Should everyone have a right to express their own opinion?

[The Emerald Legion]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

Incorrect. Great solutions have come from Laymen speaking on things they don't actually understand or study.

Besides, if that were the case politicians would probably have to have their mouths screwed shut. You're just an elitist who doesn't like people criticizing your opinions.

[Purgatio]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

I'm sorry, didn't we have a discussion in a forum about consent in the eyes of English law where I explained to you how rape laws in England and Wales worked under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the case law that interprets its provisions and you told me I was wrong about the law despite the fact that I've studied this specific subject in law school?

[The Black Forrest]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

Some of the biggest dumbshits I have known were educated; some highly. Relevance is rather limiting as does not allow for different angles of viewing the problem.

No knowledge of? Please tell CEO’s, Vice Presidents, managers and investors that viewpoint. Many comment on things they don’t understand all the time.

[Purgatio]

Just to be clear, you're not suggesting repealing libel and harassment laws just because the threshold is ambiguous or there are gray areas in enforcement, right?

Defamation/libel laws are an unreasonable threat to freedom of speech. These laws are immensely prone to abuse and essentially used by powerful elements in society to protect themselves, for example by threatening legal actions after being justifiably accused of falsifying a curriculum (as in Spain) or rightfully calling a group Nazi. Also, this as well. Feeling "offended" does not equal "having your rights violated". At all. These laws should not exist.

In case of harassment laws, they can be reasonably justified, but depends on writing and interpretation (as with any law, honestly).

Furthermore, I stand by my previous quotation.

Yeah this is a pretty extreme point of view. Your ability to maintain your reputational integrity is as much a part of your dignity as the ability to be protected from trespass to the person or an invasion of privacy or breach of confidence, there's nothing more humiliating and debasing than having your public image tarnished and destroyed without your consent when its not even true and your ability to build a reputation is an indelible part of your associative identity as a human being. I can't believe anyone would sensibly suggest the repeal of libel and defamation laws.

[Giovenith]

You should have a right to express it, but too many people confuse the right to express opinions with the right to be protected from attacks on those opinions and their character. The whole point of freedom of expression is to be able to effectively sort good ideas from bad ideas, and we can't do that if we treat all opinions with kid gloves and reverence.

[Galloism]

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

I had a jolly good laugh at this post.

[Costa Fierro]

Incorrect. Great solutions have come from Laymen speaking on things they don't actually understand or study.

No they haven't.

Besides, if that were the case politicians would probably have to have their mouths screwed shut.

You can thank me later.

You're just an elitist who doesn't like people criticizing your opinions.

I prefer the term "educated".

I had a jolly good laugh at this post.

I had you in mind when I wrote it.

[Galloism]

I had a jolly good laugh at this post.

I had you in mind when I wrote it.

I definitely had you in mind when I read it.

[Costa Fierro]

No knowledge of? Please tell CEO’s, Vice Presidents, managers and investors that viewpoint. Many comment on things they don’t understand all the time.

I'd be more than happy to. Preventing those kinds of people from expressing asinine opinions would undoubtedly be of great benefit to Western society.

[Galloism]

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

Some of the biggest dumbshits I have known were educated; some highly. Relevance is rather limiting as does not allow for different angles of viewing the problem.

No knowledge of? Please tell CEO’s, Vice Presidents, managers and investors that viewpoint. Many comment on things they don’t understand all the time.

Daily reminder trump has a bachelors degree in economics.

[Galloism]

No knowledge of? Please tell CEO’s, Vice Presidents, managers and investors that viewpoint. Many comment on things they don’t understand all the time.

I'd be more than happy to. Preventing those kinds of people from expressing asinine opinions would undoubtedly be of great benefit to Western society.

I'd like to prevent people who have never had a meaningful relationship from pontificating on them too. I'd also like a private flying island suspended by magic, if you have time.

[Costa Fierro]

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

I'm sorry, didn't we have a discussion in a forum about consent in the eyes of English law where I explained to you how rape laws in England and Wales worked under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the case law that interprets its provisions and you told me I was wrong about the law despite the fact that I've studied this specific subject in law school?

No, I don't believe we did.

Daily reminder trump has a bachelors degree in economics.

Daily reminder a qualification doesn't equate to being educated. It demonstrates either the ability to pass a set of exams, or the ability to pay someone to pass them for you.

[The Black Forrest]

I'd be more than happy to. Preventing those kinds of people from expressing asinine opinions would undoubtedly be of great benefit to Western society.

I'd like to prevent people who have never had a meaningful relationship from pontificating on them too. I'd also like a private flying island suspended by magic, if you have time.

Hey now! Can I have an island too? Promise to keep a respectful distance!

[Purgatio]

I'm sorry, didn't we have a discussion in a forum about consent in the eyes of English law where I explained to you how rape laws in England and Wales worked under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the case law that interprets its provisions and you told me I was wrong about the law despite the fact that I've studied this specific subject in law school?

No, I don't believe we did.

We definitely did, in the context of a thread you started about rape victims who report an assault giving their phones to the police as evidence.

You literally disputed how cross-examination worked in court and when I pointed out, from my legal internship experience, that if you try and slut-shame a rape victim by bringing out her sexual history in open court before a jury, the Prosecution's gonna object and the judge will end that line of questioning from being inflammatory, and you disagreed saying it was "legally irrelevant" and "if it works, it works", to someone whose both been in law school and was describing exactly what happened in courtroom during my internships.

How's that square with your whole "people should shut up about things they aren't educated on specifically"?

[Costa Fierro]

We definitely did, in the context of a thread you started about rape victims who report an assault giving their phones to the police as evidence.

Did we?

You literally disputed how cross-examination worked in court and when I pointed out, from my legal internship experience, that if you try and slut-shame a rape victim by bringing out her sexual history in open court before a jury, the Prosecution's gonna object and the judge will end that line of questioning from being inflammatory, and you disagreed saying it was "legally irrelevant" and "if it works, it works", to someone whose both been in law school and was describing exactly what happened in courtroom during my internships.

How's that square with your whole "people should shut up about things they aren't educated on specifically"?

I wouldn't know, I don't remember having this conversation.

I'd like to prevent people who have never had a meaningful relationship from pontificating on them too. I'd also like a private flying island suspended by magic, if you have time.

You'd be out of luck on both, I'm afraid.

[Galloism]

I'd like to prevent people who have never had a meaningful relationship from pontificating on them too. I'd also like a private flying island suspended by magic, if you have time.

Hey now! Can I have an island too? Promise to keep a respectful distance!

Six months later.....

[Galloism]

I'd like to prevent people who have never had a meaningful relationship from pontificating on them too. I'd also like a private flying island suspended by magic, if you have time.

You'd be out of luck on both, I'm afraid.

Someone told me that's unfortunate.

The ideal answer is everyone being free to speak.

That's where you're wrong.

Only people with educated and relevant opinions pertaining to a particular subject should be able to speak. Anyone else is just a layman who has no business commenting on things that they have no knowledge of.

[The Alma Mater]

I would not oppose restrictions on free speech based on evidence.

In rough form: you are allowed to make any claim, no matter how offensive or abnormal as you desire, as long as you can provide some reasoning and evidence that has not already been debunked a 1000 times.

So someone who believes the holocaust never happened and that it was all a Jewish conspiracy would be allowed to say so, but only if they can provide some new evidence to support their hypotheses. And subsequently not whine if others tear his evidence to shreds.

[The Black Forrest]

Hey now! Can I have an island too? Promise to keep a respectful distance!

Six months later.....

Get out of my head!

[Galloism]

I would not oppose restrictions on free speech based on evidence.

In rough form: you are allowed to make any claim, no matter how offensive or abnormal as you desire, as long as you can provide some reasoning and evidence that has not already been debunked a 1000 times.

So someone who believes the holocaust never happened and that it was all a Jewish conspiracy would be allowed to say so, but only if they can provide some new evidence to support their hypotheses. And subsequently not whine if others tear his evidence to shreds.

Who makes the decision as to what a “debunking” is, and who keeps count?

[Volkish Amerika]

They have a right to express their opinion, but they should be prepared for whatever comes about from expressing said opinion.

[Neko-koku]

They have a right to express their opinion, but they should be prepared for whatever comes about from expressing said opinion.

Sounds like North Korea.

[Neko-koku]

I would not oppose restrictions on free speech based on evidence.

In rough form: you are allowed to make any claim, no matter how offensive or abnormal as you desire, as long as you can provide some reasoning and evidence that has not already been debunked a 1000 times.

So someone who believes the holocaust never happened and that it was all a Jewish conspiracy would be allowed to say so, but only if they can provide some new evidence to support their hypotheses. And subsequently not whine if others tear his evidence to shreds.

Humans are too irrational and prone to social signalling for that system to work because it seems that the only people who may like it are you and a few STEM folks including me.

[Volkish Amerika]

They have a right to express their opinion, but they should be prepared for whatever comes about from expressing said opinion.

Sounds like North Korea.

Pardon me, but how does what I said even remotely sound like North Korea?

[Neko-koku]

Sounds like North Korea.

Pardon me, but how does what I said even remotely sound like North Korea?

Even in North Korea there is technically perfect free speech, just not freedom after the speech!