Forums
November 30, 2020, 01:52 PM

Poll

Are you for Freedom of Speech?

Definitely Yes
Absolutely Not
I am for it, as longest I am not the one who brings physical harm
I am against it, because I don't want people to get upset, and maybe start riots

Author Topic: Freedom  (Read 422 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kradie

Freedom
« on: September 03, 2020, 08:56 PM »
So lately I've been thinking about freedom of speech and how it effects our world.

I stumbled on to this video here on youtube, where a pregnant woman in her pajamas getting arrested for encouraging lockdown protests:


It made me think how much do a person value their freedom?

When should Free Speech be cancelled?
When someone incites to violence, murder, rape, terrorism etc?
When someone speaks rationally and provides facts that might offends someone/people/religion/group/country?
When someone supports / or follow a dangerous group/organization that is a threat to society?
When someone spreads controversial theories that could be objective or not?
When someone deliberately insults in a foul language and thrives in it, even if it contains facts?

All of this isn't an easy topic, because it dives deep into the grey area, and it has a lot of angles to it.

What do you think?

Offline readyworm

Re: Freedom
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2020, 01:05 PM »
I think laws relating to freedom of speech and rights to privacy speak volumes about a government and its relationship with the people.  It was always going to be a slippery slope when some governments started to legislate for 'hate speech'.  Who gets to define it?  Who gets to redefine it / update it in future?  The trick is convincing the people that it's a progressive idea.

I think people should have complete freedom of speech.  They would obviously also be subject to any consequences of their free speech.  We might not like what some people say but the government should have no business in controlling the ability to express thought, however ugly.

Offline lolicon-guy

Re: Freedom
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2020, 02:40 AM »
You know your ideology is wrong when there's a mass destruction caused in the name of it. You know your ideology is wrong when you rely on tricking others to keep going on your plans. Because if your ideology is good enough, you don't need to change anyone's will. Why would you traitionate ("betray"?) your own humanity lol
« Last Edit: September 07, 2020, 02:42 AM by lolicon-guy »

Offline GrO

  • 🌞🌞🌞🌞♾️🌞🌞🌞🌞
  • Jr. Member
  • **

  • Poland Poland
  • Posts: 86
  • ⚘🌹🌷 🌿 🌻 🍀 🌷🌹⚘
    • View Profile
    • 440Hz >>> 432Hz
Re: Freedom
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2020, 02:12 PM »
...everyone is responsible for himself, everyone has his own Way of Life, his own Karma, thus people should be free to do, and say what they want, unless it makes someone hurt.

...we're just not permitted to disrupt or destruct anything we didn't Build (or Create) - the Pure, the basic and the True law which I'm trying to implement into my Life everyday... ;D
« Last Edit: September 07, 2020, 06:43 PM by GrO »

...even the Light needs a background, or some dirt, to become visible... ...

Offline Bloopy

Re: Freedom
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2020, 12:52 PM »
I think people should have complete freedom of speech.  They would obviously also be subject to any consequences of their free speech.

If there are consequences then the speech wasn't necessarily free. For example, if the consequence is to be charged with incitement, then it'd be called an exception to free speech. The anti-lockdown protesters incite people to break the rules around masks and congregating in groups. I guess there's a point where it's not about speech any more, but rather how much of an accessory they are to the unlawful act committed or potentially committed. I know the rules are a bit harsher in Australia than here, but there's plenty of ways to speak freely in protest of lockdowns while also following the rules.

As I understand it, the important free speech is basically between a citizen and their government. Whereas hate speech is usually one citizen's words affecting some other citizens, making them hurt or feel unsafe/not free in their life. Depending on their job or neighbourhood, maybe they can't avoid the haters. So giving freedom to hate speech would take other freedoms away. Seems like a crappy deal to me.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2020, 12:58 PM by Bloopy »
x_+

Offline The Extremist

Re: Freedom
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2020, 06:23 AM »
If a right isn't absolute, it's worthless.

Speech does no direct harm. If others are inspired to commit direct harm, that's 100% on them.

Same with freedom of movement. The only limits that have any business existing are national borders, private property, and portions of public property where civil servants and/or private contractors are performing work.

If there is a risk of an illness being spread, it is up to individuals to protect themselves. Fines/jail time should only be handed down if it can be proven in court that an individual knew they were likely to be a carrier, and that they willfully performed an action that was likely to result in transmission. It must also be proven in court that transmitting the illness is likely to cause bodily harm, and the amount of the fine/jail time based on the court-proven likely degree of the harm.

The court of law must be the final arbiter in all matters, including science. Only a judge can say "the science is settled".

The government's only roles should be to maintain public property and national borders, and to enforce laws against direct harm and misuse of the courts.

Offline GrO

  • 🌞🌞🌞🌞♾️🌞🌞🌞🌞
  • Jr. Member
  • **

  • Poland Poland
  • Posts: 86
  • ⚘🌹🌷 🌿 🌻 🍀 🌷🌹⚘
    • View Profile
    • 440Hz >>> 432Hz
Re: Freedom
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2020, 03:57 AM »
Speech does no direct harm.
...in a way it actually can, in example mental harassment - it can make a big impact when applied to the children, or someone very sensitive...

Regards...

...even the Light needs a background, or some dirt, to become visible... ...

Offline skunk3

Re: Freedom
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2020, 08:56 PM »
If a right isn't absolute, it's worthless.

Speech does no direct harm. If others are inspired to commit direct harm, that's 100% on them.

Same with freedom of movement. The only limits that have any business existing are national borders, private property, and portions of public property where civil servants and/or private contractors are performing work.

If there is a risk of an illness being spread, it is up to individuals to protect themselves. Fines/jail time should only be handed down if it can be proven in court that an individual knew they were likely to be a carrier, and that they willfully performed an action that was likely to result in transmission. It must also be proven in court that transmitting the illness is likely to cause bodily harm, and the amount of the fine/jail time based on the court-proven likely degree of the harm.

The court of law must be the final arbiter in all matters, including science. Only a judge can say "the science is settled".

The government's only roles should be to maintain public property and national borders, and to enforce laws against direct harm and misuse of the courts.

Agreed.

Also, there is no such thing as "hate speech." The adoption of that term is 100% political and weaponized. If you can convince people that hate speech is a thing, and that it's bad, and establish parameters of what constitutes hate speech, you can both box off your opponent and mentally condition the public. Labeling speech as 'hate speech' is a tool that they (typically, the left) use to prescribe politics and morality while at the same time providing an excuse for not critically examining what was said and to just dismiss it away.

Obviously, some exceptions to free speech must be the case (such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded place, etc) but generally speaking I am for maximum personal freedom and minimum government control.