Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 1:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

I don't believe so. For example, you should not show obscene material (a form of speech) to minors because the sexual elicited images/activities may damage the well being of those who are not mature enough.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:24:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:56:17 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

I don't believe so. For example, you should not show obscene material (a form of speech) to minors because the sexual elicited images/activities may damage the well being of those who are not mature enough.

Damage in what way?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:36:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 2:24:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:56:17 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

I don't believe so. For example, you should not show obscene material (a form of speech) to minors because the sexual elicited images/activities may damage the well being of those who are not mature enough.

Damage in what way?

Both physically and mentally.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:41:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

No.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:46:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ALMOST, but no.

The only exceptions would be cases of deception with the intent to infringe on others' rights--ie, fraud, unfounded libel/slander, etc.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:51:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 2:46:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
ALMOST, but no.

The only exceptions would be cases of deception with the intent to infringe on others' rights--ie, fraud, unfounded libel/slander, etc.

What I meant was more along the lines of should it be absolute?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:52:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

No. An example:

Someone who works for your bank gives all your payment details to someone who then uses them to rob you.

Another:

You are a teacher. A student starts telling people that you sexually abused them, even though you did not.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 2:58:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 2:51:53 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/28/2013 2:46:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
ALMOST, but no.

The only exceptions would be cases of deception with the intent to infringe on others' rights--ie, fraud, unfounded libel/slander, etc.

What I meant was more along the lines of should it be absolute?

Yes, in theory.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The following must be outlawed:

Fraud
Perjury
Slander/Libel
Neuro-Linguistic Programming trigger words
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:38:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
libel applies to freedom of press not speech. just wanted to throw that out there
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 3:38:02 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
libel applies to freedom of press not speech. just wanted to throw that out there

Incorrect. Libel and slander are subcategories of defamation, with the latter being only 'transitory' forms (speech, sign-language) and the former being 'lasting' (written word, pictures etc.).

http://dictionary.reference.com...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:04:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?"

No, you can't yell fire in a crowded room or risk prosecution. You can't say some words on television, although the list groes ever shorter with each passing year. There are numerous other examples.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 2:36:58 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 2:24:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:56:17 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

I don't believe so. For example, you should not show obscene material (a form of speech) to minors because the sexual elicited images/activities may damage the well being of those who are not mature enough.

Damage in what way?

Both physically and mentally.

Ok, I can see why you might say mental, though I disagree with it, but how on earth does it physically damage them?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 4:04:51 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?"

No, you can't yell fire in a crowded room or risk prosecution. You can't say some words on television, although the list groes ever shorter with each passing year. There are numerous other examples.

Well, no, you can say fire in a crowded room. But that's beside the point, he asked whether it should be, not if it is.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:52:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My belief is that no speech should be disallowed, but that inciting violence through speech should be punishable.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:04:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

The "marketplace of ideas" should always remain open and free, but when speech is libelous or slanderous (insomuch as it is baseless criticism/attack), presents an imminent threat to public safety (like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater), is obscene (child pornography, etc.) or threatens national security (disclosing state secrets) it cannot be said that such speech is worth protecting.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:05:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:51:28 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Also violent threats. Threatening someone should never be allowed under free speech

Threats of violence are not considered "speech" but assault by most jurisdictions in the United States.
Tsar of DDO
LogicalMaddog
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

No. It definitely depends on what a person says though.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:25:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it absolute? No. Should it be? Yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 6:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

No, it is not.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 7:36:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libel/Slander
Threats of Violence
Fraud
Legitimately dangerous speech on public property (fire in a crowded theater)

These are the only forms of speech which should be outlawed, in my opinion. In cases like child pornography it is the possession of something which necessitates outlawed action to produce which is the issue; I don't see how speech is involved.

I'm strongly against obscenity laws or censorship of any kind, including hate speech laws. I am, however, for hate crime laws, where if someone's speech shows that they committed or planned to commit a crime with the intention of intimidating a specific group they ought to face extra penalties.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 7:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 7:36:25 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Libel/Slander
Threats of Violence
Fraud
Legitimately dangerous speech on public property (fire in a crowded theater)

These are the only forms of speech which should be outlawed, in my opinion. In cases like child pornography it is the possession of something which necessitates outlawed action to produce which is the issue; I don't see how speech is involved.

