Is freedom of speech over-rated

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
...Of course, I do not believe that all of the above assumptions are true, but if they were true, then yes, you would be justified in attempting to amend the laws as you propose...
I am horrified to see a reasonably intelligent person advocating such ability to restrict speech in a free society. It is my opinion that you have the absolute, utter right to continue believing those things in your religion with which I disagree. I claim the same right myself. Historically, people have been tortured and killed for having the wrong religious beliefs. That was evil.
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am horrified to see a reasonably intelligent person advocating such ability to restrict speech in a free society. It is my opinion that you have the absolute, utter right to continue believing those things in your religion with which I disagree. I claim the same right myself. Historically, people have been tortured and killed for having the wrong religious beliefs. That was evil.

And this is why I'm glad we do not live in a theocracy.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I am horrified to see a reasonably intelligent person advocating such ability to restrict speech in a free society. It is my opinion that you have the absolute, utter right to continue believing those things in your religion with which I disagree. I claim the same right myself. Historically, people have been tortured and killed for having the wrong religious beliefs. That was evil.
MIRARI VOS

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine. "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that "there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation." Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government.

18. And it is for this reason that the early Christians, lest they should be stained by such great infamy deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged. This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. "Christian soldiers," says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord." St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: "We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion: I see, we are armed and we do not resist, because we wish rather to die than to be killed." Indeed the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if with Tertullian we consider that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies. "We are but of yesterday," he says, "yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum....For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces -- we who are so glad to be cut to pieces -- were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?...If so great a multitude of people should have deserted to some remote spot on earth, it would surely have covered your domination with shame because of the loss of so many citizens, and it would even have punished you by this very desertion. Without a doubt you would have been terrified at your solitude.... You would have sought whom you might rule; more enemies than citizens would have remained for you. Now however you have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians."

19. These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves "free of all." To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.

20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

21. But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
MIRARI VOS

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine. "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

17. We have learned that certain teachings are being spread among the common people in writings which attack the trust and submission due to princes; the torches of treason are being lit everywhere. Care must be taken lest the people, being deceived, are led away from the straight path. May all recall, according to the admonition of the apostle that "there is no authority except from God; what authority there is has been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists authority resists the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation." Therefore both divine and human laws cry out against those who strive by treason and sedition to drive the people from confidence in their princes and force them from their government.

18. And it is for this reason that the early Christians, lest they should be stained by such great infamy deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged. This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. "Christian soldiers," says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord." St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: "We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion: I see, we are armed and we do not resist, because we wish rather to die than to be killed." Indeed the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if with Tertullian we consider that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies. "We are but of yesterday," he says, "yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum....For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces -- we who are so glad to be cut to pieces -- were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?...If so great a multitude of people should have deserted to some remote spot on earth, it would surely have covered your domination with shame because of the loss of so many citizens, and it would even have punished you by this very desertion. Without a doubt you would have been terrified at your solitude.... You would have sought whom you might rule; more enemies than citizens would have remained for you. Now however you have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians."

19. These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the princes necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion. They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. For no other reason do experienced deceivers devote their efforts, except so that they, along with Luther, might joyfully deem themselves "free of all." To attain this end more easily and quickly, they undertake with audacity any infamous plan whatever.

20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

21. But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.

I remain shocked and horrified by such rationalizing against freedom of speech.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
I remain shocked and horrified by such rationalizing against freedom of speech.
Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979) | John Paul II

Jesus Christ meets the man of every age, including our own, with the same words: "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free". These words contain both a fundamental requirement and a warning: the requirement of an honest relationship with regard to truth as a condition for authentic freedom, and the warning to avoid every kind of illusory freedom, every superficial unilateral freedom, every freedom that fails to enter into the whole truth about man and the world. Today also, even after two thousand years, we see Christ as the one who brings man freedom based on truth, frees man from what curtails, diminishes and as it were breaks off this freedom at its root, in man's soul, his heart and his conscience. What a stupendous confirmation of this has been given and is still being given by those who, thanks to Christ and in Christ, have reached true freedom and have manifested it even in situations of external constraint!
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Vyrzaharak

Active Member
Jul 8, 2017
201
52
40
Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
✟18,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979) | John Paul II

Jesus Christ meets the man of every age, including our own, with the same words: "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free". These words contain both a fundamental requirement and a warning: the requirement of an honest relationship with regard to truth as a condition for authentic freedom, and the warning to avoid every kind of illusory freedom, every superficial unilateral freedom, every freedom that fails to enter into the whole truth about man and the world. Today also, even after two thousand years, we see Christ as the one who brings man freedom based on truth, frees man from what curtails, diminishes and as it were breaks off this freedom at its root, in man's soul, his heart and his conscience. What a stupendous confirmation of this has been given and is still being given by those who, thanks to Christ and in Christ, have reached true freedom and have manifested it even in situations of external constraint!

Yeah, and what makes you think censorship will work in your favor? What makes you believe, despite the several millennia of evidence otherwise, that your brain won't be the first to get cut off when the altar of censorship is erected? Hell, I'll tell you right now, there is a growing trend of non-theists in the western world who seek to censor your beliefs, and their intents are no different than yours from any judicial or legislative standard - it is solely the pendulum swinging the other way.

Or, even considering otherwise, what makes you think it will help? When men are told not to eat a forbidden fruit, you believe that somehow they won't eat it? Mankind's greatest feature is his disobedience; men always have and always will eat the forbidden fruit just because it is forbidden.

Georges Bataille –

The essence of morality is a questioning about morality; and the decisive move of human life is to use ceaselessly all light to look for the origin of the opposition between good and evil.

Ray Bradbury -

They began by controlling books of cartoons and then detective books and, of course, films, one way or another, one group or another, political bias, religious prejudice, union pressures; there was always a minority afraid of something, and a great majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the past, afraid of the present, afraid of themselves and shadows of themselves

There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist/Unitarian, Irish/Italian/Octogenarian/Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day Adventist, Women’s Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.

Charles Bradlaugh –

Without free speech no search for Truth is possible; without free speech no discovery of Truth is useful; without free speech progress is checked, and the nations no longer march forward towards the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day; the denial slays the life of the people and entombs the hope of the race.

Louis Brandeis -

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.

Charles Bukowski -

Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can't vent any anger against them; I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence.

Patrick Henry -

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Richard King –

Everyone has an opinion, and the guy screaming for censorship may be the next guy to have his ideas cut off.

John Locke -

Truth certainly would do well enough, if she were once left to shift for herself. She seldom has received and, I fear, never will receive much assistance from the power of great men, to whom she is but rarely known and more rarely welcome. She is not taught by laws, nor has she any need of force to procure her entrance into the minds of men. Errors, indeed, prevail by the assistance of foreign and borrowed succours. But if Truth makes not her way into the understanding by her own light, she will be but the weaker for any borrowed force violence can add to her.

For where is the man that has incontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all he condemns; or can say that he has examined to the bottom all his own, or other men’s opinions? The necessity of believing without knowledge, nay often upon very slight grounds, in this fleeting state of action and blindness we are in, should make us more busy and careful to inform ourselves than constrain others. At least, those who have not thoroughly examined to the bottom all their own tenets, must confess they are unfit to prescribe to others; and are unreasonable in imposing that as truth on other men’s belief, which they themselves have not searched into, nor weighed the arguments of probability, on which they should receive or reject it. Those who have fairly and truly examined, and are thereby got past doubt in all the doctrines they profess and govern themselves by, would have a juster pretence to require others to follow them: but these are so few in number, and find so little reason to be magisterial in their opinions, that nothing insolent and imperious is to be expected from them: and there is reason to think, that, if men were better instructed themselves, they would be less imposing on others.

Lois Lowry -

Submitting to censorship is to enter the seductive world of 'The Giver': the world where there are no bad words and no bad deeds. But it is also the world where choice has been taken away and reality distorted. And that is the most dangerous world of all.

John Stuart Mill -

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

Potter Stewart –

Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself.

Leo Tolstoy -

Error is the force that welds men together; truth is communicated to men only by deeds of truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Yeah, and what makes you think censorship will work in your favor?
I do not think that censorship will work in my favor.

What makes you believe, despite the several millennia of evidence otherwise, that your brain won't be the first to get cut off when the altar of censorship is erected?
I do not believe that my brain won't be the first to get cut off when the altar of censorship is erected. Perhaps the Lord calls you and me to Martyrdom. We do not yet know.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Vyrzaharak

Active Member
Jul 8, 2017
201
52
40
Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
✟18,738.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I do not think that censorship will work in my favor.

Well that's a first. More precisely, what makes you think it will work with your cause?

I do not believe that my brain won't be the first to get cut off when the altar of censorship is erected.

You should ask those that have died for merely voicing their concerns against Stalin and Hitler. Every self-proclaimed benevolent cause for the restriction of liberty has been exactly what they say... restriction of liberty.

Perhaps the Lord calls you and me to Martyrdom. We do not yet know.

You'll be a footnote in history as to why censorship is evil and I wouldn't call that martyrdom in your case (but more like getting what you've asked for). As for me? I've already (medically) died once or twice already, and I have zero interest in martyrdom. If he wants me to die a martyr, he can do that, but I fully admit I will drag my feet no less against it. Furthermore, an old saying comes to mind: death is easy; living is hard.

(And, now that I think about it, considering death easier, I should posit this: are you willing to kill for your view? For living with the knowledge you've taken life is far harder than any martyrdom as well.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceB

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2017
1,592
662
Arlington
✟37,717.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Well that's a first. More precisely, what makes you think it will work with your cause?



You should ask those that have died for merely voicing their concerns against Stalin and Hitler. Every self-proclaimed benevolent cause for the restriction of liberty has been exactly what they say... restriction of liberty.



You'll be a footnote in history as to why censorship is evil and I wouldn't call that martyrdom in your case (but more like getting what you've asked for). As for me? I've already (medically) died once or twice already, and I have zero interest in martyrdom. If he wants me to die a martyr, he can do that, but I fully admit I will drag my feet no less against it. Furthermore, an old saying comes to mind: death is easy; living is hard.

(And, now that I think about it, considering death easier, I should posit this: are you willing to kill for your view? For living with the knowledge you've taken life is far harder than any martyrdom as well.)
Sorry. I do not believe that responding to the above would be a productive use of my time. My views on the matter are already reflected in the information that I posted above. Have a nice weekend.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Angel Wings 1288

Active Member
Feb 3, 2017
257
183
TX
✟29,884.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
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?

We live in a democracy, and our civic ethos reflects our free values. For our nation to truly live up to democratic values, we must accept its core tenets such as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and free speech.

I agree that it feels uneasy to give bad people like white nationalists, Holocaust deniers, and other extremists their rights to free speech. But the nature of democracy is to ensure freedom for everyone, including people you don’t like.

Consider this. The worst dictators in world history all agreed with free speech they liked, but they didn’t allow speech they didn’t like. To be a true believer in free speech, you must support the everyone’s right to express their views, no matter how much you despise them.

You suggest that allowing extremists like neo-Nazis to express their views could lead to something like the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide. But I disagree. Every democratic nation has laws that would prevent things like that from happening. For example, if a group of white nationalists hold anti-Jewish rallies and then do something horrible like burn a Synagogue, they will all go to prison. Allowing bad people their right to free speech won't lead to the end of the world.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
We live in a democracy, and our civic ethos reflects our free values. For our nation to truly live up to democratic values, we must accept its core tenets such as freedom of the press, freedom of association, and free speech.

I agree that it feels uneasy to give bad people like white nationalists, Holocaust deniers, and other extremists their rights to free speech. But the nature of democracy is to ensure freedom for everyone, including people you don’t like.

Consider this. The worst dictators in world history all agreed with free speech they liked, but they didn’t allow speech they didn’t like. To be a true believer in free speech, you must support the everyone’s right to express their views, no matter how much you despise them.

You suggest that allowing extremists like neo-Nazis to express their views could lead to something like the Holocaust or the Rwandan Genocide. But I disagree. Every democratic nation has laws that would prevent things like that from happening. For example, if a group of white nationalists hold anti-Jewish rallies and then do something horrible like burn a Synagogue, they will all go to prison. Allowing bad people their right to free speech won't lead to the end of the world.
Im not so sure. Take a micro-example of a child being bullied at school by constant verbal taunting. If freedom of speech truly existed you would be wrong to prevent that person from verbally bullying because they have the right to express themselves even when you disagree with it..... but thats not what happens is it
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

RogerRoger

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
118
69
36
Halifax
✟10,402.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I do not think that censorship will work in my favor.

I do not believe that my brain won't be the first to get cut off when the altar of censorship is erected. Perhaps the Lord calls you and me to Martyrdom. We do not yet know.

I think this is a really interesting position to take, especially given the wide range of beliefs in Christianity alone, let alone all of the world's religions.

You are comfortable, or at least resigned, to the idea of martyrdom in a world where freedom of speech is not the norm. You got here by citing church history and it's actions to protect us from bad doctrine:

This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine. "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

Normally I would say that this is a real roll of the dice for you, considering that what is deemed good doctrine could very well be the opposite of what you hold to be true. Depending on the consequences of continuing to teach or practice what YOU hold to be true, this could lead to fines, imprisonment, social ostracization, or death. All of these have been true at various times, and all of them have been conducted by the church.

Yet you're prepared to be martyred for your beliefs. If what you believe is actually true, that's not the worst thing to happen, as you'll be with your Lord. What about everyone else? That's my problem with this.

I, and most liberal (no, not THAT liberal) political philosophers believe that the best outcomes occur when people have the ability to choose. In this case, is it true that restricting speech about religion to a single set of doctrine actually saves more people? This depends on a few things, like:
  • If that doctrine is the correct one
  • If you can be saved when your ability to freely choose God is restricted (is all that is required works? Can we truly believe if we have no other choice?)
  • If we're even in the correct religion!
That says nothing of things like banning those who disagree, or the likely race to govern the minutiae of what constitutes unlawful disagreement. Can we write things that question existing doctrine? Does that prevent us for correcting errors? What is the line between lawful dissent and disruption?

It's entirely possible, and I think likely, that by restricting things in that way, less people are saved. If you're right, that won't necessarily matter for your own salvation, but I can't help but think things would be better off if we could choose, and freely disagree in good faith, and pray that the Lord guides us. I have seen too many states restrict things and reduce both spiritual and worldly outcomes for people.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Angel Wings 1288

Active Member
Feb 3, 2017
257
183
TX
✟29,884.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Im not so sure. Take a micro-example of a child being bullied at school by constant verbal taunting. If freedom of speech truly existed you would be wrong to prevent that person from verbally bullying because they have the right to express themselves even when you disagree with it..... but thats not what happens is it

Bullying and harassment at school isn't the same thing as expressing the view that Jews control the world from behind the scenes and manipulate everyone into serving their interests. The former is a violation of someone else's rights and causes harm, and the latter is a nutty conspiracy theory that only white nationalists believe and doesn't cause any harm.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,396
15,479
✟1,106,553.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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
Don't you think children need to be treated differently than adults, I do.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Zoii

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2016
5,811
3,982
23
Australia
✟103,785.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Bullying and harassment at school isn't the same thing as expressing the view that Jews control the world from behind the scenes and manipulate everyone into serving their interests. The former is a violation of someone else's rights and causes harm, and the latter is a nutty conspiracy theory that only white nationalists believe and doesn't cause any harm.
Both cause harm... and remember this was only an example. My view is that allowing total freedom of speech is in fact a fallacy because we recognize we have a larger obligation to protect society from those that would seek harm on individuals.... whether in a school, or at a propganda level sprouting genocide.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Both cause harm... and remember this was only an example. My view is that allowing total freedom of speech is in fact a fallacy because we recognize we have a larger obligation to protect society from those that would seek harm on individuals.... whether in a school, or at a propganda level sprouting genocide.

And at some point, the right of relief from all that excessive speech!
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

RogerRoger

Active Member
Jun 21, 2017
118
69
36
Halifax
✟10,402.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Both cause harm... and remember this was only an example. My view is that allowing total freedom of speech is in fact a fallacy because we recognize we have a larger obligation to protect society from those that would seek harm on individuals.... whether in a school, or at a propganda level sprouting genocide.

I'm going to be a stickler here and question why you think harm is the criterion for solving this issue.

The case of childhood bullying is a special case, because we as parents or teachers have a fiduciary duty (obligation) to protect those children, both the ones being bullied and the bullies themselves. Other fiduciary duties include doctor/patient relationships, where because of the imbalance of power between the two parties, all sorts of behavior isn't allowed. It would be horrific, for example, for a doctor to intentionally falsely diagnose someone. Both of those cases deal with fiduciary duties.

In terms of a larger obligation to protect society from 'those that would seek harm', that's certainly true in some cases. There are mandatory standards like human rights that we must protect. Some of the cases we can think of in terms of justifiable restrictions on speech directly relate to these standards:

  • Childhood bullying (fiduciary duty)
  • Doctor/Patient (fiduciary duty)
  • Inciting violence/genocide (self-explanatory)
  • Yelling fire in a crowded theatre (causing panic, trampling)
These are not controversial. What IS controversial is restricting free speech in contexts where harm is not so easily defined or accepted. As a Christian, it's possible to imagine that allowing others to promote another religion, which you might view as false, as harm. In fact it might be the ultimate harm. This is the view of a homogeneous, single-religion theocracy.

In the west we live in liberal (no, not that liberal) democracies (for the most part), which rest on certain kinds of principles. One of those is that the best outcomes occur when self-determining adults can actually choose what is best for them (or what they think is best for them). Some of those boundaries (fiduciary, etc) still apply. This allows for speech that is non-advantageous to people - lying for example, barring a statute or other duty - that is nonetheless legally 'allowed'. There are also social costs to speech and actions, even when that speech is 'free'.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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

PC is not about politeness and is actually the opposite of tolerance. It is about censorship through intimidation and propaganda. It is an attempt to silence opposite points of view that as far as i can see is never done with any politeness at all. The idea ofPC is used as an excuse to be absolutely intolerant toward those with a different POV.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.


I must disagree with the idea of "Freedom to do what we ought.". Who determines what we ought ? How can we know that the authority we give the responsibilitiy for making that determination ought to have such authority over us? We should have freedom to do as we please as long as we do not directly harm others by our actions. Speech directly harms no one. Having and verbalizing an unpopular or even a disgusting opinion harms no one. Bullying is not a matter of speech. When combating bullying we need to address the reason that the bully is able to intimidate. The words a bully uses are not what allow the bully to intimidate but the relationships of both the bully and the bullied and the environment in which the intimidation takes place are the real causes. The bully will continue no matter how many things are censored. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater it is not that person but the stupidity of the mob that causes harm. If there was an actual fire and a person yelled "Fire" and the mob reacted in such a way as to harm the same amount of people as would be harmed by a false alarm would anyone still say it was the person's speech that caused the problem? No because it was not the yelling of "Fire " that caused the harm but the unreasonable behavior of the people in response to hearing it. Instead of punishing the speaker, ought not the person(s) trampling others in a selfish attempt to escape before those in front of him/her be the one blamed for the harm. In other words the one doing the harm ought to be the one blamed and considered responsible for the harm. IMO there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that ought to be considered a criminal offense.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Gabriel Anton
Upvote 0