QuoteDavid Hackett Fischer: And we happened to be passing through Canterbury while a by-election was underway, and it looked like an American election but it didn't sound like an American election. We couldn't quite sort that out, and then suddenly it dawned on us that none of the New Zealand candidates were very actively interested in talking about liberty and freedom. But they were passionately engaged in talking about fairness, and not fairness in detail but as the organising principle of an open society. And that got us started.
Michael Duffy: Yes, this idea of fairness, it's not something that many of us here would have thought about much before, but Americans don't talk about it all that much, do they?
David Hackett Fischer: Not so much. I think in daily discourse we use 'fairness' as much as any other English speaker, but we don't think about organising our politics or our Constitution around an idea of fairness. In New Zealand it's in the Bill of Rights, fairness and something that is called natural justice. And Geoffrey Palmer, who drafted the New Zealand Bill of Rights, said that natural justice can be understood as fairness. We don't have that word in our Constitution, though much is said about freedom and liberty.
QuoteDavid Hackett Fischer: Well, in America the British colonies were settled in a period when in the mother country there were bitter struggles under way in the politics of Britain, and there were questions more about tyranny, about power in that regard. But then in the 19th century when New Zealand was settled, I think many people who came from Britain did not feel that their liberty was problematic to them. They did feel that England was bitterly unfair in its social conditions, social structure. And I think they came to New Zealand with a determination of building a society that could in some way correct or speak to that sort of problem. Both of these groups of settlers were interested in creating the good society, a society that would be a kind of model to the old world. But they had different purposes in mind that way. They came from their experience.
I found this interesting, the US idea of freedom does puzzle me somewhat. Canada I think was settled in the same period as the US and they seem to embrace the fairness principle. The obvious reason to me Commonwealth peoples don't have the freedom obsession is we didn't fight a revolutionary war.
There's audio or transcript available - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/counterpoint/david-h-fischer/4020230
Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.
Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.
This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.
Freedom and liberty is certainly taken for granted in NZ although we do have contention with the Maori people who the colonials signed a treaty with rather than conquered.
We don't extend it to mean we ought to have the right to buy an M16 at the local dairy, or that we ought to arm ourselves for self defence against crims or the government.
I'm glad we don't have as much propoganda as USA does, we certainly don't have to pledge alegance to the flag in schools.
Being such a small country, we get much more exposure to what other countries are doing and we even play in world series tournaments that includes other countries.
But freedom and liberty does seem to be a moot point, and it seems quite American. We need to have an NZ identity.
I prefer the idea of fairness over the idea of freedom.
With the concept of freedom in a political setting what is freedom? We have heard it be used to argue a persons right to own slaves and a persons right not to be a slave, so how much water does the concept actually hold politically except for being free from the British. The entire concept of freedom and liberty in a governing system sounds like a an absurd paradox to me, government is meant to create restrictions that are then imposed by authority, that is the total opposite of freedom. A system of anarchy sounds more apt but I have never read "The Bill of Rights" so it might actually say something along the lines of "liberty and freedom yada yada... but not if it breaks points A, B, & C".
Fairness on the other hand is quite straight forward in a political setting, with any of the blurry areas being clarified because that's only fair. I like it quite a lot. It also seems attainable rather than political wishful thinking that in reality would never be realistic.
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 01, 2012, 08:16:41 AM
Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.
Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.
This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.
Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you. :D I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate :P)
Being an American, I suppose that I was raised with the concept of "freedom" and I do think it's important. One example of this that I've noticed on this board where I seem to be at odds with other cultures is my fervent belief in "freedom of speech" - even when that speech is ugly. It still shocks me that someone can be jailed in other countries for racist tweets. I'm of the Voltaire school of thought on that "I disapprove of what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it." (although I guess he didn't actually say that.) So when it comes to personal actions, speech, and thought, I do believe in the importance of freedom.
Economically, I'm much more interested in fairness. I think it's absolute crap that people get paid below a living wage for a full time job, and then people blame them for needing to be on assistance. The wealth distribution in this country is fucked. Charts like at the link below make me crazy mad.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph)
I think concerns about "fairness" moreso than freedom is definitely a Canadian thing. It's interesting, because I've never really thought about it in those terms before, but it makes a lot of sense. I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that we're such a bloody large country, but pretty much all of the power is centralized into one or two areas (Ontario and, nowadays, Alberta). So you have the far East Coast and the far West Coast constantly in a struggle to keep the power houses "honest", as it were.
