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

[BynineB]

Jesus, will you stop with the titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic? I might as well start posting threads with the title "ULTRA SQUISHY HENTAI" and have them be about what you think of Health Care.

Anyway, as for freedom of speech.. I don't think slander should be allowed.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Jesus, will you stop with the titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic? I might as well start posting threads with the title "ULTRA SQUISHY HENTAI" and have them be about what you think of Health Care.

Anyway, as for freedom of speech.. I don't think slander should be allowed.

Mind elaborating on that? What kind of slander?

This reminds me of the controversy over Cass Sunstein wanting to "ban conspiracy theories". A lot of conspiracies involve "slander" - to imply 9/11 was an inside job, for example, is slandering the good name of the United States of America for implying that it would attack its own people.

Should Freedom of Speech protect lying? Some people would argue that conspiracy theories are harmful because they spread lies - but if we're going to ban lying to the public, no political campaign would have to be constantly FactChecked, would it?

 

[Vermehlo_Steele]

@Dattebayo: Sin and 'bad' aren't the same thing. I can call someone a cruel name, not a sin but it's still bad. Point? you need to be more discriminating in your word selection.

@SunnyC: All political campaings are lies, distorted truths and opinionated perspectives. You are right about the racism being tabboo. But people always hiss 'Don't Say That!!' because I say black when I'm not 100% pigmented. What is wrong with that? Black people can say white, brown, black and yellow but noone else can say black. My freedom is being restrrained.

Slander should be allowed, as long as it dosn't promote hate against people just because of what they look like.

I has a question. Is it okay to say a tasteless joke about race, so long as they're told in secret and you don't believe in them?

 

[GhostAnime]

Slander should be allowed, as long as it dosn't promote hate against people just because of what they look like.

Why should lies about people be allowed?

Also keep in mind that slander is mostly focused on lying about people; political ideas aren't usually in the equation.

 

[Aquadon]

I has a question. Is it okay to say a tasteless joke about race, so long as they're told in secret and you don't believe in them?

I take it you haven't seen any Broadway musicals of the 2000's. 'Avenue Q' completely tackles that answer with one song: "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist (Sometimes)". And to be honest, as long as you're in the company of friends, more often than not they'll pick up on the fact you're joking and not be offended (unless your friends are real tight-asses).

The line between offensive and free speech is really dependent on who you're around. If I'm wearing a sign in the middle of Harlem that says "I hate n******", obviously I'm going to get killed because I offended someone (props to whoever gets the reference). But if you crack a joke about "Cancun" (second reference here), you might just get some bad glares depending on who you're around.

 

[Vernikova]

I think that Freedom of Speech should stay the way it is now. Don't restcrict it more; don't loosen it up. A person should know what words to use at any given. If they say something offensive like "Heil Hitler!" in a Jewish neighborhood or something they can say all they want. It's their fault for getting knocked the hell out.

You want to yell fire in a crowded room? Well, you can't and that's a good thing.

 

[Witchan]

Freedom of speech could be good sometimes, but not most of the time when it gets critical. The only thing that I like some parts of "freedom of speech" is swearing and saying threatful stuff to the ones that loves incest so mcuh.

 

[Chaostraveler]

Dang, I just can't pick one of those choices in the poll.

I suppose that I favor what is often called "common sense" even though nobody really seems to know what it is anymore. When applied to free speech, common sense would mean something along the lines of 1) Trying to keep arguments as logical and as polite/respectful as possible; 2) Stating that you are expressing an opinion, and not condemning others in stating it. (If you need an example, check out the GTS cloning glitch. There are examples of both good and bad ways to go about it.)

My personal stance: If you really need to express an opinion, say "This is only my opinion, but I feel that...." (Or something polite and to that effect), then make it short quick and to the point. The thing that really bugs me about politics in the US is that it is starting to feel more and more like a flame war instead of debate when it comes to the important stuff because nobody wants to give things the time needed for things to develop. (thats kinda off topic huh? ^^; )

 

[PokemonHero]

I believe in freedom of speech, but I think that there should be a limit as to how far you can go. For me, a person's freedom of speech ends where another person's freedoms begin. As soon as you say something that causes harm to somebody directly, then you have given up your freedom of speech.

I always use an example of the Westboro Baptist Church to make my point. According to the law of the land, their protests are technically legal, as crass and ignorant as they may be. In my opinion, though, I think that they violate the law, especially when comes to funerals. They may not be on the same property as a family trying to conduct a funeral. However, their words are being clearly heard, especially in a place like a cemetary, which is meant to be a place of quiet reflection. If we can have a neighbor arrested for playing his music too loud and "disturbing the piece," why can we not arrest these people on the same charge? That seems like a double standard to me.

 

[facetious]

I thought Darato made this thread based on the title alone. You and him would make the perfect couple, Vermehlo_Steele.

Oh, and freedom of speech? Never heard of it.

 

[Deku_Link]

People should be allowed to say what they want.

People should not be shielded from the consequences of what they say.


If you want to be an idiot and tell black people to leave a store over a hijacked intercom, you should probably be punished for disrupting the peace, or whatever that idiot was arrested for. Just because you can say whatever words you want doesn't mean everyone has to respect you.

 

[Rabidmunchlax]

Freedom of speech is fine for me. The problem arises when people abuse this by turning their speech into action. It should be perfectly acceptable for me to say all Chinese people are lefties and all lefties are imbeciles, because then someone could show me ideas where left wing is better, and evidence that right and centerals exist in china. I then adapt my opion because of this. It should be completely unacceptable to go ou onto the street and picket that we should invade china and change their government.

 

[Katipunero]

Depends if we already had freedom or didn't. Freedom isn't something everybody has and just because you have it doesn't mean you should abuse it.

 

[Dragoon952]

Freedom of Speech is two different things depending on the context. In terms of the government, which is what most people think of (First Amendment), it requires some kind of government action limiting the freedom of speech to be a violation of your "right." One of my pet peeves is when people complain about their right being violated when their speech is being limited by a non-governmental entity. There has to be some kind of government action for the first amendment to be violated.

In terms of person to person action in society, I'm a firm believer in the Jeffersonian definition of rights:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

So, if something you say violates the limits surrounding you made by my equal right to unobstructed action, then it is wrong and in violation of my rightful liberty. It's almost like we each have a "zone" of rightful action where the border of our zone touches the border of everyone else's zone. So long as you don't jump those borders, you're good.