[anarchist23]

I want to add a cautionary note:

A lot of careers have been cut short because of things people said or wrote, sometimes a long time ago.
It's all good and well to air your feelings and ideas when you are eighteen or twenty one and then ten years later when you are considered for an important job your early writings come back to haunt you.

Remember that anything you write on the internet does not disappear. Facebook and twitter are bad ideas (and time wasters).

I don't know if this applies to USA. Right to be forgotten seems to be a good idea as is the Right to Privacy.

The right to be forgotten is a concept discussed and put into practice in the European Union (EU) and Argentina since 2006. The issue has arisen from desires of individuals to "determine the development of their life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past.":231
There has been controversy about the practicality of establishing a right to be forgotten to the status of an international human right in respect to access to information, due in part to the vagueness of current rulings attempting to implement such a right. There are concerns about its impact on the right to freedom of expression, its interaction with the right to privacy, and whether creating a right to be forgotten would decrease the quality of the Internet through censorship and a rewriting of history, and opposing concerns about problems such as revenge porn sites appearing in search engine listings for a person's name, or references to petty crimes committed many years ago indefinitely remaining an unduly prominent part of a person's Internet footprint.

wiki

[Know It All]

I believe everyone has the right to voice an opinion regardless of how controversial it is. I also believe that they should able to voice this opinion without some liberal hurling names at them. However, the way the view or opinion is voiced is paramount.

For example, I would love the UK to work towards a zero immigration policy, but people such as my son would scream "bigot at me". The reasons behind my beliefs are logical, both for economical purposes and cultural reasoning. That said, even if I am a tad xenophobic, as long as I am not offensive whist doing so, I don't see why it should matter.

Unfortunately society has become more and more liberal over the years, and countries such as the U.S and the U.K no longer see freedom of speech as a right. All that matters is people have to remain politically correct or just keep their mouths shut. Of course, I am not a conformer, and never intend to be either !!

[Decky]

I believe everyone has the right to voice an opinion regardless of how controversial it is. I also believe that they should able to voice this opinion without some liberal hurling names at them.

So you believe in freedom of speech for yourself but not for anyone who disagrees with you. At least be honest and just type that you are against freedom of speech.

[anasawad]

Complete freedom of speech ? It depends. I would say no. Not full freedom.
You can say whatever you want and have any belief or ideology you want and etc. But as long as you're not causing harm or damage to someone's else.

For example, accusing someone of rape or a serious crime or spreading rumors about someone could do serious damage to that person and his\her life. These type of things, no one should be free to do. it should be considered a crime to do something like this.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I would say not complete freedom of speech. I think that speech that puts others in direct danger should probably be restricted. Political beliefs, it really all depends. If your beliefs include supporting terrorist groups, that becomes very tricky. Terrorist sympathy is no joke in this tumultuous climate for geopolitics.

[fuser]

Is there any difference between capitalists and terrorists?

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Control over the means of production and monopoly on violence?

[Hindsite]

fuser asked:
Is there any difference between capitalists and terrorists?

Yes.
Capitalists use capitalism to seek their goals, while terrorists use terrorism to seek their goals.

[FernandoLeanme]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2015/11/free-speech-delusion

I'm for (almost) complete freedom of speech. I don't support defamation, coarse language directed against specific individuals, speech advocating physical violence, loud noises, or defacing/violating private property while "exercising free speech". I'm against the ability by anybody to claim that they are suffering from so called "Microagression" and use it to stifle speech by anybody. From what I gather the climate in USA universities today tends to be highly repressive and censorship prevails. Some of the repression is carried out by individuals wearing hoods or masks...which tells me there's a need for the police to keep a close eye on such repressive moves and arrest the culprits for assault or disturbing the peace.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Yes.
Capitalists use capitalism to seek their goals, while terrorists use terrorism to seek their goals.

What about Imperialism and Colonialism? Can't just claim that capitalists are always peaceful when evidence will show you that they don't hesitate to use force where it interests them.

[Hindsite]

No, I am not claiming capitalists are always peaceful.
You must be confusing it with Pacifism.
Capitalist definitely believe in our second amendment right to keep and bear arms.
HalleluYah

[FernandoLeanme]

What about Imperialism and Colonialism? Can't just claim that capitalists are always peaceful when evidence will show you that they don't hesitate to use force where it interests them.