Then there's the whole, Nation within a Nation that is Quebec. Their struggles also seem to be directed more towards ensuring fair treatment rather than freedom (because, really, Quebec pretty much does its own thing anyway, legally.) Interesting. I wonder if a parliamentary system re-enforces this vs. the American system.
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 02:24:28 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 01, 2012, 08:16:41 AM
Wow! The idea of fairness as a discrete political pursuit from freedom totally resonates with me. This gives me hope that, at least somewhere, there is a context given to the ideal of personal freedom which acknowledges social justice as a primary consideration.
Is this idea portable? Hmm, I'm not so sure people in arrogant and selfish societies like USA and some European heavyweights are capable of seeing the wood amongst the trees.
This idea certainly brings some focus to my own thinking on the social equation. Once again pragmatism holds the higher ground.
Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you. :D I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate :P)
While I am an advocate of 'freedom' I do not - and have never - championed it over social fairness. My views, which tend to rile many, are born of a pursuit of pragmatic social and economic fairness. What is normally in contention, however, is my hard-nosed idea of what is fair!
To reiterate past assertions, I have much sympathy for the unfortunate poor who are trampled by governmental policy and social injustice with no realistic offer of a hand up. There's no fairness here. Neither is there fairness in taking without giving back (which as many rich are guilty of as poor). Yes I take a harsh stance, but pussyfooting around 'personal freedoms' is hardly progressive as we are discovering in this thread.
The ill-worded nonsense that is the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' in no part mentions 'fairness', only 'freedom'. It will be used as a shitty stick forevermore with which to beat those of us who dare to promote fairness over freedom.
But isn't the desire for fairness a form of the desire for freedom? Why do I care if someone else has a lot more advantages and rights than I do? Isn't it at least partially because that limits my freedom? If I do not have equal access to education, to financial capital to start a business, to the voting booth to express myself politically, to the press to express myself, then my freedom is limited. Unfairness limits freedom. So it still seems like freedom is fundamental, even more so that fairness. We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 01, 2012, 06:42:59 PM
But isn't the desire for fairness a form of the desire for freedom? Why do I care if someone else has a lot more advantages and rights than I do? Isn't it at least partially because that limits my freedom? If I do not have equal access to education, to financial capital to start a business, to the voting booth to express myself politically, to the press to express myself, then my freedom is limited. Unfairness limits freedom. So it still seems like freedom is fundamental, even more so that fairness. We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.
Yes. But equality has more in common with fairness than freedom.
Freedom will always favour the advantaged unless fairness is first addressed.
[Ecurb Noselrub]
I'd rather say that freedom is a form of fairness. You can promote freedom without the need to promote fairness, but freedom is naturally promoted within fairness.
[Ali]
I find this point intriguing that you find it shocking that somebody was jailed for spouting hate. I personally see no difference between a person being foul and vile through speech than a person physically abusing another for the same reasons, they are both forms of abuse. I agree with freedom of speech but when it encroaches on the lives of others in a negative way for something they can not help, then that person needs to be made aware that it isn't acceptable in the same way it isn't acceptable to punch somebody in the street because they may not be the same as you, if that happens to be legal action then I am all for it, though I think imprisonment is a bit useless in such a case as it's more likely to radicalise that individual more.
Quote from: Crow on June 01, 2012, 08:08:27 PM
[Ali]
I find this point intriguing that you find it shocking that somebody was jailed for spouting hate. I personally see no difference between a person being foul and vile through speech than a person physically abusing another for the same reasons, they are both forms of abuse. I agree with freedom of speech but when it encroaches on the lives of others in a negative way for something they can not help, then that person needs to be made aware that it isn't acceptable in the same way it isn't acceptable to punch somebody in the street because they may not be the same as you, if that happens to be legal action then I am all for it, though I think imprisonment is a bit useless in such a case as it's more likely to radicalise that individual more.
I really do find it shocking. It seems like such a slippery slope to me. Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism? Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism? Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings". AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?
Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism. I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.
'Being' racist in the UK isn't a crime. The crime was 'inciting racial hatred'. Of course our judges are at liberty to interpret that as they see fit (based on social pressure of course). I'm not sure that tweeting racial slurs is necessarily incitive, but if one is allowed to get away with it, so the racist flood gates will open. That be ugly - and unfair.
How does it work in the US? Does freedom of speech truly give a free stage to anyone who wants to speak?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 01, 2012, 08:24:43 PM
'Being' racist in the UK isn't a crime. The crime was 'inciting racial hatred'. Of course our judges are at liberty to interpret that as they see fit (based on social pressure of course). I'm not sure that tweeting racial slurs is necessarily incitive, but if one is allowed to get away with it, so the racist flood gates will open. That be ugly - and unfair.
