Hate Speech #2 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 01:35:01 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Hate Speech #2 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would you support laws that would make it a crime for people to make comments that might incite violent hatred against an identifiable group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
Yes (R)
 
#3
Yes (I/O)
 
#4
No (D)
 
#5
No (R)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
#7
Not sure (D)
 
#8
Not sure (R)
 
#9
Not sure (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 62

Author Topic: Hate Speech #2  (Read 3882 times)
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,401
Ireland, Republic of


« on: January 11, 2015, 11:13:56 PM »

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,401
Ireland, Republic of


« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2015, 11:24:00 PM »

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.
If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,401
Ireland, Republic of


« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2015, 11:41:55 PM »

Yes. Free speech by no means is absolute.
If speech is restricted then by definition it isn't free. You can't really say, "I support free speech but...". If you think that there should be limits on what people are allowed to say, then by definition you oppose free speech.

There is such thing as concern for public safety and the higher courts of the U.S. agree with me on this interpretation. It's like saying that the 2nd amendment allows us to own tanks and rocket propelled grenades.

To borrow from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.
Again, if you think that there ought to be limits on what people can say, then by definition you oppose free speech. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, just that the idea of "non-absolute free speech" is nonsensical.

The reason you can't yell fire is because the theater will kick you out. The government won't do anything to you.

No, I'm not going to say that I support limited speech. Free speech is a cherished ideal and something that should be held up. I don't see speech inciting public harm (what yelling fire in a theatre symbolizes...) as included in the right of free speech because it abridges the basic rights of fellow citizens. This is why this is such a complex issue and is not as clear cut as you'd like.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,401
Ireland, Republic of


« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2015, 12:47:42 PM »
« Edited: January 12, 2015, 01:04:31 PM by Türkisblau »

Deus, it is incredibly naive and idiotic to think of rights like "free speech" as completely absolute. People can want the ideal of free speech while at the same time considering things such as public safety and how it interferes with other granted rights. I believe in the right to bear arms but I think that you can both believe in that while thinking that there should be background checks for gun purchasers. Issues like these aren't black or white.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 14 queries.