Vermehlo_Steele
Grand Arbiter II
We here in the Western world enjoy a variety of rights and freedoms. One of them is the freedom to say what one wants without fear of reprisal. Unless you deny the holocaust in Germany or swear in public in the Australian state of Victoria.
Ultiamtely, this debate is should freedom of speech be total? And if not, what restrictions are acceptable?
* Arguments generally used in favour of free speech *
~ Governments and courts have no moral authority to dictate what is or is not acceptable.
~ If power to censor any type of speech existed, that power would inevitably be abused.
~ One example is governments using that power to clamp down on debates of a sensitive nature: see euthanasia.
~ Hateful and intolerant speech is the symptom, not the disease; targeting hateful speech is a temporary and ineffective 'solution'.
~ The parameters of bans are hard to define. Should words like 'poofter' and 'blacky' be banned? What if they are someone's nickname? Should action only occur if someone reports it or should preemptive bans occur on words/ subjects perceived as offensive? Who defines what is offensive etc.
~ Will these be a slippery slope to a draconian and invasive society?
~ Words don't put what's not already in your head; if I tell you to kill Jewish people, you aren't automatically going to kill Jews.
* Arguments in favour of restrictions *
~ Hateful speech can be damaging to social cohesion and integration.
~ Why should people be subjected to hateful language? Should gay people be subjected to the antics of Westboro Baptist Church? Isn't government's duty to protect it's people?
~ Hateful language could influence other people to commit acts of hatred and intolerance.
~ Checks and balances could be created to prevent governments from exploiting this regulation.
~ Many people on the internet and public who spread messages of evil and intolerance do it for attention, why grant their wish?
~ Self-esteem can be damaged by negative attitudes, we already have enough suicide and people with confidence issues; we don't need more.
~ Public discourse about politics and issues like multiculturalism can occur, just without vitriol and baleful language.
So, what is your view on free speech? Should it be just that, free? Or should it be 'mostly free speech' terms and conditions apply.
Ultiamtely, this debate is should freedom of speech be total? And if not, what restrictions are acceptable?
* Arguments generally used in favour of free speech *
~ Governments and courts have no moral authority to dictate what is or is not acceptable.
~ If power to censor any type of speech existed, that power would inevitably be abused.
~ One example is governments using that power to clamp down on debates of a sensitive nature: see euthanasia.
~ Hateful and intolerant speech is the symptom, not the disease; targeting hateful speech is a temporary and ineffective 'solution'.
~ The parameters of bans are hard to define. Should words like 'poofter' and 'blacky' be banned? What if they are someone's nickname? Should action only occur if someone reports it or should preemptive bans occur on words/ subjects perceived as offensive? Who defines what is offensive etc.
~ Will these be a slippery slope to a draconian and invasive society?
~ Words don't put what's not already in your head; if I tell you to kill Jewish people, you aren't automatically going to kill Jews.
* Arguments in favour of restrictions *
~ Hateful speech can be damaging to social cohesion and integration.
~ Why should people be subjected to hateful language? Should gay people be subjected to the antics of Westboro Baptist Church? Isn't government's duty to protect it's people?
~ Hateful language could influence other people to commit acts of hatred and intolerance.
~ Checks and balances could be created to prevent governments from exploiting this regulation.
~ Many people on the internet and public who spread messages of evil and intolerance do it for attention, why grant their wish?
~ Self-esteem can be damaged by negative attitudes, we already have enough suicide and people with confidence issues; we don't need more.
~ Public discourse about politics and issues like multiculturalism can occur, just without vitriol and baleful language.
So, what is your view on free speech? Should it be just that, free? Or should it be 'mostly free speech' terms and conditions apply.