How does it work in the US? Does freedom of speech truly give a free stage to anyone who wants to speak?
Yes. I think that the only time it would be against the law is if you did something that foreseeably caused a dangerous situation (like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire.)
ETA: Or sometimes (I think depending on the state)it's illegal if it could be interpreted as directly threatening an individual. Like for example, I know in some states it's against the law to burn a cross on someone's front lawn (that's like an old time KKK threat) but it's legal to burn a cross at a KKK rally where no one individual is being threatened. And legal to have a KKK rally where lots and lots of hate speech would be going on.
People in the US are not jailed for racist words, tweets, et cetera. They are still judged in the court of public opinion which is exactly as it should be, but they wouldn't be thrown in jail for it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 01, 2012, 06:42:59 PM
We are not always going to be equal in everything, but we should have the freedom that comes from an equal opportunity, an equal chance.
I agree with this.
Free education and lack of elite private schools puts the poor on a level playing field with the rich. A poor child can get the same education and same prospects for a job, can get themselves out of the poverty cycle. Well, as long as the govt provides enough support for the family to survive such that they don't take their children out of school and into work in order to support the family.
But this could be fairness or freedom, it fits both labels.
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 02:24:28 PM
Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you. :D I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate :P)
Interestingly,
NZ government recently made an arrangement such that Women on DPB (Domestics Puposes Benefit - Solo Mums requiring government financial support) can choose to get long term contraceptives for free (at the expense of government)
Instead of seeing this as freedom (without financial pressure) to choose contraceptives, many saw this as abhorrent government forcing poor not to have children.
State pressure worries beneficiaries (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804509)
Stuck for ideas, Govt preys on powerless (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805424)
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2012, 09:12:43 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 02:24:28 PM
Siz, I'm rather surprised and pleased with you. :D I would have thought that you would embrace the US ideal of "freedom" over "social fairness" (seeing as how you don't even want the poor to procreate :P)
Interestingly,
NZ government recently made an arrangement such that Women on DPB (Domestics Puposes Benefit - Solo Mums requiring government financial support) can choose to get long term contraceptives for free (at the expense of government)
Instead of seeing this as freedom (without financial pressure) to choose contraceptives, many saw this as abhorrent government forcing poor not to have children.
State pressure worries beneficiaries (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10804509)
Stuck for ideas, Govt preys on powerless (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10805424)
That's very interesting. I think of the government offering the option of free contraception as very fair (and freedom supporting) action to take, so long as there are no sort of strings attached. Like "get free contraception" = good. "Get free contraception and get a monetary bonus for receiving said contraception" = creepy and bad. Or "get free contraception or else no food stamps for you!" = creepy and bad (sorry Siz!)
I agree 100% with Ali on freedom of speech, and I've expressed it before on here. It does make for uncomfortable situations, like legalizing the right of a church to hold "God Hates F***s" posters and talking about how all gay people will burn in hell. But as she points out, it also means we don't have to worry about proclaiming our atheism, among other things, just because someone finds it offensive.
As for whether it provides a truly free stage, that is true for the most part. The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is the one most cited. You're also not allowed to threaten the life of the president or vice president. Someone on another board I was once on joked about killing Al Gore when he was VP, and the Secret Service actually went to the house of the webmaster and demanded his weblogs just to track down who it was. They didn't press any charges against the poster in the end, but they made it clear that they could have.
However, there are fuzzier situations. You can sue someone for libel or slander, for example. I believe that's mostly on the state level as opposed to federal though.
The fairness vs. freedom argument is rather interesting though, and definitely illuminates the difference between mentalities. And unfortunately, "freedom" as a concept is twisted by people in the US for their own means.
Quote from: Stevil on June 01, 2012, 09:04:14 PM
Free education and lack of elite private schools puts the poor on a level playing field with the rich. A poor child can get the same education and same prospects for a job, can get themselves out of the poverty cycle. Well, as long as the govt provides enough support for the family to survive such that they don't take their children out of school and into work in order to support the family.
But this could be fairness or freedom, it fits both labels.
Right, but here's where people in the US would twist the word "Freedom". By denying them the right to create their own privately funded schools, some would say you're encroaching on their freedom to give their children the education they want to provide their children. Same with this:
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 09:18:56 PM
That's very interesting. I think of the government offering the option of free contraception as very fair (and freedom supporting) action to take, so long as there are no sort of strings attached. Like "get free contraception" = good. "Get free contraception and get a monetary bonus for receiving said contraception" = creepy and bad. Or "get free contraception or else no food stamps for you!" = creepy and bad (sorry Siz!)
Churches and other religious organizations claim this is a violation of their "religious freedom" because they have to pay for something they consider sinful.
I'm not saying I agree with this twisting of "freedom"; in fact, I think it's crap. But that's where elements of US society would find a distinction between fairness and freedom. I say "elements" because this country is actually quite polarized in many ways
Agreed on all counts Firebird.
If freedom is going to work (within a framework of fairness) tolerance from all sides must be embraced. You want me to respect your beliefs? Then you respect mine. Bottom line.
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
I really do find it shocking. It seems like such a slippery slope to me. Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism?
Ah the good old slippery slope threatens so we must stay still. This particular slope slides both ways though, like a ridge line. We have had some brutal examples of what can happen when a group spreads hate for another.
QuoteThe Supreme Court first began to develop a coherent (http://www.answers.com/topic/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution)doctrine of First Amendment liberties in a series of decisions arising out of federal legislation designed to stifle opposition to American participation in World War I.
Americans seemed restrained from objecting to the start of the second Gulf War whereas UK and Australians citizens felt free to object. The idea that a citizen should be able to object to the government seems fair though the Gabrielle Giffords case would argue for some limitations. There seems less danger in having laws preventing hate speech between groups in society than restricting anti government talk. Who is the potential bully? I'd say large groups over small and government over opposition groups. The fair thing is to protect the weaker group, in general at least.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 02, 2012, 03:27:17 AMAmericans seemed restrained from objecting to the start of the second Gulf War whereas UK and Australians citizens felt free to object.
A side note,
not an attempt at a derail of this worthwhile thread:
It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.
Quote from: Recusant on June 02, 2012, 05:25:53 AM
It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.
Indeed there was. I was one of those protesters, marching on Washington just before the war started. There were millions of us who opposed the war and said so. Unfortunately it was not enough. But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech. Freedom of speech means both sides get to speak their points of view, and unfortunately that often means the popular idea wins out over the logical one.
Quote from: Firebird on June 02, 2012, 06:09:59 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 02, 2012, 05:25:53 AM
It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.
But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech.
I do understand that distinction and yet...
It is easier for those without a public profile to stand up for their views. It didn't seem to me that supporters of the war, avowed defenders of freedom, did much defending of the right to free speech. One way or another many people were intimidated to not speak out whilst elsewhere people felt free to question. I started off saying the American idea of freedom puzzled me, it still does there's too many contradictions, it doesn't seem an entirely rational aspiration. Alcohol and drug prohibitions, McCarthyism, Vietnam war conscription are a few events I see as contradictory to a pursuit of freedom.
I hope I don't sound too preachy, I could say some nice things about yas too.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 02, 2012, 07:12:36 AM
Quote from: Firebird on June 02, 2012, 06:09:59 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 02, 2012, 05:25:53 AM
It may not have received much coverage in the US national press, and international press, but in fact there were some sizable protests by US citizens against the Iraq War, for all the good that they did.
But back to Magic Pudding's comments, while there may have been pressure in the public sphere not to speak out against the Iraq War, it was not restricted by the government. Those of us who disagreed with it were shouted down and occasionally called horrible things, but that's not the same thing as restricted speech.
I do understand that distinction and yet...
It is easier for those without a public profile to stand up for their views. It didn't seem to me that supporters of the war, avowed defenders of freedom, did much defending of the right to free speech. One way or another many people were intimidated to not speak out whilst elsewhere people felt free to question. I started off saying the American idea of freedom puzzled me, it still does there's too many contradictions, it doesn't seem an entirely rational aspiration. Alcohol and drug prohibitions, McCarthyism, Vietnam war conscription are a few events I see as contradictory to a pursuit of freedom.
I hope I don't sound too preachy, I could say some nice things about yas too.
McCarthyism and the like is yet another great example of why freedom of speech is so important. Interestingly, our government doesn't always follow it's own laws. But I do like to think that if something like that happened now, the ACLU would be all over it.
I never felt intimidated speaking out against the war. Then again, when all of this started, I was a 21 year old college student, and speaking out against wars is what 21 year old college students are obligated to do.
Quote from: Ali on June 02, 2012, 03:50:01 PM
McCarthyism and the like is yet another great example of why freedom of speech is so important. Interestingly, our government doesn't always follow it's own laws. But I do like to think that if something like that happened now, the ACLU would be all over it.
