What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[YUPPIE]

Like by that I mean what's worse.

Say someone writes a feminist article and moderates all reader comments to his/her liking or, regardless of how hateful or cruel, leaves it be. Just an example.

[Freighter]

Not controlling it is worse than controlling it.

[Krigaren]

What's worse: People completely misunderstanding what rights people have under the constitution and what constitutes "freedom of speech".

[apeiron1234]

Lefties would want it controlled. Righties would want it not controlled.

[Eyliria]

Freedom of speech, all the way.
Fight ideas with ideas, not by silencing them.

There are already caveats to it like you can't incite violence, you can't yell fire in a theatre, etc...

You have to have lived a very sheltered life to think someone's mean words should silenced, or equating someone's words on a piece of paper to "literal violence".

[Sky High]

Lefties would want it controlled. Righties would want it not controlled.

Yeah unless it invloles "teh gays" or "moooslims".

[BuckSparkles]

Having the freedom to speak > Hurt feelings.

Don't like what somebody says? Argue against it or ignore it.

Don't silence it because you are too fragile to argue back.

[Knolan]

Freedom of speech > all, specially because the best way to let an idiot make a fool of himself is by letting him speak.

Also, controlling speech is a very dangerous path and we should definitely get away from it.

[Freighter]

Having the freedom to speak > Hurt feelings.

Don't like what somebody says? Argue against it or ignore it.

Don't silence it because you are too fragile to argue back.

Speech leads to actions which leads to conflicts.

[Independent voter]

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if people are crushed to death as they try to flee the building you will go to prison. So there is always that caveat.

Also you can be sued depending on what you say, there are libel laws. How would you like to have $300 from your paycheck go to the person you libeled every month?

So I guess what I'm saying is freedom of speech is fine but be sensible.

[BuckSparkles]

Speech leads to actions which leads to conflicts.

Speech doesn't always lead to actions.

But suppressing speech is a good way to piss people off.

[derpkitteh]

Lefties would want it controlled. Righties would want it not controlled.

no, people that don't want to be in a fucking orwellian fascist nightmare want it not controlled.

i'm left leaning on the majroity of everything i believe in, and that SHOULD include protecting freedom of speech.

so what's worse? controlling it obviously, it's the path to fascism and dictatorship.

[Freighter]

Speech doesn't always lead to actions.

But suppressing speech is a good way to piss people off.

So? We had major violent conflicts in Singapore due to speech in the past.

[Balrogix]

Freedom of speech.

We need that now more than ever.

People have this misconception that if you squash, censor, punish or de-platform those that voice their "wrong" opinions, their ideas are then going to disappear. They are wrong! They will just retreat and reorganize in the shadows, away from other ideas and opinions, festering and growing, radicalizing people even more.

Silencing dissent is just a way to feel good about oneself thinking you dealt with a problem but in actuality you just delayed confronting those ideas, which will be even more rooted into the ideologue's mind.

[Mistame]

Speech leads to actions which leads to conflicts.

Actions as a result of words are the responsibility of those doing the actions.

[BuckSparkles]

So? We had major violent conflicts in Singapore due to speech in the past.

Unfortunate but I still value freedom of speech over suppression of speech.

Suppression of speech can be dangerous, and subject to change on the ruling group.

[the game]

Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.

[Deleted]

Without freedom nothing has any value whatsoever.

[Freighter]

Actions as a result of words are the responsibility of those doing the actions.

So? Speech can incite people. Speech can provoke people on the receiving end. It's better to let the authorities handle them than let people start fighting.

[PC2]

Lefties would want it controlled. Righties would want it not controlled.

Authoritarians want it controlled. Which happens at the extremes on both sides.

There's a lot of fallacies going around, like silencing speech is a legit form of free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

Not controlling it is worse than controlling it.

Are you Chinese? You would like the governments philosophy there.