• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Freedom of Speech Bias Politics Towards Elites?

Does freedom of speech bias politics towards elites?

  • Yes, those with the biggest mouths yap the most.

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Yes, those with the most mouths get the most yapping.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, small mouths can yap too even if they're not loud enough.

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • No, it's up to small mouths to find each other to yap together.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    4
Daktoria

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
When you think about it, you realize that the only people who talk about politics are those who have time, energy, and attention to spare.

Those who are busy can't advertise their positions. Furthermore, advertisement is afforded the most by those who have inside connections with advertisers.

Therefore, does freedom of speech bias politics towards elites?
 
Political advertisements should probably be substantially restricted. Otherwise, no, there is no bias in free speech towards elites. The barrier for entry into political discourse is not very high... except where money is involved. And that's where the advertisements cause the most damage.
 
Paschendale said:
Political advertisements should probably be substantially restricted. Otherwise, no, there is no bias in free speech towards elites. The barrier for entry into political discourse is not very high... except where money is involved. And that's where the advertisements cause the most damage.
Click to expand...

...so if you're disconnected, and I'm connected, you'd think freedom of speech lends a fair playing field?
 
Daktoria said:
...so if you're disconnected, and I'm connected, you'd think freedom of speech lends a fair playing field?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because being disconnected isn't a barrier to freedom of speech. You can choose to GET connected, or alternatively, you can choose to remain ignorant and voice your free speech anyway (look at FOX News). In any case, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that people who know what they are talking about generally exercise their freedom of speech more than people who don't.
 
I hate it when people put editorial comments after "yes" and "no." Makes it almost a sure thing that none of the above will apply.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes. Because being disconnected isn't a barrier to freedom of speech. You can choose to GET connected, or alternatively, you can choose to remain ignorant and voice your free speech anyway (look at FOX News). In any case, I'm not so sure it's a bad thing that people who know what they are talking about generally exercise their freedom of speech more than people who don't.
Click to expand...

One, that's a circular argument. You're assuming disconnected people are close enough to become connected.

Two, "can" does not imply "ought". Again, becoming connected has a cost. People can't necessarily afford that cost and afford a life they identify with.

It's like you're saying a lightweight can buff up to contend a heavyweight.
 
Daktoria said:
One, that's a circular argument. You're assuming disconnected people are close enough to become connected.
Click to expand...

I assume no such thing. I offered TWO alternatives; you just chose to ignore the other one. If they can't or won't get informed, but want to exercise their freedom of speech anyway, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Plenty of ignorant people spout bull**** on television, radio, and the internet all the time.

Two, "can" does not imply "ought". Again, becoming connected has a cost. People can't necessarily afford that cost and afford a life they identify with.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Some people don't care or don't have time to care about politics, and so they aren't as informed and contribute less to the national discussion than others who are better informed. And that's a perfectly acceptable choice for them to make. What's the problem?
 
Daktoria said:
When you think about it, you realize that the only people who talk about politics are those who have time, energy, and attention to spare.

Those who are busy can't advertise their positions. Furthermore, advertisement is afforded the most by those who have inside connections with advertisers.

Therefore, does freedom of speech bias politics towards elites?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech does not bias politics towards elites, but money in political advertising absolutely does.
 
Kandahar said:
I assume no such thing. I offered TWO alternatives; you just chose to ignore the other one. If they can't or won't get informed, but want to exercise their freedom of speech anyway, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Plenty of ignorant people spout bull**** on television, radio, and the internet all the time.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. I'm talking about people being connected enough to broadcast their message.

That's fine. Some people don't care or don't have time to care about politics, and so they aren't as informed and contribute less to the national discussion than others who are better informed. And that's a perfectly acceptable choice for them to make. What's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is those who can't contribute could have their choices influenced into the future. Freedom of speech forces them to assume the risk of being influenced without consent.
 
Aderleth said:
Freedom of speech does not bias politics towards elites, but money in political advertising absolutely does.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what good money is if you're not connected with advertisers.
 
