Free Speech

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Free Speech

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:00 am

Tom Palven wrote:Only brilliant, farsighted Voltairian individualists  :D favor totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press.
There's absolutely nothing brilliant or farsighted about favoring totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press. In fact, it's rather stupid and shortsighted, because "totally unfettered" makes freedom of speech sacrosanct.

"Totally unfettered" means that you allow both slander and libel to be protected speech, regardless of the damage it causes the victim. It should be noted that both slander and libel are specifically lies about a person that cause provable damages, financial or otherwise. It means that someone who dislikes you could contact your boss and tell him you're a drug-addled thief, causing you to lose your job...and you would have no legal recourse.

"Totally unfettered" means that you accept it's legal for a convicted pedophile to speak to children using whatever language s/he likes, including sexually explicit language. It also means that your children's teachers could, on the daily, tell your children that they're stupid little shits who will amount to nothing, total losers like their parents, and that they should probably kill themselves...and you couldn't do {!#%@} about it.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have, in one fell swoop, eliminated personal privacy, because you have deemed it legal for marketers, salespeople, religious nuts, political campaigners, charities, and anyone else who feels like it to invade your snail mail, email, cell phone, and property in order to speak their piece. You'd never, ever have a moment's peace again in your lifetime.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have made it legal for your wife's male boss to sexually harass her every minute of every workday, even phoning her at home to tell her how sweet her ass looked in those dress pants...and neither she nor you would have a legal leg to stand on.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink your position.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:03 am

Anomaly wrote: Who and where are there forced sponsorship of hate speech? Perhaps it will elaborate on what hate speech is.

Hate speech can be forced whenever the sponsoring agency is a governmental entity that allows for speech of any other kind. Its what the ACLU is doing when such suits are announced..... that is.... suing governmental units that deny permits to speek for whatever dubious reason is given.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Anomaly
Poster
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Free Speech

Postby Anomaly » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:\Hate speech can be forced whenever the sponsoring agency is a governmental entity that allows for speech of any other kind. Its what the ACLU is doing when such suits are announced..... that is.... suing governmental units that deny permits to speek for whatever dubious reason is given.


Aha, I think I understand.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:43 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:Only brilliant, farsighted Voltairian individualists  :D favor totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press.
There's absolutely nothing brilliant or farsighted about favoring totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press. In fact, it's rather stupid and shortsighted, because "totally unfettered" makes freedom of speech sacrosanct.

"Totally unfettered" means that you allow both slander and libel to be protected speech, regardless of the damage it causes the victim. It should be noted that both slander and libel are specifically lies about a person that cause provable damages, financial or otherwise. It means that someone who dislikes you could contact your boss and tell him you're a drug-addled thief, causing you to lose your job...and you would have no legal recourse.

"Totally unfettered" means that you accept it's legal for a convicted pedophile to speak to children using whatever language s/he likes, including sexually explicit language. It also means that your children's teachers could, on the daily, tell your children that they're stupid little shits who will amount to nothing, total losers like their parents, and that they should probably kill themselves...and you couldn't do {!#%@} about it.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have, in one fell swoop, eliminated personal privacy, because you have deemed it legal for marketers, salespeople, religious nuts, political campaigners, charities, and anyone else who feels like it to invade your snail mail, email, cell phone, and property in order to speak their piece. You'd never, ever have a moment's peace again in your lifetime.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have made it legal for your wife's male boss to sexually harass her every minute of every workday, even phoning her at home to tell her how sweet her ass looked in those dress pants...and neither she nor you would have a legal leg to stand on.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink your position.


I'll stand by my position and suggest that there are better remedies to your scenarios than coercive governmental censorship if you look for them.

"Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding them everywhere, diagnosing them incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies."
--Groucho Marx

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:55 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Flip side, rednecks want to keep the "Civil War" monuments that the KKK got set up during their heyday.
One way to look at this issue is those monuments honor people who committed treason against the federal government. It's just as appropriate to take them down as it would be inappropriate to erect a monument to Benedict Arnold or Aldrich Ames.

