View Poll Results: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, there should be some restrictions

    33 75.00%
  • No, there should be no restrictions at all

    11 25.00%
  • I don't believe in the freedom of speech

    0 0%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

  1. #31
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,799

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Slander? Who said anything about slander? Im simply stating that the most idiotic amongst us such as Westboro, the KKK, and Nazis all have the right to speek in public to the masses.
    Yes, they do, but they are still limited on what they can say. Nobody can stand on a milk crate and spill national security secrets without consequences.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #32
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yes, they do, but they are still limited on what they can say. Nobody can stand on a milk crate and spill national security secrets without consequences.
    Of course they can see the Pentagon Papers.


  3. #33
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,799

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Of course they can see the Pentagon Papers.
    If it's open and available, it's not a secret. Try getting up there and passing out nuclear launch codes.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #34
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    If it's open and available, it's not a secret. Try getting up there and passing out nuclear launch codes.
    I dont think anyone can get acess to nuclear launch codes so you wont have to worry about that.


  5. #35
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,799

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    I dont think anyone can get acess to nuclear launch codes so you wont have to worry about that.
    Apparently someone has them, otherwise we have a lot of nukes that are useless.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #36
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Apparently someone has them, otherwise we have a lot of nukes that are useless.
    Please tell me exactly how a whistleblower organization is going to get acess to launch codes? And please tell me why a WHISTLEBLOWER organization would want to release these? And please tell me that how they are going to get acess to launch these materials? As far as i know you have to get the presidents authority to launch nukes....


  7. #37
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    IMHO there's no true freedom of speech now thanks to political correctness. Just ask Don Imus, Roland Martin, Rick Sanchez, Hellen Thomas, Tracy Morgan and Rush Limbaugh. Heck, people these days get punished for things other people say if they as much as friends with them BEFORE they say whatever it is that was a political correctness violation because "they should have known where they were coming from."
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  8. #38
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    IMHO there's no true freedom of speech now thanks to political correctness.
    That's ridiculous.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from reasonable consequences of speech. People continue to enjoy a vigorous right to personally express all manner of outrageous things...and audiences/customers/clients/patrons retain the right to withdraw support from people who express things they find repulsive.

    People can still sincerely and publicly express vile ideas...they just have to be prepared for the response.

    Freedom of speech does NOT mean abandonment of any and all ethical standards with regards to public expression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Just ask Don Imus, Roland Martin, Rick Sanchez, Hellen Thomas, Tracy Morgan and Rush Limbaugh. Heck, people these days get punished for things other people say if they as much as friends with them BEFORE they say whatever it is that was a political correctness violation because "they should have known where they were coming from."
    All of those people...every last one...remains free. None of them were assaulted or imprisoned for saying what they did. Some (not all) of them suffered professional consequences for what they said...which is PERFECTLY FINE, and not an infringement of their freedom of speech.

    Being free to express yourself does NOT in any way imply an entitlement to magical protection against social and professional consequences for expressing or supporting something others find offensive. On a specific, case-by-case basis, certain kinds of work MAY involve some such protections (for example, a non-performer/spokesperson being fired for what they said or wrote when not on company time). Radio hosts, TV personalities, etc. are usually NOT covered by this due to the high profile of their job (privacy is neither expected nor presumed).
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  9. #39
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    That's ridiculous.

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from reasonable consequences of speech. People continue to enjoy a vigorous right to personally express all manner of outrageous things...and audiences/customers/clients/patrons retain the right to withdraw support from people who express things they find repulsive.

    People can still sincerely and publicly express vile ideas...they just have to be prepared for the response.

    Freedom of speech does NOT mean abandonment of any and all ethical standards with regards to public expression.



    All of those people...every last one...remains free. None of them were assaulted or imprisoned for saying what they did. Some (not all) of them suffered professional consequences for what they said...which is PERFECTLY FINE, and not an infringement of their freedom of speech.

