Peace is worthless if you don't have freedom.

Post Reply New Topic

A peaceful little world where I had no freedom of speech or expression is not an acceptable option to me.

What about you? Would you give up freedom for peace?

Since there's really no freedom in the UK worthy of the term 'freedom' to give up, it's moot.

That sucks. "Get up, stand up! Stand up for your rights!" Bob Marley

As far as applying the question to the real world, I agree with Everchanging that the question is moot, particularly in the United States. The question presupposes freedoms which, although guaranteed to the citizens in theory, are much more restricted in actual practice.

However, even speaking purely hypothetically, I don't believe the scenario proposed is possible, except maybe in the absolute worst of authoritarian states. Stripping people of their freedoms usually creates civil unrest-- and I would not call that "peace". When a people is oppressed by leadership, at least a fragment of the oppessed will react because people instinctually protect their own interests. The only way to really ensure "peace"-- in this case, referring to domestic stability just as much as foreign relations-- is to restrict freedoms while simultaneously appealing to the more immediate survival instinct of the people. One classic way to do this, as evidenced by numerous dictatorships throughout the past century (Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Amin), is to instill fear in the people-- primarily fear of a brutal death or torture. The other way, for countries that are prosperous enough to afford it, is to run a bait-and-switch: give people other luxuries as an exchange or distraction, to create the illusion of freedom, while slowly taking their actual freedom away from them; the majority of the people won't react to the gradual erosion of freedom because they will feel that standing their ground against the status quo would mean sacrificing an otherwise secure and comfortable life. In both cases, although the loss of freedoms is still against their self-interests, it appears, at least in comparison, to be the lesser of the two evils. But then, of course, both types of authoritarian societies are particularly susceptible to conflict of some kind-- just as in 1984, the governments these societies create war as a means of finding scapegoats to distract the public from their own corruption.

It depends on your definition, interpretation and measurement of freedom of speech and when do you consider that to have been violated, I can say that the concept of freedom of speech has been changed from fifty years ago to current times, hasn't it?

I could say that all things have its limits, the question is where to put those limits? or is it necessary to put limits on freedom of speech?
Is "politically correctness" a correct term? if so, does that obstructs freedom of speech?

Well, the issue is how much freedom and how much peace. To be honest, everyone trades the 2 off. Take the family unit, instead of cussing out your parents all the freakin' time, you are more likely to silence yourself to prevent bickering. At the same time, if a jerk just pushes your every button, you are likely to blow up on him, thus disrupting the peace, but as an expression of your freedom. The real issue is defining peace and defining freedom and thus making the ideas analytic.

For example, is killing an act of freedom? If not then why not? If so, then would you want a world where people are free to kill? This element is the tricky one.

Define freedom please.

To me freedom means the freedom to go where you want to go, when you want to, with whom you want to, just behave the way you want to and not have your lifestyle dictated by others or by a government.

I am against freedom of speech because it is constantly abused for racist propaganda and populist bullcrap. I am proponent of a limited freedom of speech where censorship is applied to every outing that can be deemed racist. Total freedom of speech is a bad thing IMO but the non-existance of total freedom of speech doesn't mean you cannot live in freedom.

Well, if you deny freedom of speech, then don't you deny freedom in general? After all to "just behave the way you want to and not have your lifestyle dictated by others or by a government" does include allowing for the KKK, neo-Nazis, and people such as those to behave the way they want to without being dictated too, which of course means allowing them to be complete racists.

The problem here arises with what constitutes unaccaptable speech. If you make a distinction that one kind is acceptable and one kind is not, you have to draw very specific lines. Is racial humour, as in routines of Richard Pryor, unacceptable? Is satire unacceptable? Is honest well-meaning discourse about social inequality unacceptable? And also, who has the moral authority to decide where the line is?

The tendency of people in power is inevitably to strive for more power. When you make a distinction and give people power to decide what others can and can't say, you're handing them the power to repress people. Over time, the authorities will become corrupt, overreach, and move the line further toward total repression because it affords them more power.

As I believe far right groups only pollute the world, I think they have to be censored and forbidden. Maybe that means no freedom of speech, but then that's a sacrifice I am happy to make. In my native country I have seen the evils racism can do, and this took away my believes in democracy and freedom of speech.

