The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight

'freedom of speech'

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 55
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 2:35 pm

'freedom of speech'

Post by Kiwi » September 6th, 2013, 1:33 pm

Where I come from there exists this wacky concept called 'freedom of speech', which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind's mental development.

I myself am a strong supporter of the 'Right of freedom of speech', as I'm sure most people would be if they truly understood the concept.

'Freedom of speech' means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. (Otherwise, you don't believe in 'freedom of speech', but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.)

Seeing as how there are so many different beliefs in the world, and as it would be virtually impossible for all of us to agree on any one belief, you may begin to realize just how important an idea like 'freedom of speech' really is.

The idea basically states 'while I don't agree or care for what you are saying, I do support your right to say it, for herein lies true freedom'.
I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had,all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year-if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world,NOT ONE HUMAN BEING EXCLUDED.And it would pay for it many times over!

User avatar
FreeSpeech
Posts: 209
Joined: August 8th, 2013, 8:31 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by FreeSpeech » September 6th, 2013, 3:01 pm

My username will tell you all

User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Theophane » September 6th, 2013, 3:19 pm

Where I come from there exists this wacky concept called 'freedom of speech', which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind's mental development.
Freedom of speech is overrated. What's underrated is the ability to consider the consequences of said speech before saying a word. What good is speaking with so little listening? So little understanding?

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 55
Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 2:35 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Kiwi » September 6th, 2013, 3:29 pm

Theophane wrote:

Freedom of speech is overrated. What's underrated is the ability to consider the consequences of said speech before saying a word. What good is speaking with so little listening? So little understanding?
One of the hardest things to teach a child is that the truth is more important than the consequences.
I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had,all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year-if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world,NOT ONE HUMAN BEING EXCLUDED.And it would pay for it many times over!

DirectDem
Posts: 118
Joined: August 2nd, 2013, 1:52 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by DirectDem » September 7th, 2013, 10:10 am

Kiwi wrote:Where I come from there exists this wacky concept called 'freedom of speech', which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind's mental development.

I myself am a strong supporter of the 'Right of freedom of speech', as I'm sure most people would be if they truly understood the concept.

'Freedom of speech' means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. (Otherwise, you don't believe in 'freedom of speech', but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.)

Seeing as how there are so many different beliefs in the world, and as it would be virtually impossible for all of us to agree on any one belief, you may begin to realize just how important an idea like 'freedom of speech' really is.

The idea basically states 'while I don't agree or care for what you are saying, I do support your right to say it, for herein lies true freedom'.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right anywhere that I'm aware of. One cannot use lies to sell products in most countries. It isn't appropriate and ought not be legal to discuss the details of sex with other peoples small children. One can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater, unless there is a fire.

Individual freedoms must end where others' rights would be infringed upon. It's an averaging of freedoms.

User avatar
Theophane
Posts: 2349
Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Theophane » September 7th, 2013, 10:43 am

Individual freedoms must end where others' rights would be infringed upon. It's an averaging of freedoms.
Yes! So that society can exist!

Mayanka
Posts: 159
Joined: August 6th, 2013, 4:15 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Mayanka » September 9th, 2013, 12:09 am

This is about letting the other person have his say, and to actually consider, objectively, what he is saying, and not just dismiss it because we are incapable of letting our stuck up selves THINK. But it doesn't mean only the other person gets to talk. You are allowed to counter everything, and the other party has to extend the same courtesy of consideration to what you're saying.

User avatar
Lusavior
Posts: 80
Joined: September 5th, 2013, 2:23 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Lusavior » September 10th, 2013, 6:35 pm

Freedom of speech just means that you can say whatever you want, and no one will come and arrest you -- it doesn't mean that you have the right to a public forum, it doesn't mean that anyone has to listen, it doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want, anywhere you want to. You don't get to be disruptive, negligent, or abusive. It doesn't mean that all views have to be seriously considered in a public arena, or get representation.

