Freedom Of Speech.

Freedom Of Speech.

'Freedom Of Speech' any shape or form is good to express ideas, opinions and etc. which I am sole for and not against.

I understand that this wonderful site is multi culture; different faiths and beliefs. Again I have no issue with people being different whether any of the above mention.

So why do people come to this site, dare I said as second language learning to writing it or speak it. And have the cheek to and nerve to tell people who have taught all they life in English language and spoke it. That it wrong and yeah it might be wrong but why do they have to arrogant about it.

Maybe they should go to workshops or ask for class of tact and gentle tone which they will get better response from other users.

I support freedom of speech :D
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zoolane

Freedom Of Speech.

'Freedom Of Speech' any shape or form is good to express ideas, opinions and etc. which I am sole for and not against.

---

Any shape or form except colored font.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

I support freedom of speech :D
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

---

That my point but also it way it be said or rather tone of it, I do not understand why people from different countries or faiths feel need to so self righteous about the someone else language? Just because they have being taught the correct way of use grammar.

It's funny because everytime I hear the term Freedom of Speech I think of America and all the numerous sitcoms on tv. I actually don't give it another thought in my every day life. (I had to google John Adams the other night to find out who he was)

but I think the concept of freedom is relative from country to country therefore so is speech and that is without recognising what my own rights are!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

It's funny because everytime I hear the term Freedom of Speech I think of America and all the numerous sitcoms on tv. I actually don't give it another thought in my every day life. (I had to google John Adams the other night to find out who he was)

but I think the concept of freedom is relative from country to country therefore so is speech and that is without recognising what my own rights are!

---

Yeah I agree but it every persons human right to have 'Freedom Of Speech' surely?

Everybody claims to support it, but few among the public are actually willing to accept true freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Everybody claims to support it, but few among the public are actually willing to accept true freedom of speech.

---

You'd have to define what "true" freedom of speech is, or else you end up with a no true Scotsman situation.

Institutional freedom of speech, as far as I see it, should be the freedom of media, or individual citizens, to speak openly without fear of punishment by the state. The fair limits are clear variations of shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre and deliberate libel or slander. To this we might extend certain hate speech laws which protect groups from instigated violence, of course the line between certain kinds of hate speech and political speech is not always clear.

If one defines free speech as the right to say nonsense without the fear of being socially ostracised (which is often what many people who call free speech mean when they feel persecuted for their opinion), well that's silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

You'd have to define what "true" freedom of speech is, or else you end up with a no true Scotsman situation.

Institutional freedom of speech, as far as I see it, should be the freedom of media, or individual citizens, to speak openly without fear of punishment by the state. The fair limits are clear variations of shouting fire in a crowded movie theatre and deliberate libel or slander. To this we might extend certain hate speech laws which protect groups from instigated violence, of course the line between certain kinds of hate speech and political speech is not always clear.

If one defines free speech as the right to say nonsense without the fear of being socially ostracised (which is often what many people who call free speech mean when they feel persecuted for their opinion), well that's silly.

---

B - nonsense

Who decides what is or is not nonsense? Most people are so stupid that if nearly everyone vehemently disagrees with you, I can't help but think you're often going to be correct. Obviously not always the case, but it does happen.

As far as inciting violence/yelling fire in a theatre, that's a bit different from freedom of expression, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

B - nonsense

Who decides what is or is not nonsense? Most people are so stupid that if nearly everyone vehemently disagrees with you, I can't help but think you're often going to be correct. Obviously not always the case, but it does happen.

As far as inciting violence/yelling fire in a theatre, that's a bit different from freedom of expression, etc.

---

One doesn't have to define nonsense, since it is the reaction to the act of speech and not the act itself that is important in this case.

Take for example the statement: "All white people are innately superior to all black people." This is not libelous, or in this context strictly an act of hate speech. This means the person should indeed be protected from state persecution for this opinion. However, it does not mean that a person who says this has to keep being invited to parties, or that people will not be in their own rights to call the person a moron for saying what they said. Often, people misunderstand free speech to imply speech without any consequences, it just means the protection from state persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

One doesn't have to define nonsense, since it is the reaction to the act of speech and not the act itself that is important in this case.