I support a form of censorship like it is practised in countries with a relative freedom of speech. So political criticism and such are OK to me, as long as it is not propagandaing any form of divide between people as this can cause fractures in an entire society. A simple control team in every form of media outlet is enough to filter all such content, and if there is any doubt about the exact line which needs to be drawn I guess one can always get a specific commission dealing with such issues.

I personally do not feel limiting freedom of speech means limiting freedom. Because the things I am proposing to censor are only things such as nazism, racism and fascism who have proven the harm they can do. I am not advocating general censorship, but restricting a very limited amount of things. I think you're better off in a peaceful society that lives in harmony than in an unrestricted freedom of speech with a fractured society.

Ok, and I am certain that the far-right believes that your ilk pollutes the world, and should be censored and forbidden. In fact, that is the very reason you hate them.


What determines whether or not a divide will cause fractures? It could be argued that FDR's speeches were causing fractures as there was an attempt of a coup during that time. If we cannot come down to a perfect definition, then we have an arbitrary one, to be wielded against whatever cultural idea the powers that be consider to be a threat. Not only that, but any disruptive idea can be considered to cause fractures, it could be argued that the hippies were creating a divide between traditional culture and their culture and thus were a problem. Shall we maintain the cultural status quo at the cost of freedom? If so, then what makes our society different than any theocracy? The fact that our status quo is different?


Look at your definition, you may not *feel* you are limiting freedom, but analytically you *are*. Now, frankly, unless we want to practice some idiotic romanticism, what you logically do is more important than what you feel you do, and logically you are denying freedom. Right, I can understand the idea, but it is still a limitation of freedom, and a spade should be called a spade.

I am all for allowing racist and hateful speech to exist... Why?!? Because, I would rather have it out in the open for all to see if it exists, and I want to know who is thinking it. This is better than forcing the haters to keep it inside all to themselves. Also, having it out in the open forces us into a public dialogue which usually leads to more education and awareness, and hopefully more tolerance and acceptance.

If every individual, acting within their rights, sends society to hell in a handbasket...then society ought to die.

I too would say this depends greatly on what one means by freedom. After all, my freedom to enjoy quiet interferes with my friend's freedom to listen to music loudly. I'm with Mill on this, a la on liberty, but that still doesn't answer the complexity of it.

In a certain sense, freedom is meaningless without peace--without at least some peace. After all, most of the things most people would choose to do with freedom are difficult or impossible in times of war.

There's also the fact that on a practical level, freedom has much to do with material wealth. I am not of the persuasion that's inclined to presume one is more free when dead, and--among myriad other items--poor people die younger--routinely--globally.

I don't believe in pure freedom; anarchy. It's just something people latch on to as an ideal but when it becomes reality they'll beg for restrictions and regulations. I personally wouldn't find such a liberal society ideal to live in, but I am also against a totalitarian society. In this sense, I would rather live in a socially conservative society as it fits closer to my ideals. Totalitarianism is too restrictive and anarchy is too egoistical; they'll both eventually fall. I'm all for censorship if it allows for a safe society. If it means censoring "free-thinking" or individuality in the sense that you are not allowed to do things you want in your home, or dissent (protests, criticisms), then no.

Currently, since no society fits my ideals perfectly I have no reason to do anything about it (protest, demand reforms, rebel, etc.). I am fine living where I am as it is not too liberal and not too restrictive. Personally, having such ideals is wrong in my opinion as the only way to put the ideals in place is to kill people who are against them. Besides, we all have different ideas of what it means to have freedom and how to implement it (putting it into practice). Certain regions react differently to certain societal moods. In societies with high crime rates, how would allowing them to have more "freedom" change anything? And in societies with low crime rates, what would be the point of having too many patrol officers running around the city?

People beg for all sorts of things. We will never be pleased.


Does that make anything wrong?

Certain crimes go away once they become acceptable institutional practices(and because of this lose some of their criminal element), and when laws are designed in such a manner where violation is common or accepted, then the law in general loses respect anyway, so freedom can help with this problem. That being said, freedom is more of something effective with mild crime rates rather than serious ones.