Freedom of speech (was:this is why i hate ethics class)

[sidebottom]

Now we're on the same page and you have definitely earned my respect . I wish you the best!

[comperr]

There should be limitations on everything, including free speech, don't you agree? Think about the classic example of someone yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.

This isn't speech but rather an action that is started by speech. The harm isn't the speech but the problems associated with crowded theaters.

Wouldn't you want to be protected from offensive speech or expression?

Not by the government

What about when your "rights" to free speech impinge on an other's right to privacy or safety?

When?

What about offensive hate speech?

[/quote]
Should remain legal.

[blackwolf77]

If I might... Your teacher definately put that question out there to watch your class fail but as many people pointed out, it wasnt how you felt. The purpose of that questionw as to view it objectively. Similar to free speech the way that you defend it is the same way groups like the nazis and KKK defend their rights. Subjectively your right of course but as you start to look at the big picture and detach yourself you realize that there has to be limits.
BTW if your teacher saw the debate you sparked he/she would probably give you the points back

[comperr]

If I might... Your teacher definately put that question out there to watch your class fail but as many people pointed out, it wasnt how you felt. The purpose of that questionw as to view it objectively. Similar to free speech the way that you defend it is the same way groups like the nazis and KKK defend their rights. Subjectively your right of course but as you start to look at the big picture and detach yourself you realize that there has to be limits.
BTW if your teacher saw the debate you sparked he/she would probably give you the points back

This is subjective.
It is my opinion (as well as many others) that there doesn't have to be limits.
Nazis and KKK should be allowed to express their views.
Jews and Blacks should be allowed to express their views.

[blackwolf77]

exactly I agree but the very essence of expressions demands that we have limitations. What I mean by that is that by making a language we are limiting ourselves. When schools ban words and tshirts we limit our selves. Hell, we limit our selves so much that we created words that we are not supposed to say. No one hsould be limited in their right to free speech but it is an integral part of our society

[anonHacker]

If I might... Your teacher definately put that question out there to watch your class fail but as many people pointed out, it wasnt how you felt. The purpose of that questionw as to view it objectively. Similar to free speech the way that you defend it is the same way groups like the nazis and KKK defend their rights. Subjectively your right of course but as you start to look at the big picture and detach yourself you realize that there has to be limits.
BTW if your teacher saw the debate you sparked he/she would probably give you the points back

This is subjective.
It is my opinion (as well as many others) that there doesn't have to be limits.
Nazis and KKK should be allowed to express there views.
Jews and Blacks should be allowed to express there views.

And I should be allowed to express my view that comperr is fucking up his grammar and should've written "their" and not "there."

At any rate:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~Noam Chomsky

[comperr]

And I should be allowed to express my view that comperr is fucking up his grammar and should've written "their" and not "there."

And I express my power as admin to edit my own post

[sidebottom]

comperr, are you saying you believe in the right to ABSOLUTE free speech? The unconditional right to say (or express) whatever, whenever?

[comperr]

Free /speech/ yes.
When speech results in an action or is an action itself (a payment to kill someone or shouting fire in a crowded theater) then it could be limited based on other grounds.
Commercial speech is also different: Then you have issues of false advertisement and such.
But in general I would assume speech is allowed unless you could show that someone will get harmed as a direct result of it.

[Dredric1]

sidebottom wrote:
There should be limitations on everything, including free speech, don't you agree? Think about the classic example of someone yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. Wouldn't you want to be protected from offensive speech or expression? What about when your "rights" to free speech impinge on an other's right to privacy or safety? What about offensive hate speech?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't read the entire Ethics discussion, but the above paragraph stood out. I personally don't believe that freedom of speech should be regulated to any degree. If what a person says caused others to be injured (Theater example) they can be prosecuted on that basis. If a person verbally attacks someone because of their race and this incites others to physically attack the people of that particular race, then the person who incited the actions can be prosecuted on that basis. The regulation of freedom of speech isn't frightening only because few of us have ever experienced it. Research your American history and you will find that freedom of speech has been regulated. The particular incident that I know of was during John Adams presidency. Many people, including Thomas Jefferson, were afraid to speak out against wrongs perpetrated in the government. This is simply wrong, no one should be afraid to speak out against what they believe is wrong. If freedom of speech were to be regulated there would be many problems. Unless you actually reccord what a person said, the case against them is circumstantial, and any lawyer will tell you, circumstantial evidence is very difficult to work with.