Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am not sure what you mean by Human dignity, but you need to be able to talk freely about anything before you can be able to get any rights. So I say Freedom of speech it a biggie. If it's a chicken or egg question I would vote Speech would come first. All other rights would stem from that. But if you are tortured and killed for saying ouch then I suppose freedom of speech wouldn't be very useful. In that case Human Dignity would need to come first. 😳
Hmm? I say aye, with reservations.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI disagree with the premise that free speech is required before any kind of rights can be expected. Surely rights should be more a matter of morals,intrinsic to the society. Free speech is perhaps closer to a priviledge than a right?
I am not sure what you mean by Human dignity, but you need to be able to talk freely about anything before you can be able to get any rights. So I say Freedom of speech it a biggie. If it's a chicken or egg question I would vote Speech would come first. All other rights would stem from that. But if you are tortured and killed for saying ouch then I sup ...[text shortened]... m of speech wouldn't be very useful. In that case Human Dignity would need to come first. 😳
Originally posted by RedmikeWe don't have unrestricted free speech in Britain (anti-incitement laws, defamation, etc.)
Should freedom of speech be absolute?
Should people who believe it is ok for adults to have sex with children have freedom to put this view forward?
Should racists?
Should the mentally ill?
Originally posted by StarrmanFreedom to speak ones mind is what separates us from Animals. I can agree that words can be dangerous. You wouldn't want to stand in a theater and yell fire while standing in the doorway. There are always limits. If you speak untruthful words that causes someone else great harm. Or if you agree to in order to comply with some legal restrictions then yes those limits would apply. For instance this very web site restricts certain speech. But if you go to court. One would hope they have a right to defend themselves. Because if you have no freedom to speak how can you defend yourself. What I am saying is if you can't Speak out in public against your government or other governments and be able to peacefully assemble to discuss how the public feels about issues then how can there ever be any changes? There won't be. And that is wrong if the majority demand. It is called democracy. I am for it. So we probably both agree and disagree.
I disagree with the premise that free speech is required before any kind of rights can be expected. Surely rights should be more a matter of morals,intrinsic to the society. Free speech is perhaps closer to a priviledge than a right?
Originally posted by RedmikeI don't see what it would hurt. The majority of sane people would disagree with them give them the one finger salute move on to something more important. You would be surprised of how well people self police.
Should freedom of speech be absolute?
Should people who believe it is ok for adults to have sex with children have freedom to put this view forward?
Should racists?
Should the mentally ill?
Originally posted by cashthetrashWell, in the cases I gave, it would hurt:
I don't see what it would hurt. The majority of sane people would disagree with them give them the one finger salute move on to something more important. You would be surprised of how well people self police.
the children who might be abused because of the statements made in favour of having sex with children;
the people who might be subject to abuse because a racist says they are inferior and should be deported/harrassed/beaten;
the mentally ill person themselves, who says things in the throes of their illness which subsequently cause them harm and distress.
So you think it is ok for someone, say, to give out leaflets advocating adults having sex with pre-school children?
Originally posted by cashthetrashWell, I again disagree that free speech is what seperates us from animals, the rights we have in society, it seems to me are more important in such a definition. Now free speech may be one such right, but I think that it falls within the boundaries of our human rights rather than as a precursor as you seem to be suggesting. We're getting a bit far from the case of dignity though. As to that, well, human dignity to my mind is a general moral principle of human society, to have dignity and to uphold the dignity of others should progenerate a society in which free speech can exist. To remove that dignity is to create a society in which free speech is hampered, so I suppose the two are bound together, though dignity is the more important as t would seem to allow free speech to exist.
Freedom to speak ones mind is what separates us from Animals. I can agree that words can be dangerous. You wouldn't want to stand in a theater and yell fire while standing in the doorway. There are always limits. If you speak untruthful words that causes someone else great harm. Or if you agree to in order to comply with some legal restrictions then yes ...[text shortened]... majority demand. It is called democracy. I am for it. So we probably both agree and disagree.
Originally posted by RedmikeWell if you have laws prohibiting sex with children which every government should then any reasonable citizen would reject such behavior. So any such speech would be rejected by the mass of the people and seen as the abuse that it is. People are not as ignorant as you might think. And most people would walk away and just protect and teach their children what is right and what is wrong.
Well, in the cases I gave, it would hurt:
the children who might be abused because of the statements made in favour of having sex with children;
the people who might be subject to abuse because a racist says they are inferior and should be deported/harrassed/beaten;
the mentally ill person themselves, who says things in the throes of their illness w ...[text shortened]... ok for someone, say, to give out leaflets advocating adults having sex with pre-school children?
Most adults have thick skins and can take some abuse. Most just laugh it off. You don't need to put someone in jail for a few words. But you make laws prohibiting violence. The majority of people will rise up and not except racism if given the chance. It is a struggle but people do learn .
As for the mentally ill. Being ill should not cause them to lose rights. But instead give them more protections. Restricting them would only cause greater illness.