Daktoria said:
The problem is those who can't contribute could have their choices influenced into the future. Freedom of speech forces them to assume the risk of being influenced without consent.
Click to expand...

Where is it written that people shouldn't be influenced without consent? How is that even possible? EVERYTHING influences people without their consent in some way. Furthermore, a LACK of freedom of speech hardly remedies this "problem." :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Where is it written that people shouldn't be influenced without consent?
Click to expand...

Intimidation, offer and acceptance, freedom of assembly, rights to privacy... take your pick.

The rule of law depends on appreciating individuals' judgment, not letting anyone's judgment be superior to anyone else's.

How is that even possible? EVERYTHING influences people without their consent in some way. Furthermore, a LACK of freedom of speech hardly remedies this "problem." :roll:
Click to expand...

It's possible by appreciating how people are not things. We don't live in a state of nature.

People who aren't as outspoken are not second-class citizens. We aren't obligated to do battle to be treated with respect.
 
Daktoria said:
Intimidation, offer and acceptance, freedom of assembly, rights to privacy... take your pick.
Click to expand...

None of those say that you have the right to "not be influenced without consent." In any case, freedom of speech is found in the same document where you found freedom of assembly and where the right to privacy is implied.

The rule of law depends on appreciating individuals' judgment, not letting anyone's judgment be superior to anyone else's.
Click to expand...

1) That's not true. We live in a republic, which means that the majority's judgment in who should run the country is deemed superior to the minority's judgment. Furthermore, the entire basis of our legal system is that some people (judges) have superior judgment, and they derive that authority by being elected by the people or appointed by others who were elected by the people.

2) Freedom of speech does NOT mean anyone's judgment is superior. An ignorant person spouting ignorant crap has exactly the same right to freedom of speech as a well-informed, educated person who follows politics very closely. If he chooses not to avail himself of that right, it's his own decision.

It's possible by appreciating how people are not things. We don't live in a state of nature.

People who aren't as outspoken are not second-class citizens. We aren't obligated to do battle to be treated with respect.
Click to expand...

If your solution is to deny people freedom of speech because YOU don't want to exercise that right, then it is you who is treating others with a lack of respect. I'm curious as to how exactly you think that denying people freedom of speech would lead to a more equal playing field. Walk me through the logical steps that you led you to that bizarre conclusion.
 
Kandahar said:
None of those say that you have the right to "not be influenced without consent." In any case, freedom of speech is found in the same document where you found freedom of assembly and where the right to privacy is implied.
Click to expand...

No right overrides any other.

The dispersion of energy makes freedom of speech intrinsically offensive compared to assembly and privacy which are defensive.

Therefore, assembly and privacy deserve priority since they can't be exercised offensively. Speech, however, can intimidate others such that their assembly/privacy are violated.

1) That's not true. We live in a republic, which means that the majority's judgment in who should run the country is deemed superior to the minority's judgment. Furthermore, the entire basis of our legal system is that some people (judges) have superior judgment, and they derive that authority by being elected by the people or appointed by others who were elected by the people.

2) Freedom of speech does NOT mean anyone's judgment is superior. An ignorant person spouting ignorant crap has exactly the same right to freedom of speech as a well-informed, educated person who follows politics very closely. If he chooses not to avail himself of that right, it's his own decision.
Click to expand...

This is just mob justice. You're discriminating against those who are different.

If your solution is to deny people freedom of speech because YOU don't want to exercise that right, then it is you who is treating others with a lack of respect. I'm curious as to how exactly you think that denying people freedom of speech would lead to a more equal playing field. Walk me through the logical steps that you led you to that bizarre conclusion.
Click to expand...

No, that's like saying people are obligated to fight to be treated with respect. Speech is intrinsically offensive.

People can talk with others who have consented to converse. If people haven't consented, then they're being coerced.
 
Daktoria said:
When you think about it, you realize that the only people who talk about politics are those who have time, energy, and attention to spare.

Those who are busy can't advertise their positions. Furthermore, advertisement is afforded the most by those who have inside connections with advertisers.

Therefore, does freedom of speech bias politics towards elites?
Click to expand...

You need more than inside connections to buy advertising time. It takes money.

And yes, I agree with the premise of you OP. Those with the most money get to be heard the most in our society.
 
Daktoria said:
Therefore, assembly and privacy deserve priority since they can't be exercised offensively. Speech, however, can intimidate others such that their assembly/privacy are violated.
Click to expand...

Speech itself can do no such thing. Merely speaking does absolutely NOTHING to violate anyone's rights. It's true that the RESULTS of speech may sometimes lead to that (e.g. someone advocating for policies to take away other rights), but that isn't speech itself. The rights to assembly or privacy could be indirectly used to take away rights in exactly the same manner.

People can talk with others who have consented to converse. If people haven't consented, then they're being coerced.
Click to expand...

The freedom of speech is not an OBLIGATION to speech. If you don't want to consent to conversing about any topic or with any person, then don't. No one is forcing you. :roll:

And I'm still waiting to hear how denying people their freedom of speech would put everyone on an equal playing field. What it would actually do is make certain people the sole arbiters of what kind of speech was and wasn't allowed.
 
Kandahar said:
Speech itself can do no such thing. Merely speaking does absolutely NOTHING to violate your rights. It's true that the RESULTS of speech may sometimes lead to that (e.g. someone advocating for policies to take away other rights), but that isn't speech itself. The rights to assembly or privacy could be indirectly used to take away rights in exactly the same manner.
Click to expand...

You don't know what it means to be sensitive, do you?

People can be intimidated from the mere sound and sight of noise. They don't have to even interpret speech to be intimidated.

The freedom of speech is not an OBLIGATION to speech. If you don't want to consent to conversing about any topic or with any person, then don't. No one is forcing you.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're forced. Those who don't consent to converse are obligated to assume the risk of having their rights taken away.

Assuming risk is a judgment call which violates freedom of assembly.
 
Daktoria said:
You don't know what it means to be sensitive, do you?

People can be intimidated from the mere sound and sight of noise.
Click to expand...

Well that's just too bad. If you're so sensitive that you can't even bear to hear the sound of another human voice, I recommend you see a psychologist instead of trying to take away the right to free speech from other people. It's your problem, and frankly it's ridiculous to expect the rest of the world to cater to your unusual problem.
 
Kandahar said:
Well that's just too bad. If you're so sensitive that you can't even bear to hear the sound of another human voice, I recommend you see a psychologist instead of trying to take away the right to free speech from other people. It's your problem, and frankly it's ridiculous to expect the rest of the world to cater to your unusual problem.
Click to expand...

...and who are you to judge someone else as having a psychological problem?

If someone sneezes on you and gets you sick, why are you to blame? Did you choose to interact with whoever sneezed on you?
 
The Internet has gone a long way towards leveling the playing field.
 
Daktoria said:
When you think about it, you realize that the only people who talk about politics are those who have time, energy, and attention to spare.

Those who are busy can't advertise their positions. Furthermore, advertisement is afforded the most by those who have inside connections with advertisers.

Therefore, does freedom of speech bias politics towards elites?
Click to expand...

Have you heard of OWS? Were those the elite? If so, the elite of what?
 
joko104 said:
The Internet has gone a long way towards leveling the playing field.
Click to expand...

For better or worse?

The internet is a very chaotic place. Only those who can endure chaos can communicate.
 
Daktoria said:
For better or worse?

The internet is a very chaotic place. Only those who can endure chaos can communicate.
Click to expand...

Translation: "I'm hyper-sensitive about hearing the sound of people's voices and/or enduring chaos. Therefore NO ONE should be allowed to communicate." :roll:
Grow up.
 
Kandahar said:
Translation: "I'm hyper-sensitive about hearing the sound of people's voices and/or enduring chaos. Therefore NO ONE should be allowed to communicate." :roll:
Grow up.
Click to expand...

One, this isn't about me. If it was, I wouldn't be talking now. Stop the personal attacks.

Two, people can't just "grow up". That's an intimidation tactic against non-elites who weren't endowed.

That said, you can grow up in answering my response to our own discussion instead of butting in elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom