This is my feeling, either we have free speech or we don't.
Perhaps the definition of 'speech' needs to be clarified, 'speech' refers to any form of communication, literal or otherwise. Hence, slogans, symbols, art, clothing, tattoos, hand gestures and internet avatars can be considered 'speech'.
You may find my expression of thoughts, concepts or feelings to be offensive, bizarre and poorly thought out. Nonetheless, I feel strongly that I should have the right to make that expression in a free society. Similarly, you should have the right to point out what an idiot I am for making said expression.
Assuming that you are not adversely affecting the rights and freedoms of others, I don't think you can make a compromise with freedom of speech. In fact, I would encourage others to make a stand for what they believe, right or wrong.
I may dislike what you have to say, and, guess what, I'm going to let you know about it. Don't think just because you have freedom of speech that you have a free pass. I'll light your ass up if I think you're a dolt.
Freedom's a double edged sword. In my opinion, it is dangerous to draw a line betweeen what speech is hateful, offensive, unpopular, or subversive, and, what speech is enlightening, poetic, scientific and funny. Speech is your vote. If you don't vote, don't complain. Make a statement, express an idea and be prepared to defend it. In some cases, be prepared to be proven wrong. Keep an open mind and don't be a sheep.
A lot of subliminal hate-mongering goes on in the name of free speech 😛 Tiny-minded cowards make "jokes" to hide their prejudices and fears behind...
Civilized societies understand the long-term social costs of hate-mongering and have devised prohibitary guidelines 😉 These are from NZ...
Prohibited grounds of discrimination
The prohibited grounds of discrimination are set out in section 21 of the Human Rights Act. They are:
age (from age 16 years)
colour
disability
employment status
ethical belief (lack of religious belief)
ethnic or national origins (includes nationality and citizenship)
family status (having dependents, not having dependents, being married to, or in a civil union or de facto relationship with, a particular person or being a relative of a particular person)
marital status (single, married, in a civil union or a de facto relationship, separated, a party to a marriage or civil union now dissolved, widowed)
political opinion (including having no political opinion)
race
religious belief
sex (includes childbirth and pregnancy)
sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual)
These grounds apply if they currently exist, have existed in the past, are suspected or are assumed to have existed by the person alleged to have discriminated or relate to a relative or associate of a person.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIn America, we have freedom of speech.
This is my feeling, either we have free speech or we don't.
Perhaps the definition of 'speech' needs to be clarified, 'speech' refers to any form of communication, literal or otherwise. Hence, slogans, symbols, art, clothing, tattoos, hand gestures and internet avatars can be considered 'speech'.
You may find my expression of thoughts, concep ...[text shortened]... cases, be prepared to be proven wrong. Keep an open mind and don't be a sheep.
At RHP, you don't have the freedom to type whatever you like. It's a privately owned chess site.
P-
Originally posted by Hand of HecateSo, were you a parent, I could go off a spew a stream of obscenities in front of your younglings and the only thing you could do is disagree?
This is my feeling, either we have free speech or we don't.
Perhaps the definition of 'speech' needs to be clarified, 'speech' refers to any form of communication, literal or otherwise. Hence, slogans, symbols, art, clothing, tattoos, hand gestures and internet avatars can be considered 'speech'.
You may find my expression of thoughts, concep ...[text shortened]... cases, be prepared to be proven wrong. Keep an open mind and don't be a sheep.
Based on your definition, I would be fully within my rights to do exactly that. Wouldn't I?
Originally posted by widgetfreedom of speech is not freedom of deeds. meaning, you're allowed to have an idiotic racist opinion, but you're not allowed to act on it. in most societies anyway...
A lot of subliminal hate-mongering goes on in the name of free speech 😛 Tiny-minded cowards make "jokes" to hide their prejudices and fears behind...
Civilized societies understand the long-term social costs of hate-mongering and have devised prohibitary guidelines 😉 These are from NZ...
[b]Prohibited grounds of discrimination
The prohibited ...[text shortened]... by the person alleged to have discriminated or relate to a relative or associate of a person.[/b]
Originally posted by darvlayTreat others as you would want to be treated: The Golden Rule
Well put. Locke would be proud.
The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation." To apply it, you'd imagine yourself in the exact place of the other person on the receiving end of the action. If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.
To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.
The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency - that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.
The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard to which different cultures could appeal in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.
It's really not so terribly complicated... Sure, you can think all the venomous rubbish that you want - as long as you're only thinking it, then you're only torturing your own feeble mind... But act cautiously and be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
Freedom is far from free, itself - it comes with numerous responsibilities. 😀
Originally posted by KnightWulfeyou can get kicked in the face even when you're within your rights.
So, were you a parent, I could go off a spew a stream of obscenities in front of your younglings and the only thing you could do is disagree?
Based on your definition, I would be fully within my rights to do exactly that. Wouldn't I?
Originally posted by widgetthat part made me think, isn't golden rule essentially the same as 'a tooth for tooth, an eye for eye'? the other speaks of love and kindness, and the other of revenge, but isn't the underlying principle still exactly the same?
...The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. ...