Most groups use violence when it suits them. But I fail to see the link between this and free speech. Unless you are assuming speech can be violent? Such as when people insult each other? It seems to me all groups tend to do it as well. As I wrote before, I'm for a very liberal use of free speech rights. I've lived in countries where free speech was censored, and today we see significant censorship in Europe in some areas.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Most groups use violence when it suits them. But I fail to see the link between this and free speech. Unless you are assuming speech can be violent? Such as when people insult each other? It seems to me all groups tend to do it as well.

Well what I am saying is that you can't just say that capitalists don't use violence. Violence is inherent to nearly every system. And in the specific case of colonialism and imperialism, you can't detach the ideological justifications for those actions from the actions themselves. So on a macro level, violent speech does lead to violence. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think people should be restricted from justifying imperialism and colonialism, but it is a complicated issue. If it's ok to advocate for violence from your state in order to pursue your own ends, that's one step away from advocating for violence from a paramilitary group in order to pursue your own ends.

As I wrote before, I'm for a very liberal use of free speech rights. I've lived in countries where free speech was censored, and today we see significant censorship in Europe in some areas.

I am also for free speech, but that doesn't mean I want to protect ALL SPEECH. Some speech brings direct harm onto other people (like conspiracy to commit murder).

[Evilhippy]

Hey all, first post newbie

From reading what's been said I could add a lot about most of it - I do that too much, so I'll cut to what I feel is the core; of this and so many other issues:

Relative harm. And first we all have to agree that causing harm is bad and we wouldn't like it done to us. Sounds simplistic but this principal is almost never reinforced after childhood, but we (should) base our lives upon it.

What effects do;
a) the actual content of any given speech have on the relevant people?
b) what are the effects of each person's beliefs and views on their perception of any given speech?
c) do those beliefs and views contribute towards further harm to others?

An example could be the one from the start of this thread; shouting out "damn you f***ing n*****s and f*****s" in a gay club full of black people. I'm not gonna be using the best term here for people of colour but for brevity and in context of the insult being demonstrated in this here example, I'm gonna keep saying black people, sorry if it offends. This right here is kind of meta, I guess

So it's free speech for the arsehole, sorry, person shouting that in the club. I say it is wrong and if done, requires punishment.

Why shouldn't it be allowed? Because it's reiterating very insulting, demeaning phrases that have lot of history behind them. Black people and gay people have been persecuted to the point of genocide, mass murder, serial killing, individual murder, rape, lynchings and all the rest throughout history. It's not the same as running into WeightWatchers and screaming "lardass" through the door; it carries more weight, haha, due to history. Fat people are not always by definition fat people, they usually made choices though that's not even the main reason (new topic.. nurture plays the biggest part in that I think but that's another thing), but being gay or black and being criticised for what you fundamentally are, not what you've done and have had happen to you is profoundly hurtful and intimidating, basically.

It's an offence to hurt others and making them fearful is to hurt them. It is also offensive to disrupt a place designated for the enjoyment of specific groups, and important because those groups cannot go the mainstream places as their real selves, largely. So it shows someone has either gone out of their way or has been opportunistic in their attempt to hurt others. A psychologically suggestive offence as there's obviously malice there.

Lastly (phew) the background which homophobic and racist people have directly and indirectly causes harm to others and this is the simple, essential thing in many cases that gets overlooked; the KKK shouldn't be allowed to march in public because when you whittle away the downplaying, deflection and distraction, and weasel wording the KKK wants people with different skin colours and values and religions to be removed from the places we are all supposed to share, to be given fewer chances in life, to be treated as inferior, and if they had their way ultimately to all be deported murdered or enslaved. That's their aim and intention and motivation and no amount of claiming `freedom of speech/thought` or any other weaseling can hide their hatred, which causes distress, worry, fear, for select groups of their fellow human beings. And it is compounded by the facts they've not only been treated like utter sh*t historically and need a bit of help from the lucky rest of us, but who are also still battling things that the privileged take for granted.

I'm sorry for being so tedious but you can break all this down with a few seconds thought for many different arguments, policies and worldviews using the same idea of harm/benefit; who is affected, whose views are affected, do those views help or harm others?

So the other side of it is in that context, how much right does the interloper have for holding racist and homophobic views? well you can't argue that the views are wrong, they are right to that guy and are his opinions, but apart from the obvious fact that taking time to shout into the gay club is wrong, the opinions he passively holds when not screaming into theoretical devices in an online discussion should be challenged, but by reason and attempts to imbue or regenerate compassion for all others, and I think it fair and proper to attempt to change the minds of people who have views that hurt other people, and I argue that a great many right wing views cause unnecessary harm to people and that privilege is absolutely no excuse for not trying to modify your behavior and make sacrifices from your privileged position in order to help people at the other end of the scale.

[anarchist23]

^
Interesting post.

Racists, sexists and homophobics are mainly ignorant.
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study.
Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced.
Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe.'

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.
Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.
The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.
The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe..
The survey compared childhood intelligence with political views.
Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not - it's innate intelligence, according to the academics.
Social status also appears to play no part.
The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology forms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people.
Left-wingers tend to be more open-minded says the survey.
'Cognitive abilities are critical in forming impressions of other people and in being open minded,' say the researchers.
'Individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate towards more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo.
'It provides a sense of order.'
The study, by academics at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, used information from two UK studies from 1958 and 1970 , where several thousand children were assessed for intelligence at age 10 and 11, and then asked political questions aged 33.
The 1958 National Child Development involved 4,267 men and 4,537 women born in 1958.
British Cohort Study involved 3,412 men and 3,658 women born in 1970.
It's the first time the data from these studies has been used in this way.
In adulthood, the children were asked whether they agreed with statements such as, 'I wouldn't mind working with people from other races,' and 'I wouldn't mind if a family of a different race moved next door.'
They were also asked whether they agreed with statements about typically right-wing and socially conservative politics such as, 'Give law breakers stiffer sentences,' and 'Schools should teach children to obey authority.'
The researchers also compared their results against a 1986 American study which included tests of cognitive ability and questions assessing prejudice against homosexuals.
The authors claim that there is a strong correlation between low intelligence both as a child and an adult, and right-wing politics.
The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices.
'Conservative ideology represents a critical pathway through which childhood intelligence predicts racism in adulthood,' says the paper.
'In psychological terms, the relation between intelligence and prejudice may stem from the propensity of individuals with lower cognitive ability to endorse more right wing conservative ideologies because such ideologies offer a psychological sense of stability and order.'
'Clearly, however, all socially conservative people are not prejudiced, and all prejudiced persons are not conservative.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z48C1KVLNv

[iambjorn]

What's interesting about this discussion is how Europe has handled this situation. I'm Norwegian, and I see constant news stories about police coming up to peoples doors for what they have written on the internet. In fact, If I'm not mistaken, you will go to jail in Germany for specific 'hate speech'.

The problem I see arise from having limited speech is the rise of religious apologists. For example, there is a famous clip on YouTube from Norway where a Muslim is preaching to his audience about Islam's view of homosexuality and other similar topics. He argues, and his audience agrees with him, that homosexuality is a sin in Islam and death is punishment. Therefore, his views are not intolerant, but merely religious. Now, if a person is fined or goes to jail for saying Muslim's needs to die, then a Muslim would have to get the same punishment for teaching that homosexuality is a sin with death as punishment. I argue we need speech as free as we possibly can manage (No yelling fire in the cinemas or harassing people, no promotion of violence or recruiting to violent organisations). We live in such a diverse world that we can not allow anyone to control our language as long as we don't put people's lives at risk. The conflict is now what is speech that put people's lives at risk? Is preaching religious teachings putting people's lives at risk? Is writing on the internet that all Muslims must die to put Muslim lives at risk? My personal opinion, a more direct form a threat is necessary for any police interference (A direct threat which has the possibilities of doing harm to the individual or group), but defining all this is challenging.

I found it interesting to try out Gab, which is supposedly the free speech version of Twitter. It's a place filled with racism and utter hatred towards non-whites, and very collectivists.

I'm not sure if any of this was interesting to read, but I think America's first amendment is excellent.

[Tezcatlipoca]

It seems like the concept has been abused to the point where it normalizes bigotry

[Godstud]

No. Freedom of speech should have limitations where spreading hate, fear, and violence is the goal.

[Victoribus Spolia]

where spreading hate, fear, and violence is the goal.

This seems a little ambiguous, so what would be a legal statement as to what is considered spreading hate? What is "hate?" Malevolent intent?

[Godstud]

I'm just going by what we see as limitations to freedom of speech in Canada. You don't have the freedom to cause harm to others with your speech.