Freedom of Speech limits the arguments of those who propagate extremes, it doesn’t pr

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
Last night there was a thread on this forum where a number of posters were calling for it to be taken down, citing that it expressed extreme views. Personally I didn’t not like the views expressed by the OP of the thread, I did make my case against these views known, as did many other posters.

However I do believe that those who called for removal of the thread were wrong, not in their criticism of its viewpoint, but in their censorship of debate on the issue it raised. I would also like to complement the forum moderators for not adhering to this call.

My argument is that limiting free speech on any topic does not serve the purpose of which it is intended, in other words to suppress viewpoints which affect fundamental human rights by expressing extreme views.

I would argue that it is only by public informed debate that extreme views on any issue can be routed from the mindset of individuals who adhere to them; by suppressing debate on extreme views you allow those who express them to do so in private, free from the criticism of those best positioned to refute their arguments.

Therefore I would suggest that the right to Free Speech should be enshrined in European and Irish Law and that any laws which prohibit Free Speech should be struck from the law books.
 


Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
Freedom of Speech limits the arguments of those who propagate extremes, it doesn’t promote them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last night there was a thread on this forum where a number of posters were calling for it to be taken down, citing that it expressed extreme views. Personally I didn’t not like the views expressed by the OP of the thread, I did make my case against these views known, as did many other posters.

However I do believe that those who called for removal of the thread were wrong, not in their criticism of its viewpoint, but in their censorship of debate on the issue it raised. I would also like to complement the forum moderators for not adhering to this call.

My argument is that limiting free speech on any topic does not serve the purpose of which it is intended, in other words to suppress viewpoints which affect fundamental human rights by expressing extreme views.

I would argue that it is only by public informed debate that extreme views on any issue can be routed from the mindset of individuals who adhere to them; by suppressing debate on extreme views you allow those who express them to do so in private, free from the criticism of those best positioned to refute their arguments.

Therefore I would suggest that the right to Free Speech should be enshrined in European and Irish Law and that any laws which prohibit Free Speech should be struck from the law books.
__________________
 

Didimus

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,215
There are plenty of threads on this forum which mods decide need to be shoved aside for various reasons. They are not censored but taken of the front page they do don't as it were lower the tone of the neighbourhood. These racist threads should be treated the same.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
There are plenty of threads on this forum which mods decide need to be shoved aside for various reasons. They are not censored but taken of the front page they do don't as it were lower the tone of the neighbourhood. These racist threads should be treated the same.
I would argue otherwise. As someone who is firmly in the anti-racist camp, I believe that it is only by debating the issues with them that you can prove their argument to be wrong. By choosing to ignore them you only allow them to put forward theories in private which can be easily refuted publically.
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
Therefore I would suggest that the right to Free Speech should be enshrined in European and Irish Law and that any laws which prohibit Free Speech should be struck from the law books.
Hear hear! Censorship sucks.

Some people were saying that the reason the racist thread should have been censored is because this forum has censored loads of other topics. If that's true it just makes the forum suck, it doesn't mean we should be trying to get them to censor other stuff.
 

setanta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
642
Therefore I would suggest that the right to Free Speech should be enshrined in European and Irish Law and that any laws which prohibit Free Speech should be struck from the law books.
There are already laws guaranteeing freedom of speech in both European and Irish legislaton and treaties. In Ireland, though, we have the shameful legislation on blasphemy which is completely unsupportable from any democratic viewpoint.

There are, however, restrictions on freedom of speech which are supportable and necessary in a functioning democracy, e.g. libel (although Irish law here also needs serious pruning), fraud, perjury and incitement to (a) criminal offences, and (b) hatred (which leads to further criminal offences). Otherwise, it's pretty open to us to say and publish what we will.
 

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,449
There are plenty of threads on this forum which mods decide need to be shoved aside for various reasons. They are not censored but taken of the front page they do don't as it were lower the tone of the neighbourhood. These racist threads should be treated the same.
yeah but who's idea of racism?
Some people would call you a racist for saying immigrants should have to pass an aptitude test to get citizenship...other people would agree with a test.
Some people would call you racist if you disagreed with something that the Israeli government has done that affects Palistinians etc etc
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
restrictions on freedom of speech
You can't have restrictions on freedom of speech. If you restrict something it isn't free. Down with Doublethink and Big Brother!
 

kerdasi amaq

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
4,643
There are a lot of idiots out there, who are incapable of seeing that their beliefs, if acted on, will turn this country into a third world hellhole, something similar to Zimbabwe.