I'm strongly against obscenity laws or censorship of any kind, including hate speech laws. I am, however, for hate crime laws, where if someone's speech shows that they committed or planned to commit a crime with the intention of intimidating a specific group they ought to face extra penalties.

It's one thing to use speech to establish action was pre-meditated, and another to use speech to indicate an ideology which correlates with circumstances (i.e. someone's racist speech means that later violence against a black person is a hate crime).

Once premeditation is established, I don't see why we should punish someone less just because they targeted an individual or community for non-ethnic reasons.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 7:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 7:45:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 5/28/2013 7:36:25 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Libel/Slander
Threats of Violence
Fraud
Legitimately dangerous speech on public property (fire in a crowded theater)

These are the only forms of speech which should be outlawed, in my opinion. In cases like child pornography it is the possession of something which necessitates outlawed action to produce which is the issue; I don't see how speech is involved.

I'm strongly against obscenity laws or censorship of any kind, including hate speech laws. I am, however, for hate crime laws, where if someone's speech shows that they committed or planned to commit a crime with the intention of intimidating a specific group they ought to face extra penalties.

It's one thing to use speech to establish action was pre-meditated, and another to use speech to indicate an ideology which correlates with circumstances (i.e. someone's racist speech means that later violence against a black person is a hate crime).

Once premeditation is established, I don't see why we should punish someone less just because they targeted an individual or community for non-ethnic reasons.

Because while killing or assaulting a person is horrible, and has negative societal ramifications, killing or assaulting a person with the stated intention to foster schisms along racial, religious, political, or other arbitrary lines is much more deleterious to the system which the social contract aims to uphold. Matthew Shepard's killing, lynchings in the south, Kristallnacht and pogroms, the killing of Doctor Tiller, and the killing of Van Gogh, along with death threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens, and Salman Rushdie would all fall in this category. In these cases, the perpetrator isn't just killing one person, or destroying their property, or threatening them, they are intentionally intimidating a larger population, forming a schism in society and stifling free speech.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:16:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:48:34 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 4:04:51 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?"

No, you can't yell fire in a crowded room or risk prosecution. You can't say some words on television, although the list groes ever shorter with each passing year. There are numerous other examples.

Well, no, you can say fire in a crowded room. But that's beside the point, he asked whether it should be, not if it is.

Should you be able to yell fire in a crowded room?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:24:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:16:40 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/28/2013 5:48:34 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 4:04:51 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?"

No, you can't yell fire in a crowded room or risk prosecution. You can't say some words on television, although the list groes ever shorter with each passing year. There are numerous other examples.

Well, no, you can say fire in a crowded room. But that's beside the point, he asked whether it should be, not if it is.

Should you be able to yell fire in a crowded room?

Sure. Everyone else in the room has freedom to believe it or to observe their surroundings and decide for themselves whether or not there is a fire.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:37:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 11:24:19 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 5/28/2013 11:16:40 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 5/28/2013 5:48:34 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 4:04:51 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Is Freedom of Speech Absolute?"

No, you can't yell fire in a crowded room or risk prosecution. You can't say some words on television, although the list groes ever shorter with each passing year. There are numerous other examples.

Well, no, you can say fire in a crowded room. But that's beside the point, he asked whether it should be, not if it is.

Should you be able to yell fire in a crowded room?

Sure. Everyone else in the room has freedom to believe it or to observe their surroundings and decide for themselves whether or not there is a fire.

The 'perfect information' assumption. People don't behave rationally and logically when there is a threat to their lives.

So there should be no impediment to extremely dangerous speech, which also happens to be false, and serves no conceivable purpose? Do you think the lives lost/ people injured would be a small cost for... Incidently, what's the benefit here?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 11:39:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 5:43:42 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 2:36:58 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 2:24:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:56:17 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/28/2013 1:12:14 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Should a person be free from legal punishment for speaking, regardless of what he or she says?

I don't believe so. For example, you should not show obscene material (a form of speech) to minors because the sexual elicited images/activities may damage the well being of those who are not mature enough.

Damage in what way?

Both physically and mentally.

Ok, I can see why you might say mental, though I disagree with it, but how on earth does it physically damage them?

My initial response would be:
As for boys: mas***** may adversely affect one's sexual life. Besides, it can easily get you infected with certain bacteria...

As for girls: May lead to lose of virginity due to the fact that...well...