It just means, that in most cases, but especially privately, or with like minded people, that you won't get arrested by saying the wrong thing. People don't have to give two **** about what you have to say, or listen to you for two seconds.

Some people are just true believers, and their ideas are rooted in psychological motivations rather than facts or reason, and there is just no sense listening to, or talking to them, so they usually only get a public hearing within the confines of their own fanatic group, as a laugh by other groups, or for shock value, or something -- but not seriously. Their reasons for holding the positions they do are obvious to people that don't possess the same psychological motivations.

User avatar
FreeSpeech
Posts: 209
Joined: August 8th, 2013, 8:31 am

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by FreeSpeech » September 10th, 2013, 7:40 pm

Lusavior wrote:Freedom of speech just means that you can say whatever you want, and no one will come and arrest you -- it doesn't mean that you have the right to a public forum, it doesn't mean that anyone has to listen, it doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want, anywhere you want to. You don't get to be disruptive, negligent, or abusive. It doesn't mean that all views have to be seriously considered in a public arena, or get representation.

It just means, that in most cases, but especially privately, or with like minded people, that you won't get arrested by saying the wrong thing. People don't have to give two **** about what you have to say, or listen to you for two seconds.

Some people are just true believers, and their ideas are rooted in psychological motivations rather than facts or reason, and there is just no sense listening to, or talking to them, so they usually only get a public hearing within the confines of their own fanatic group, as a laugh by other groups, or for shock value, or something -- but not seriously. Their reasons for holding the positions they do are obvious to people that don't possess the same psychological motivations.
Exactly. I'm not being disruptive because the whole point of this forum is philosophical discussion, I'm not negligent for the same reason nor abusive (I don't think I've ever been offensive).

Of course there's no reason I should force anyone to consider this seriously, that's what everyone in my thread is doing and I'm not forcing it, in the same way I'm not asking for representation.

HOWEVER, as I've said the point of this forum is philosophy, posting a thread about X is not the same as, let's say... going to a burial and saying bad things about the deceased, the point of a burial is saying farewell, the point a philosophy forum is to... debate.


So now that you've argued a pretty much reasonable argument for freedom of speech, please, for the sake of god, take it into account for the future.

User avatar
MogulPhil
Posts: 56
Joined: January 29th, 2012, 3:33 pm
Location: near to you

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by MogulPhil » January 8th, 2015, 4:01 pm

freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock. “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Laws against incitement to racial, religious, or ethnic hatred, in circumstances where that incitement is intended to – or can reasonably be foreseen to – lead to violence or other criminal acts, are different, and are compatible with maintaining freedom to express any views at all.
it's not state of thinking, i am bored...

Syamsu
Posts: 2570
Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Syamsu » January 9th, 2015, 10:45 am

Kiwi wrote:Where I come from there exists this wacky concept called 'freedom of speech', which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind's mental development.

I myself am a strong supporter of the 'Right of freedom of speech', as I'm sure most people would be if they truly understood the concept.

'Freedom of speech' means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with. (Otherwise, you don't believe in 'freedom of speech', but rather only those ideas which you believe to be acceptably stated.)

Seeing as how there are so many different beliefs in the world, and as it would be virtually impossible for all of us to agree on any one belief, you may begin to realize just how important an idea like 'freedom of speech' really is.

The idea basically states 'while I don't agree or care for what you are saying, I do support your right to say it, for herein lies true freedom'.
In my opinion this is more a megalomaniac view on freedom of speech, not the human right idea about it. The human right idea about it is to talk to somebody about what you feel and think. That's a very basic human need, freedom of speech, a human right.

User avatar
MHopcroft1963
Posts: 62
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 11:33 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by MHopcroft1963 » January 9th, 2015, 11:50 pm

Theophane wrote:
Where I come from there exists this wacky concept called 'freedom of speech', which many people feel is one of the paramount achievements in mankind's mental development.
Freedom of speech is overrated. What's underrated is the ability to consider the consequences of said speech before saying a word. What good is speaking with so little listening? So little understanding?
Do you mean consequences in terms of what you say doing harm to others, or consequences in terms of people reacting angrily/hatefully/violently to what you said?

Or perhaps one of the consequences of unconsidered speech is that you look like a fool and actually harm the cause you are advocating for -- not because the cause is necessarily wrong, but because you put your foot in your mouth so blatantly that people think "This guy's a jackass. He must be wrong!"

One other thing: anyone can be wrong. We all are wrong about things at various points in our lives. But somehow we seem to be hard-wired against admitting to it, even when we see our error laid out in front of us unignorably.

Logicus
Posts: 865
Joined: September 20th, 2012, 10:22 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Logicus » March 9th, 2015, 7:10 pm

The first amendment, guaranteeing the "right" to "freedom of speech", was not intended to protect liars, hate mongers, or pornographers, for that matter. It was intended to protect the individual citizen from the power of government. In a monarchy, which is all that anyone knew at the time, an individual could be charged with sedition and crimes against the crown just for disagreeing with a royal proclamation.

The first amendment did away with these threats and put the individual on an equal footing with authority. That is the only thing it was intended to do. Modern interpretations have extended these protections to absurd levels. So, I, for one, do not believe in unlimited freedom of speech. I agree I should have the right to question authority without fear of reprisals, but not the freedom to say just anything just because I feel like it. With freedom comes great responsibility, and restraint in speech is a virtue.

User avatar
Okisites
Posts: 1286
Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nature

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by Okisites » March 11th, 2015, 1:35 pm

Logicus wrote:The first amendment, guaranteeing the "right" to "freedom of speech", was not intended to protect liars, hate mongers, or pornographers, for that matter. It was intended to protect the individual citizen from the power of government. In a monarchy, which is all that anyone knew at the time, an individual could be charged with sedition and crimes against the crown just for disagreeing with a royal proclamation.
Hi Logicus, I am really very happy to know that "Freedom of Speech" is actually intended to protect the individual citizen from the power of government. But I would like to know, what do think, how the government practically provide this kind of freedom to the citizen? How it is guaranteed from the government to have freedom of speech to the citizen?

Do you identify something in the system which can be very well used to oppose or hinder "Freedom of Speech" by the Government?
So, I, for one, do not believe in unlimited freedom of speech.
Well I would like to know, what do you mean by unlimited freedom of speech(against government or in relation with government)? Where you think there is a borderline between limited and unlimited freedom of speech, and how it is ascertained such that it is perfectly fair?
I agree I should have the right to question authority without fear of reprisals, but not the freedom to say just anything just because I feel like it. With freedom comes great responsibility, and restraint in speech is a virtue.


This is my question. How exactly you can question the authority without fear? Means what is the method or system to do that?

Why restraints in speech from a powerless person, to powerful person?

I am sorry, I have asked so many questions to you, but I really like to know, and also, to get you informed if I had something to inform.
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.” ― Thomas Fuller

User avatar
MHopcroft1963
Posts: 62
Joined: January 9th, 2015, 11:33 pm

Re: 'freedom of speech'

Post by MHopcroft1963 » March 11th, 2015, 5:48 pm

I'm not going to quote Logicus, but one could make a case that all speech is political in that it either promotes or challenges an established norm in society. Even if it's Madonna saying lovers should "Express" themselves sexually, Katy Perry saying people shouldn't be upset when girls kiss each other, or Billy Joel lamenting that "Catholic girls start much too late" (he has since become a major benefactor of Catholic charities, so evidently there are no hard feelings). That all three of my examples are about sex is deliberate, because as long as there has been the concept of Freedom of Speech sex has considered by many a topic to which Freedom of Speech does not apply.

The problem with that is that some people race and religion are equally taboo (in fact one of things pro-sex artists seem to be advocating is that religions condemning premarital sex is silly), which is usually essentially about people with privilege making it harder for that privilege to be challenged -- even if the privilege is undeserved. The only deterrent to "irresponsible" speech that isn't a form of oppression is the knowledge that nobody really likes to look foolish to entire nations.

Post Reply