Should Freedom of Speech Ever be Limited?

[JuniperWoolf]

We ran into this problem in Alberta, when noted anti-gay jackass Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) scheduled a trip to Red Deer to protest the showing of a gay play. He cancelled his trip, and I read that it was because of the numerous threats of violence from Albertans (it was a big press story at the time).

This bugged me. On the one hand, I'm against censorship in any form and believe that threatening violence to get people to shut up is terrorism. On the other, I've heard some of what this guy was saying and to tell you the truth, I really did want to hit him.

I'm conflicted. Should hate groups be allowed to say whatever they want within the confines of the law (ie. without intent to spark violence)? Does violence in the past mean that it's okay to silence groups such as those who identify themselves as Nazis or the kkk? If they aren't silenced, do we risk these groups growing? If they do grow, are we risking another era where minority groups have live in fear that they and their family members are going to be lynched? If we take away their rights for what they say, are we as bad as they are? Is wanting to hit a Nazi morally wrong?

[Revolte]

no. Limiting thought is the worst thing someone can do. Its not as if the people full of hate and evil are going to be different cause they dont say anything about it, all it means is those of us who oppose it will never know who we are fighting against, and that is a very bad, bad thing. You cannot controll what people think, and attempting to control what they think will fail, there are those of us who will make sure of it, I will be one of them. Though I am far from hateful, the very thought of someone being silence makes my heart bleed, and my ears ring, and my fists clench, and, ironically, my mouth widen.

[OrphanPip]

My God, someone actually wanted to go to Red Deer? Willingly?

Even more surprising is the fact that Red Deer has s theater.

I don't support the silencing of people, no matter how awful their opinions, when they aren't promoting violence, and they are doing it in a non-obstructive way. I probably wouldn't have the patience not to want to physically hurt Fred Phelps in person either though, especially since he's an old man and I'm reasonably sure I could take him if I were in peek form that day.

[JuniperWoolf]

My God, someone actually wanted to go to Red Deer? Willingly?

Even more surprising is the fact that Red Deer has s theater.

Haha, Billy Talent went there last year. The picture in the paper was of them just looking confused before a sea of cowboy hats.

[Jassy Melson]

I have one question: Who is to decide what individual or group is to be silenced?

[JuniperWoolf]

I have one question: Who is to decide what individual or group is to be silenced?

Well, the idea was that most people who have a (real or metaphorical) soul would be against Nazi, KKK or homphobic ideals. So I guess the answer to your question would be, any group which is feuled by hatred.

[MarkBastable]

I have one question: Who is to decide what individual or group is to be silenced?

Good question. The answer is 'me'.

However, should I not get the job, no one should have it - in which case anyone has to be allowed to say whatever they like, however vile.

On the other hand, no one has to listen.

[papayahed]

Well, the idea was that most people who have a (real or metaphorical) soul would be against Nazi, KKK or homphobic ideals. So I guess the answer to your question would be, any group which is feuled by hatred.


"Most people" can make really bad decisions, that's a slippery slope to majority rule.

[Jassy Melson]

So the majority decides huh?

[JBI]

Meh, if he went and got his face hit in I would be happier. Even so, I am not too sure I am against censorship - certainly we see a need to get rid of Kiddie Porn, so we do have a moral standard - how far do we take that? Do we censor all things deemed indecent, or offensive, or that harm a selected group? That depends.

As it is, I am glad it is he getting threatened not the other way around.

But yes, as said before, who the hell would want to go there?

[minstrelbard]

There are two issues involved in the original post. First, does Fred Phelps have the right to say whatever foul garbage he wants? The answer to that is yes.

Second, does he have the right to say it WHERE and WHEN he wants? Does he have the right to disrupt the performance of a play he disapproves of? Does he have the right to interfere with the audience of that play? That's a different issue. And he doesn't have the right to disrupt the performance or to interfere with the audience. He can write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, and the editor may or may not choose to print it. If he gets more in-your-face than that, he's probably violating the rights of others.

[Revolte]

The beautiful thing about speech. It's one thing that can NEVER be taken away, regardless of whats written in paper, paper burns, don't forget that. Though hate speech disgusts me, and sets me off pretty bad, you cant limit speech. Sure they could try, but they would fail. The best they could do is put a gun to someones head and tell them to hide their thoughts or die, but you have to ask yourself if a life like that is even worth living. Personally I would rather be shot in the head and die with my dignity.

[blazeofglory]

Revolte' comment is gripping profoundly. In point of fact man's only superiority over the rest of other beings in this planet, called earth is his power of thinking and yet man is not free to express what he thinks and social standards and norms censor what he thinks. Let people completely express what he thinks. But unfortunately most of us are coerced to push most of our thoughts into the subconscious level. This is one great misfortune and that is disparaging humanity. Let everyone feel free to chat what occurs to his mind. Suppose you become attracted to a beautiful girl or boy why should you censor yourself. You must be free to express it. The response is up to the girl. But it never means you lash somebody, or disrepute somebody. There are of course some domains the speaker must not cross, make indictments, hurling insults at others or defaming somebody. Barring these domains man must be at liberty to express his thoughts, like political ideas, economic issues, and personal opinions.

[JuniperWoolf]

So the majority decides huh?

*eyeroll* Oh yeaaaah, I'm a big proponent of democracy and crowd wisdom.

I'll put it another way:

All the ills of the world are because of Jews/blacks/hispanics/homosexuals/women/etc. = stfu? Yay/nay?

[dafydd manton]

Atrributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Dodo25]

{edit}

Edit Dodo: The point was that one shouldn't give respect to messed up views like i.e. holocaust deniers by allowing them to speak on some platform. For instance, giving creationists a 'debate platform' at universities is bad because it makes them seem influential.

Then there's the question of banning certain opinions in general. In Switzerland, there's actually a law against denying that the holocaust happened. I'm not so sure wether this is a bad thing, yet I do understand the arguments for freedom of speech.. I think it's like that because Switzerland is close to Germany and had its own (smaller) movements of fascism and nationalism during the war. I think the balance ticks towards complete freedom of speech, as seems to be the general opinion in this thread supported with some good arguments.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Discussion of current politics is not allowed in this Forum.

Posts containing political comments will be removed without further notice.

(Yeah, I know it is ironic in a thread about freedom of speech but whatchagonnado?)

[IceM]

Who says "freedom" of speech isn't already limited? What stops us of from declaiming every vice we find in those surrounding us? What stops us from shouting racial slurs at the top our lungs just for the sake of doing so? Our discretion already limits how we use our speech. A law would just be a political version of our moral judgment.

And besides, if one uses their "freedom" of speech to enslave themselves and others to their own prejudices, I would hardly consider that "freedom."

[Dodo25]

Who says "freedom" of speech isn't already limited? What stops us of from declaiming every vice we find in those surrounding us? What stops us from shouting racial slurs at the top our lungs just for the sake of doing so? Our discretion already limits how we use our speech. A law would just be a political version of our moral judgment.

And besides, if one uses their "freedom" of speech to enslave themselves and others to their own prejudices, I would hardly consider that "freedom."

Great point, it already is limited, not by law but by social conventions. Especially disturbing I find the tabu of talking bad about religion. Except from this forum, one is allowed to challenge people's political views, yet as soon as it comes to religion, many people think it's just rude. The extreme being Islam where you can't even make fun of their prophet without risking your life.

[JBI]

Revolte' comment is gripping profoundly. In point of fact man's only superiority over the rest of other beings in this planet, called earth is his power of thinking and yet man is not free to express what he thinks and social standards and norms censor what he thinks. Let people completely express what he thinks. But unfortunately most of us are coerced to push most of our thoughts into the subconscious level. This is one great misfortune and that is disparaging humanity. Let everyone feel free to chat what occurs to his mind. Suppose you become attracted to a beautiful girl or boy why should you censor yourself. You must be free to express it. The response is up to the girl. But it never means you lash somebody, or disrepute somebody. There are of course some domains the speaker must not cross, make indictments, hurling insults at others or defaming somebody. Barring these domains man must be at liberty to express his thoughts, like political ideas, economic issues, and personal opinions.

Profound as it is - if I cut your tongue out, you lose your ability. It can be taken away, quite easily - feminist art and theory is flooded with images of silenced women, for instance, though perhaps not with their tongues cut out. Freedom of expression is always limited within a social contract - one cannot, for instance, go to a public place and yell bomb without being charged in Canada, and one cannot go outside dressed in certain fashions in other countries - one cannot say certain things in certain spheres.

I cannot run into a park and start verbally harassing patrons. What we call freedom of speech is fallacious. What it means is the limits by which we are confined - the same way I cannot do whatever I want in a public place, even though I have the right to be there.

[papayahed]

Profound as it is - if I cut your tongue out, you lose your ability. It can be taken away, quite easily - feminist art and theory is flooded with images of silenced women, for instance, though perhaps not with their tongues cut out. Freedom of expression is always limited within a social contract - one cannot, for instance, go to a public place and yell bomb without being charged in Canada, and one cannot go outside dressed in certain fashions in other countries - one cannot say certain things in certain spheres.

I cannot run into a park and start verbally harassing patrons. What we call freedom of speech is fallacious. What it means is the limits by which we are confined - the same way I cannot do whatever I want in a public place, even though I have the right to be there.

But you can do/say whatever you want in public if you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions ie. jail, a beat down...

[Revolte]

Profound as it is - if I cut your tongue out, you lose your ability.

:cheers2:

lol, ok good point. However, all you need is internet access and google and you can type in words and it will say them for you.