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

[Non Aligned States]

You don't let rot fester. You dig it out and cut it away. Bad ideas work the same way.

Maybe, maybe not. An open platform for hate and the stoking of prejudice can easily end up doing just as much damage if it has the right sort of audience.

[Non Aligned States]

I would be unhappy even with that, for I can imagine situations where I would support incitement to commit crimes (think of folks calling for the breach of drug laws, for illegal yet peaceful protests, etc.).

That's one part of it. But the way media focus is currently structured means that the incitement to violence not only reaches a far larger audience, but by virtue of the media repeating it, means that the message of violence is more likely to resonate with those with the will to carry them out.

And of course, the ones who did incite the violence will then claim the freedom of speech as a protection from prosecution of their part in it. It does have precedent after all.

[Bluth Corporation]

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?

Of course they're not.

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

Just because the bans are ineffective at preventing the public expression of certain ideas, doesn't mean that the people who express those ideas aren't going to be persecuted and, in some cases, arrested.

[Angleter]

People should be allowed to say what they think, whether it be racist or whatever- being heard in public may even show a racist up for the moron that they are. The UK, however, does not do free speech, as the link below shows.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196696/Back-cures-brave-scientist-epic-court-battle-How-Britains-libel-laws-threatening-free-speech.html

[Waterlow]

It's a civil rights trade-off; you're advancing one group's rights by denying another's. It's unquestionably a reduction in civil freedoms, however. Rights and freedoms are not synonymous.

[Waterlow]

People should be allowed to say what they think, whether it be racist or whatever- being heard in public may even show a racist up for the moron that they are. The UK, however, does not do free speech, as the link below shows.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196696/Back-cures-brave-scientist-epic-court-battle-How-Britains-libel-laws-threatening-free-speech.html

Agreed. Britain's tolerance of libel tourism is truly shocking.

Fascinating to see how the Daily Mail, of all newspapers, has evolved into a defender of civil liberties. And not always just for those who are white, English, male, middle class and married. Times, they are a-changin'.

[Milks Empire]

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

For once, we agree.

...

I feel dirty.

*scratches head*
I feel you. Never thought that would ever happen.

[Bluth Corporation]

It's a civil rights trade-off; you're advancing one group's rights by denying another's.

Wrong.

If the exercise of one supposed right constitutes a violation of another supposed right, then at least one of those supposed rights really isn't a right.

[United Russian State]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

Human rights? There is no such thing. People are not born entilted to anything. Should all humans be able to speak their mind, have a home, have food, ect? Yes, but they do not have the right to any of these things. You must work to earn these things. People don't have the right to say anything they want if it causes voilance. If a person says "kill all the (some kind of group)" should we let them? No! This kind of talk always leaves to people getting hurt for no reason.

Why do people think they have the right to anything? The turth is they don't. Everything is a privilage. When you abuse these the goverment has a right to take steps to put you in your place.

[Conserative Morality]

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

I would then hope that every last one of that angry mob is hunted down, arrested, and given the maximum penalty.

[JuNii]

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

I would then hope that every last one of that angry mob is hunted down, arrested, and given the maximum penalty.

Guilty by association?

after all, only those who actually hit him would be guilty.

the same legalities that protect the speakers rights also protects the mobs.

[Cameroi]

When you censor ideas you don't like, you can't bring them in the open to challenge them and demonstrate precisely why they're bad ideas. When people understand the reasons behind ideas, they're more likely to adopt them than if they're simply told "don't do this. 'Cause I said so."

this make sense to me.
i don't know that i've always seen reality work THAT way either,
but it makes more sense then the other.
actually nothing is always anything, all we really have is more often and less often,
and this logic seems to be in the more often, or at least i hope it is.

[Treznor]

Censorship no matter how good the intentions behind it is a violation of human rights.

Human rights? There is no such thing. People are not born entilted to anything. Should all humans be able to speak their mind, have a home, have food, ect? Yes, but they do not have the right to any of these things. You must work to earn these things. People don't have the right to say anything they want if it causes voilance. If a person says "kill all the (some kind of group)" should we let them? No! This kind of talk always leaves to people getting hurt for no reason.

Why do people think they have the right to anything? The turth is they don't. Everything is a privilage. When you abuse these the goverment has a right to take steps to put you in your place.

When we live in a world where there are no barriers to entry, where obtaining food, education and shelter doesn't require a lucky birth or suffering hardship before you receive your reward, where the criteria for membership aren't set by those already enjoying the fruits of your labor, then I'll agree with you. Until we live in that society, I will continue to agitate for a minimum standard of living for all people so we all have at least the chance to share in the overabundance we don't all have the chance to enjoy.

[Waterlow]

It's a civil rights trade-off; you're advancing one group's rights by denying another's.

Wrong.

If the exercise of one supposed right constitutes a violation of another supposed right, then at least one of those supposed rights really isn't a right.

Ooh, so strident. Rights are determined by society, so if they're granted then they exist. Rightly or wrongly, aha.

[Non Aligned States]

When we live in a world where there are no barriers to entry, where obtaining food, education and shelter doesn't require a lucky birth or suffering hardship before you receive your reward, where the criteria for membership aren't set by those already enjoying the fruits of your labor, then I'll agree with you. Until we live in that society, I will continue to agitate for a minimum standard of living for all people so we all have at least the chance to share in the overabundance we don't all have the chance to enjoy.

Agitate all you want, that's part of earning. Whether it's enough to earn it or not, who knows?