The censorious political left and free speech
What are people thinking when they want to censor everything because it is perceived to be offensive - especially when it concerns history? Don't these people put things into context; are they really that stupid?
Blows my mind how censorious much of the political left is. It's bad in my country, the UK, but even worse in the US. Some of those people are downright scary with how anti-liberal they are.
mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada
I understand your concerns are valid, but in reality there is no definition of free speech that satisfies all. Personally, I don't think as an example Nazism should be protected but some people regard censoring neonazi lies and slander as "free speech". Is it, though? Not in my opinion; it's a hate crime and misinformation, both of which need to be stamped out posthaste.
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
f**k brexit
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
Hate speech is not a crime, nor is misinformation. I certainly understand your sentiments, and I wish there weren't so many ignorant, bigoted bastards around. But the first Amendment protects all speech, regardless of how vile it may be. That's the price of living in a free society. We have to put with everyone's opinions, even if we find them objectionable. Once we start determining which speech is acceptable or not, then we ae on a nonstop course to total fascism.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship; it's a counter argument.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
When all political parties, save few, engage in supporting the restriction of free-speech laws, speech itself is their enemy.
_________________
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: 34,416
Location: Long Island, New York
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
Hate speech is not a crime, nor is misinformation. I certainly understand your sentiments, and I wish there weren't so many ignorant, bigoted bastards around. But the first Amendment protects all speech, regardless of how vile it may be. That's the price of living in a free society. We have to put with everyone's opinions, even if we find them objectionable. Once we start determining which speech is acceptable or not, then we ae on a nonstop course to total fascism.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship; it's a counter argument.
^^^^
This
The first amendment does not protect you from consequences of your speech. If the consequeneces of your speech is being a victim of a crime the perpetrator should be procescuted. Punching Nazis in the face is satisfying emotionally. While the Nazis deserve to be punched in the face and a lot more their rights are bieng directly violated if the government arrests him for his Nazi speech. If the government fails to procescute people violently attacking Nazis the are failing to do what they were sworn in to do protect their constitutional rights.
_________________
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
There are many examples we could discuss but you likely understand my point. Free speech is more or less just a myth peddled by people who like to spew hateful rhetoric or protect an assumed right to be cyberbullies.
I know there's more to it than that, but I get the impression this is the majority thought process.
Hate speech is not a crime, nor is misinformation. I certainly understand your sentiments, and I wish there weren't so many ignorant, bigoted bastards around. But the first Amendment protects all speech, regardless of how vile it may be. That's the price of living in a free society. We have to put with everyone's opinions, even if we find them objectionable. Once we start determining which speech is acceptable or not, then we ae on a nonstop course to total fascism.
The antidote to hate speech is not censorship; it's a counter argument.
I think we need to be crystal clear as to what constitutes hate speech. Calls to violence should definitely fall under that category, as should Holocaust denial/defense.
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Now proficient in ChatGPT!
Should Bible verses such as Leviticus 18:22 or 1 Corinthians 14:34 (and similar verses in the Quran) fall under the hate speech category. Should opposition to Israel be considered anti-semitism (and opposition to Palestine considered Islamophobia)?
Controversially, I'm of the opinion that pretty much all holy books should be classified as hate speech but can you imagine, especially in America, the kind of reaction that would garner?
And how will he do this without 2/3 or 3/4 of the various states? This is exactly why the constitutional amendment process is extremely detailed and tedious. Whether we are talking about the First, Second or other amendments, they simply can't be tossed aside without years, decades or even centuries to ratify.
In other words, he is either functionally delusional or yanking your chain. Move on to more likely matters.
_________________
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)
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Free Will or Otherwise |
21 Feb 2024, 10:14 am |
Gluten Free recipe ideas Needed |
10 Apr 2024, 10:03 am |