2008-12-30, 15:03 | Link #23 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
I think the best way to deal with these people is through individual effort, not through censorship or whatever. If people genuinely dislike the person's comments, they are free to ignore him. The offensive guy will get it one way or another.. if he chooses not to, it's his right. Nobody's obliged to listen to him anyway. I assure you. The last thing you want to happen is political correctness superseding every right to self expression. |
|
2008-12-30, 15:16 | Link #24 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Individual effort? The problem isn't one guy saying something one guy doesn't like. The problem is dozens, hundred of guys saying stuff that thousands, tens of thousands feel strongly about - pro or con. Strongly enough to riot and burn cars. Strongly enough to beat some poor buggers to death because some idiot convinced them it was ok to kill gays, or Arabs, or some other minority group. Strongly enough to detonate homemade explosives in crowded subways.
I don't know about you, but in my country, those problems are a lot more pressing than "political correctness". "Political correctness" is some straw man our politicians like to bandy about once in a while, but here, it has precious little bite. |
2008-12-30, 15:17 | Link #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
You don't have to listen to them at all. However, if their volume surpasses your ipod's, you will have every right to shut them up, legally |
|
2008-12-30, 15:20 | Link #26 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
|
|
2008-12-30, 15:25 | Link #27 |
Hina is my goddess
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
In my opinion, hate speech is much more devastating than yelling fire in a theater. Worst that happens if everyone gets freaked out and waste everyone's (including firefighters) time and money, but nobody is hurt. Money can always be repaid, lives cannot.
When hate speech tells people certain lives are worthless, people might actually believe that and act on that. If someone wants to make fun, people can walk away. It may not be the most fair in all cases, but it is in most cases. That's my opinion anyways. |
2008-12-30, 15:29 | Link #28 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
Big government, bleeding heart, Obama Kool aid Liberals take over! |
|
2008-12-30, 15:31 | Link #29 | |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Quote:
But what could be the cure? Giving them new information? Electric shock treatement? lobotomy? Confinement?
__________________
|
|
2008-12-30, 15:43 | Link #31 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
The issue of Freedom of Speech is not reduced to the unpleasantness of hearing contrary opinions. Ideas move men. That's what make speech such a powerful tool, and thus a dangerous one. Quote:
I take it you've never been trampled by a panicked crowd. |
||
2008-12-30, 15:46 | Link #32 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
Using this as an excuse to shut certain people up when you don't need to even listen to a single word from them is laughable. Remember, words don't blow trains up, bombers with bombs do. |
|
2008-12-30, 15:49 | Link #33 |
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
|
The way I see it is, every action has consequences. There's nothing in the (US) constitution that forbids anyone to kill. You'll just have to suffer the consequences. Go ahead with your freedom of expression or whatever, but you'll be the judge whether or not you want to accept the consequences.
__________________
|
2008-12-30, 17:16 | Link #35 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
We craft laws to reach a balance between liberty and safety. (And yes, I do know the quote about those who trade one for the other, but let's face it: anarchy is idiotic.) Where is that balance, where freedom of expression is concerned? Do you want, on a matter of principle, dismiss the consequences of a greater freedom of speech with an airy "eh, it's a matter of personal responsibility"? "Human lives don't matter compared to the freedom of spreading hate"? Note, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that freedom of speech should be absolute. But that's a decision that should be arrived at after careful consideration of the dangers involved, not after denying the role of free speech in the growth of radical, violent ideologies. |
||
2008-12-30, 18:32 | Link #36 |
Paparazzi
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 41
|
I find offering censorship as a solution quite shortsighted. Sure speech is a powerful tool that can be used in extent that it becomes a lethal weapon but it's still one of the fundamental foundations of democracy. Censorship is an extremely dangerous path to be treading on, as it grants the power even absolute power to control what ideals can be put through to the masses. That holds a temptation that very few will be strong enough to oppose. Assuming that they even wish to.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I've yet to see a single example where censorship wouldn't have been used to further the causes of those in power. When the voice of opposition is suppressed the result is dictatorship, oligarchy or some other form of government not so pleasant for those who disagree with it's views. And even if the censorship is controlled by the majority where does that leave the minorities. I think it'd be foolish to think that you could find someone who could objectively base the decisions concerning censorship on morality alone. Personal or popular agendas will come to play. I believe it to be inevitable. So regardless the fact that freedom of speech causes problems, I find the alternative far more frightening. |
2008-12-30, 19:06 | Link #37 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
|
Quote:
No. What you want is people to impose laws to stop the people who oppose their viewpoint under the guise of public safety. Dictators take advantage of that. Basically, your argument is we must stop these people at all costs, even if we violate certain constitutional rights in the process. That's exactly what I don't like... The use of legislation to impose on people. Now I have a question: 1. Did all people who read Mein Kampf become little Hitlers? Because if not then the problem is not Hitler, but the idiot who read him. Last edited by Thingle; 2008-12-30 at 19:22. |
|
2008-12-30, 19:12 | Link #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
Quote:
Case 1: If you happen to live in a neighbor where the others are as dumb as apes, you should move elsewhere. With such condition, even if nothing provokes them, sh** will happen. Case 2: you happen to live in a place where everyone else thinks differently than you do. You should either move somewhere else or adapt. Case 3: you live in a place where the government and the economy are messed up. In other words, the people must live in rubbish which in turn emits CH4, and a single spark could cause the whole thing to explode. This is inevitable. Again, you would better move elsewhere or join the revolution. Case 4: you live in a place where the economy is next to non-existence but the government puts everything under its iron heels effectively. Now this is paradise! No one has the right to say anything.... Case 5: you live a place where the economy is at its apex. Jobs are plentiful, incomes are desirable by other nations, the overall quality of life is high and your government doesn't mess up with others. In this condition, I don't think there would be enough carebears to pose a threat to the society. ........ The bottom line is if a random speech can seriously cause trouble for a community, then that community has tons of other problems and it can be safely inferred that the mentioned speech is just a direct consequence. Last edited by iLney; 2008-12-30 at 21:20. |
|
2008-12-30, 19:27 | Link #39 | ||
ISML Technical Staff
Graphic Designer
|
Quote:
Quote:
In summary: Yes to absolute freedom, but it's we who must decide if the consequences are worth it instead of some laws restricting us to express them.
__________________
|
||
2008-12-30, 20:57 | Link #40 |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Yes, speech can be a powerful and dangerous tool in the wrong hands. That's why it's important for others to also speak up to counter those who would use it for ill. Sure there will always be people who abuse freedoms, and those people should be punished. However, that doesn't mean others should have their freedoms restricted to stop those who would abuse them from causing harm.
It's up to the rest of us to make sure that those with hateful views are marginalized as much as possible. However, I think they should still have the right to express those views. When someone acts on those views, then punish them. When they try to spread their views, expose them for what they really are. Simply forbidding someone from expressing such views isn't going to change their mind about it. It'll just drive them underground. They'll still find an audience, but even if it's smaller, that audience won't be exposed to opposing viewpoints as often and may become more radicalized.
__________________
|
|
|