I wonder what outrage i would cause if me and a few friends started doing the same thing at anything we don't agree with?
I wonder what outrage i would cause if me and a few friends started doing the same thing at anything we don't agree with?
There is the sad paradox of a world which is more and more sensitive about being politically correct, almost to the point of ridicule, yet does not wish to acknowledge or to respect believers’ faith in God
Shouting is not an opinion.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay Endus, as the representative of the great state of Sweden, that apparently invented free speech, since its only a legal thing, and we were the first with the law (1766, So bye bye Yanks) - Sama gets to take it from here.
er... what "violence"?
Formerly known as Arafal
It's exactly as much an opinion as anything else. What you're doing, here, is explicitly trying to determine what speech is "good" and which speed you can discard and choose to not protect, because you don't think it's worth protecting.
That's pretty much diametrically opposed to the spirit of free speech.
And your entire argument is about suppressing/eliminating certain ideas that you don't like, and label as "noise" in the effort to so suppress them.
You don't get to determine what speech is "valid" and what isn't. That's not how free speech works. Everyone's speech is of equal "value".
It clearly doesn't, since your entire position here is based on denying/removing certain speech.
No, those aren't protected because they are threats to public safety. Not because they're speech that we don't like.We ban threatening people because threats intimidate people into silence, banning threats controls other peoples speech to a small degree but the net result is a greater ability to speak for everybody.
They are still forms of speech, just ones we as a society have decided do far more harm then good.
- - - Updated - - -
it has nothing to do with the fact i don't like what they are saying, it has to do with the fact they are saying it so loudly and being so INTENTIONALLY disruptive that everyone else cant realistically say anything.
- - - Updated - - -
restricting it in a small way in order to boost it in a much larger and more important aspect. i mean which is a better situation for society and everyone involved? Person A B and C all able to say what they want and anyone who wants to listen can, OR everyone has to listen to C because hes so loud no one else can be heard over him?
- - - Updated - - -
i mean your supporting a position where they only person able to speak in public is the one able to make the most noise
On the very narrow grounds of being a threat to public safety. Nothing of the sort is true for the speech you want to have silenced. It's just speech you don't agree with, personally.
Which boils down to "you don't like it". None of this is a valid reason to attack free speech expression.it has nothing to do with the fact i don't like what they are saying, it has to do with the fact they are saying it so loudly and being so INTENTIONALLY disruptive that everyone else cant realistically say anything.
Your entire argument here is that somehow, you're "improving" free speech by saying that rather than letting A, B, and C all speak their minds, only A and B should be able to.restricting it in a small way in order to boost it in a much larger and more important aspect. i mean which is a better situation for society and everyone involved? Person A B and C all able to say what they want and anyone who wants to listen can, OR everyone has to listen to C because hes so loud no one else can be heard over him?
Person C being louder does not restrict Persons A and B's capacity to speak. You keep falsely insisting that it does.
- - - Updated - - -
No, I'm supporting a position where EVERYONE gets to speak, and we don't silence people just because we don't like what they have to say.
Which is exactly what your position involves.
If C is so loud no one can hear A or B then A or B speech is meaningless, speech only has purpose if it has the capacity to be heard. Do you honestly think a man locked in a soundproof room right to speech has any practical use? in my situation C can still say whatever they want jsut not in a way that stop A or B from also being heard.
This is both fundamentally incorrect (speech's value as a right is independent of whether it's heard), and is predicated on banning speech you don't like.
A and B are free to speak up, or speak elsewhere. Their rights are not negated by someone else expressing theirs.
This happens all the time. Prisoners are denied communications. They still have free speech rights, even if there's no one around to communicate with. Those rights have not been restricted.Do you honestly think a man locked in a soundproof room right to speech has any practical use?
Your argument is a small step away from banning any contradictory opinions because they make your "correct" opinion less likely to be heard. It's a VERY fine line between the two, and it's so fine because you're so far outside what free speech, as a right, entails.
Which is that EVERYONE's speech has value, and they should be allowed to speak freely. Not "within these arbitrary restrictions we've created to manage how speech is conducted". That's directly against the principle of free speech.
What next, deny people the right to use billboards because it's "unfair" for those who can't afford them? Deny political signs on lawns because not everyone has a lawn? Your entire argument is about selecting speech you don't like, and banning it. That's not "free speech".