Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the (potential) right to be free from insult

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maarsen,

I was once stopped on the street by a guy campaigning for Canada to go back to the gold standard. I politely told him I have no interest in listening to him. He then got angry and yelled that I was taking away his right to free speech. Your right to blather on about any subject, in my opinion, is pretty well absolute. My right to giggle and walk away is just as absolute. The big however here is that while you may be allowed to your own opinion, you are not allowed to your own facts.

That guy was an idiot. Freedom of speech doesn't equate to an obligation to listen to every idiot it simply means people should be free to say things, even stupid things. You have the freedom to walk away and not listen.

[Lord Mord]

shryke,

I am looking for daylight between your position as stated and a general prescription that rights must be justified to be exercised. That is, it seems like people should have to consider themselves and their freedom as in the dock and affirmatively defend themselves. Of course, this is a misunderstanding on my part, but will you please show me the distinction?

[Shryke]

shryke,

I am looking for daylight between your position as stated and a general prescription that rights must be justified to be exercised. That is, it seems like people should have to consider themselves and their freedom as in the dock and affirmatively defend themselves. Of course, this is a misunderstanding on my part, but will you please show me the distinction?

I honestly don't understand what you think my position is.

I'm saying you have to actually explain why you consider something, and really a specific version of something, to be a fundamental right. You can't just declare it to be axiomatic.

[Seli]

Seli,

A reasoned argument is debate.

What's the difference?

Semantics (or perhaps my personal interpretation). Debate is about who presents the arguments best, regardless of their value and content. Scientific arguing tends to be about the content.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Seli,

A debate can be about style or content or both. As such a debate can be about more than the rhetorical style employed by the debaters.

[Errant Bard]

Communists have made their point with genocide, too.

No they have not. Some governments implementing a form of communism have been guilty of genocide (The Pol Pot dictature, most notably, but others have also been incredibly violent), but:

• Genocide is not part of communist ideology, while it is the cornerstone of ideology of the Nazis
• Communism is an ideology with multiple implementations, "Nazi" is a specific implementation, linked to a precise period in history, of socialism.
• Some democracies, theocracies, monarchies have been guilty of genocide, but somehow they don't get lumped all together like you do with communist governments.

You could not even craft a definition of communism that includes genocide, the same way you could not craft a definition of the nazis without including genocide... not without being ridiculous.

[Ramsay Gimp]

shryke,

I am looking for daylight between your position as stated and a general prescription that rights must be justified to be exercised. That is, it seems like people should have to consider themselves and their freedom as in the dock and affirmatively defend themselves. Of course, this is a misunderstanding on my part, but will you please show me the distinction?

Yes, it seems to me that Shryke believes the burden of proof should be on the individual rather than the state. Rather than the state justifying intervention, the people must justify freedom

Or he could just be trying to frame the debate to put the free speech supporters on the defensive

[SeanF]

No they have not. Some governments implementing a form of communism have been guilty of genocide (The Pol Pot dictature, most notably, but others have also been incredibly violent), but:

• Genocide is not part of communist ideology, while it is the cornerstone of ideology of the Nazis
• Communism is an ideology with multiple implementations, "Nazi" is a specific implementation, linked to a precise period in history, of socialism.
• Some democracies, theocracies, monarchies have been guilty of genocide, but somehow they don't get lumped all together like you do with communist

  governments.

You could not even craft a definition of communism that includes genocide, the same way you could not craft a definition of the nazis without including genocide... not without being ridiculous.

Massacring people because they belong to the wrong class does not fall within the legal definition of genocide, unlike massacring people on the grounds of race or religion. But, from the point of view of the victims, that's a distinction without a difference.

[The Iceman of the North]

Massacring people because they belong to the wrong class does not fall within the legal definition of genocide, unlike massacring people on the grounds of race or religion. But, from the point of view of the victims, that's a distinction without a difference.

Massacring people because they belong to the wrong class is not an integral part of communist ideology though.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

Isn't a violent conflict between the classes a predicate to communism in Marxist philosophy?

[The Iceman of the North]

Iceman,

Isn't a violent conflict between the classes a predicate to communism in Marxist philosophy?

No. Violent reaction from the 'reactionaries' are common, but it's not necessary. A Communist would be blaming the Capitalist classes for starting the violence.

[Sci-2]

Every document, national symbol, whatever, should be allowable to use as toilet paper or a catch cloth for jerking off.

Anything less and you slide toward delusional theocracy and facism.

[Shryke]

Yes, it seems to me that Shryke believes the burden of proof should be on the individual rather than the state. Rather than the state justifying intervention, the people must justify freedom

Or he could just be trying to frame the debate to put the free speech supporters on the defensive

Oh no, you might actually have to justify your specific interpretation of what "the right to fre speech" means?