Good point. Erecting monuments to them could be considered sedition.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Free Speech

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:58 pm

Anomaly wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:Are you missing the point on purpose?


No. I am just trying to grasp the concept of hate speech. You made no point, you asked a question. And I do not know about universities being forced to sponsor hate speech. I have never heard about such thing, so I can not reply to your question.

Who and where are there forced sponsorship of hate speech? Perhaps it will elaborate on what hate speech is.


No, they haven't been forced to yet, but at least some groups are demanding that universities not be allowed to ban speakers they (the uni) don't like, so the idea is being bandied about.

As for hate speech, that is a different topic. What constitutes hate speech is likely quite different for people tying to promote equality, and for people charged with the duty of establishing legal boundaries between what is allowed and what is not.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Free Speech

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:48 am

Tom Palven wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:Only brilliant, farsighted Voltairian individualists  :D favor totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press.
There's absolutely nothing brilliant or farsighted about favoring totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press. In fact, it's rather stupid and shortsighted, because "totally unfettered" makes freedom of speech sacrosanct.

"Totally unfettered" means that you allow both slander and libel to be protected speech, regardless of the damage it causes the victim. It should be noted that both slander and libel are specifically lies about a person that cause provable damages, financial or otherwise. It means that someone who dislikes you could contact your boss and tell him you're a drug-addled thief, causing you to lose your job...and you would have no legal recourse.

"Totally unfettered" means that you accept it's legal for a convicted pedophile to speak to children using whatever language s/he likes, including sexually explicit language. It also means that your children's teachers could, on the daily, tell your children that they're stupid little shits who will amount to nothing, total losers like their parents, and that they should probably kill themselves...and you couldn't do {!#%@} about it.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have, in one fell swoop, eliminated personal privacy, because you have deemed it legal for marketers, salespeople, religious nuts, political campaigners, charities, and anyone else who feels like it to invade your snail mail, email, cell phone, and property in order to speak their piece. You'd never, ever have a moment's peace again in your lifetime.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have made it legal for your wife's male boss to sexually harass her every minute of every workday, even phoning her at home to tell her how sweet her ass looked in those dress pants...and neither she nor you would have a legal leg to stand on.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink your position.


I'll stand by my position and suggest that there are better remedies to your scenarios than coercive governmental censorship if you look for them.
No, no. This is your concept; the burden of formulating real world solutions to its obvious problems, therefore, rests with you. It's not my task. Please provide viable solutions for each of the problems I've outlined in your "totally unfettered free speech" philosophy.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:09 am

Tom Palven wrote:I'll stand by my position and suggest that there are better remedies to your scenarios than coercive governmental censorship if you look for them.

No......... there are not.

Prove us wrong. You might come to realize why there is no free speech anywhere outside a rubber room.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

KevinLevites
Poster
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Free Speech

Postby KevinLevites » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:19 am

In deciding what is or is not hate speech, how do we view the religious right that campaigned against homosexuality in the 80s...arguably (although I disagree with this) out of concern for the spread of AIDS?

Much of what they said and did would, today, be considered hate speech...but they might just argue that they were doing their part to prevent the spread of a horrible disease.

Please note that I don't buy into this, but are we to judge them for their fear and ignorance? Please note that we know more now, but those were hysterical times...and think about the issue by those standards.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:04 am

KL: times change.

Know what I mean?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby TJrandom » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:09 am

KevinLevites wrote:In deciding what is or is not hate speech, how do we view the religious right that campaigned against homosexuality in the 80s...arguably (although I disagree with this) out of concern for the spread of AIDS?

Much of what they said and did would, today, be considered hate speech...but they might just argue that they were doing their part to prevent the spread of a horrible disease.

Please note that I don't buy into this, but are we to judge them for their whipped up fear and willful ignorance? Please note that we know more now, but those were hysterical times...and think about the issue by those standards.


