• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

I Like Sadism, Necrophilia and Bestiality; Does That Mean I'm Flogging A Dead Horse?

Should Freedom of Speech be restricted?

  • No. We have the right to say what we want. I don't want to live in Orwells Oceania

    Votes: 30 69.8%
  • Maybe. I'm not so sure.

    Votes: 5 11.6%
  • Yes. Hatred, offence, evil, conflict and intolerance will result if we don't.

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Total voters
    43

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II

Was my title yuckky? Possibly. I may have compromised my decency by typing that.

Freedom of Speech. Something the Internet has personified. Something some Chinese people die for (quite literally) and something Westerner's take for granted.

So, should we have 100% Freedom of Speech or should there be restrictions on what is allowed to be said?
If you answer for either, why and if you answer for the latter, then how far should it go?



If we have the freedom to say what we want when we want, we then run the risk of offending people needlessly, having some people incite hatred and extremism in public and give neo-Nazis, terrorists and other generally evil people the right to speak unchallenged.

On the other hand we might risk our societies becoming (more) Orwellian/Socialist if we start defining and regulating communication. Read Soviet/Chinese modern history and 1984 if your not sure what those adjectives mean.
 
Last edited:

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Another thread designed to shock people, eh?

Obviously there are limits to freedom of speech, things that we censor.

1) Racial slurs
2) Nudity
3) Swearwords
4) Threats

Of course in top of the line, edgy adult programming you can ignore one or all of these censors with the proper rating.

Obviously racial slurs in public is an open crime now...case in point the sixteen year old who was arrested at WalMart for saying "all black people please leave the store" over the intercom.

I think there should be a line that you don't cross when it comes to free speech, but the question is where you put it.
 

Ash-kid

Ash-kid
In my opinion should be a limit things that people can say, especially in public.
Some things should not be said because there are different people with different opinions. Otherwise they may get hurt and hurt others.
So, when someone talks about someone else, he needs to pay attention not said something drastic.
 

Zazie

So 1991
There should be absolute freedom of speech, press, expression,and any other form of communication you can think of, unless it actively harms other people. (which very few thigs do). Threats and claims of other illegal acts should be taken at face value, yes you can say them but you will get in trouble for claiming to do something that is illegal.

People want to run around naked in the streets? Go right ahead. Want to swear up a storm, I'm not going to stop you. Want to throw around a bunch of ethnic slurs, you can do that too but be warned that will lead to me cursing up a storm at you.
 
In my opinion should be a limit things that people can say, especially in public.
Some things should not be said because there are different people with different opinions. Otherwise they may get hurt and hurt others.
So, when someone talks about someone else, he needs to pay attention not said something drastic.

well no crap...what the op is saying what defines the line between freedom of speech, and being offensive
 

Poliwag2

ship it holla
Why is Vermehlo_Steele encouraged to use (or at least not discouraged from using) stupid topic titles that would embarrass a retarded kid?

With regards to the thread:

Everyone should be free to say whatever they want.

The danger comes from publishing or airing wrong opinions, because doing so may be seen to legitimise that opinion. For example, I do not care if somebody believes in a white supremacy (or believes in Keynesianism...); just do not put that viewpoint within reach of the ignorant. Because the ignorant accept what they are told and do not ask questions.

Consider the occasion when BNP leader Nick Griffin was allowed to debate on BBC's flagship programme Question Time. By inviting him on to the show, the establishment implied that his racist/fascist viewpoints were worth debating. Well, if it is worth debating, then it is easy for the ignorant to think that he may be (partly) right. The baying crowd and kangaroo court did not help either, because it made Griffin look like a victim.
 

natie

Mr. F
Freedom isn't free..! ect

Agreed.

Freedom of speech is cool, but that doesn't mean you should say things that aren't true and force other people to believe what you're saying.
 

Dattebayo

Banned
There should at least be a limit of certain things that is considered freedom of speech, a.k.a. swearing, because it would lead people like me to reject other people of being friends because we want to make friends with "clean" people.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
There should at least be a limit of certain things that is considered freedom of speech, a.k.a. swearing, because it would lead people like me to reject other people of being friends because we want to make friends with "clean" people.

Do you know how bad that sounds? Swearing should be banned because you only like to make friends with people who don't swear? And just because someone swears doesn't make them "unclean". (Even so, it would be the word that is unclean, not the entire person!) The idea of clean/unclean is just a matter of personal preference.
 

Dattebayo

Banned
Do you know how bad that sounds? Swearing should be banned because you only like to make friends with people who don't swear? And just because someone swears doesn't make them "unclean". (Even so, it would be the word that is unclean, not the entire person!) The idea of clean/unclean is just a matter of personal preference.

I just want to live in a happy and peaceful society, and my mom has taught me how bad swearing is. It made me become cautious on making friends.
 

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
@Poliwag2: I'm glad you like it. Anyway, what's wrong with Keynesian policy?

When I made this thread, swearing was not what I had in mind for debate. Sure, censoring swearing for children is something I believe in, but it's not the point I was aiming for. But ideas? Even if they are questionable ideologies/ideas should they be censored? I don't think so as we (the West) is becoming increasingly Politically Correct, so much so that I could be arrested for saying black when I'm not Aboriginal.

I do believe some ideas that are against our few Western values should not be allowed in the spotlight too much (see the Streisand effect)
 

Dattebayo

Banned
You want to elaborate on how "harmful" swearing is?

Well since my mom told me not to swear, I jumped into the conclusion that swearing could be a sin.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
vermehlo and there I was delighted at your title since I love to rant at you.. you dissapointed me O_O oh well.

I think freedom of speech is good since else we could just have duct tape arround our mouth
since if we can't say what we want we could better shut up.
don't get me wrong discrimination is a bad thing and that shouldn't happen but whit our whitout freedom of speech it will happen anyway.

dattabayo don't get this personal everyone swears in their life sometimes if you say don't your a lier and most of them are just simple words what some guy thin ked was funny to gave a meaning to it so you shouldn't take it personal and about the clean thing: it's not like swearing is drugs :), ok after this I feel bad so I have to say this: :p nice name ^^
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
But ideas? Even if they are questionable ideologies/ideas should they be censored? I don't think so as we (the West) is becoming increasingly Politically Correct, so much so that I could be arrested for saying black when I'm not Aboriginal.

I think culturally, racism is becoming a taboo and I think that's probably a good thing. That said, the idea that you can be arrested for saying something racist is absolutely ridiculous and a misuse of the law. Freedom of speech should protect that exact speech that nobody wants to protect. When it comes to commerce, if say nobody wants to sponsor or give someone an opportunity to speak because they are racist, that's okay. That's market preference. However if someone goes on TV/radio and says something that can be considered racist, I don't believe the legal process has the right to intervene. I don't believe they should be sued. The correct approach to fighting back against racism on the air is for the audience to stop watching, listening, and retract their support.

I don't know why some crimes are considered hate crimes. People should not be tried for their beliefs or what they think, but only what they do. Crimes are crimes, regardless of why they were committed.
 

0BS0L33T

Pick up that can.
************************

This is a free speech thread, right? No? OSHI- (inb4 banned)
 
Top