never had any say, so much for free speech.
_________________
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.
09 Oct 2016, 1:02 pm
0_equals_true wrote:
...Then again I'm, against legal marriage anyway.
Marriage should be either: 1) lawful for all, or 2) legal civil contractual arrangements like bills of sale between buyer and seller.
_________________
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, 1:06 pm
Jute wrote:
What is "natural" about restrictive laws imposed by one or more people onto others? Was everyone consulted in the drawing up of the Magna Carta? No, it was an exercise in power by the nobility, wresting absolute power from the monarchy, the common people were never consulted and never had any say, so much for free speech.
So long as slander and libel are injurious to people, slanderous and libelous speech will need lawful or legal remedies regardless of how many citizens wish to ignore the need for remedies.
_________________
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, 1:08 pm
Jute wrote:
What is "natural" about restrictive laws imposed by one or more people onto others? Was everyone consulted in the drawing up of the Magna Carta? No, it was an exercise in power by the nobility, wresting absolute power from the monarchy, the common people were never consulted and never had any say, so much for free speech.
Well in practice you have establish a Constitution before you have a system of democracy. There is no way everyone could be consulted nor would it necessarily result in a democracy, we have seen how popular revolutions turn out.Not always for the better.
Direct democracy, nice idea in theory but not at all scalable and a poor substitute for governance. Each referendum is massively expensive, and someone has to set the questions.
Even you founding fathers discussed direct democracy. They ruled it out on the basis that a majority could use it impose its will on a minority.
09 Oct 2016, 1:11 pm
AspieUtah wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
...Then again I'm, against legal marriage anyway.
Marriage should be either: 1) lawful for all, or 2) legal civil contractual arrangements like bills of sale between buyer and seller.
I'm not for banning marriage just against legal status of marriage. I say that private life is not the business of the state.
I disagree with most of marriage and divorce law.
I agree that contract law could cover some aspects of marriage and many things besides.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
09 Oct 2016, 1:12 pm
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.
_________________
We won't go back.
09 Oct 2016, 1:19 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Jute wrote:
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.
Well I think reasonable regulations are fine, such as allowing private websites to censor vulgar words if they want or not, having authorities investigate if someone is threatening mass violence on social media for instance and various other examples where no limits whatsoever on any speech would not be practical.
Disagree if you want but if it can be shown that particular speech is infringing rights or safety of others I don't see the problem with some regulation. For instance if someone started yelling at a bus driver and verbally harrassing them, they'd be creating a dangerous situation for everyone hence why that is illegal to do.
are you offended I don't think freedom of speech is absolute and can have limits?
Regulation of any sort is still the impostion of one view onto the views of others, it is, as Spiderpig quite rightly pointed out, an exercise in power.
I'm not offended by anyone's views, everyone is entitled to have whatever views they wish, they don't impinge upon my own views in the slightest.
_________________
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, 1:20 pm
I don't think most limits on speech are really that restrictive
-you can't yell bomb or fire in a crowded place
-can't get up in a college classroom and start screaming at the professor and calling them vulgar names.
-can't verbally harass the bus driver and cause a scene on the bus.
-can't threaten to commit a mass shooting on facebook.
-can't threaten to kill people or their families.
-can't call in a prank bomb threat.
So restrictive, all of that should be completely allowed...can anyone else think of any other super restrictive limits on free speech?
_________________
We won't go back.
09 Oct 2016, 1:31 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
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.
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 might find these interesting:
https://psmag.com/hazards-ahead-the-pro ... .tdyahhyfn
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... nings.html
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Free Will or Otherwise |
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am |
| Gluten Free recipe ideas Needed |
10 Apr 2024, 10:03 am |