Keep Africans African!
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400
There are a lot of idiots out there, who are incapable of seeing that their beliefs, if acted on, will turn this country into a third world hellhole, something similar to Zimbabwe.

Keep Africans African!
How is that connected to the OP?
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
There are a lot of idiots out there, who are incapable of seeing that their beliefs, if acted on, will turn this country into a third world hellhole, something similar to Zimbabwe.

Keep Africans African!
Remember this WAS a third world hell hole something similar to Zimbabwe. We can clearly get it that way without any help whatsoever from Africans. Is it because we're genetically inferior do you reckon?
 

setanta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
642
You can't have restrictions on freedom of speech. If you restrict something it isn't free. Down with Doublethink and Big Brother!
Down with pedantry and feeble "1984" references also!

Freedom is not a binary concept, it's a philosophical notion with multiple meanings depending on who you talk to. Hence, my definition of "freedom" is going to be different from that of an ocoonassa, whatever that is when it's at home!
 

Cato

Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
20,400

Didimus

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,215
yeah but who's idea of racism?
Some people would call you a racist for saying immigrants should have to pass an aptitude test to get citizenship...other people would agree with a test.
Some people would call you racist if you disagreed with something that the Israeli government has done that affects Palistinians etc etc
There may be a dispute as to what is not racist, but a thread that links a study of a section of the black community in the USA that identified sociological factors as central to its findings , to all Africans is most definitely racist.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
There may be a dispute as to what is not racist, but a thread that links a study of a section of the black community in the USA that identified sociological factors as central to its findings , to all Africans is most definitely racist.
I am not going to dispute that with you. However it is better to have this debated and refuted publically than to have it propagated privately. In the absence of public debate to dispute it you allow it to hold its validity when promoted privately.
 

ocoonassa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
6,124
Down with pedantry and feeble "1984" references also!
No seriously, it's doublethink.

to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
Freedom is not a binary concept, it's a philosophical notion with multiple meanings depending on who you talk to. Hence, my definition of "freedom" is going to be different from that of an ocoonassa, whatever that is when it's at home!
Yes clearly my definition involves the quality of it being unrestricted whereas yours involves having restrictions placed upon it. Ah well, freedom is slavery, as they say :)

If you don't know Bonaparte O'Coonassa you're missing a treat!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_B%C3%A9al_Bocht"]An Béal Bocht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 

Didimus

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2007
Messages
6,215
I am not going to dispute that with you. However it is better to have this debated and refuted publically than to have it propagated privately. In the absence of public debate to dispute it you allow it to hold its validity when promoted privately.
My suggestion was the debate should be moved from the front page as other threads have been.
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
My suggestion was the debate should be moved from the front page as other threads have been.
I don't agree, in fairness to the mods most debates that are moved off the front page or to the zoo are not revelant in a widespread way in an Irish political context. Also many threads that do get moved lack a decent opinion piece in the original post.

I would argue that racist issues are of concern to the widespread electorate right now and should be discussed in an open and frank manner so that the extream views do not prevail.
 

setanta

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
642
Yes clearly my definition involves the quality of it being unrestricted whereas yours involves having restrictions placed upon it. Ah well, freedom is slavery, as they say :)
OK, I'll bite. So, do you think that a society that follows your definition of "Freedom of Speech" should have no laws against defamation, fraud or perjury then?
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,468
OK, I'll bite. So, do you think that a society that follows your definition of "Freedom of Speech" should have no laws against defamation, fraud or perjury then?
I think you are confusing Freedom of Speech which is the right to express an opinion with Speech that Instigates an Action.

1) Perjury - this is the act of lying under oath, in that this is the act of misrepresenting facts as opposed to the expression of an opinion.

2) Defamation - defamation is the use of words that lead to an action, even though it be a non physical one, of destroying the personal character of another person. This act is usually carried out with the intention of malice and is not the expression of an opinion.

3) Fraud - fraud is a means usually but not always of relieving people illegally of their lawful property. Fraud is not an expression of an opinion but a means to achieving a clear unlawful objective.

Therefore I would argue that the above three instances have nothing to do with freedom of speech
 


New Threads

Top