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

[Pengekaer]

Are you sure about that?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7771041.html claim that a Danish 42-year old was freed from that crime after the law was removed.

Obviously it could wrong, or it could be another case with another 42-year old, but then I wonder what makes 42-years old so prone to setting Qurans on fire.

Why thank you. I was aware that the blashphemy law was about to be axed, but I did not know the abolishment was in effect already. I expected it to be in effect not until newyear.

To answer your questions, the 42 year old guy wanted to protest against Islam. He burned the Quran while ISIS was rising fast and our government was welcoming ISIS terrorists back home (Washington Post did a major article on this) - can't say that's why the guy did it, but wouldn't surprise me. Denmarks dhimmie-attitude towards ISIS-terrorists rightfully caused some (verbal) commotion among us conservatives.

[spanishninja]

What is worse is dumbing down complex social issues to simplified one-liner questions.


Complete Freedom of Speech would mean we'd have to allow ISIS to express their propaganda and recruitment videos without anyone being allowed to censor it.

So what is worse? Allowing ISIS and extremist propaganda or controlling it?

You tell me.

You're making it seem like western society is powerless to ISIS expressing their propaganda, rather than using its own means of communication to logically and publicly condemn radical beliefs (of ISIS or any radical group). Given that these groups are so crazy and well, radical, there should be no reason to think that a just mainstream society cannot convince youth to avoid such radicalism.

The obvious question of course is: IS mainstream society just and rational in the way it communicates its rhetoric? Judging by the way it so easily resorts to thought and speech-policing, that part is arguable.

In a functioning society, harmful ideas should be allowed to be defeated in debate. It's the socratic method of learning.

[Pengekaer]

Complete Freedom of Speech would mean we'd have to allow ISIS to express their propaganda and recruitment videos without anyone being allowed to censor it.

So what is worse? Allowing ISIS and extremist propaganda or controlling it?

You tell me.

Well, no, because ISIS core value, and final goal, is to kill all the kuffar and that would be in violation of the citizen's right to live. That is why even the US has a law against incitement to violence and threats. Because a state needs that to ensure security for its citizens. This has nothing to do with speech-control though. That is just the bare necessity to even have a civilization.
I know some people don't see the shades of... grey ;-)

[Mistame]

What is worse is dumbing down complex social issues to simplified one-liner questions.

<snip>

Stupid analogy aside, the point that people seem to be missing is that the limitation of a given right is the rights of others. The reason that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater are exceptions to "free speech" is because they directly affect the rights of others. The same goes for libel, threats, etc.

As far as the ISIS analogy, that's not even remotely how "free speech" works.

[Elim Garak]

It is impossible to control freedom of speech

[Sinyc]

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.

Controlling freedom is speech is worse.

Yes people are going to have shitty ideas/opinions. That is why those same people need to be heard and then exposed via debate/knowledge transfer to break that way of thinking.

Stifling the ability for someone to expose themselves as a piece of **** only slows down the destruction of that ideology.

[Volardelis]

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

Not true at all. I mean, just look at the baby in chief who labels anything that puts him in a bad light, even when 100% true, as fake news. Therefore undermining the free press

[Foosha]

Not true at all. I mean, just look at the baby in chief who labels anything that puts him in a bad light, even when 100% true, as fake news. Therefore undermining the free press

"Free press"

You dont really believe that do you? Every news organization is not "free". It's controlled by a select few who can skew anything anyway they want. CNN, Fox, MSNBC and NBC...all do it, because the actual news is second in ratings to talk shows about the "news" or blogs and opinion pieces. People want to either be greatly offended, or succumb to groupthink never before imagined, there is no middle of the road "free press" anymore

[Volardelis]

"Free press"

You dont really believe that do you? Every news organization is not "free". It's controlled by a select few who can skew anything anyway they want. CNN, Fox, MSNBC and NBC...all do it, because the actual news is second in ratings to talk shows about the "news" or blogs and opinion pieces. People want to either be greatly offended, or succumb to groupthink never before imagined, there is no middle of the road "free press" anymore

Free press means they are not controlled by the government.

[Niroshi]

Governments should have no control over the freedom of their populations to speak their minds and share their ideas.

Private entities like web sites on the other hand absolutely should have that right. So basically the same as it's been for ages.

[Teleros]

Like by that I mean what's worse.

If you don't let people you disagree with speak, their only recourse is to violence. As in actual violence, with fists and guns and bombs and stuff.

Better to let them speak, frankly.

And if that's not convincing, just remember that your side may not always be the ones with the power of censorship. If it's okay for you to censor me, then why is it wrong for me to censor you? To give just one example plucked out of thin air*, if it's okay for the local government to censor the Unite the Right rally by declaring it an unlawful assembly after a judge specifically gave them the right to hold the rally, maybe it'd be fair in return for the God-Emperor to replace CNN with Breitbart TV ...

*Not really

[Theinquisition]

You either have freedom of speech or you don't. Trying to control freedom of speech is morally wrong as far as im concerned, and if the only way you can combat an ideal is to use the government to stifle it, then you're argument against it must be pretty weak.

[downnola]

The strongest defense of freedom of expression I've read:

TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

If you stifle a person or group from speaking out or expressing their ideas, what you really want is violence. Without dialog, you leave yourself no choice but to get physical. You can't silence hate into non-existence; engage it head on and defeat it with reason and by example.

[Stormdash]

censorship is the resort of cowards, it is the greater evil and it ain't close.

[Theinquisition]

The strongest defense of freedom of expression I've read:



If you stifle a person or group from speaking out or expressing their ideas, what you really want is violence. Without dialog, you leave yourself no choice but to get physical. You can't silence hate into non-existence; engage it head and on defeat it with reason and by example.

Very good post right here

[spanishninja]

I don't think you can counter radicalism or conservatism with open debate and logic, tbh.

Maybe you can, but when I look at cases such as environmentalism, tobacco/smoking, cannabis and middle america's christianity it seems like those are processes that require many decades or lifetimes to take any noticeable effect. And with the advance of technology and how that affects society happening faster and faster, there might not be any room or benefit to be held down by the stubbornness of conservative communities.

First, I would argue that it's not necessary impossible, but just that we haven't tried hard enough. In fact, several prominent alt right speakers (Ben Shapiro, Milo, etc) would argue that they are operating on the platform of logic, through the desire to harness free speech for debate. How would you respond to that?

Also, if what you say is true, how do you suggest deradicalizing youth who succumbed to extreme political views, or preventing youth from becoming radicalized? I know that logic doesn't always work well with young people, but what works even worse is saying "you can't have these views and that's that". In my opinion there has to be a means to have conversation between ideologies.

[f3llyn]

Not controlling it is worse than controlling it.

If you control speech then it's not freedom of speech is it?

I'm sure this will come as a shock but words don't actually have any power over you unless you let them.

I know. That realization blew me away too.

[Mister Cheese]

Governments should have no control over the freedom of their populations to speak their minds and share their ideas.

Private entities like web sites on the other hand absolutely should have that right. So basically the same as it's been for ages.

Private entities have already poisoned the well by having lobbyists in the government. This point is moot. Facebook and Google are monopolies. And they've been proven to be censoring certain opinions they don't want shared on their websites. And they don't have any real competitors.

[Haven]

Claiming you have freedom of speech while at the same time branding and stigmatizing all those who disagree with you.

[The5thVegetable]

To my knowledge, the reason this question can be asked in the first place is because so many in our current generation are too obsessed with hate and prejudice to really see that there are more important issues to deal with. Freedom of speech is being put in a bad light, and not because it's inherently bad, but because some people are trying to wage a war against discrimination- a war that is doing nothing but breeding anger and hatred that in no way helps the situation.

Of course, freedom of speech is a delicate topic. And people really ought not to use it as an excuse to shit on people. Rather, I think it should be focused into constructive criticism and working towards mutual understanding. That said, humanity has more than proven that it loves hating and destroying itself, so it's not like that's gonna happen anytime soon.