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.
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.
That's my point. You can call it hate speech if you want to, but the OP was about silencing voices that we deem hateful, and that's what I'm against. Like I already said, if you don't like what someone says, counter protest it. That's fine. But wanting to fine people for speech, censor speech, and riot to stop free speech takes away the freedom aspect of it.When you were accused of pushing "hate speech", did anyone suggest your so-called "hate speech" should be against the law? Because in a free speech country, terming your speech "hate speech" can be just more exercise of free speech.
I live in a country that has a constitutional provision against a government establishment of religion. Are you asserting we should disregard that provision and support a Christian point of view in all cases of speech determinations?This is a Christian forum. Why don't you take a wild guess?
That's my point. You can call it hate speech if you want to, but the OP was about silencing voices that we deem hateful, and that's what I'm against. Like I already said, if you don't like what someone says, counter protest it. That's fine. But wanting to fine people for speech, censor speech, and riot to stop free speech takes away the freedom aspect of it.
Yes. Error has no rights. I live in the USA.I live in a country that has a constitutional provision against a government establishment of religion. Are you asserting we should disregard that provision and support a Christian point of view in all cases of speech determinations?
Yes. Error has no rights. I live in the USA.
Well those are topics of discussion for other threads, but for the sake of argument let's assume that it is wrong to baptize infants and to pray to Mary.I notice you are catholic, whereas I am baptist. That means your religion is in error to baptize babies and pray to Mary.
The punishment has to fit the crime. I doubt baptizing an infant would warrant the penalty of time in jail, but for the sake of argument let's assume that is an appropriate punishment. Let's also assume that principles of tolerance would not justify forbearance of the penalty.So perhaps I should get the constitution changed so that you spend some time in jail for those erroneous practices. Why not? After all, you agree error has no rights.
So by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so.... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles. .. but we dont do we"Is freedom of speech over-rated?"
No, it's just misunderstood (no doubt by yourself, the OP, as well). Few people understand that the right to free speech is traced from the inverse: that you do not have the right to demand someone what and how they may or may not speak/idealize or how they may or may not express themselves.
Ergo, it's not that I have the right to speak or express myself however which way I want, but that you don't have the right to stop me from doing so. It's simply easier to say that we have the right to free speech, and so that's how it is declared.
Plus, humans will always be more likely to embrace anything just because it's declared as the forbidden fruit than not, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Why should the censoring of ideas be any different? As an example, the number one reason people believe the Holocaust didn't happen is because of the censorship behind it (I guarantee you that much).
OH... and I'm just reminded: if you mean free speech while accessing someone else's property, they do have the general right to shut you down (although, they should beware of the consequences of doing so without regards for any government paper).
So by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles... but we dont do we
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 by using your argument, you have no right to stop children verbally bullying a child at school because under free speech they have every right to do so.... by your argument you have no right to prevent anyone using foul language anywhere they choose, nor do you have the right to use the laws of slander because we should be free to say what we want any time we want according to your principles. .. but we dont do we
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 ..
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?