cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 there is not free speech and then hate speech there is either free speech or censorship george orwell was a prophet, yet even he did not know how awful we would become Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted October 10, 2015 Administrators Share Posted October 10, 2015 Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You are free to say whatever you want, but if what you say incites violence or pisses people off, there may be consequences as a result of it. That's not censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You are free to say whatever you want, but if what you say incites violence or pisses people off, there may be consequences as a result of it. That's not censorship. no, but for someone in a position of power to step in and say "no, you cant say that because i feel it is hateful", this is censorship the idea of free speech rests on the fact that through the presentation of conflicting ideas the truth will emerge if words are silenced the power of manipulation of people and thought lies in the hands of those who hold power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted October 10, 2015 Administrators Share Posted October 10, 2015 no, but for someone in a position of power to step in and say "no, you cant say that because i feel it is hateful", this is censorship the idea of free speech rests on the fact that through the presentation of conflicting ideas the truth will emerge if words are silenced the power of manipulation of people and thought lies in the hands of those who hold power Give a real-world example, cause idk what situation you're talking about here. Who is being silenced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LooseCannonSandvich Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Free Speech doesn't give you the right to be an asshole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(ง ͠° ͟ل ͡°)ง Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 no, but for someone in a position of power to step in and say "no, you cant say that because i feel it is hateful", this is censorship the idea of free speech rests on the fact that through the presentation of conflicting ideas the truth will emerge if words are silenced the power of manipulation of people and thought lies in the hands of those who hold power I don't get your point, except that people with power have power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77777777777777777777777777 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Claiming there is no hate speech is equal to saying freedom has absolutely no limits Had we lived by these principles, we'd still be living in caves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Claiming there is no hate speech is equal to saying freedom has absolutely no limits Had we lived by these principles, we'd still be living in caves false equivalency freedom of speech by definition covers all speech. to step in and censor undesirable words is censorship the point im trying to make is that people are lying to you when they say "i support free speech, but..." just embrace that you support orwellian censorship, newspeak and the like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted October 10, 2015 Administrators Share Posted October 10, 2015 You still haven't given any examples of people being silenced. Experiencing consequences for saying shitty things is not censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobsplosion Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Not Hate Speech, but would you be totally okay with people in a crowded movie theater shouting that there was a fire and everyone had to evac? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♛ AlphaOmega ♛ Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Basic elementary mentality: freedom = do anything without borders. No. There are limits. You cannot just yell things and call it free speech. With each freedom, there are responsibilities. By being given the freedom of speech, it is the populace's responsibility to not incite violence or hatred. Yelling that obama is a dirty politician who is only out for himself is free speech and perfectly fine. Yelling that obama is a dirty muslim who wants to work with isis to kill christians is really stupid but is probably not going to be censored. Yelling to rise againdt obama and bomb congress or kill other muslims...THATS hatred and violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFFIRMATIVE Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 For posting stuff like these not recent ago: I'm having trouble taking you seriously as a fellow squirrel. If you want to increase your post count try to post somewhere less controversial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77777777777777777777777777 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 false equivalency freedom of speech by definition covers all speech. to step in and censor undesirable words is censorship the point im trying to make is that people are lying to you when they say "i support free speech, but..." just embrace that you support orwellian censorship, newspeak and the like There's a difference between the things people don't want to hear and the things you just can't say else you're by social standards bigoted/racist/intolerant You're completely ignoring the context of your argument's premise. It'd be correct if there were no social norms and standards that define what you can and what you can't say 'Course nobody actually supports free speech, humans are inherent hypocrites. I don't know where you're getting your pre-assumptions from, but I suggest you tone the mr.I-know-everything-but-speak-out-of-my-ass thing down a little. My point of view is objective because it neither supports nor reject your point or its antithesis-- all I've said was that we, as a social species would never have evolved had we not had standards and principles You seem not to understand that human beings are so fucked up they cannot live in a world of truth. If you want to keep shutting your ears and focusing on black and white truths, that's fine, but don't flat out put words in other people's mouths and ignore their point, issuing generalizations based off ignorance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Python. Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Free Speech doesn't give you the right to be an asshole That's exactly what it does actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Free speech is your right to say whatever you want, but that does not mean you avoid the consequences of what you have said. Eg: You have the right to walk up to an airport and yell out that you have a bomb and you're going to blow everyone up, no one can take your rights away from you and you can do that now. But it doesnt mean you wont be arrested on the spot... Freedom of speech =/= avoidance of the responsibility and consequences of what you have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
get miked m8 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 https://xkcd.com/1357/sums up every counter to this guys negligence there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVenomWith1n Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Free Speech doesn't give you the right to be an asshole actually it kinda does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Freedom Without Restraint Is Anarchy 'nuf said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Give a real-world example, cause idk what situation you're talking about here. Who is being silenced? What comes to mind for me are all the SJWs that will so easily throw out words like racist and sexist at people that they disagree with, this in turn causes many to fear speaking out against them with the chance that they'll have they reputation tainted by people who will doxx those they disagree with. For a specific example there's Anita Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn as they talked at the UN: Their use of the words 'harassment' and 'abuse', also their pushing of the new term 'cyberviolence', are all referring to not only those that actually insult them but also those that make YouTube videos about them disagreeing with the messages they are spreading. Their call to censor these people is a serious concern but it's at least reassuring to see that most are treating their UN speeches with the kind of attention they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted October 25, 2015 Administrators Share Posted October 25, 2015 Making a youtube video saying "Anita whateverhernameis is wrong about this and here's why..." is not harassment and shouldn't be censored, but making videos calling her a stupid bitch, sending her hatemail including rape and death threats, etc, is. You need a more nuanced perspective here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 What comes to mind for me are all the SJWs that will so easily throw out words like racist and sexist at people that they disagree with, this in turn causes many to fear speaking out against them with the chance that they'll have they reputation tainted by people who will doxx those they disagree with. For a specific example there's Anita Sarkessian and Zoe Quinn as they talked at the UN: Their use of the words 'harassment' and 'abuse', also their pushing of the new term 'cyberviolence', are all referring to not only those that actually insult them but also those that make YouTube videos about them disagreeing with the messages they are spreading. Their call to censor these people is a serious concern but it's at least reassuring to see that most are treating their UN speeches with the kind of attention they deserve. they aren't silencing critics or in any way suppressing freedom of speech as a right: they're asking for help in dealing with continuous harrassment, abuse, death threats, slander, misrepresentation, etc ad nauseam; in complete accordance with the terms of service that apply to the websites that are used to target these things at them. you have the right to free speech, this does not give you the "right" to use a platform in a way that the terms of service explicitly outlaw. in a more general field: sure, free speech isn't 100% free if hate speech is criminalised. the definition of hate speech, and the actual practice of law with regard to this issue, is something that needs to be monitored and checked. as of right now i have no issues with the law as it applies in my own country, to my knowledge. freedom is always negotiated and very rarely can you say you are truly free to do anything you wish in any field. that is how human societies work and self-preserve. in terms of orwellian thinking, would he be concerned that there are laws protecting against hate speech which apply in a very small number of cases and to an extremely limited and usually as far as i know odious group of people? or would he be more concerned. for example, about the situation of mass media outlets in the west? who owns the media, who defines the scope of acceptable variance in societal debate? raymond williams said (and i think noam chomsky has essentially ripped the idea straight out of williams) that most contemporary societies have a way of appearing not to have limits on acceptable points of view; but in reality that is because of careful maintenance of certain limits. anything within a narrow scope is at least permitted, thought and practice outside of this scope is extremely frowned upon. an example would be the current discourse surrounding austerity economics in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 If I could post a thought here: Freedom of speech exists to give people the freedom to express their opinion. For instance, one is free to say "Because of past experiences, I distrust african americans". But unawareness*/disability** aside, one can convey sentenments without rudeness. As such, I don't see why rudeness should be protected under free speech. *: a non-english speakers might not be aware that they shouldn't call them 'niggers' **: I'm thinking tourette syndrome or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 Making a youtube video saying "Anita whateverhernameis is wrong about this and here's why..." is not harassment and shouldn't be censored, but making videos calling her a stupid bitch, sending her hatemail including rape and death threats, etc, is. You need a more nuanced perspective here. they aren't silencing critics or in any way suppressing freedom of speech as a right: they're asking for help in dealing with continuous harrassment, abuse, death threats, slander, misrepresentation, etc ad nauseam; in complete accordance with the terms of service that apply to the websites that are used to target these things at them. you have the right to free speech, this does not give you the "right" to use a platform in a way that the terms of service explicitly outlaw. This isn't about actual harassers. Show me a YouTuber that still has their channel active after actually harassing these two people. I doubt you'd be able to find one. What this is about is silencing their critics. What they're including under harassment and abuse are people like thunderf00t and MundaneMatt who crticise Anita and Zoe's tactics. They don't want people to call them out on their lies, you don't see a problem with that? One could also argue that these two actually benefit from the threats they get. They're professional victims, constantly going on about people threatening them or saying they "suck" as Anita put it herself, but when they go on about this they make sure to put up their Patreon or donation link asking for support. Here's an article that covers the topic rather well: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ Here's another quote from Anita: We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? https://archive.is/wHti4#selection-2263.1-2263.312 So what is she suggesting? That people can't post videos criticising the things that she says? It seems that way. The people that make videos about her never encourage sending those kinds of tweets to her so how can they be called responsible? 'Defame' in this context just means 'criticise'. Pushing their agenda at the UN they don't only want to silence harassers but silence all those that don't agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Explosion-chan Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Our freedom of speech in America is not 100% free, and I think I can safely say that almost nobody would want 100% free speech. This just means freedom to express a peaceful opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 So what is she suggesting? That people can't post videos criticising the things that she says? It seems that way. Sorry, mate, but I'll have to disagree with you on that. With We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? It seems she's suggesting this (to quote wikipedia) Cyberbullying is an action of harming or harassing via information technology networks in a repeated and deliberate manner. According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them". There is no problem with a video that criticises someone. There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending hate tweets ... even if they are tweets to a person you disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.