Selective Free Speech

[levi501]

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.

Yah, so?
I think your assuming I'm trying to limit someone's free speech here.

 

[Robinsegg]

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.

I'll give you an example. I think it right for the goverment to discourage sale of pornography to minor children the way it currently does in the US.

As for NAMBLA, I've not gone there myself, so I can't give a definitive opinion. However, my understanding (largely from a media source who seems to check his sources rather well) is that it encourages others to engage in pedophilia and has instructions available to do so (though I don't know if those instructions are on the website), including instructions on how to lure children. It seems to me that this is aiding and abetting criminal behavior and should be seriously looked at by the authorities. Whether anything should be done by the authorities to criple the transmission of such information, I'm not sure yet.

Rachel

 

[marblehead]

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.

I agree. I guess I misunderstood. I went off on free speech in general, of course I think CF should be able to allow/ban whatever they want.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I agree. I guess I misunderstood. I went off on free speech in general, of course I think CF should be able to allow/ban whatever they want.

Whoa. That's awesome. I'm happy that we agree.

 

[levi501]

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.

I'm picking on a specific point of contention here that atheists are misguided. If you believe in christianity, isn't it more fair to say they simply haven't been guided at all... meaning that maybe God hasn't revealed himself to them yet? And if that is the case... they aren't misguided at all, rather they're simply being intellectual honest as to their lack of information.

A believer could then assert, "Oh but he has but they've simply denied him"... but then they are left answering a whole lot of questions of when, where and how... and how do you know? What day did God choose to reveal himself to that person? So you claim to know God's plan for each person?
An honest person of faith will claim that they don't know these things and it is quite possible that God hasn't revealed himself to that person yet.

So from a Christian point of view it is inaccurate and ignorant to call most atheists misguided. When I say most atheists I mean the weak ones that claim lack of belief rather then those that assert God doesn't exist.... which btw- these strong atheists are an overwelming minority.

 

[gengwall]

I'm picking on a specific point of contention here that atheists are misguided. If you believe in christianity, isn't it more fair to say they simply haven't been guided at all... meaning that maybe God hasn't revealed himself to them yet? And if that is the case... they aren't misguided at all, rather they're simply being intellectual honest as to their lack of information.

A believer could then assert, "Oh but he has but they've simply denied him"... but then they are left answering a whole lot of questions of when, where and how... and how do you know? What day did God choose to reveal himself to that person? So you claim to know God's plan for each person?
An honest person of faith will claim that they don't know these things and it is quite possible that God hasn't revealed himself to that person yet.

So from a Christian point of view it is inaccurate and ignorant to call most atheists misguided. When I say most atheists I mean the weak ones that claim lack of belief rather then those that assert God doesn't exist.... which btw- these strong atheists are an overwelming minority.

Whether or not the notion of athiests being misguided has any support is irrelevant to the topic. Does such a notion limit free speech? Definately not.

 

[Robinsegg]

I'm picking on a specific point of contention here that atheists are misguided. If you believe in christianity, isn't it more fair to say they simply haven't been guided at all... meaning that maybe God hasn't revealed himself to them yet? And if that is the case... they aren't misguided at all, rather they're simply being intellectual honest as to their lack of information.

A believer could then assert, "Oh but he has but they've simply denied him"... but then they are left answering a whole lot of questions of when, where and how... and how do you know? What day did God choose to reveal himself to that person? So you claim to know God's plan for each person?
An honest person of faith will claim that they don't know these things and it is quite possible that God hasn't revealed himself to that person yet.

So from a Christian point of view it is inaccurate and ignorant to call most atheists misguided. When I say most atheists I mean the weak ones that claim lack of belief rather then those that assert God doesn't exist.... which btw- these strong atheists are an overwelming minority.

Okay. I was apparently making a false assumption that atheism means not believing in God. I realize there are many who are waiting for a supernatural experience (preferably one that can be tested and proven supernatural) before believing.

I could go on a long thing about how God reveals Himself to everyone, but I won't do that.

I will change my statemtent to (however lacking in information they may be) as opposed to (however misguided they may be). I was trying to avoid the term "ignorance", as it has a much more negative connotation, but there it is. Lack of information is ignorance (unless I'm mistaken about that?), not stupidity or imbecility, but ignorance.

Agreed?

Rachel

 

[levi501]

Whether or not the notion of athiests being misguided has any support is irrelevant to the topic. Does such a notion limit free speech? Definately not.

You love making arguments where there aren't any...

btw - mod applications are that way. --->

 

[Lynden1000]

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

This is a tough one for me. Although I have some apprehension, ultimately I'd have to side with free speech even in cases where the speech provides instruction in how to commit a crime. It is what the recipient of this information then does with it that should be concern of the law.

If I learn from watching a movie that putting arsenic in my husband's coffee would be a good way to kill him, and then I freely choose to go and act on this information, the weight of responsibility should rest solely with me.

 

[levi501]

Okay. I was apparently making a false assumption that atheism means not believing in God. I realize there are many who are waiting for a supernatural experience (preferably one that can be tested and proven supernatural) before believing.

I could go on a long thing about how God reveals Himself to everyone, but I won't do that.

I will change my statemtent to (however lacking in information they may be) as opposed to (however misguided they may be). I was trying to avoid the term "ignorance", as it has a much more negative connotation, but there it is. Lack of information is ignorance (unless I'm mistaken about that?), not stupidity or imbecility, but ignorance.

Agreed?

Rachel

Ignorant, while some will find it offensive is fair... but this is simply because it carries other meanings such as generally unlearned and untaught.

It's your belief they are ignorant of God.

cool.

 

[Robinsegg]

This is a tough one for me. Although I have some apprehension, ultimately I'd have to side with free speech even in cases where the speech provides instruction in how to commit a crime. It is what the recipient of this information then does with it that should be concern of the law.

If I learn from watching a movie that putting arsenic in my husband's coffee would be a good way to kill him, and then I freely choose to go and act on this information, the weight of responsibility should rest solely with me.

I can see that. However, knowing an organization has the sole purpose of promoting crime, I would seriously consider revoking privacy rights and know who their members are (at least in investigation of a specific crime committed) and who's contacting them for that information.

To me, it almost seems like the mob boss that doesn't do the dirty work himself, but trains, instructs and orders it done. While I'll not contend that NAMBLA is ordering anything done, I would say the privacy "rights" should be suspended, at least in certain cases.

Rachel

 

[Mling]

Nonono, you put arsenic in wine...in tea (and probably coffee too) it has a distinct odor. Homemade elderberry wine works best. If you don't have any elderberries near you, I hear cemeteries are full of them.

 

[Steezie]

I can see that. However, knowing an organization has the sole purpose of promoting crime, I would seriously consider revoking privacy rights and know who their members are (at least in investigation of a specific crime committed) and who's contacting them for that information.

To me, it almost seems like the mob boss that doesn't do the dirty work himself, but trains, instructs and orders it done. While I'll not contend that NAMBLA is ordering anything done, I would say the privacy "rights" should be suspended, at least in certain cases.

Rachel

Can you show any definitive proof that NAMBLA is doing anything illegal?

 

[rppearso]

Free speach is part of the first amendment that this nation was founded on. Alot of this nations constitution is just a good idea writen on an old piece of paper this day in time. The spirit of the constitution is almost totally ignored and it seems everything is done to try to cicumvent it.

 

[rppearso]

If you want ignorance, limiting free speach and the flow of information is a good first place to start. But its really going to be bad when you have no heat or running water because everyone is ignorant

 

[EquilibriumX]

Uhhh...yes...^


Hmmm...tough topic. Okay, I think free speech should be limited as little as possible. By that, I mean only if the speech violates a law should it be regulated. In other words, NAMBLA is okay if they lobby to lower the age of consent, but not if they suggest ways to violate the existing age of consent.

 

[SallyNow]

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.

Um... this is isn't really on topic. But I need to address your (implied) assumption that the person you were responding to had been spoon-fed Christianity and has never studied it. We both know that the assumption that all Christians are spoon-fed Christianity, and never truly evaluate it, is intellectually dishonest. Some people evaluate their religion and turn to athiesm for whatever reason - perhaps mature, perhaps not. Others evaluate their religion and develop a deeper, more mature, less rigid relationship with their religion, in this case, Christianity. And there are some that evaluate it, and then hit their heads on walls because it's so complicated and they want to unlearn all the complicated history and theology.

Of course, there are Christians who are spoon-fed Christianity and never do evaluate or scrutinize their beliefs. But that isn't the issue here.

The issues here are that
a) NAMBLA is automatically associated with self-proclaiming athiests
b) that athiests should somehow have their right to free speech curtailed simply because of their athiestic views
c) that curtainling criminal behaviour, and restricting free speech, are the same thing.

To address a), we must stretch our minds to think that all supporters of NAMBLA are athiests. This is something that is very unlikely to be true... in fact, it is probably downright absurd. Looking at the age of when some religious sects think is appropriate for marriage and childbearing would point to there being some - perhaps secret- NAMBLA supporters in some religious sects across North America.

As for b), what is an "athiestic view" besides that they do not believe in God? An athiest can be facist, conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, communist... can be in support of dicators... they can be economically conservative, socially conservative, clothingly conservative!

Now, for c). This is a complicated question. Well, they are all complicated questions that are barely even touched on in this post, but I digress. Standing up and saying, "I want the age of consent lowered" is one thing... standing up and saying, "To protest the age of consent, break the law!" is quite another. It's the difference between, say, watching a celeb from afar and never saying or doing anything, and actually calling a celeb, repeatedly following them on the street and threatening them, etc.

So, athiests have the exact same right to free speech, debate, and discussion as anyone and everyone else.

Criminal organizations, which can be athiest, secular, Christian, whatever, in nature, and that explicitly threaten others with bodily harm, are commiting illegal acts.

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.

Uh... just want to speak up for us small-s socialists. As a group, we do not support groups like NAMBLA, nor their message. They have the right to free speech, but if what they say is implicitly threatening the life, health, or safety of children, they must be dealth with through the criminal system just as any other person who threatens the life of another should be.

And for those who want to bring up the old lie that small-s socialists (ie, those who have both moderate, and even perhaps slightly right-wing, views, along with some socialist views) want to lower the age of consent: take a look at what happened in Canada: the small-s socialists wanted to raise the age of consent, along with the right and many moderates, but some right-wings and moderates perfered to try to make a failed political maneauvor.

 

[levi501]

Um... this is isn't really on topic. But I need to address your (implied) assumption that the person you were responding to had been spoon-fed Christianity and has never studied it. We both know that the assumption that all Christians are spoon-fed Christianity, and never truly evaluate it, is intellectually dishonest. Some people evaluate their religion and turn to athiesm for whatever reason - perhaps mature, perhaps not. Others evaluate their religion and develop a deeper, more mature, less rigid relationship with their religion, in this case, Christianity. And there are some that evaluate it, and then hit their heads on walls because it's so complicated and they want to unlearn all the complicated history and theology.

Well it seems you have no idea what you're responding to otherwise you wouldn't be trying to make arguements where there aren't any.
I made no blanket statements about all christians being spoon-fed religion so move along with your misplaced indignation.
What you quoted was part of a lengthy exchange with another member here. Go back and reread all comments and then tell me what you disagree with.

 

[Skaloop]

I will change my statemtent to (however lacking in information they may be) as opposed to (however misguided they may be). I was trying to avoid the term "ignorance", as it has a much more negative connotation, but there it is. Lack of information is ignorance (unless I'm mistaken about that?), not stupidity or imbecility, but ignorance.

What about atheists that aren't lacking in information, that aren't ignorant? Some atheists have studied religion, philosophy, and theology, even Christianity specifically, in great detail. They have sought the truth and examined the teachings and are fully aware of the information. They are not ignorant at all, yet still settle on atheism.

 

[MarcylovestheQuakers]

I think people use the "freedom of speech" platform to get away with what should be common-sense unacceptability.