I never felt intimidated speaking out against the war. Then again, when all of this started, I was a 21 year old college student, and speaking out against wars is what 21 year old college students are obligated to do.
I don't think laws are enough, people have to value them and hold politicians accountable. It seems you have a regard for freedom which prioritises free speech but that doesn't seem universal. Aren't there a lot of people who claim to value freedom which means guns and a resentment for government regulation? It's my impression (I only have impressions reached far away) these champions of freedom don't give a fork for the rights of lefties. Those foresightful things those admirable founding fathers put in your constitution, the things that would keep despots at bay, things worthy of being held sacred are often passed over.
QuoteDuring a London concert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks) ten days before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, lead vocalist Maines said, "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States [George W. Bush] is from Texas".[1] The positive reaction to this statement from the British audience contrasted with the boycotts that ensued in the U.S., where "the band was assaulted by talk-show conservatives"[2] while their albums were discarded in public protest.[/size]
The Dixie Chicks may seem an odd example and I'd agree, a girl band fearing for their lives because one of them spoke their mind. I heard Tom Waits decline to comment because he wanted to be able to continue working back home. It seems for some this freedom thing justifies some ugly stuff. I suppose freedom is an aspiration but people don't necessarily look at the old words, they just apply their own meaning to the word.
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
I really do find it shocking. It seems like such a slippery slope to me. Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism? Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism? Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings". AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?
Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism. I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.
I believe in freedom of speech myself and can not argue against it even if I wanted to play devils advocate. But there is a big however attached to that freedom of speech for me, I think anyone should be allowed the opportunity to express an opinion no matter how unpopular that is, but I do not think inciting hatred in anyway should not be tolerated by anyone in society, by this I mean those that are calling for violent or abusive action against others not that they are expressing a view. As the westboro baptist church was mentioned I will use them as an example, even though they are expressing their vile opinions they are not inciting hatred, what they are currently preaching might arouse or provoke a violent action but they are not calling for violent action therefore they can express there views as much as they like.
Magic Pudding, you definitely make very valid points. But there is still a distinction between the examples you brought up in the public sphere and what the law actually does. Freedom of speech applies to everyone, including dumbasses who protest the Dixie Chicks because of what they said. And often, the dumbass element is the loudest, sadly. But it also means that the minority view, even the unpopular one that people want to shout down, can still be said out loud without repercussions from the government. It does mean you will have to defend yourself in the public sphere, of course.
You are correct in pointing out that we have not been perfect about this by any means. McCarthyism, the Red Scare, Nixon's enemies list, etc are all shameful examples where free speech was restricted. But there were repercussions to those violations. McCarthy was eventually driven out of power. Nixon resigned in disgrace. We eventually discovered there were no WMD's in Iraq after all and screamed it out loud, albeit later than it should have been. It's an ideal we strive for. But it's a value important to all of us, including the minorities such as atheists, liberals, etc.
Quote from: Crow on June 02, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 01, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
I really do find it shocking. It seems like such a slippery slope to me. Like, if a person could be jailed for spouting one form of unpopular opinion because it potentially is harmful, like racism, then who is to say that a person couldn't be jailed for spouting another kind of unpopular opinion that is commonly considered harmful, like atheism? Like, if as a society, the majority of people agree that religion is good for society, then what would stop them from jailing people who disagree and are outspoken in their atheism? Certainly atheism is unpopular, and some might say that it "hurts their feelings". AD has expressed multiple times that the images thread is hurtful to him; what if we were potentially jailed for posting things that are hurtful to him as a Christian?
Please understand me, I'm not defending racism, and I'm not likening atheism to racism. I'm just trying to explain why I feel that freedom of speech (all speech, even unpopular speech) is so important.
I believe in freedom of speech myself and can not argue against it even if I wanted to play devils advocate. But there is a big however attached to that freedom of speech for me, I think anyone should be allowed the opportunity to express an opinion no matter how unpopular that is, but I do not think inciting hatred in anyway should not be tolerated by anyone in society, by this I mean those that are calling for violent or abusive action against others not that they are expressing a view. As the westboro baptist church was mentioned I will use them as an example, even though they are expressing their vile opinions they are not inciting hatred, what they are currently preaching might arouse or provoke a violent action but they are not calling for violent action therefore they can express there views as much as they like.
That's a good point too;I do think that threatrning specific individuals is illegal in most parts of the US. I would imagine that calling for violence against them falls into that category.