    Being free to express yourself does NOT in any way imply an entitlement to magical protection against social and professional consequences for expressing or supporting something others find offensive. On a specific, case-by-case basis, certain kinds of work MAY involve some such protections (for example, a non-performer/spokesperson being fired for what they said or wrote when not on company time). Radio hosts, TV personalities, etc. are usually NOT covered by this due to the high profile of their job (privacy is neither expected nor presumed).
    I actually agree with you. I just can't stand political correctness. I would hope Americans especially would be mature enough to see verbal dialogue and debate as the civilized way to handle disagreements. Forcing people into silence due to unwanted consequences IMHO carries with it the risk of suppressing thought to such an extent where in extreme cases people feel violence is the only way to make their points. I have heard of people not in high profile (media) positions who were professionally punished for sharing their views. One case I'm thinking of right now a guy was demoted on his job and given a pay cut because he posted his opinion derived from his religious beliefs on Facebook, which is a PRIVATE social networking service where you have to ask for and get permission to even communicate with someone.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  10. #40
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Should there be any restrictions to the freedom of speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I actually agree with you. I just can't stand political correctness.
    For the record, the whole notion of "political correctness" is a meme promoted by *CONSERVATIVES*/rightists in order to falsely portray themselves as besieged underdogs. In effect, however (and this is the goal), what that meme actually does is serve as a strategy to mischaracterize opposing views. The political correctness meme first picked up traction among rightists who balked at the practice of challenging/reframing identity terms like "people of color" in place of "coloreds." One of the relevant differences is that "colored" is a passive-voice description which turns (grammatically) a person into an object, while "person of color" keeps the PERSON aspect front and center and treats the person as a subject (someONE with agency and will). Rightists in general are hostile to that kind of nuance, and were (and still are) uncomfortable with anything which calls attention to their privilege on any axis, and so it became a general rhetorical tactic to try to re-cast developing identity terms as meaningless attempts to avoid offense (rather than as emerging currents in identity politics which came from the desire of oppressed people to define themselves rather than having their oppressors define them.

    So there's a whole history and current to all of that, but rather than deal with it, the tactic is to just mock it as a form of dismissal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I would hope Americans especially would be mature enough to see verbal dialogue and debate as the civilized way to handle disagreements. Forcing people into silence due to unwanted consequences IMHO carries with it the risk of suppressing thought to such an extent where in extreme cases people feel violence is the only way to make their points.
    It's not a matter of forcing anyone into silence. Rather, it's about efforts to avoid REWARDING irresponsible and harmful views. The failure to provide some kind of penalty (at the very least, social shaming) of harmful ideologies and views is -- appropriately -- seen as giving a greenlight to even more harmful actions growing out of the perceived approval (of the harmful views). For instance, if Imus referred to the basketball players as "nappy headed hoes" and then no one said anything about it, the perception (right or wrong) is that on some level it's OK to dehumanize certain people. Then, next time, the bar is moved just a little bit, and it's treated as OK to say something even more disparaging, and so on. There's a sense of vigilance against basic dehumanization, and it is well grounded in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I have heard of people not in high profile (media) positions who were professionally punished for sharing their views. One case I'm thinking of right now a guy was demoted on his job and given a pay cut because he posted his opinion derived from his religious beliefs on Facebook, which is a PRIVATE social networking service where you have to ask for and get permission to even communicate with someone.
    Again it hinges upon how public his job role is. If he's in a public role like policeman, firefighter, or spokesperson for a big company, etc., then expression of views which are contrary to the nature of constructive work with the public send the message that those organizations or businesses treat some parts of the population as being more important than others. If you're a database administrator who wouldn't be identified with the company (because you don't interact with the public in your job), then it wouldn't be a problem. If you ARE dealing with the public (i.e. you're a police officer), then (again, rightly or wrongly) there IS a basis to conclude that your comments on certain issues -- if they conflict with the stance of the organization you work for -- may undermine your ability to work effectively with certain groups of people. We'd still need to see the details of each specific case to get a better sense of things, but once again...freedom of speech doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want and not be held accountable for the impact of such expression upon organizations of which you are part. There's a very strong and reasonable basis, for example, to conclude that a cop who makes racist or sexist comments on a publicly accessible social forum or network is of questionable qualification with regards to his job, because a HUGE part of police work relies upon positive relationships with the larger community.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •