Free speech is something that seems to very important to many people. People use it to speak their opinions on any topic without fear of reprisal. But many people also forget that it is a two way street. For example, when I added my current signature there were several people who were offended and asked that I remove it. What happened to free speech then? They forget, however, that they have just removed their own right of protection. You can't run for the cover of a law that you have just torn down using your all-encompassing "right to not be offended". Another example would be many organised religions. There are those that say that anyone who does not believe in their particular strain of monotheism is going to burn in hell. People could quite easily find this offensive, but they have a right to say it because of free speech. However, as soon as one person tries to criticise back at them, the monotheists run to hide behind hate speech legislation. How can this be seen as fair? It is a two way street. You wish to have your right to free speech respected then you respect the right of free speech of others. It does not matter if you find it offensive. Who are you to decide what is offensive and what is not? What makes you so special? There is not one being in the world that can decide what is offensive and what is not. But it our laws seem to require such a being to decide this for each and every one of us. But I say no such being exists or will ever exist. Now I know many people will turn up and yell "HYPOCRITE!" and you would be partly right. In the past I have asked for certain groups to be silenced for the common good of society. But a certain video has changed my mind. Christopher Hitchens was speaking on changes proposed/made to hate speech legislation in Canada. His speech was eloquent, concise and funny. It has also removed what ignorance I had on the concept of free speech. Now I know that if I want to continue to criticise religious belief I have to allow counter-criticism to happen (which I have allowed, and counter at every turn ;D). I just thought I would share this will all of you in an attempt to teach you all something on free speech =] The video that I mentioned earlier can be found here.
well, like any law freedom of speech is NOT always absolute. i think they just made free speech so that people wouldn't be afraid to criticize the government and that the law makers didn't want oppression from the government just for speaking their mind. freedom of speech isn't really COMPLETE freedom, because of course you aren't allowed to say certain things. i think a person's freedom of speech ends when someone's right not to be offended begins which is like you said. and i think that's the way it needs to stay. as for DECIDING what is offensive, i think that society is doing a pretty decent job deciding what is and what isn't offensive. EDIT: oh your signature, i dont' think it's offensive, though it just seems like you put it there just to get people mad. i think people would find it offensive but it's not really infringing upon someone else's rights because it's not really attacking a person or group of people. if it was aimed more directly at people or a group of people, it would look like an attack and then would be arguably infringing upon other's lives. like arguably "annoy a liberal, work hard and be happy" which is obviously aimed at Liberals.
While I tend to believe that, in order to have a perfectly free society, people should be able to say whatever they want. To a large extent, this is true, at least in most democratic countries (USA, Britain, etc.). HOWEVER, because of the innate nature of the human psyche right now, people should not be allowed total and complete freedom. Certain types of speech and it's physical representation should be and are limited. If all people could be tolerant and respectful of others (and I think that is the main barrier to complete freedom), then yes, give it to them. However, at this point, the government needs to limit some things, like hate speech. Also, because of the conventions of our society, certain types of speech must be limited. For instance, the laws on profanity before certain times on certain TV channels (I think, where I am, it is not allowed to use certain profanities (f*ck, sexually explicit words, etc) before 9 o'clock on certain types of programs and channels (Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, for example) in the interests of guarding children), and all the various scandals regarding certain Superbowl halftimes (hint hint). While I understand all these laws, I like to follow a unique one personally: "If the thing I have to say has no relevance to the world, I will not say it." I don't know what you al might think, but that would seem to be almost an ideal rule of thumb regarding speech. Anything relevant and useful can be said. Anything useless should NOT be said. EDIT: I do tend to agree with your signature, and I believe it falls under my rule of thumb. It has relevance because it is another facet of the argument over Atheism/Theism.
Theorem A: If no one in the entire world could ever get offended then the world would be a happier place. A noteworthy cause of arguments and anger would be removed. Theorem B: Changing the world starts with changing yourself. Ask Obama. Conclusion: Supported by theorem A and B, I propose that we all become a tad harder to offend from now on and let freedom of speech get more mobility.
this is quite the topic and lots of ideas have been presented. id just like to say that idea of "your rights end where mine begin."
Wow, Christopher was at the Hart House theater? o.O I don't have enough time at the moment to watch that whole video, but I will watch it. Hopefully sometime today. Yes, everyone has the right to be offended, and everyone has the right to say so when they are. What some people forget is that they don't have the right to dictate to someone what they can and cannot say or do, just because they consider it to be offensive. Those ads that have caused a stir in the UK reached Toronto about a month ago. Judging from what "people on the street" said, the majority of citizens seem completely fine with it. But there were a fair amount of people who didn't like them. There was a company or organization that was trying to get them taken down because "they are attack ads", the guy said. And when asked "How so?", he stumbled his way around the question. I chuckled, but I also felt sorry for the guy for actually taking offense to the ad. At least, I don't think he succeeded at getting them taken down.
Freedom of speech is something people take for granted constantly. Many people forget that it just means that the government will not punish you for speaking out against issues and that what you say normally should not earn you retaliation in another manner than speech back or basic public separation. It does not mean that if you say something abhorrent or extreme, that others cannot respond, complain, or do some counter-speech against the behavior, or choose to ignore you utterly, or affect your monetary income as they can choose to not purchase things from you, etc. It does mean that the people cannot respond aggressively such as beating the tar out of the person for said thing or sue you, toss you in jail, etc. I've countered quite a few comments I believe are 'stupid' such as when some guy came to our college and spoke on how women should dress better (not in what he viewed as smutty attire) because men can't help themselves and that men ought to pray to God to control their sexual urges. I told him that how a woman dresses is never an excuse for rape, regardless and that if a man feels the desire to have sex, he can solve that in a few ways and if he's a rapist, he needs -real- help; not the girls. I also said that it was time he modernized and if he couldn't, he should move to some country where women are forced to wear clothing that meets his specs because the rules of the land weren't changing for his kind. Needless to say, a few people including him were mad at me for my cutting in on his great speech. Others applauded me. I took some criticism and some cheer. Did I know the risks of interrupting him? Yes. Did I feel what I did was morally what I felt I should? Yes. So I did it. I've since then had some comments back that I was either an a-hole or I was dead on right. Taking offense to the negative comments seems so trivial in the end if you are also going to enjoy the positive feedback in what is said. It's their right to call me whatever, just as it was my right to cut in on what I felt was an idiotic comment in the first place. In the end, understanding that Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say whatever with no repercussions at all is very important. It means that if you are going to speak out or post something controversial, that you need to grow some thick skin and have reasons for it. It means that whiners also need to do the same instead of going on about PC all the time and hiding behind it for protection. There is seldom an issue where we all agree on the words said. Someone is always going to be offended, it seems, whenever there is a good group of people around. We are all opinionated. If you say something that can spark controversy, expect that it may not be well-favored. That way you aren't in for disappointment when it is ill-received. We recognize the rights that anyone has the right to be offended by something said. However, they must realize the rights too that their emotions aren't more important than anyone else's either. If they don't, too bad. Walk on and let them say whatever.
If I were there, I would have stood, cheered, and applauded. Well done. :woohoo: :D I think that Political Correctness, before people get fed up with it, is going to stifle all creativity in America, and probably kill a great deal of scientific advancement. Personally, I'm gonna continue to say what I think, how I think it, without thinking "oh geez, is this gonna offend a tiny minority of the public?", as long as what I have to say meets my standards mentioned in my above post. I say, if someone honestly wants to pay the money to keep those ads going, more power to them. I personally love them, and wish they would come to some of the large US cities, but I also think they are kinda useless, since anyone who believes in God is not going to listen to them (their beliefs are usually pretty solid and they tend to ignore contradictionary evidence) and anyone who desnt believe is going to say "Way to go" and go on with their lives.
Guilty. I did let my emotions cloud my judgement, though I try not to do that anymore. And I probably do have a weird view of freedom of speech, I'm going to have to work on that.
To be honest I was/am the same. Most people are. They only think of their own rights and forget that everyone else has the exact same protection. That's the deal, if we want to be able to say whatever we want we have to let others say whatever they want. We can counter and argue with them sure, but we can't stop them from saying it.
Here's my opinion. The only thing that limits free speech is respect. To say your opinion in a respectful way. I don't think anyone has a problem with someone stating what they believe. It's really the tone that they use. Really what happens most of the time is people have to have everyone believe what they believe so it makes other people angry. Then people state their opinions in rude ways which offends people. It's possible to have a calm debate. Also, a lot of people are just asking for trouble when you go up to a democrat and say,"OBAMA SUCKS!" if you want your opinon to be heard without dying, go to people with similar ideas if you're very strongly opinonated. I say if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all. Don'r say the wrong thing around the wrong people and be respectful and have an actual reason to back it up other than "I saw it on the news" or "that's what my parents said" like the people at my school.
That's why freedom of speech is all the more fun to use. If they don't like it, **** them, my freedom. Just like it's their freedom to complain. But as you said, they waver their own law out of the picture. I think the entire thing is counter productive and was deliberately made to contradict itself. That's why it is so funny.