Take for example the statement: "All white people are innately superior to all black people." This is not libelous, or in this context strictly an act of hate speech. This means the person should indeed be protected from state persecution for this opinion. However, it does not mean that a person who says this has to keep being invited to parties, or that people will not be in their own rights to call the person a moron for saying what they said. Often, people misunderstand free speech to imply speech without any consequences, it just means the protection from state persecution.

---

There are plenty of biological differences between races. Noticing them is not hate speech, or nonsense, but try speaking your mind in public. Saying that all white people are "superior" is stupid of course, but like you said all examples of idiotic speech are not so clear cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

There are plenty of biological differences between races. Noticing them is not hate speech, or nonsense, but try speaking your mind in public. Saying that all white people are "superior" is stupid of course, but like you said all examples of idiotic speech are not so clear cut.

---

People say it in public all the time, the KKK even can march with police protection. There are books on the subject you can buy off amazon, so it is clearly not being suppressed by the state. Which means it is simply an opinion losing in the court of public opinion. It doesn't matter how much I, or you, agree with the opinion whether free speech is impeded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

People say it in public all the time, the KKK even can march with police protection. There are books on the subject you can buy off amazon, so it is clearly not being suppressed by the state. Which means it is simply an opinion losing in the court of public opinion. It doesn't matter how much I, or you, agree with the opinion whether free speech is impeded.

---

The fact that you're comparing the KKK with the act of noting real, verifiable biological differences in race (or gender) is sort of what I'm talking about. I don't mean freedom of speech on an institutional level, but on a personal level. Most people claim to support it, but few want to hear opinions they don't like, and many will attempt to deny people the right to speak. Just an observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

The fact that you're comparing the KKK with the act of noting real, verifiable biological differences in race (or gender) is sort of what I'm talking about. I don't mean freedom of speech on an institutional level, but on a personal level. Most people claim to support it, but few want to hear opinions they don't like, and many will attempt to deny people the right to speak. Just an observation.

---

Yes, and it is just as true here at this site. If you have a belief, even if it is a generally accepted belief among certain crowds, you will be chastised and belittled because your beliefs are contrary to the majority of the beliefs here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

The fact that you're comparing the KKK with the act of noting real, verifiable biological differences in race (or gender) is sort of what I'm talking about. I don't mean freedom of speech on an institutional level, but on a personal level. Most people claim to support it, but few want to hear opinions they don't like, and many will attempt to deny people the right to speak. Just an observation.

---

I wasn't comparing them, I was illustrating how the state tolerates the expressions of beliefs at the extreme to point out how silly it is to suggest that freedom of speech for less extreme positions is otherwise compromised.

It doesn't really matter what opinions people want to hear, or what they will tolerate in their personal lives, because those matters are aspects of freedom of speech. The act of criticizing or ignoring opinions is an act of speech. The freedom comes only in the form as independence from state sanction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Yes, and it is just as true here at this site. If you have a belief, even if it is a generally accepted belief among certain crowds, you will be chastised and belittled because your beliefs are contrary to the majority of the beliefs here.

---

Again, just to reiterate, in no way shape or form does "freedom of speech" mean that people are entitled to not be chastised or belittled by individuals.

Your right to say something stupid is as strong as mine to call you stupid for saying it.

(And, yes, we know Bien, the Christians are persecuted here all the time. I mean, look at all those threads started by non Christians bashing Christianity, and none where the upstanding Christians bash non-Christians. Oh, wait. . . . )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Yes, and it is just as true here at this site. If you have a belief, even if it is a generally accepted belief among certain crowds, you will be chastised and belittled because your beliefs are contrary to the majority of the beliefs here.

---

That's not why I have chastised or belittled certain beliefs. I don't care what the majority thinks. I chastise something that attempts to negate scientific study with conjecture. It's debate. It's not a popularity contest or a violation of rights. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I wasn't comparing them, I was illustrating how the state tolerates the expressions of beliefs at the extreme to point out how silly it is to suggest that freedom of speech for less extreme positions is otherwise compromised.

It doesn't really matter what opinions people want to hear, or what they will tolerate in their personal lives, because those matters are aspects of freedom of speech. The act of criticizing or ignoring opinions is an act of speech. The freedom comes only in the form as independence from state sanction.



Again, just to reiterate, in no way shape or form does "freedom of speech" mean that people are entitled to not be chastised or belittled by individuals.

---

Sure, we're pretty much in agreement.