FIFY... So yes, I would judge them for not seeking medical knowledge - as best known at the time. Those were hysterical times becasue of these nutters.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:01 am

There was a total furor at Purdue University when the German Consul was invited to speak there. This was in July of 1940, after France fell and the British ... regrouped at home. Somebody finally noticed that the announcement had been made by a fraternity infamous for its practical jokes.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Free Speech

Postby gorgeous » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:34 pm

Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:41 pm

gorgeous wrote:he's good https://youtu.be/dw-GmGmvpAg

Your evaluations have been evaluated as useless.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:30 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
gorgeous wrote:he's good https://youtu.be/dw-GmGmvpAg

Your evaluations have been evaluated as useless.


Please explain what specific points in that video you disagree with and why you disagree. Thanks.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:29 pm

FOAD
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:19 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:FOAD


If that was directed at me, then I get your point. You are not interested in having a conversation about the issues but rather it seems you are more interested in heckling and attacking others.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:08 pm

xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:FOAD


If that was directed at me, then I get your point. You are not interested in having a conversation about the issues but rather it seems you are more interested in heckling and attacking others.

xoupy, you're just a lunatic.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby xouper » Wed Aug 30, 2017 10:24 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:FOAD


If that was directed at me, then I get your point. You are not interested in having a conversation about the issues but rather it seems you are more interested in heckling and attacking others.

xoupy, you're just a lunatic.


QED

You just proved my point.

In any case, perhaps I am a lunatic.

Consider the evidences: I am, after all, posting on this forum.

Further evidences: I was also inviting you to have a conversation about the issues instead of your usual portfolio of heckling and attacking. I can see how that would make me appear to be a lunatic.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Free Speech

Postby OlegTheBatty » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:16 pm

xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:FOAD


If that was directed at me, then I get your point. You are not interested in having a conversation about the issues but rather it seems you are more interested in heckling and attacking others.

xoupy, you're just a lunatic.


QED

You just proved my point.

In any case, perhaps I am a lunatic.

Consider the evidences: I am, after all, posting on this forum.

Further evidences: I was also inviting you to have a conversation about the issues instead of your usual portfolio of heckling and attacking. I can see how that would make me appear to be a lunatic.


That post looks like one more of them thar correlation causation dilemmas. :D
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Free Speech

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 31, 2017 8:30 pm

Weee, we don't have to pay a fee to see free speech!


(As so often is the case elsewhere. :glare:)
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:00 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
xouper wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:FOAD


If that was directed at me, then I get your point. You are not interested in having a conversation about the issues but rather it seems you are more interested in heckling and attacking others.

xoupy, you're just a lunatic.


QED

You just proved my point.

In any case, perhaps I am a lunatic.

Consider the evidences: I am, after all, posting on this forum.

Further evidences: I was also inviting you to have a conversation about the issues instead of your usual portfolio of heckling and attacking. I can see how that would make me appear to be a lunatic.


That post looks like one more of them thar correlation causation dilemmas. :D

A conversation with xoupy, yeah, that's what I dream of.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:30 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:A conversation with xoupy, yeah, that's what I dream of.


You are, of course, free to use whatever lame excuse you like to weasel out of explaining and justifying your opinion of that video.

And others are, of course, free to surmise that your blatant evasion is a clear failure to demonstrate that your opinion of that video is nothing more than a petulant cheap shot and thus not worth taking seriously.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Aug 31, 2017 11:37 pm

Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:Only brilliant, farsighted Voltairian individualists  :D favor totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press.
There's absolutely nothing brilliant or farsighted about favoring totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press. In fact, it's rather stupid and shortsighted, because "totally unfettered" makes freedom of speech sacrosanct.

"Totally unfettered" means that you allow both slander and libel to be protected speech, regardless of the damage it causes the victim. It should be noted that both slander and libel are specifically lies about a person that cause provable damages, financial or otherwise. It means that someone who dislikes you could contact your boss and tell him you're a drug-addled thief, causing you to lose your job...and you would have no legal recourse.

"Totally unfettered" means that you accept it's legal for a convicted pedophile to speak to children using whatever language s/he likes, including sexually explicit language. It also means that your children's teachers could, on the daily, tell your children that they're stupid little shits who will amount to nothing, total losers like their parents, and that they should probably kill themselves...and you couldn't do {!#%@} about it.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have, in one fell swoop, eliminated personal privacy, because you have deemed it legal for marketers, salespeople, religious nuts, political campaigners, charities, and anyone else who feels like it to invade your snail mail, email, cell phone, and property in order to speak their piece. You'd never, ever have a moment's peace again in your lifetime.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have made it legal for your wife's male boss to sexually harass her every minute of every workday, even phoning her at home to tell her how sweet her ass looked in those dress pants...and neither she nor you would have a legal leg to stand on.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink your position.


