Selective Free Speech

[Steezie]

Ive noticed a slightly disturbing trend here since Ive been here.

Certain members seem to endorse a rather selective version of free speech. This was abundantly clear in a recent thread involving NAMBLA where a member basically suggested that NAMBLA members should be severely mutilated because of thier thoughts and views.

Now of all the organizations I endorse, NAMBLA is FAR from number one but I feel that if I am allowed to say what I wish as a Socialist, IRA supporting, moderate, masochistic Pagan then the least I can do is support others who have something they want to say, regardless of how stupid I personally feel it is.

I also saw this emerge when I first got here in a debate about atheism and one member suggesting (and recieving no overt condemnation from certain fellow religious members) that Atheists should be forbidden to speak in public that they might possibly influence the thoughts of believers.

This is, I have to say, a frightening thing to see. I would think that its basic human decency, even if you disagree to the bitter end with someone, to let them speak as they wish.

Why is this trend here?

 

[marblehead]

Why is this trend here?

I think mainly because of ignorance and fear.

 

[Robinsegg]

I can only give my opinion. But in the case of NAMBLA, I'd say their speech should be curtailed, as my understanding is that much of their "speech" (more written expression, but whatever) gives information on how to commit a crime (pedophilia) as well as supporting that practice. I also think that organizations who give information on how to do much of any other crime should have free speech rights curtailed. It's a protection of society.

Otoh, I don't believe that atheists (as misguided as I may believe they are) should have their speech rights curtailed. They don't pose a threat to society, nor do they break laws (in being atheists).

Do you see the distinction I'm making, here?

Rachel

 

[levi501]

Otoh, I don't believe that atheists (as misguided as I may believe they are) should have their speech rights curtailed. They don't pose a threat to society, nor do they break laws (in being atheists).

You believe atheists to be misguided? How?
Atheism should be the default position of everyone until they find evidence to the contrary... ie. god revealing himself to them.
Atheism is an intellectually honest position until a person receives personal evidence that there's something more.
For people that have been spoon fed religion their whole life and never taken the time to truly evaluate and scrutinize their beliefs I can see why this could be confusing.

 

[gengwall]

You believe atheists to be misguided? How?
Atheism should be the default position of everyone until they find evidence to the contrary... ie. god revealing himself to them.
Atheism is an intellectually honest position until a person receives personal evidence that there's something more.
For people that have been spoon fed religion their whole life and never taken the time to truly evaluate and scrutinize their beliefs I can see why this could be confusing.

Her parenthetical expression was to demonstrate that she is favorable of another's right to speak despite vastly differing views. It wasn't to engage in a debate about the merits of atheism or any other religious expression - that is beside the point.

 

[Robinsegg]

Her parenthetical expression was to demonstrate that she is favorable of another's right to speak despite vastly differing views. It wasn't to engage in a debate about the merits of atheism or any other religious expression - that is beside the point.

Precisely!
I was trying to indicate that agreement with me is not necessary for free speech rights. I think that people who like green hair should be able to speak freely, too! lol.

Rachel

 

[levi501]

Her parenthetical expression was to demonstrate that she is favorable of another's right to speak despite vastly differing views. It wasn't to engage in a debate about the merits of atheism or any other religious expression - that is beside the point.

...and I should care because?

 

[levi501]

Precisely!
I was trying to indicate that agreement with me is not necessary for free speech rights. I think that people who like green hair should be able to speak freely, too! lol.

Rachel

I found part of your post ignorant... so I corrected you.

*edit - if it wasn't obvious, I wasn't talking about your position on free speech.

 

[marblehead]

I can only give my opinion. But in the case of NAMBLA, I'd say their speech should be curtailed, as my understanding is that much of their "speech" (more written expression, but whatever) gives information on how to commit a crime (pedophilia) as well as supporting that practice. I also think that organizations who give information on how to do much of any other crime should have free speech rights curtailed. It's a protection of society.

With that line of thought we should ban many movies out there, books most definitely, many college classes, and without a doubt, military training too.

 

[Robinsegg]

...and I should care because?

I spoke of atheism because it was brought up in the OP. I do believe some types of speech should be curtailed (i.e. that which endorses crime and also in the way of keeping porn from minors). I'm not of the opinion that a person need agree with me in order to have free speech. Actually, if the only people who could speak freely were the ones who agreed with me, discussions would get really boring, and I'd never learn anything.

To answer your question, yes, I believe in religion (namely a relationship with Christ) and think anyone who disagrees with me on that subject misguided. I don't disparage or condescend to others who don't share my belief, but I don't think they're right, either.

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

With that line of thought we should ban many movies out there, books most definitely, many college classes, and without a doubt, military training too.

I don't remember saying anything about banning anyone's speech. I was saying it needs to be curtailed in such a way that society is protected. We should always protect children from exploitation (in whatever form). We should also (as a society) try to protect the citizenry from those who will use knowledge in ways to harm them. I'll not say these classes, books, etc. should not be in existence, but I will say we should be very careful in them.

