Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

Freedom of speech

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can't tie those to 'the left' though.  I said every bit of stupidity that you can...

So I tie leftist stupidity to leftists and this is an issue for you? It never bothered you when I repeatedly criticized Trump and the Tea Party wackos.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Argus said:

So I tie leftist stupidity to leftists and this is an issue for you? It never bothered you when I repeatedly criticized Trump and the Tea Party wackos.

It's taxonomy.  You don't, I don't think anyway, tie Trump to "the right" which presumably includes yourself.  But if somebody says something stupid on a US campus it's tied to "the left".  Lazy language, and I may even do it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's taxonomy.  You don't, I don't think anyway, tie Trump to "the right" which presumably includes yourself.  But if somebody says something stupid on a US campus it's tied to "the left".  Lazy language, and I may even do it too.

If someone says something stupid I'll tie them to the political ideology they're a part of. Like this for example. Am I to ignore the ideology behind his stupidity? Or there's the nonsense at Berkeley over Ben Shapiro's speech there this weekend. As an editorial in Bloomberg stated, it's all well and good Shapiro was able to give his talk there, but it shouldn't need $600,000 in security to enable him to do so. Remember that Shapiro is an ultra-orthodox Jew the alt-right hates, mocks and hurls antisemitic epithets at, and has openly been derisive of Donald Trump from before the election, so terming him a Fascist is ludicrous, though many seem to anyway simply because he expresses conservative views.

There is a profoundly anti-free speech movement among progressives arising from the belief that any speech that offends should not be permitted, and even constitutes violence. The very term 'microagresson' is used to describe unknowing behavior which, nevertheless, is 'aggression', and aggression, of course, is something you repel through violence if necessary.

 

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Argus said:

If someone says something stupid I'll tie them to the political ideology they're a part of. Like this for example. Am I to ignore the ideology behind his stupidity? Or there's the nonsense at Berkeley over Ben Shapiro's speech there this weekend. As an editorial in Bloomberg stated, it's all well and good Shapiro was able to give his talk there, but it shouldn't need $600,000 in security to enable him to do so. Remember that Shapiro is an ultra-orthodox Jew the alt-right hates, mocks and hurls antisemitic epithets at, and has openly been derisive of Donald Trump from before the election, so terming him a Fascist is ludicrous, though many seem to anyway simply because he expresses conservative views.

There is a profoundly anti-free speech movement among progressives arising from the belief that any speech that offends should not be permitted, and even constitutes violence. The very term 'microagresson' is used to describe unknowing behavior which, nevertheless, is 'aggression', and aggression, of course, is something you repel through violence if necessary.

 

The right to free speech is misunderstood by some people. It means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean everybody needs to allow you to say what you think. If I say to someone, "Your opinion is a pile of crap and you need to sit down and shut up!" I'm not violating their right, I'm exercising mine. Nobody's right to free speech includes a right to a stage or an audience. It being a free society means you takes your chances and if you get enough people riled up that you can't be heard over the dissent it's all on you, not the dissenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

The right to free speech is misunderstood by some people. It means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean everybody needs to allow you to say what you think. If I say to someone, "Your opinion is a pile of crap and you need to sit down and shut up!" I'm not violating their right, I'm exercising mine. Nobody's right to free speech includes a right to a stage or an audience. It being a free society means you takes your chances and if you get enough people riled up that you can't be heard over the dissent it's all on you, not the dissenters.

I agree that free speech is often misunderstood, but I think the misunderstanding is usually on the part of those who think freedom of speech only applies to speech they agree with, and should not apply to that which others might find profoundly offensive and upsetting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I agree that free speech is often misunderstood, but I think the misunderstanding is usually on the part of those who think freedom of speech only applies to speech they agree with, and should not apply to that which others might find profoundly offensive and upsetting. 

Free speech being freedom of government suppression applies to everyone but if you find what someone says offensive and you speak out against them, and do what you can to drown them out, you're just exercising your own right to free speech. I can believe in your right to free speech, as in the government can't suppress what you want to say, and still believe that nobody else is required to allow you to be heard. Like I said, it's a free society so you take your chances. It seems kind of oxymoronic to say that those people over there need to shut up because that guy over there has a right to free speech. If you piss off people enough that they protest when you speak up, that's your tough luck.

Like I said, everyone has the right to not be suppressed or censored by the government. Beyond that, the marketplace makes the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

Free speech being freedom of government suppression applies to everyone but if you find what someone says offensive and you speak out against them, and do what you can to drown them out, you're just exercising your own right to free speech. I can believe in your right to free speech, as in the government can't suppress what you want to say, and still believe that nobody else is required to allow you to be heard. Like I said, it's a free society so you take your chances. It seems kind of oxymoronic to say that those people over there need to shut up because that guy over there has a right to free speech. If you piss off people enough that they protest when you speak up, that's your tough luck.

Like I said, everyone has the right to not be suppressed or censored by the government. Beyond that, the marketplace makes the rules.

Does your view apply equally to those whose speech you might find offensive?  Do they have the right to do what they can to drown out anyone who tries to protest against them?  If those who protest against speech they find offensive piss enough people off, is it their tough luck?

Everyone should have the freedom to express themselves, regardless of what others think of that expression.  That applies to everyone, views and counterviews, as long as nobody breaks the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

...Everyone should have the freedom to express themselves, regardless of what others think of that expression.  That applies to everyone, views and counterviews, as long as nobody breaks the law.

 

Agreed, and in the United States, people enjoy wide protections from any public or private attempts to disenfranchise citizens of 1st Amendment rights.   Even "Nazis" are guaranteed their constitutional rights.    Freedom of speech is most needed to protect legal expression for the most abhorrent ideas, otherwise it means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Argus said:

Am I to ignore the ideology behind his stupidity?

It's the taxonomy that's misleading.  I don't tie American campus politics to the Liberal government, nor do I blame far-right anti-semites on the Conservative party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Grand Mal said:

The right to free speech is misunderstood by some people. It means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean everybody needs to allow you to say what you think. If I say to someone, "Your opinion is a pile of crap and you need to sit down and shut up!" I'm not violating their right, I'm exercising mine. Nobody's right to free speech includes a right to a stage or an audience. It being a free society means you takes your chances and if you get enough people riled up that you can't be heard over the dissent it's all on you, not the dissenters.

If someone rents an auditorium to give a speech to people who come to hear him, then if you shut him down by you're not only violating his right to free speech but theirs as well. Your attitude is also profoundly antidemocratic and would ultimately lead to anarchy as anyone who didn't like what anyone else said rushed in to shut them down. What your example above leads to is brawls and violence as your 'dissenters' fight it out with the audience who came to listen to the speaker. In that event I'd attend such a lecture with a shield, club and helmet prepared to smash faces and heads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's the taxonomy that's misleading.  I don't tie American campus politics to the Liberal government, nor do I blame far-right anti-semites on the Conservative party.

But there's nothing to tie the far right anti semites to the conservative party. And I haven't tied any of this to the Liberal party. You seem confused about what we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Grand Mal said:

Free speech being freedom of government suppression applies to everyone but if you find what someone says offensive and you speak out against them, and do what you can to drown them out, you're just exercising your own right to free speech. I can believe in your right to free speech, as in the government can't suppress what you want to say, and still believe that nobody else is required to allow you to be heard. Like I said, it's a free society so you take your chances. It seems kind of oxymoronic to say that those people over there need to shut up because that guy over there has a right to free speech. If you piss off people enough that they protest when you speak up, that's your tough luck.

Like I said, everyone has the right to not be suppressed or censored by the government. Beyond that, the marketplace makes the rules.

In a society of anarchy you'd be correct. Fortunately, we don't live in such a society. We live in a society of laws. Freedom of speech is not simply a constitutional concept but a cultural belief. It's the belief that the way to settle disputes is to discuss them like adults. The way to fight ideas you don't like is by giving forth your own alternative ideas. That's the marketplace of ideas. To suggest that it's acceptable to forcibly prevent someone who rents a hall from giving his or her speech, or prevent people from getting in is unCanadian, and would, without police intervention, only incite greater and greater levels of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I am confused.  What does a vague term like "the left" mean then ?  "the far left" ?

Who says we're talking about the far left? How do you define Left vs far Left? Are you suggesting it's only the 'far left' which shuts down discussion? There was a survey released the other day by the Brookings Institute which you might find relevant, related to the idiocy going on among students in the US (but ours are generally no different). The survey found 19% of students found it acceptable to use violence to silence offensive speech. When asked if it was acceptable to prevent a speaker from speaking by shouting them down 62% of Democrat students agreed, vs 39% of Republicans.

https://www.rightlyreport.com/poll-19-of-students-endorse-violence-to-prevent-speakers/45511

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Argus said:

then if you shut him down by you're not only violating his right to free speech

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech.  Objecting and protesting are just as much a right of free speech as giving a presentation.

I agree that becoming physical as part of one's protesting is wrong, and that entrances should not be blocked.  But anything up to that point is acceptable, in my opinion.  If a venue decides to cancel an event due to non-violent protest, that is their right as well.

One can argue the effectiveness or appropriateness of protest tactics, but tying them to a desire to shut down free speech demonstrates a misunderdtanding of what the right to free speech means, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Who says we're talking about the far left?

I don't know, I'm asking you.  It's not the Liberal party, it's not the 'far left'.  I guess you just don't want to be specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech.  Objecting and protesting are just as much a right of free speech as giving a presentation.

I agree that becoming physical as part of one's protesting is wrong, and that entrances should not be blocked.  But anything up to that point is acceptable, in my opinion.  If a venue decides to cancel an event due to non-violent protest, that is their right as well.

One can argue the effectiveness or appropriateness of protest tactics, but tying them to a desire to shut down free speech demonstrates a misunderdtanding of what the right to free speech means, imo.

 

Events are shit down due to the threat of violence...not the mere gathering of people outside an event.

Quote

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech.

 

Uhhhh....no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Agreed, and in the United States, people enjoy wide protections from any public or private attempts to disenfranchise citizens of 1st Amendment rights.   Even "Nazis" are guaranteed their constitutional rights.    Freedom of speech is most needed to protect legal expression for the most abhorrent ideas, otherwise it means nothing.

Your first amendment rights begin and end with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". The first amendment does not require anyone to tolerate loathsome ideas, it just says the government can't censor you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Argus said:

In a society of anarchy you'd be correct. Fortunately, we don't live in such a society. We live in a society of laws. Freedom of speech is not simply a constitutional concept but a cultural belief. It's the belief that the way to settle disputes is to discuss them like adults. The way to fight ideas you don't like is by giving forth your own alternative ideas. That's the marketplace of ideas. To suggest that it's acceptable to forcibly prevent someone who rents a hall from giving his or her speech, or prevent people from getting in is unCanadian, and would, without police intervention, only incite greater and greater levels of violence.

I agree with this with this caveat- nobody is required to rent that hall to someone who wants to use it to express abhorrent ideas. And the judge of what's abhorrent is each of us, including whoever rents out the hall. Also, any form of protest that's short of physical obstruction is on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

One can argue the effectiveness or appropriateness of protest tactics, but tying them to a desire to shut down free speech demonstrates a misunderdtanding of what the right to free speech means, imo.

No, your post demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the right to free speech means. Let me put it in a fashion you might have more sympathy for. Muslims want to give a speech and rent an auditorium, and a crowd of Nazis marches in screaming insults and curses and blowing horns and playing the national anthem on boom boxes and won't stop until they have to cancel their event and leave.

That okay with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

I agree with this with this caveat- nobody is required to rent that hall to someone who wants to use it to express abhorrent ideas. And the judge of what's abhorrent is each of us, including whoever rents out the hall. Also, any form of protest that's short of physical obstruction is on the table.

But we don't let institutions decide who they rent the hall to as long as the event is legal. And we certainly don't want any government or even a quasi government institution like a college from making decisions about what speech is or is not offensive or 'abhorrent'. And by 'forcibly' preventing a speech that includes going into the hall and shouting and chanting and blowing whistles continuously. If you do that, the police will drag you out. If there are no police, the audience will get involved and then there's brawling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grand Mal said:

Your first amendment rights begin and end with the words, "Congress shall make no laws...". The first amendment does not require anyone to tolerate loathsome ideas, it just says the government can't censor you.

But the government also owes a duty of protection for people who are out and about and doing things which they are legally entitled to do. Which is why, when a group of Nazis gets a permit to march, the police have to ensure that protesters don't forcibly interfere with that march or attack them while they march. And if the government decided it won't do that then you get something like Charlottesville. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

But we don't let institutions decide who they rent the hall to as long as the event is legal. And we certainly don't want any government or even a quasi government institution like a college from making decisions about what speech is or is not offensive or 'abhorrent'. And by 'forcibly' preventing a speech that includes going into the hall and shouting and chanting and blowing whistles continuously. If you do that, the police will drag you out. If there are no police, the audience will get involved and then there's brawling.

I agree about government not making those decisions except that city or municipal government, being charged with maintaining public order, needs to decide sometimes not to allow certain events to take place. It's part of not tolerating certain ideas, and this might be where we disagree most. I admit that there's some ideas I believe should not be tolerated, should not be expressed. Some ideas don't deserve to be seen as legitmate and worthy of consideration. I'd be dead-set against the government outlawing the expression, but I'm all for citizens doing whatever the law allows to suppress them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, your post demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the right to free speech means. Let me put it in a fashion you might have more sympathy for. Muslims want to give a speech and rent an auditorium, and a crowd of Nazis marches in screaming insults and curses and blowing horns and playing the national anthem on boom boxes and won't stop until they have to cancel their event and leave.

That okay with you?

Its not ok with me, any more than the girl using a speaker to prevent a man talking was ok with me.  But its not a violation of the "right to free speech".   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grand Mal said:

I agree about government not making those decisions except that city or municipal government, being charged with maintaining public order, needs to decide sometimes not to allow certain events to take place. It's part of not tolerating certain ideas, and this might be where we disagree most. I admit that there's some ideas I believe should not be tolerated, should not be expressed. Some ideas don't deserve to be seen as legitmate and worthy of consideration. I'd be dead-set against the government outlawing the expression, but I'm all for citizens doing whatever the law allows to suppress them.

The only reason the city would refuse to allow an event to 'maintain public order' would be if they feared violence from the opponents of that event. So that would, in effect, be giving a veto to violently minded people. Which is not the way we want our society to go. This is especially so as violence begets violence. If one side shuts down another repeatedly due to violence or its threat the other side will inevitably get angry enough to respond in kind. We do have hate speech laws in this country, and as long as someone can speak on something legally and people want to come and watch it I don't care who it offends. Lots of stuff the left talks about offends me but I defend their right to say it or to demonstrate in favor of it - however stupid it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...