Is this really a bad thing? Freedom of Speech Ques.

[Conserative Morality]

"Mild" is perspective baised judgement.

a drawing of the prophet Muhammad is "mild" to me, but will cause an angry mob to rise up.

So, if someone stood up, and started talking about Freedom of Speech, and how it needs more support in this country among the people, and the crowd got pissed for whatever reason (Annual Fascist-Fest is in town?) and you COULD stop them somehow, you wouldn't try?

[JuNii]

"Mild" is perspective baised judgement.

a drawing of the prophet Muhammad is "mild" to me, but will cause an angry mob to rise up.

So, if someone stood up, and started talking about Freedom of Speech, and how it needs more support in this country among the people, and the crowd got pissed for whatever reason (Annual Fascist-Fest is in town?) and you COULD stop them somehow, you wouldn't try?

are you saying the crowd does not have a right to be 'pissed'?

[Bluth Corporation]

You said "acting", I said "ideas."

I don't see how they can be separated. If I believe terrorism is the way to go, and I really believe that, I'm not just some armchair radical, I will act on it, or encourage others to. Especially nowadays, when speech doesn't just mean talking or writing as it did in 1791, giving me a public forum could be dangerous.
In general, more speech is better than none, I agree, but it is not completely innocuous, either. If it were, we wouldn't want to protect it.

The wild success of samizdat works such as The Gulag Archipelago demonstrate, I believe quite clearly, that banning the public expression of certain ideas does not actually prevent the public expression of those idea. It does, however, set a very dangerous precedent of banning progressively less and less fringe ideas in the future (think of boiling a frog). Given no benefits and a huge drawback, why do it?

[Conserative Morality]

are you saying the crowd does not have a right to be 'pissed'?

Let me amend that:

"Pissed, and trying to physically harm the speaker"

[Soheran]

banning the public expression of certain ideas does not actually prevent the public expression of those idea.

It does, however, set a very dangerous precedent

Are not these two statements contradictory?

If bans have no effect, what's the danger?

[Philomia]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything.
You still have to pay consequences for what you say.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

To protect hate speech is to make tolerance contradict itself. It does not extend but only impairs people's freedom to live their lives in peace, as they see fit. It does not extend but only impairs the capacity of the public forum to truly seek truth and justice, for by its very nature hate speech does not attempt to convince people of its legitimacy on universalist rational grounds, but assembles one part of the public against another, on the basis of prejudice and privileged group identification.

In a society that is supposed to be bent on securing freedom and equality, it is speech bent on depriving some people of freedom and enshrining inequality. A liberal principle stretched so far as to protect hate speech destroys its own foundation.

I don't understand why tolerance is inherently good, though. I accept things like different races, sexualities, and genders not because of the axiomatization of "tolerance," I do so because there is no real reason to form any meaningful judgments about an individual on the basis of such things. However, I do make some judgments about an individual based on their political views, personal philosophy, and religious beliefs, because all of these things give one an insight into how someone else thinks, behaves, and views the world. Why is tolerance a good in itself?

[JuNii]

are you saying the crowd does not have a right to be 'pissed'?

Let me amend that:

"Pissed, and trying to physically harm the speaker"

ah, then that becomes a different scenario.

there is no way I can stop a crowd that has worked itself up to violence.
I would, however, call the cops.

[Concurria]

Because it's not the government's place to hold certain ideas in a privileged position over others.

Doesn't it, though? Aren't laws just the government saying "we think acting this way is better than the alternatives. And by the way, if you don't, we'll fine you?"

You said "acting", I said "ideas."

The prohibition of certain actions is the promulgation of certain ideas.

[Conserative Morality]

ah, then that becomes a different scenario.

there is no way I can stop a crowd that has worked itself up to violence.
I would, however, call the cops.

The cops can't get there in time.

[Soheran]

I don't understand why tolerance is inherently good, though.

Because only in a tolerant society can people live freely.

However, I do make some judgments about an individual based on their political views, personal philosophy, and religious beliefs, because all of these things give one an insight into how someone else thinks, behaves, and views the world.

Fine. Making judgments is not intolerant.

Now, if you denied someone employment for one of those reasons... that would be intolerant, because a person's capacity to perform a job has nothing to do with his or her "political views, personal philosophy, and religious beliefs."

[JuNii]

ah, then that becomes a different scenario.

there is no way I can stop a crowd that has worked itself up to violence.
I would, however, call the cops.

The cops can't get there in time.

and I'll bet the speaker doesn't realize that he's worked the crowed up to angry mob status...

and I'll bet the speaker is all alone...

and what other conditions can you put in to make it totally unrealistic?

I will still call the cops. if this idiot doesn't realise he's got an angry crowd and is still speaking... then he certainly won't listen to me. and a crowd worked up to violence frenzy won't listen to me.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Now, if you denied someone employment for one of those reasons... that would be intolerant, because a person's capacity to perform a job has nothing to do with his or her "political views, personal philosophy, and religious beliefs."

If we want to go to the extreme, there could be certain religious or philosophical views that should prevent you from being employed in certain jobs. What if you were known to be a staunch believer in suicide bombing and martyrdom, should you be allowed to get a pilot's license? What if you believed that every suspected criminal was subhuman scum that deserved to be brutally tortured, humiliated, and otherwise damaged, should you be allowed to be an officer of the law? Beliefs inform actions, and certain beliefs increase the probability of you committing certain actions that are not tolerated by a civilized society.

[Conserative Morality]

and I'll bet the speaker doesn't realize that he's worked the crowed up to angry mob status...

and I'll bet the speaker is all alone...

and what other conditions can you put in to make it totally unrealistic?

I will still call the cops. if this idiot doesn't realise he's got an angry crowd and is still speaking... then he certainly won't listen to me. and a crowd worked up to violence frenzy won't listen to me.

I think he realizes this.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because only in a tolerant society can people live freely.

Furthermore, tolerance is vague and poorly defined. Therefore, it is not worth anything. Only rigid logical structures are worth anything.

[JuNii]

and I'll bet the speaker doesn't realize that he's worked the crowed up to angry mob status...

and I'll bet the speaker is all alone...

and what other conditions can you put in to make it totally unrealistic?

I will still call the cops. if this idiot doesn't realise he's got an angry crowd and is still speaking... then he certainly won't listen to me. and a crowd worked up to violence frenzy won't listen to me.

I think he realizes this.

then I would shout "in the interest of fair play... I suggest we give this poor bastard a 5 minute head start!"

that would give the crowd 5 minutes of cooling down time.

If Jackass doesn't run (because he believes that his free speech will protect him from phsycial violence)... then I will definately be there as he's recovering in the hosptial.

[Conserative Morality]

then I would shout "in the interest of fair play... I suggest we give this poor bastard a 5 minute head start!"

that would give the crowd 5 minutes of cooling down time.

If Jackass doesn't run (because he believes that his free speech will protect him from phsycial violence)... then I will definately be there as he's recovering in the hosptial.

Legally... Yes, his rights do shield him from physical violence.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

As a precaution, all communication must be banned. It's the only way to really stop people from yelling "fire" in a crowded brothel. Hey, I think that I've just applied the Bush Doctrine to the censorship question!

[Conserative Morality]

As a precaution, all communication must be banned. It's the only way to really stop people from yelling "fire" in a crowded brothel. Hey, I think that I've just applied the Bush Doctrine to the censorship question!

No, no, no, you forgot to arrest people who look like they MIGHT communicate sometime in the future.

[JuNii]

then I would shout "in the interest of fair play... I suggest we give this poor bastard a 5 minute head start!"

that would give the crowd 5 minutes of cooling down time.

If Jackass doesn't run (because he believes that his free speech will protect him from phsycial violence)... then I will definately be there as he's recovering in the hosptial.

Legally... Yes, his rights do shield him from physical violence.

and I'm sure that will bring him great comfort while his bones knit.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

As a precaution, all communication must be banned. It's the only way to really stop people from yelling "fire" in a crowded brothel. Hey, I think that I've just applied the Bush Doctrine to the censorship question!

No, no, no, you forgot to arrest people who look like they MIGHT communicate sometime in the future.

That is the logical next step. Don't put the cart before the enemy combatant, citizen.

[Pope Joan]

You can say whatever you please, that is your right of free speech.

But you cannot then pretend that degrading speech and actions will not have a degrading effect on your community, can you?

It's like saying you have a right to pee in your neighbor's yard, but then since you were just exercising a right he has no reason to complain about the smell.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

You can say whatever you please, that is your right of free speech.

But you cannot then pretend that degrading speech and actions will not have a degrading effect on your community, can you?

It's like saying you have a right to pee in your neighbor's yard, but then since you were just exercising a right he has no reason to complain about the smell.

To take wholly irrelevant complication of private property out of the analogy; giving someone a summons for public urination does not have a chilling effect on liberty and open discourse. Giving someone a summons for making an unpopular statement in the town square however, does.

EDIT:
If making a certain kind of unpopular statement can be said to "degrade the community," then punishing a person for making such a statement will degrade the community in a FAR more significant way.

[Concurria]

Regarding Totalitarian countries, they're rife with examples of censorship, and how it fails. That's how they support my arguments.

But the countries to which I refer are not Totalitarian countries. In fact, Totalitarian countries are bad examples, period, because the default perspective from any citizen in a democratic country is generally speaking, negative.

The government cracks down on them again, they go underground and resurge.

So are the Neo-Nazis ever going to regain power in Germany?

Because people will talk about them anyway, in private.

Am I to understand that you believe this makes "censorship" futile?

When an idea is held up for public consumption, people talk about it.

This is not a contributory statement: It implies that there are some issues people don't speak of. I'm quite positive mankind likes to talk about anything and everything when the time is right. Therefore, I don't see how your point is valid.

Bad ideas don't tend to stick around very long when we're allowed to pick them apart, which is why the neoconservative movement keeps having to move underground.

Are you sure about that? I think first, it is difficult to define what the "bad" idea is. Without doing that in any example, we cannot identify what issues would/will be "censored". Personally? I think anti-Gay speech is terrible. But I don't see anti-Gay speech fizzling out in the near future. Actually, Proposition 8 in California, removing the right to marriage for gay men and women, was held to be constitutional. If we are to assume this is a bad idea (and I will because you said you were a liberal, forgive me) it just disproves your point on a grand scale: ideas are not guaranteed to go anywhere.

Then what's the point of censorship, if not to remove what you're trying to censor?

To demonstrate that people will not stand for it.

There is no idea so bad that it should be censored.

I disagree.

The process of challenging ideas is the best way to keep bad ideas from taking root in people's minds, while simultaneously promoting good ideas.

That's horrible logic! Who will challenge them? Where does the average American go to be challenged? Does the average American (and I'm using America as my example, forgive me) go to forums to debate? Do they go to public square to have political exchanges? Last I checked, people of like minds cluster together. Did we not see this in the Presidential Election? Your idea that the bad ideas will be blasted away by the guiding voice of righteousness is idealistic but far from supported; not everyone is challenged on their opinions. Even if they are, not everyone is challenged on their opinions by someone capable.

[Treznor]

The government cracks down on them again, they go underground and resurge.

So are the Neo-Nazis ever going to regain power in Germany?

Who knows? Time will tell, particularly if circumstances in Germany give the Neo-Nazis an opportunity to prove their point.

Because people will talk about them anyway, in private.

Am I to understand that you believe this makes "censorship" futile?

One of the reasons, yes. Censoring a topic makes it mysterious and sexy. Nothing draws someone's attention to a topic more effectively than banning it. These days we call it "The Streisand Effect."

When an idea is held up for public consumption, people talk about it.

This is not a contributory statement: It implies that there are some issues people don't speak of. I'm quite positive mankind likes to talk about anything and everything when the time is right. Therefore, I don't see how your point is valid.

It's a preparatory statement, establishing a foundation for what I'm talking about. The more people talk about something, the quicker they get over their fascination for it.

Bad ideas don't tend to stick around very long when we're allowed to pick them apart, which is why the neoconservative movement keeps having to move underground.

Are you sure about that? I think first, it is difficult to define what the "bad" idea is. Without doing that in any example, we cannot identify what issues would/will be "censored". Personally? I think anti-Gay speech is terrible. But I don't see anti-Gay speech fizzling out in the near future. Actually, Proposition 8 in California, removing the right to marriage for gay men and women, was held to be constitutional. If we are to assume this is a bad idea (and I will because you said you were a liberal, forgive me) it just disproves your point on a grand scale: ideas are not guaranteed to go anywhere.

That's precisely why it's important to discuss ideas, to work out which parts of them are bad and which might be good. I also think anti-Gay speech is terrible, but if we attempt to censor it the way we've attempted to censor racist speech, it moves underground. I submit that we'd have fewer problems with racism if we didn't try to kill the conversation whenever someone tries to claim their race is better than another. Laughing at a bad idea isn't the same as censorship, if you use it to point out the flaws in the idea.

Then what's the point of censorship, if not to remove what you're trying to censor?

To demonstrate that people will not stand for it.

We have plenty of ways to demonstrate this without trying to ban it.

There is no idea so bad that it should be censored.

I disagree.

Clearly.

The process of challenging ideas is the best way to keep bad ideas from taking root in people's minds, while simultaneously promoting good ideas.

That's horrible logic! Who will challenge them? Where does the average American go to be challenged? Does the average American (and I'm using America as my example, forgive me) go to forums to debate? Do they go to public square to have political exchanges? Last I checked, people of like minds cluster together. Did we not see this in the Presidential Election? Your idea that the bad ideas will be blasted away by the guiding voice of righteousness is idealistic but far from supported; not everyone is challenged on their opinions. Even if they are, not everyone is challenged on their opinions by someone capable.

Agreed: people tend to flock together with like-minded individuals. They tell each other how their ideas are great, get validation and stop, secure in the comfort of group-think. It's when they go forth to preach those ideas in public forums that their grand ideas get challenged, and they're forced to re-assess those arguments to try to overcome the objections. You can't discuss your ideas in public forums if those ideas are censored, so there's no impetus to re-assess them.

For example: one of the examples of debate we have in the US is Creationism versus Evolution. The folks arguing for Evolution aren't calling for censorship of Creationism, they're arguing that Creationism isn't a valid science and doesn't belong in a science class. They want the topic discussed in the proper context, not banned altogether. They're happy to have Creationism discussed because it allows them to demonstrate to the public how the argument lacks any positive proof or merit. If we were to ban the Creationist side of the argument so as to demonstrate our lack of tolerance for it, the Creationist movement will go underground, justified in their sense of martyrdom, and it will become harder to root it out.

How do we know this debate is healthy? The majority of the civilized world has looked at the evidence and accepted that Creationism has no merit. It's not a debate for them, not because they've censored Creationism but because they've had that discussion and the religious argument lost. The US simply hasn't caught up yet.