OMG the horror! To actually have to consider and then justify your position!

What is this, a discussion? Perish the thought.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Oh no, you might actually have to justify your specific interpretation of what "the right to fre speech" means?

OMG the horror! To actually have to consider and then justify your position!

What is this, a discussion? Perish the thought.

You have still provided no evidence of the good these laws supposedly do, despite carrying the burden of proof

[ants]

Yes, it seems to me that Shryke believes the burden of proof should be on the individual rather than the state. Rather than the state justifying intervention, the people must justify freedom

Or he could just be trying to frame the debate to put the free speech supporters on the defensive

I think what Shryke is saying is that:

a. Even those for free speech accept some things are not permissible (most agree the falsely calling fire in a theatre for example). There is also usually an acceptance of non-government costs of speech.

b. Given that, there is actually a line to be drawn somewhere to define what is permissable speech and what isn't.

c. That there are some speech (e.g. Nazi propaganda) that it is actually good to ban.

d. Given the first three elements, then the restrictions on free speech should ban certain things.

I think he is also arguing that although he agrees that banning speech that is meant to help minorities is bad, that there isn't a slippery slope between d. above and banning speech by minorities or for good reasons.

So using the Australian example above where the limitations allow civil penalties and can only be used in a very narrow way to limit abusive speech against minorities, Shryke is a supporter of that. And does not believe it will lead to minorities being persecuted. Or a unfair restriction on free speech.

But Shryke, please correct me if I've characterised you falsely!

[ants]

No they have not. Some governments implementing a form of communism have been guilty of genocide (The Pol Pot dictature, most notably, but others have also been incredibly violent), but:

• Genocide is not part of communist ideology, while it is the cornerstone of ideology of the Nazis
• Communism is an ideology with multiple implementations, "Nazi" is a specific implementation, linked to a precise period in history, of socialism.
• Some democracies, theocracies, monarchies have been guilty of genocide, but somehow they don't get lumped all together like you do with communist governments.

You could not even craft a definition of communism that includes genocide, the same way you could not craft a definition of the nazis without including genocide... not without being ridiculous.

Just a minor quibble. Nazism was a form of fascism, a right wing ideology. They actually sent the more extreme socialists and any communists they caught to the camps.

[Shryke]

You have still provided no evidence of the good these laws supposedly do, despite carrying the burden of proof

Yes I have. Banning Nazi speech inhibits the spread of a horrible ideology with no redeeming value.

Now explain why Nazis should get to keep spreading Nazism without just resorting to "because free speech is good!!".

[Shryke]

I think what Shryke is saying is that:

a. Even those for free speech accept some things are not permissible (most agree the falsely calling fire in a theatre for example). There is also usually an acceptance of non-government costs of speech.

b. Given that, there is actually a line to be drawn somewhere to define what is permissable speech and what isn't.

c. That there are some speech (e.g. Nazi propaganda) that it is actually good to ban.

d. Given the first three elements, then the restrictions on free speech should ban certain things.

I think he is also arguing that although he agrees that banning speech that is meant to help minorities is bad, that there isn't a slippery slope between d. above and banning speech by minorities or for good reasons.

So using the Australian example above where the limitations allow civil penalties and can only be used in a very narrow way to limit abusive speech against minorities, Shryke is a supporter of that. And does not believe it will lead to minorities being persecuted. Or a unfair restriction on free speech.

But Shryke, please correct me if I've characterised you falsely!

Bingo.

This whole "you can't put restrictions on free speech" thing is bullshit. It's an attempt to say that one sides argument is holding up some sort of universal position on the issue. It's trying to frame the argument as "free speech vs not-free speech" when the argument is actually about what specific types of free speech you allow. The truth is everyone bans free speech. Libel is an obvious example.

Given that this is just an argument over details, over which types of speech are ok to ban, you can't pretend like you are defending some sort of axiom. You have to explain why your line is better.

And the problem with most of the arguments is that they assert there's some sort of slippery slope between banning, for instance, nazis from speaking and banning gays from speaking or nothing. And they do so without explaining where the slope or the slip is or why all the OTHER kinds of bans on free speech that exist within whatever society you live in haven't lead to banning of all sorts of speech.

Despite all the protestations, no one is arguing that all speech should be permitted. It's only an argument over what kinds.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Yes I have. Banning Nazi speech inhibits the spread of a horrible ideology with no redeeming value.

.

Evidence? We allow Nazis to speak freely in the US, and somehow we've avoided becoming the Fourth Reich

[TerraPrime]

Evidence? We allow Nazis to speak freely in the US, and somehow we've avoided becoming the Fourth Reich

Is that a good argument?

Many countries severely curtail ownership of handguns, yet, they didn't become crime-ridden hellholes, either.