I'll stand by my position and suggest that there are better remedies to your scenarios than coercive governmental censorship if you look for them.



No, no. This is your concept; the burden of formulating real world solutions to its obvious problems, therefore, rests with you. It's not my task. Please provide viable solutions for each of the problems I've outlined in your "totally unfettered free speech" philosophy.


Freedom of speech is my concept and the burden of proof lies with me.

I guess I thought I'd heard it all, but that is truly stunning.

End of discussion for me, all the response I can muster.

You, Gawdzilla, and Oleg win.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Free Speech

Postby Nikki Nyx » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:33 am

Tom Palven wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:Only brilliant, farsighted Voltairian individualists  :D favor totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press.
There's absolutely nothing brilliant or farsighted about favoring totally unfettered freedom of speech and of the press. In fact, it's rather stupid and shortsighted, because "totally unfettered" makes freedom of speech sacrosanct.

"Totally unfettered" means that you allow both slander and libel to be protected speech, regardless of the damage it causes the victim. It should be noted that both slander and libel are specifically lies about a person that cause provable damages, financial or otherwise. It means that someone who dislikes you could contact your boss and tell him you're a drug-addled thief, causing you to lose your job...and you would have no legal recourse.

"Totally unfettered" means that you accept it's legal for a convicted pedophile to speak to children using whatever language s/he likes, including sexually explicit language. It also means that your children's teachers could, on the daily, tell your children that they're stupid little shits who will amount to nothing, total losers like their parents, and that they should probably kill themselves...and you couldn't do {!#%@} about it.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have, in one fell swoop, eliminated personal privacy, because you have deemed it legal for marketers, salespeople, religious nuts, political campaigners, charities, and anyone else who feels like it to invade your snail mail, email, cell phone, and property in order to speak their piece. You'd never, ever have a moment's peace again in your lifetime.

"Totally unfettered" means that you have made it legal for your wife's male boss to sexually harass her every minute of every workday, even phoning her at home to tell her how sweet her ass looked in those dress pants...and neither she nor you would have a legal leg to stand on.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink your position.
I'll stand by my position and suggest that there are better remedies to your scenarios than coercive governmental censorship if you look for them.
No, no. This is your concept; the burden of formulating real world solutions to its obvious problems, therefore, rests with you. It's not my task. Please provide viable solutions for each of the problems I've outlined in your "totally unfettered free speech" philosophy.
Freedom of speech is my concept and the burden of proof lies with me.

I guess I thought I'd heard it all, but that is truly stunning.

End of discussion for me, all the response I can muster.

You, Gawdzilla, and Oleg win.
Don't be deliberately dense. Do I have to spell it out?

1. You are arguing in favor of 'unfettered free speech.'
2. I've presented a small sample of problems that would arise as a direct result of your philosophy.
3. You suggested there existed remedies to the obvious problems I outlined, and suggested I look for said remedies.
4. I countered that since you are the one arguing for 'unfettered free speech,' the burden of proof for providing viable solutions to any issues your philosophy creates lies with you.
5. You don't have any solutions, so you flounced with a suggestion that I was being unreasonable, which I'm not.

So, again, please provide viable solutions for each of the problems I've outlined which would directly result from your philosophy of 'unfettered free speech' being put into practice. If you are unable to do so, then your entire argument in favor of 'unfettered free speech' consists of logical fallacies and cognitive dissonance. Your idealistic vision of how the world should be speaks nothing to the way the world currently is, and your philosophy's value is clearly based on its source, not its merit. You've blithely rejected constructive criticism, even insisting that slander, libel, and harassment should be protected speech. Your position is unreasonable and illogical, and you can't defend it, certainly not while you continue to believe you somehow hold the moral high ground and simultaneously refuse to address rational criticism.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:47 am

Can we all guess who has never presented their absolutist notions to anyone over the age of 12?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Can we all guess who has never presented their absolutist notions to anyone over the age of 12?


