Is freedom of speech over-rated

[Zoii]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

 

[Winken]

It certainly should have limits. Since the Constitution in the USA those limits are established by Congress and the Courts, a lengthy, unnecessarily drawn-out burdensome process.

In other countries free speech is limited by everything from hellacious laws and decrees that are, in some cases, handed down instantly, without background and due process.

 

[Saucy]

Nah. If you take the 'free' part out of 'free speech', then it no longer is free. There would be consequences to speech, thus someone can come along, at any time, and decide what can or can't be censored based upon what they feel to be hate speech or whatever.

Like, Christians already are accused of practicing hate speech all the time if they aren't ardent supporters of the LGBT community. I was called a racist because I didn't like Obama's policies. I only mention that to say, where would the line be drawn if you can just consider what someone says is a hate speech and effectively shut them down from supporting a candidate they want, protesting who they want, worshiping who and how they want, what beliefs they can uphold and share, the types of messages pastors and priests can speak about from the pulpit, and on an on.

Once you start taking that path, there's no way to know how far it will be pushed and it effectively takes away our freedom to express ourselves in any way we deem fit.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

So do you think Christians in Muslim countries where trying to win converts to Christ is a crime are rightfully stopped from such speech?

 

[Albion]

.

 

[Rubiks]

Calling for violence against a person or group of people is not considered protected speech.

 

[Zoii]

Nah. If you take the 'free' part out of 'free speech', then it no longer is free. There would be consequences to speech, thus someone can come along, at any time, and decide what can or can't be censored based upon what they feel to be hate speech or whatever.

Like, Christians already are accused of practicing hate speech all the time if they aren't ardent supporters of the LGBT community. I was called a racist because I didn't like Obama's policies. I only mention that to say, where would the line be drawn if you can just consider what someone says is a hate speech and effectively shut them down from supporting a candidate they want, protesting who they want, worshiping who and how they want, what beliefs they can uphold and share, the types of messages pastors and priests can speak about from the pulpit, and on an on.

Once you start taking that path, there's no way to know how far it will be pushed and it effectively takes away our freedom to express ourselves in any way we deem fit.

So... when speeches were given initially in small gatherings regarding the evils of the jews, and then increased that to placing posters everywhere, and then grew the intenisity to include speech in pretty much every domain re jews.... this culminated in an intensity of hate that allowed a holocaust.... and to show it can happen again..... it did... 1980s same scenario and the Tutsis of Rwanda were literally hacked to death by the 10s of thousands.

My point is... is there no point when society should step up and say... you cant say that. You cant just say what you feel like.

 

[Zoii]

So do you think Christians in Muslim countries where trying to win converts to Christ is a crime are rightfully stopped from such speech?

In CF you are not permitted to say anything which supports breaking tbe law. So my answer has to be to respect the laws of the country youre in whether you agree with them or not.

I dont agree with capital punishment but I respect the fact that someone caught with drugs in Singapore may face the death penalty.

As to your point I believe in freedom of religious practice but have to obey the law wherever I am.

 

[Rubiks]

So... when speeches were given initially in small gatherings regarding the evils of the jews, and then increased that to placing posters everywhere, and then grew the intenisity to include speech in pretty much every domain re jews.... this culminated in an intensity of hate that allowed a holocaust.... and to show it can happen again..... it did... 1980s same scenario and the Tutsis of Rwanda were literally hacked to death by the 10s of thousands.

My point is... is there no point when society should step up and say... you cant say that. You cant just say what you feel like.

The problem is, at what point does negative feedback become hateful (I don't believe the Jewish people are evil, by the way). Even something like "ur opinions r dumb" is inevitably going to be interpreted as hateful by a few folks. What if Donald Trump one day decides to prosecute those who speak negatively of him?

 

[Zoii]

The problem is, at what point does negative feedback become hateful (I don't believe the Jewish people are evil, by the way)

Yes and at what point would you stop speech. Right now in many countries there is a push back against political correctness. I always saw PC as being polite and unoffensive and tolerant. Anti PC people say they want to say what's on their mind.... but shoukd they

 

[PeaceB]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

Error has no rights.

 

[Saucy]

So... when speeches were given initially in small gatherings regarding the evils of the jews, and then increased that to placing posters everywhere, and then grew the intenisity to include speech in pretty much every domain re jews.... this culminated in an intensity of hate that allowed a holocaust.... and to show it can happen again..... it did... 1980s same scenario and the Tutsis of Rwanda were literally hacked to death by the 10s of thousands.

My point is... is there no point when society should step up and say... you cant say that. You cant just say what you feel like.

No, you shouldn't be able to stop someone from saying it. Where the line is crossed is when the speaking turns into doing. If what is really being said is hateful, use your own freedom of speech to counter it. The Germans could've stood up and stopped Hitler from taking the action that he did, but they didn't. It took longer than it should've, but the rest of the world stepped up to stop the Axis powers.

 

[Zoii]

No, you shouldn't be able to stop someone from saying it. Where the line is crossed is when the speaking turns into doing. If what is really being said is hateful, use your own freedom of speech to counter it. The Germans could've stood up and stopped Hitler from taking the action that he did, but they didn't. It took longer than it should've, but the rest of the world stepped up to stop the Axis powers.

I accept what you say.... but take it from the extreme and narrow it.... a boy at school ridiculed daily by his teacher or classmates. When you are the person or group subjected to hate speech it has damaging effects... should society allow that in the name of free speech

 

[Rubiks]

Yes and at what point would you stop speech. Right now in many countries there is a push back against political correctness. I always saw PC as being polite and unoffensive and tolerant. Anti PC people say they want to say what's on their mind.... but shoukd they

I'm all for being inoffensive as possible, but nothing is offensive apart from how people react to something. Radical Islam and radical right wing ideologies on the rise need to be talked down to. Is that going to hurt their feelings? Probably so, but it's necessary.

 

[Saucy]

I'm all for being inoffensive as possible, but nothing is offensive apart from how people react to something. Radical Islam and radical right wing ideologies on the rise need to be talked down to. Is that going to hurt their feelings? Probably so, but it's necessary.

I could say the same about left-wing ideologies and how they try to shut down free speech by rioting. Is that okay to do? To stop someone from speaking at a university? At what point does the side doing the censoring become the bad guys? They think they're fighting against hate and fascism by spreading hate and fascism themselves. Isn't that bullying in itself?

The Supreme Court just ruled that hate speech is protected speech. That's the law of the land. My rights don't end where someone else's feelings begin. Yes, there will always be people who take things too far, but when you start taking rights away over hurt feelings, that's when we start treading in deep water.

 

[Rubiks]

I could say the same about left-wing ideologies and how they try to shut down free speech by rioting. Is that okay to do? To stop someone from speaking at a university? At what point does the side doing the censoring become the bad guys? They think they're fighting against hate and fascism by spreading hate and fascism themselves. Isn't that bullying in itself?

The Supreme Court just ruled that hate speech is protected speech. That's the law of the land. My rights don't end where someone else's feelings begin. Yes, there will always be people who take things too far, but when you start taking rights away over hurt feelings, that's when we start treading in deep water.

I think unless a person is calling for violence, the best thing do is to debate an ideology or belief, not silence it.

 

[4x4toy]

I'd like to see dueling with pistols re-instituted .. You get a court order and issue a formal challenge to the source (no proxy)over a matter .. They accept then settle it in public, they refuse, they shut up and go away . I'd like to see how many would put their life on the line to spread a lie ..Turn eye to eye and aim for 60 seconds count down (last chance to back out or follow through by legal agreement), then fire under command with no advantage and little chance of missing ..

 

[Saucy]

I think unless a person is calling for violence, the best thing do is to debate an ideology or belief, not silence it.

I agree. Calling for violence is a threat and against the law. So, threats aren't protected speech.

 

[Haipule]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

I would say that there is a difference between "freedom of speech" and "anarchy of speech"(my invented term). The people whom say I can't say something about what someone else said because I'm violating their 1st amendment rights, is an anarchist.

They don't want freedom, they want anarchy, they want control! And they have the audacity to tell me what I can say and can not say, what I can do and not do. That's not freedom, that is anarchy!

A inappropriate contentographer, standing by his 1st amendment rights is actually practicing "anarchy of speech"!

 

[Soyeong]

Countries that value and legally support fredom of speech, are also supporting the same speech that fostered the jewish holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Is freedom of speech open to unacceptable abuse and should it have limits?

There is a reason why the land of the free is not the same thing as the land where there are no laws. The freedoms that we have can be abused, so they come with the obligation to use them responsibly in a way that does not harm others or hinder their freedoms, and laws are there to help instruct us how to do this and to help ensure that we live accordingly. So true freedom is not the freedom to do what whatever we want, but rather it is the freedom to do what we ought. The freedom of speech like every other freedom can be abused, which is why their are laws that govern its use, such as the prohibition against falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theater. However, the issue of what sort of speech causes harm is not always black and white and laws that are intended to protect our freedoms can actually end up diminishing them.