Rachel

 

[levi501]

To answer your question, yes, I believe in religion (namely a relationship with Christ) and think anyone who disagrees with me on that subject misguided. I don't disparage or condescend to others who don't share my belief, but I don't think they're right, either.

It is condescending to say that someone who doesn't share your beliefs is misguided. Not only that, it's also ignorant. Perhaps christ/god hasn't chose to reveal himself to that person yet.... is god now misguided as well?

 

[Robinsegg]

I'm sorry I apparently offended you. I meant no offense. In looking up the word "misguided" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misguided I found my intended use of the word was accurate: Namely that I meant to say that an atheist is working with good intentions on false information. Because I believe in God, atheism, at its' root, will seem based upon false information to me. Therefore, misguided is the right word for my meaning.

I didn't know that saying I believe your basic premise on the matter to be based on false information was condescending, but simply a statement of my belief/understanding. Again, I apologize for the insult taken (though not meant).

Rachel

 

[Mling]

I have actually looked around the NAMBLA website, and I found no "instruction" of any type. Could still be that it's there someplace but I couldn't find any.

Anyway, I think it's especially inportant to let groups like NAMBLA speak for two main reasons:
1. They are the sort of group we would be most willing to censor, and so we must guard ourselves from setting any precedent we may regret later. What I mean is, many people think there is currently a "war" on Christianity. I don't really believe it, but let's go with that idea. Let's say that, 50 years from now, the country has decided that Christians are the terrorists, are a poor influence on society, or otherwise dangerous to the public. If that time ever comes, do we want our society to be one where even the "dangerous, subervise" people are given their due civil rights, or one in which a person labeled "dangerous and subersive" is stripped of those rights--is not allowed to speak, can be held without trial, are an exception to the Geneva Connvention...? Based on that, what sort of society should we be building now?
If anybody can remember what play this is from, it would be greatly appreciated:

So, if you were chasing the devil himself through the forest of our laws, you would chop down the trees to find him?

To find the devil? Yes, I would flatten the forest!

And when the devil turns back and begins chasing you...where will you hide?

2. An editorial in my local paper explained this very well. I'll try to remember what it said: there is no such thing as "official" truth. Truth is what it is, and no person or organization can declare that any given idea will now be accepted as truth, and disenters must be silenced. The process of uncovering the truth requires that one idea be pitted against another to determine which will come out on top. When an idea is silenced, we loose the ability to test its validity, and the validity of ideas that may come after it. Even if the idea declared "officially" true is true, by declaring it as such, our ability to uncover other truths suffers.

 

[levi501]

I didn't know that saying I believe your basic premise on the matter to be based on false information was condescending, but simply a statement of my belief/understanding. Again, I apologize for the insult taken (though not meant).

It's not false information... it's lack of information. So yes, calling someone misguided because God hasn't chosen to reveal himself to them is condescending and insulting.

 

[marblehead]

It is condescending to say that someone who doesn't share your beliefs is misguided. Not only that, it's also ignorant. Perhaps christ/god hasn't chose to reveal himself to that person yet.... is god now misguided as well?

In robinsegg's defense, I can see where she's coming from. I often think of many religious people as misguided, though I will not mention it to them out of civility...unless they get on my nerves.

 

[gengwall]

It is condescending to say that someone who doesn't share your beliefs is misguided. Not only that, it's also ignorant. Perhaps christ/god hasn't chose to reveal himself to that person yet.... is god now misguided as well?

The notions of free speech and protection from being offended are are contradictory. Speech would be severly limted if our goal was to ensure no one was offended. Conversely, if speech is truly free, offense comes with the territory. There are plenty of things people say here that offend me (and things I say offend them) but in a free society we are not prohibited from saying them.

 

[Robinsegg]

It's not false information... it's lack of information. So yes, calling someone misguided because God hasn't chosen to reveal himself to them is condescending and insulting.

Fair enough, not false information, but lack of information. The concept of working on (what I believe to be) a false assumption is still a valid part of misguidedness (is that a word?), at least to my understanding.

Rachel

 

[marblehead]

I don't remember saying anything about banning anyone's speech. I was saying it needs to be curtailed in such a way that society is protected. We should always protect children from exploitation (in whatever form). We should also (as a society) try to protect the citizenry from those who will use knowledge in ways to harm them. I'll not say these classes, books, etc. should not be in existence, but I will say we should be very careful in them.

Rachel

I don't quite get what you mean by curtailed.

If people want to protect children it should be through parenting, school, police, etc. Most of the time it's as easy as just avoiding those people you disagree with and whatever views they produce, if that's what you mean by curtailing then I agree.

 

[KarateCowboy]

With that line of thought we should ban many movies out there, books most definitely, many college classes, and without a doubt, military training too.

Well the thing is Christian Forums isn't a government institution, so they may censor whatever they please. You have a right to speak freely without censorship from the government, but CF is not obligated to help you exercise that right. So if what she said is, in fact, the reasoning that CF employs then there is no cause to say that America or anyone else should ban movies and military training.

On the subject of free speech: I think it is appropriate and right for the government to allow its citizens to speak freely so long as what they say does not immediately threaten a person. For example telling someone you will murder them or yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.