That's kind of obtuse and irrelevant.

Are you taking writing lessons from Gord?
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:40 am

Hey TP? what you mean obtuse and irrelevant??????

No adult frame of mind argues rights in absolutes. You do. Now........who is obtuse and irrelevant?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4734
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby Tom Palven » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey TP? what you mean obtuse and irrelevant??????

No adult frame of mind argues rights in absolutes. You do. Now........who is obtuse and irrelevant?


You and Gord, and even Oleg wrote something recently that was almost indecipherable (Post of Aug. 27, 2:58 pm).
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Free Speech

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:29 am

TP......yes, I do suffer from that. Its a combo:

sticky keyboard....although I just replaced it, so thats a Plus One
I often write "open ended" so as to not restrict the thinking of the respondent
I too often am thinking of 3 other alternatives and sometimes switch the approach midstream without recognizing it ((Thats been the bane of my life...stammering because I have too many options))
Too Often: my fingers don't type what I'm thinking. Muscle Memory????---The Evil ONe? Who knows.

Everyone does from time to time. I will correct if I notice and think the meaning is not clear. Don't catch it all the time.

Anything of interest to you?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Free Speech

Postby Nikki Nyx » Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:39 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Hey TP? what you mean obtuse and irrelevant??????

No adult frame of mind argues rights in absolutes. You do. Now........who is obtuse and irrelevant?

Yes, exactly! If my rights are absolute, it will cause someone else's rights to be violated. Saying that rights should be absolute is as silly as saying that everyone should have above average incomes. :mrgreen:

Sure, anyone can have absolute rights...if he doesn't mind living totally alone on an island somewhere. But to reap the benefits of society requires adults to realize that they need to compromise here and there.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gord » Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:23 am

Tom Palven wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Can we all guess who has never presented their absolutist notions to anyone over the age of 12?

That's kind of obtuse and irrelevant.

Are you taking writing lessons from Gord?

Don't be footling. You are all taking writing lessons from Gord.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7372
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Free Speech

Postby TJrandom » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:03 am

I watched the video - and it seemed to be implying that universities are liberal, and maybe that isn`t a good thing. But I recall university days as being very conservative - radically so, and having to watch what I said, implied, and even read lest my profs get nasty. A liberal bias definitely was not my experience. I recall only one prof who was liberal.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Free Speech

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:47 am

Free Speech! The backbone of free society. Well it's a nice thought anyway.

Satanists have a "law" which says:- "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." The alleged satanist, Aleister Crowley, is oft credited with this saying. I say alleged because it is said that A.C was not actually a satanist, but used it to further his own aims.

Modern satanists, at least in Australia from my understanding, have added a rider to this, which is:- "as long as you do not hurt others."

So whilst free speech is essential in a free society, it does make a lot of sense that our speech does impact negatively on our fellow man - unless of course our fellow man is a cad and you can actually prove it.

So I am an avid believer in free speech, but I understand that i must temper what I say, at least in the public domain.

So given that our Western Countries, and yes I'm sure there are non-western countries, are free, free to think as they will, free to do as they will and free to say as they will, doesn't this freedom come with the responsibility to fellow man, and how our acts and sayings affect our fellow man? With our freedoms, I think, comes a lot of responsibility, and perhaps there are those of us that do not shoulder those responsibilities too well.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10407
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Free Speech

Postby OlegTheBatty » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:45 pm

Gord wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Can we all guess who has never presented their absolutist notions to anyone over the age of 12?

That's kind of obtuse and irrelevant.

Are you taking writing lessons from Gord?

Don't be footling. You are all taking writing lessons from Gord.


I are, are I? :beee:
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Free Speech

Postby Gord » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:58 am

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Gord wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Can we all guess who has never presented their absolutist notions to anyone over the age of 12?

That's kind of obtuse and irrelevant.

Are you taking writing lessons from Gord?

Don't be footling. You are all taking writing lessons from Gord.

I are, are I? :beee:

Oui.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest