Freedom of speech

Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe freedom of speech should be absolute and unlimited, or do we have to have certain exceptions and limits to the freedom of speech? For example: racist comments or denying of the Holocaust is illegal and punishable in several countries, these are in theory limitations to freedom of speech but on the other hand I am happy we have those few exceptional limits that prevent racist or fascist political parties to rise.

Do you think freedom of speech should be absolute or do we need certain limitations? If so, which limitations?

If we don't keep it absolute, it'll gradually crumble to nothing like in Sweden today. My belief is that all citizens should be able to express any political view they actually believe in and argue for that. If you start calling some things "hate", you might as well ban political expression entirely since you can always argue that a certain view is detrimental for someone or targets them. The political left has demonized or outright attacked quite a few institutions and parts of society, like the church and the "capitalists", pretty obvious cases of "hate" if using the loose PC interpretation of today.

I believe that freedom of speech should be close to absolute but there have to be a few exceptions. Would you feel it is right it someone can praise Hitler or spread racist hatred without someone being legally able to shut his mouth? I am glad in most countries there are laws that forbid nazism and racism. If far-right parties would be able to preach without any limitations we would just give them a stage a microphone to spread their campaigns of hatred. I think it is morally correct if we have a few exceptions to the freedom of speech, as long as it is just a few.

It sounds like you assume people would support the parties you're afraid of if they're given freedom of speech as well, and that therefore they must be deprived of that right? If a government doesn't allow the people to vote democracy out of existence, then you've got a catch 22 - have to abandon democracy to keep it. I feel the real threat to democracy isn't these groups though, it's the people in power now. They're scaring people with distorted depictions of what the plans of these groups really are, so they can restrict freedom of speech, get free hands to deal with dissidents and consolidate their own power.

I feel it's as simple as this: Everyone gets to enjoy full freedom of speech, and we have faith in the belief that that's beneficial. Trusting government with deciding who gets to speak his mind and who doesn't isn't a good idea.

It's kind of funny that the groups that are depicted as being anti-democratic are the only ones really fighting for it today. The others just follow their shepherd in the hopes of not being targetted for persecution.

I do not believe in full democracy. But that is a different debate.

Point is, if we allow racist hatred to be spread, then we set a dangerous example. I think it is not a bad thing that certain things remain illegal. If I would say "we should kick all muslims out of the country" that would be a very mean thing to say and I'd rightfully be punished for it. If I think of it that in my native country a political party actually exists that wants this, then I am glad they cannot make their point heard and that they are not allowed to fully spread their hatred campaigns and statements.

I support freedom of speech. Fascists, Nazis, and Racists have the right to express their opinions like everyone else, lest we start delving into the Politically Correct hellhole we're heading towards now where "Racists" are the new "Witch" being hunted.

You can ban racial slurs....you can ban political parties....but you can never get rid of the thoughts.
Banning political parties, criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust, and Hate Crime legislation are all infringements on the right of thought.

Besides, if you ban the Fascists, and suddenly people do want them to come into power, they'll get into power. Thought crimes won't make a difference. If 95% of the people want the Fascists in office, they'll overthrow the government.

Oh, hey! Here's an idea. How about we ban Far-Left parties and make it illegal to say anything good about Political Correctness and Diversity? Those are dangerous ideas!
(That last part was sarcastic, but hopefully you get the point).

I'm pretty cynical about this. As much as I want to be able to say what I feel, I can't help but think at the same time that people shouldn't be allowed to say things I don't like. I'm sure its the same with others. People want to be able to say what they want but they want to be able to control what others do as well.

There's truth in that, democracy and tolerance are unnatural things that always rest on shaky ground, they're not at all compatible with human nature. The leftists that control Europe and universities/media in the US today used to be the ones asking for more rights and talking about how oppressed they were, yet now that they've reached a position of power, they're proving to be totalitarian themselves, willing to imprison people that disagree with them. The sad fact is, the institutions we used to have like the church etc had developed tolerance for other views while still being in power, but these new authorities don't indicate they'll support anything of that nature.

I have noticed that often as not, the people crying hardest that their rights to freedom of speech are being denied are the ones who are saying something unpleasant about someone else.

"I have a right to say that all jews are (insert random abuse) and you cant deny it."

In which case I reserve the right to a) disagree and b) kick the f**k out of you from time to time for being obtuse.

Just a thought.

In theory, we are allowed to say whatever we want, but banning people from saying certain things is possibly the government's overreaction to people saying things they don't want to hear, or things that make them look bad, despite the fact that it might have been constructive criticism (but then again, politicians are dirty liars, and probably deserve to get shot anyways). Then you will also have to consider that in addition to saying something, there is also the receiving end--whether or not you hear it. So you can actively choose not to listen to someone if they say something you think you don't want to hear. Banning people from saying certain things is ignorance in itself. If people said certain things and had a good reason for it, particularly to make people aware of problems, the fact that the govnerment disallows people from saying these things shows that they want to live in ignorance, and could not progress much because of it.

Societies that conduct a kind of 'civil self censorship' are often less divided whereas absolute freedom of speech seems to cause tensions and disharmony, a low intensity social breakdown occurs, a kind of social cold war, which given the right stimuli to warm it up turns into the ugliness we see all over the world.

Maori proverb - you have two ears, two eyes and one mouth to be used in that order and proportion.

My bottom line is along the lines of Macbeth,
'lets all be nice, but if you want to start some s**t, well...'

peace? j

There are two ways to look at the question and they need to be addressed differently.

1) Governmentally

and

2) Culturally

_____________

1 - You need absolute freedom of speech governmentally. As soon as this right is infringed upon by the government (any government); the freedoms of that society will start to crumble and fade away. The government will almost always try to limit this freedom and continue to crack down on it as it's the most affective method of stopping critism of itself. Once a government reaches a certain size (which isn't that big), it ends up with only one function.. perputation of it's own power.


______________

2 - A culture needs to put some holds upon freedom of speech to keep it's identity and help make relationships work. But this is where it needs to be. The society and culture need to impose these baffles to keep society together and still allow the people to critisize the government and other institutions. Combating hate speach would fall here and not among the auspices of the government.

Sounds just about right. People should certainly be able to go about their business free of having to stay around when others are making offensive and inciting statements but at the same time, political correctness has gone way too far in Western society nowadays.

Until people are smart enough to tell the difference between lies and truth then maybe some restrictions on freedom of speech should be encouraged.

e.g. People who talk about how 9/11 didn't happen shouldn't have freedom of speech because there are enough stupid people to believe them. Same applies to the mercury/autism issue, natural medicine, religion, etc.

if only we could divide things up nicely into truth and lies.
But i think that would be quite stupid.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. The classic example: yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech, nor should it be. Because it harms others.

Other examples of speech not being protected: inciting people to riot, conspiracy (talking about doing something illegal without actually doing it) and libel and slander.

Should hate speech be protected speech? I don't think so. It really is a form of verbal discrimination, inciting to violence or libel/slander.

Of course, this will create grey areas, and will sometimes be applied in a way that leads to a less than perfect outcome. But the idea that an absolute protection of speech is necessary or we will descend into oppression is nonsense. You might as well say that if we as a society permit any and all types of rude or offensive or hateful speech, then we will surely descend into barbarity and civil war.