Do you believe in complete freedom of speech? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14878877
Pants-of-dog wrote:Seeing as how no one can make an argument for protecting racist speech,


I argued that unless speech is actual libel or explicitly threatens or implies, and or insinuates violence, it should be protected.

Give the definitions you had given earlier, and which Boycey and I discussed, I would be open to prohibitions under that definition wherein hate speech is defined as aggressive ad-hominems made on an explicitly discriminatory manner, and possibly also generalizations if they are made without any reasons whatsoever.

However, my conditional openness to that argument was qualified and conditionally retracted because it seems that those two additions are subject to wild variance in interpretation.

The problem with your claims is that you believe that racist speech (whatever that means) is de facto to be unprotected and it is up to free-speech advocates to argue why it should be protected.

However, given that free speech is already the de facto position of most anglo-sphere nations, and given that its definition has only been modified after cases for exceptions have been made; it would be expedient to point out that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that free speech should make an exception for racist speech. Not the other way around.

You have it backwards my friend. The burden of proof is on you to argue why racist speech should NO LONGER be protected, in lets say, the United States (where it is protected) which would also entail a definition of what racist speech in fact was.

The free speech advocates on this thread are starting from a position that free speech is an inherent right and the de facto position and then trying to argue against something that you never properly defined, and given the definitions you have given, would be innocuous and would likely not achieve what you are actually after in the first place.

Your refusal to be clear only further casts suspicions on your position.

Thing is, if the burden on proof were on us (the free-speechers) to argue why we should protect racist speech, then according to the rules of discourse, we would have the right to define the terms being used and argued for, including racism.

In which case, If we were to define "racist speech" as implied violence or ill-intent of any kind solely on the basis of skin color, I doubt you would be satisfied and the conversation would not be advanced. Even at best, given definitions you have given previously, you could only argue that such speech were aggressive ad-hominems made without reason and solely on a discriminatory basis. which is still insufficiently clear and not very practical or simple (as laws should be).

This gives even more support to the fact that you must tell us what you think should be prohibited, and that entails telling us, clearly and precisely, what in fact you think hate speech or racism was. I always find examples to be helpful....Why don't you give us examples of what you think qualifies as racist speech and then we can respond accordingly and have an actual debate? Or is it, that you don't really want to open your position to actual analysis?

We can only go on what you have told us, and our argument has been made and is simply this, "free speech as the de facto position of the west was formulated to protect the right of individual citizens to hold to whatever religious or political opinions they were apt to do against the infringement of the state, so long they did not directly threaten or imply violence or the incitement thereof."

Nothing you have provided seems to be an acceptable exception to this based on the definitions and reasons you have given, and everything you have given, is either too unclear or can be subsumed under the violence exception already advanced by free-speechers.
#14890166
Let me start with this; the human mind is like a black box. We don't really know what goes on inside the black box. But we do know that what goes in can influence what comes out. And we know that what comes out is, in part, predictable; according to what goes in. We've been testing this concept for thousands of years. Manipulating truth, information and lies. Now cut to modern theories - game theory, psychology, sociology, political and economic theories (just to name a few) - all rely on the idea that the individual has at least a modest grasp of reality. They all rely on the idea that one can predict what comes out of that black box based on what goes in.

Now look at modern propaganda. By definition, propaganda is intended to unhinge people from reality in some way. People cannot effectively order their society, rule themselves, or manage an economy in the presence of propaganda - lies. This is in the same token as a people cannot judge a matter if they are ignorant of that matter. Both ignorance and misinformation leads to bad results far more often than not.

To put it into the most grotesquely obvious terms possible, imagine you're on a board, and someone is stating a lie. You know it's a lie. So you correct him and begin an argument. During that argument, you bring forth verified facts, you link to widely accepted sources, you destroy his arguments both logically and factually. But the very next day, you see him post the same lie in another thread as if you never happened. He may not have harmed you, personally. But he is convincing others of the lie. And those people are changing their opinions, their judgements, their voting habits. When enough believe the lie, they elect someone to act on their behalf - to harm people who don't deserve harm. This is most notably happening in places like the U.S. and Russia, and Iran. But it's happening to some degree all over the world.

Even in the presence of bigotry and militancy, one can still operate a rational society. You can still ignore them, counter-protest them, hold speeches elsewhere, convict the violent, etc.. One can effectively resist either by various means. But one cannot resist wholesale misinformation on a practical basis - modern times prove this. The United States is awash in propaganda and it's destroying the very democratic foundation upon which the Republic stands. In this case, the united is becoming the untied. For instance, just today, I read a poll that determined about a quarter of those who support Trump do so because he insults and antagonizes people they don't like. In my opinion, that's just as bad as electing someone because of skin color, or gender. Why do people make such decisions? First, because they hate others that much. Why? Because they were told lies about those people all their lives. Second, because they know hate better than they know any other subject. They don't have any good answers for school shootings, or wage disparity, or vaccinations, but by God they know how to hate other people. They were taught their whole lives. That is, until - and unless - they sit down on boards like this and realize most the reasons they hate each others guts are lies they were fed all their lives.

Thus, I believe the speech that should be banned is twofold: that which harms individuals, such as coercion, intimidation, threats of violence, suppression, fraud, etc., and that which are known lies. Once a lie is debunked, those who continue to repeat it must be stopped and/or punished. I believe it impractical to ban all lying in all forms. But we can take measures to curtail the wholesale distribution of lies to millions of people. We can take measures to correct false information and to stop those who broker false information to millions.

You and I have every right to try and convince each other of our opinions by any means short of being harmful. But we should not have the right to trick, to deceive, to lie - to get people to do things counter to their own best interests. You would not tolerate a car salesman lying to you in order to get you to buy a car. Nor should you tolerate anyone else lying to you to get you to do things - to vote for or against things - or to act towards others in a manner they don't deserve. Yet Americans currently tolerate this on a daily basis.

I'm not arguing for any method on how to do this. I am merely arguing that this should be done. And sorry for the novel.
#14890172
Once a lie is debunked, those who continue to repeat it must be stopped and/or punished. I believe it impractical to ban all lying in all forms. But we can take measures to curtail the wholesale distribution of lies to millions of people. We can take measures to correct false information and to stop those who broker false information to millions.


So you're saying we need to establish a 'Ministry of Truth'? Yeah, fuck that.
#14890173
Sivad wrote:So you're saying we need to establish a 'Ministry of Truth'? Yeah, fuck that.


Well, George Orwell was a Socialist, so contrary to what Anti-Socialists might think Orwell in his novels wasn't talking about us, but a society that refused to believe in any notion of truth even of a provisional or factual kind... You know, like most of Global society where everything is commodified and quantified as to the kind of profit to be made from it, and so ''truth'' is a nominal notion in continual flux based on it's utility as a weapon against the human mind, a Lie, in fact.

So, it remains a fact that people need to be protected from lies, but sometimes also don't always need to know everything at once right away, either.
#14890179
People, governments, societies, and civilization are all just too full of shit to be trusted with the authority to arbitrate truth. It's funny how liberals just can't get to hell fast enough and are hellbent on taking us all with them. A Ministry of Truth is a terrible idea.
#14890309
Sivad wrote:People, governments, societies, and civilization are all just too full of shit to be trusted with the authority to arbitrate truth. It's funny how liberals just can't get to hell fast enough and are hellbent on taking us all with them. A Ministry of Truth is a terrible idea.

It's also funny how anyone can call them liberals, unless it is meant ironically. Freedom of Speech is a foundational concept of Liberalism.

It is ironic that in the US the real liberals are called "conservatives" and the real totalitarians are called "liberals".
#14890354
SolarCross wrote:It's also funny how anyone can call them liberals, unless it is meant ironically. Freedom of Speech is a foundational concept of Liberalism.

It is ironic that in the US the real liberals are called "conservatives" and the real totalitarians are called "liberals".


I only use the term ironically. They're not liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

#14890539
Jonah Goldberg is a hack.

Freedom of speech is great and the government shouldn't cut into it past the obvious limits that everyone pretty much agrees on (calling on murder, fire in a crowded theater etc. etc.)

Freedom of speech, that being said, isn't the freedom to not have people react to your speech. You can get fired by a company, protested, or whatever else.

The media is supposed to hold power to account. It[…]

The countries where feminism is failing to gain t[…]

During the recent negotiations between Kim Jong-no[…]

China has told the United States to butt out of a […]