Freedom Of Speech

[0dan1]

I don't know what all of you believe about this, but it is my personal stance that the right to express what you think, or freedom of speech, uncensored, is essential.

I am taking philosophy for A - Level, and we've been having big arguments about this =P

I say that freedom of speech is great, and everyone should be able to say what they believe is appropriate

This is countered by, 'if everyone can say what they think is appropriate, without consequences, why shouldnt people be able to DO whatever they think is appropriate?'  e.g, murder, rape etc...

I'm really struggling to defend myself from this =P because I cannot admit that people SHOULD indeed be able to do what they want, because this becomes Anarchy, and I can't defend Anarchy easily.

Is there a better way to defend freedom of speech? If not i'l have to admit i am wrong XD (which is cool with me) =]

[donkeyhoty]

I'm really struggling to defend myself from this =P because I cannot admit that people SHOULD indeed be able to do what they want, because this becomes Anarchy, and I can't defend Anarchy easily

It becomes chaos, not anarchy.

In simple terms of a left-right political axis anarchy is far-left and totalitarianism is far-right.  Anarchy/anarchism is not necessarily chaotic as totalitarianism is not necessarily a well-oiled and efficient society.  addendum: that's if you chose a left-right axis that has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, and ignore the problems with a one axis political spectrum.

This is countered by, 'if everyone can say what they think is appropriate, without consequences, why shouldnt people be able to DO whatever they think is appropriate?' e.g, murder, rape etc...

Saying whatever you want doesn't necessarily infringe on anyone else's right to exist, whereas rape, murder, or punching someone in the face does infringe upon somone else's rights, insofar as you think people have the right to life, liberty, and whatever else.

[SteveS]

I am a big fan of freedom of speech.  Why?  Because,

Saying whatever you want doesn't necessarily infringe on anyone else's right to exist, whereas rape, murder, or punching someone in the face does infringe upon somone else's rights, insofar as you think people have the right to life, liberty, and whatever else.

Right on, my brother!

I would go further, though, and argue that a free and unrestricted exchange of ideas is ultimately beneficial.  Because how can we learn about, or understand, an idea that we can't even discuss because it is taboo?

[Tom62]

I'm also a big fan of freedom of speech, as long as it also comes with the freedom of not having to listen what stupid people are saying.

[rlrose328]

I'm for free speech for all of the reasons already stated.  And donkeyhoty nailed the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of action.  Words are just that... sound and/or noise that don't actively hurt another being.  Actions CAN hurt another person physically, which is what counts more than words.  

Here's a recent illustration from the UK:

UK Court Blocks Jerry Springer Blasphemy Case

As I understand it, the people were pissed because of things they saw and heard during this play.  The people who filed the suit can be pissed all they want, but it didn't break the blasphemy law because no civil unrest (freedom of action) occurred because of the words.  Because they were just pissed and no one was actually HURT, the case was thrown out.  If they had rioted instead of just filing the lawsuit and someone had gotten hurt, there would have been a case.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I'm making my point here or not.  LOL!  I think I'm starting to have a low blood sugar episode.   :oops:

I'm also a big fan of freedom of speech, as long as it also comes with the freedom of not having to listen what stupid people are saying.

Hear hear!  I concur!  

[Bella]

I'm also a big fan of freedom of speech, as long as it also comes with the freedom of not having to listen what stupid people are saying.

Quoted for its quote-worthiness.  

[0dan1]

but what about people speaking to incite violence or hatred?
which indirectly leads to people's rights being infringed on.

[Bella]

Although the lines are blurry, I would consider someone trying to invoke violence through speech more of an action than "speech". Like, there is a huge difference between someone saying, "I hate black people" and, "let's get together and beat up a black person because they deserve it".

[0dan1]

agreed.

but political parties like the Nazi's or like the BNP for instance in Britian...
they were never crude and simple about it, but made points based on their beliefs, surely we cannot deny them that?

[donkeyhoty]

It depends on what you mean by "inciting".  If calling for a policy change in the government "incites" violent revolution would futher government criticism, after the revolution, be considered verboten?

And, sometimes "hate" speech isn't looked down upon depending on the country, time, or circumstance.  Take for instance, people that said(and I'm paraphrasing), "Let's go kill some dirty Arabs", after 9/11.  Or, take the case of some muslim countries that oppose Israel with hate-filled rhetoric.

The problem in all of this is, when does speech become action, and who is in opposition to this speech or possible action?  Also, who gets to decide what is hateful or violence-spurring speech?

[Mister Joy]

but political parties like the Nazi's or like the BNP for instance in Britian...
they were never crude and simple about it, but made points based on their beliefs, surely we cannot deny them that?

To be fair to the BNP (controversial approach, I know), they are not Nazis. I don't think that's a comparison that should be used so lightly by the tabloids. They're very authoritarian (perhaps stupidly so) and their attitude towards a few economic issues is similar but I wouldn't describe them as racist, let alone genocidal. They're just a bit over the top with regards to immigration policy and so on. Then there's that whole "let's give some actual power to the monarchy!" business which is pretty daft. Why the hell would we want that senile old bint and her equally inbred and revolting spawn to have any real influence beyond that of any standard celebrity? They're also quite patriotic, which in our current society - where we advocate and praise self-hatred, I think - has very negative & non politically correct associations that also lead to the tabloids jumping to the 'Nazi' label.

Also, just want to point out, Hitler encouraged anti-Semitism but he kept the genocide a secret from his own people, constructing elaborate lies to account for what was going on in public. They were generally speculated to be lies but nobody really fathomed the real atrocity of what was going on until the Russians found the camps. The 'speech' that was going on there wasn't simply points made based on beliefs, it was active deceit. I think that's definitely one line to draw for politicians: no lying. Stricter consequences should be enforced on those who do. If a party made that one of it's ambitions they'd gain a lot of trust, I imagine.

The problem in all of this is, when does speech become action, and who is in opposition to this speech or possible action? Also, who gets to decide what is hateful or violence-spurring speech?

Fiddly as abortion. And by that I mean the embryo into human being topic of discussion, not the operation itself. I think to speak, whatever you say, is an act. Being a verb, that's kind of what it implies. To say anything will have some effect & when it comes to political activists that applies just the same, just on a comparatively epic scale. In a democracy, this doesn't matter hugely because you can simply not vote for people you don't like. As I implied above, within a real democracy, I think that they should be able to say anything (including "vote for us and we'll create a perfect race!" if they like - wont win them many friends) provided it's honest. That way it's up to the people and they're clear on what's going on.

Did anybody else here about the Dutch paedophile party? That was very interesting; raised a lot of freedom of speech issues I thought. People wanted to ban them but I don't know if they ever actually managed to or not because I lost track of the story.

[Bella]

agreed.

but political parties like the Nazi's or like the BNP for instance in Britian...
they were never crude and simple about it, but made points based on their beliefs, surely we cannot deny them that?

Well, it's pretty much been covered above... but I like to talk, so....  

[ReflectingNarcissist]

Damn, it feels good to post here again. Anyway, for the sake of putting my two cents in:

This is countered by, 'if everyone can say what they think is appropriate, without consequences, why shouldnt people be able to DO whatever they think is appropriate?'  e.g, murder, rape etc...

Freedom of speech is merely the free allowance of exchange of opinion. Someone (a murderer, preferably) may have the opinion that murder is good. But, that person thinks that way because they like performing the act of murder. However, if the person was being murdered, I doubt they would be enjoying the concept of murder at the time. Likewise, an innocent murder victim would also not be too keen on the idea of murder. You can think and say "Murder is good" or "I would like to murder that guy". However, a murder victim can't think "Murder is bad" or "I wish I wasn't murdered" because, obviously, they're dead. The murder victim wouldn't be able to do or say what he wanted, and would be denied freedom of speech, which is what led to the murder in the first place.

Thus, you have the reason why just because somebody may have free allowance of opinion, they shouldn't be able to do whatever they think is appropriate.

I cannot admit that people SHOULD indeed be able to do what they want, because this becomes Anarchy, and I can't defend Anarchy easily.

You're saying anarchy as if it were synonymous with disorder. When taken out of the major political context, it's still more interchangeable with lawlessness as opposed to disorder. I would not think that an anarchist, political or otherwise, would consider murder and rape to be a byproduct of perpetual liberty so much as an attack on it. Unless, of course, they were some type of extremist, but that's a different circumstance.

Is there a better way to defend freedom of speech? If not i'l have to admit i am wrong XD (which is cool with me) =]

Ensure the right to life and liberty is protected. People will engage in the pursuit of happiness on their own.

[SteveS]

You're saying anarchy as if it were synonymous with disorder. When taken out of the major political context, it's still more interchangeable with lawlessness as opposed to disorder. I would not think that an anarchist, political or otherwise, would consider murder and rape to be a byproduct of perpetual liberty so much as an attack on it. Unless, of course, they were some type of extremist, but that's a different circumstance.

Well worded and lucid commentary - I liked this bit a lot.

[Steve Reason]

I guess the only speech I would be in favor of restricting is speech that rises to the level of child abuse and terrorists threats. In other words, any speech that is meant to inflict harm on a person through fear. Because doing so infringes on a person's right to the pursuit of happiness.

But offensive, hateful speech should be protected. Those people might deserve to be marginalized, but they should be allowed to state their beliefs without fear of repercussions. Stating your beliefs and opinions is much different than making a threat.