I agree that The State is often more tolerant than individuals or groups, It has to be because The State encompasses all of society.

Zoolane's origanal point was about saying hurtful things to others. I think the tone of a conversation usually is set by the body language of the participants and the volume and inflections of the voice. In real life, after a bit of tentative testing the conversational water, I can insult people in a friendly way or criticise them gently. Getting across those subtleties is trickier with a keyboard.

Freedom of choice is equally as important if not more.
Freedom of speech is tricky because no one is going to tell someone not to talk the only difference is this:
Where does this freedom draw the line when one curses or uses abusive language to express themselves because that is the only way they know?
And is freedom of speech about disposing of other believes and faiths because that freedom believes that specific faith is not good enough? Can anyone blamesomeone fromn for feeling alianated towards a belief that is mostly oppressive from the outset?
That is freedom of speech to be able to express intolerance towards others.
Freedom of speech is a form of expression either negative or positive, the content of it is irrelevant, what is important is the ability to air and think outloud in front of others and everyone.
It is not about the recipient but all about the expedient.
Freedom of choice however is about all.

'Freedom Of Speech' is every person right to have that in personal and politics beliefs but to point must countries are govern by people suppress that right or go with public out cried. Yeah some are offensive to people with different culture and faiths, but why should one group be allow to have say and not other because of public rage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I agree that The State is often more tolerant than individuals or groups, It has to be because The State encompasses all of society.

Zoolane's origanal point was about saying hurtful things to others. I think the tone of a conversation usually is set by the body language of the participants and the volume and inflections of the voice. In real life, after a bit of tentative testing the conversational water, I can insult people in a friendly way or criticise them gently. Getting across those subtleties is trickier with a keyboard.

---

Thank You Prendrelemick that is the question.

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Off-topic posts will be removed without further warning.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Again, just to reiterate, in no way shape or form does "freedom of speech" mean that people are entitled to not be chastised or belittled by individuals.

---

If you are in a business environment and you "chastise" or "belittle" a fellow employee over pretty much anything, you could be accused of harassment. I don't expect full freedom of speech to extend to such environments.

However, I would consider chastising or belittling someone in any environment to be verbal abuse, although legally it might be protected speech. One can make a point without belittling the person one is talking to.

Having said that it is difficult to tell after an argument has gone past reason on both sides who is doing the chastising or belittling, that is, who is the verbal abuser. My rule of thumb is the one who is dominating the verbal exchange is the abuser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

If you are in a business environment and you "chastise" or "belittle" a fellow employee over pretty much anything, you could be accused of harassment. I don't expect full freedom of speech to extend to such environments.

However, I would consider chastising or belittling someone in any environment to be verbal abuse, although legally it might be protected speech. One can make a point without belittling the person one is talking to.

Having said that it is difficult to tell after an argument has gone past reason on both sides who is doing the chastising or belittling, that is, who is the verbal abuser. My rule of thumb is the one who is dominating the verbal exchange is the abuser.

---

I like your rule, yes you can make point without being horrible or belittle people but your second paragraph sound like me and my sister relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

If you are in a business environment and you "chastise" or "belittle" a fellow employee over pretty much anything, you could be accused of harassment. I don't expect full freedom of speech to extend to such environments.

However, I would consider chastising or belittling someone in any environment to be verbal abuse, although legally it might be protected speech. One can make a point without belittling the person one is talking to.

Having said that it is difficult to tell after an argument has gone past reason on both sides who is doing the chastising or belittling, that is, who is the verbal abuser. My rule of thumb is the one who is dominating the verbal exchange is the abuser.

---

This is a different case. A business or a website has it's own rules that they are allowed to enforce because it's a private organization. Property rights my friend.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

Your right to say something stupid is as strong as mine to call you stupid for saying it.

---

This. I think that it is too often forgotten that freedom of speech is a two way street, and that it does not mean you can say whatever you want without any consequences whatsoever. I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important fundamental rights, but the phrase is too often abused in casual conversation and rhetoric.

This is a freedom of speech issue:
Person A expresses an unpopular opinion. The state puts Person A in prison solely for their opinion.

This is not:
Person A expresses an unpopular opinion. Person B chastises Person A for their opinion.

Nor is this:
Person A expresses a recklessly irresponsible opinion for the purpose of inciting violence. Person A is legally persecuted.

Pretty much.