Does Free Speech Offend You?

[pr126]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vVohGWhMWs

[josephpalazzo]

Well, I do agree with the main trust of the video: that we should have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. However, there are limitations: such has it is forbidden to cry "fire" in a theater as this has caused loss of lives. Similarly, hate speech that can entice violence against any individual or a group of people should not be allowed. But pc discourse or making someone uncomfortable is not an excuse to limit free speech. And most importantly, free speech should override freedom of religion: you have the right to practice your religion, and I have the right to say that your religion is pure fantasy.

[TomFoolery]

Of course speech should be free, but there should always be some limitations or exceptions understood in a case-by-case basis, and most of those have been addressed in some way by the U.S. government as mentioned above.

I think the Internet has turned people into caricatures of the very worst of what humanity has to offer. It's made organizations like One Million Moms who want to get the Muppets kicked off the air for sexuality because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" It's also made Internet trolls who want the freedom to go on Twitter and tell the entire cast of Seinfeld that they want to eat five pounds of mozzarella cheese and shit down Jerry Seinfeld's throat. Like, that's not even hygienic. Like seriously, who raised that person? I think having the government regulate what society and culture should regulate isn't the answer, but I feel like society is seriously slacking. People should be free to speak their minds, but it doesn't always mean they should. It feels like the prevalence of trolls delivering shock speech just because they "have the right" is getting tiresome and reaching a fever pitch and at the same time encouraging a counter movement that gets offended every time someone says words like "butt" or "piss." My frustration with freedom of speech is that I just wish people would be fucking reasonable.

Is it so much to just wish that people would have some basic respect and decency toward one another? I was a journalist in the Army, and when I was deployed we were also responsible for embedding civilian journalists with coalition troops. The military (and pretty much every emergency service department) has a policy that in the event of a casualty, names will be withheld from the public until the families are notified. We had a young freelance journalist who had been on a MEDEVAC flight and took some pictures of a soldier who died before he reached the hospital and he wanted to publish them immediately. So not only did he want to release some really gory photos of a dead guy stripped naked and limbs that looked like they had been replaced with stumps of hamburger meat, he wanted to publish cutlines with this guy's name so that presumably he could be front page news before the morning news cycle started back in the states. I won't get into policies concerning the release of sensitive photos, but basically we needed 24-48 hours to tell this guy's wife and kids he was coming home in a casket and this journalist didn't care because time is money and it didn't matter to him if his wife found out her husband was dead by seeing his mangled corpse on news sites.

He eventually gave up on it before lamenting about freedom of speech and freedom of the press and I get it. By the letter of the law and the Constitution, sure. Given the content of the photos it was actually somewhat debatable, but sure, I can see how the argument is there that he should have the right to "free speech." In deciding whether speech should always be legally free, all I can say is “always” is an absolute, and as we know, only siths speak in absolutes.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Wow..under the "guidelines" of the nonsense being portrayed it should be a breeze for any moron to graduate from college without actually having to ...you know ..think. Seems like you could quite literally say,  "I'm offended by this math problem because it makes me uncomfortable."

[Hijiri Byakuren]

This is why I always use the following response to SJWs:

[GSOgymrat]

Freedom of speech is the right to say things without the government arresting you and there are still limits due to public safety concerns. When I hear freedom of speech being under attack I think of government censorship. The video is really about PC speech and what Lukianoff calls "the right to always feel comfortable." The staff at universities are trying to balance their students feeling safe against discussing topic that make some people uncomfortable. I haven't researched this topic but from articles I have read this push towards "the right to always feel comfortable" is coming more from the students than the faculty. Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock have lamented that audiences at college campuses are too sensitive regarding topics such as race, sex and religion. The impression I am getting is that various student groups pressure faculty to disinvite speakers or not discuss topics they feel will make minority classmates uncomfortable. I could be wrong but it doesn't appear the government or university faculty is censuring students, students are pressuring their peers to treat minority students with respect and telling faculty not to invite controversial speakers. In a sense I feel like students are using their voice and freedom of speech but not in a way Lukianoff appreciates. It is creating a chilling effect where faculty, who don't have tenure and jobs now depend on student satisfaction, are reluctant to present challenging ideas for fear of bad evaluations.

Obviously there needs to be a balance and Lukianoff clearly feels candor is better than hurt feelings. Ideally people should be able to attack ideas without attacking people but if online forums have taught me anything it is the many people are incapable sustaining such rhetoric. I tend to agree with Lukianoff that the pendulum has swung too far in making students comfortable however I also believe faculty needs to be considerate so minority students don't feel targeted. For example, I don't think the university should invite a researcher to discuss how African-Americans routinely score low on intelligence testing on Martin Luther King Day or for campus ministry to invite the Westboro Baptist Church to hold a prayer vigil on gay pride day or have Bill Cosby be invited to kick off rape awareness week. As Tom Foolery wrote, there needs to be some basic respect and decency. There also needs to be a commitment to the concept that no idea is beyond scrutiny.

I think sometimes people don't want "freedom of speech" as much as freedom to express their opinion without consequence. The message I get from some people online is "I should be able to speak freely and you shouldn't be offended" or "I should be able to speak freely and there should be no social repercussions." An example is Ben Carson criticizing the "PC media" for public reaction to his comment, “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.” Carson is running for president, the statement was not taken out of context, it was said on Meet The Press and not privately to a buddy, yet he is upset that many people reacted negatively. Carson complained about "PC culture" that if a question isn't answered in a certain way, "let's attack and let's not try to actually understand what a person is saying." Given the fact he confirmed his position after making this statement and then later backed down indicates this wasn't a misunderstanding. He gave his position on the topic, his position was attacked and the consequence is he may lose votes. Being upset that your words piss people off isn't a political left or right phenomenon, it happens all the time.

[josephpalazzo]

It comes down to this: I'll support your right to say whatever (form), but I'm not obligated to support you if you say something stupid (content).

[TomFoolery]

I think sometimes people don't want "freedom of speech" as much as freedom to express their opinion without consequence. The message I get from some people online is "I should be able to speak freely and you shouldn't be offended" or "I should be able to speak freely and there should be no social repercussions."

I've even seen it on this forum where people seem to want to use freedom of speech as some kind of litmus test. Like, someone will say something that will obviously be controversial and then practically dare someone to say it's offensive, just so they can laugh at that person for being an overly sensitive baby who wants to deny people their rights to freedom of speech. It's as though no one should be tell anyone else that they're being rude, inconsiderate, ignorant or bigoted because all it's going to do is make the complainant look like some politically correct little bitch.

[stromboli]

It comes down to this: I'll support your right to say whatever (form), but I'm not obligated to support you if you say something stupid (content).

^this.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Even in countries with freedom of speech, there have always been laws against libel and slander. Also, wrapped up in the concept of freedom of speech is the right to criticize and critique. I don't have the right to prevent you from saying that drinking bleach is good for you, but in turn you have no right to prevent me from telling you and everyone else you're wrong and here's why. Freedom of speech is a right, but speech itself is just a tool, and tools can always be misused and abused.

The internet and mass communication provides an outlet where free speech can be practiced anywhere in the world, even in the most oppressive of regimes (provided you can access it, and get around the blocks that those regimes may put up). At the same time, it exposes the seemly underbelly of mankind's collective id. On the internet, you see humanity in the raw, unfettered by social conventions that normally drape a thin veneer of respect and decency â€" this is the stuff that has always been bubbling beneath the surface, festering and churning.

This is why openness is important. It at the very least lets you know that there is a problem to solve, instead of being suppressed where it can fester unresolved. People need to have some place where they can voice their grievances without fear of penalty. Not without consequences, mind, but without penalty. People holding unpopular or problematic views should expect to be confronted for same and rightly so, or ignored altogether and rightly so, and maybe even be confronted offline for those views and rightly so, but never denied that access simply because of expressing those views. After all, I want to know who the assholes are.

When we have a civil internet, not because of censorship, but because it simply never occurs to us to be nasty even though we have the freedom to do so, can we say to have truly be civilized.

[drunkenshoe]

This is why I always use the following response to SJWs:

Also why you actually can't don't participate in any thread, but just pretend to.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Also why you actually can't don't participate in any thread, but just pretend to.

I reserve the Imperial Smackdown for people with a case of "Advanced Stupid." Average everyday stupid isn't worth the effort. [emoji13]


Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I reserve the Imperial Smackdown

"Imperial Smackdown"? Did you come from Stardestroyer.net?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

"Imperial Smackdown"? Did you come from Stardestroyer.net?

You caught me. I'm a Warsie.


Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.

[drunkenshoe]

I reserve the Imperial Smackdown for people with a case of "Advanced Stupid." Average everyday stupid isn't worth the effort. [emoji13]

Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.

Which is the 'Ways of Stirring' of communication going around and slinging mud, because you cannot deal with a conversation even if you cannot be a part of. So 'reserve' seems like a good word to express the general intent and as well as the role that bears is delusional.