The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

There should be limits on free speech in order to prevent incitement to racial hatred

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for .Ali.
.Ali.
3
Original post by Wednesday Bass
Absolutely not.

Free speech comes from free will. All banning certain phrases/words does is limit free will of the country.

People will always be offended by something someone says, even with limits on free speech. So should we ban all offensive comments ever?


This.
Original post by Bella Occhi
changing Baa Baa Black Sheep
Urban myth.
I never understood, why do people think that racially motivated hatred is worse than hatred for any other reason? If you hate someone for the colour of the skin rather than hating them because they have unusual interests... why is the former considered far more severe? Since when do you need a racial motivation to have malicious intentions? :s-smilie:

At the end of the day, I think there should be certain limits to prevent harassment where the speech in hand is a repeated behaviour targeted at individuals (i.e. sending malicious/threatening messages to people), so the MANNER in which you say express something can be restricted. However, I don't believe the content of what you say should be restricted, simply because different people get offended by different things, so even if we should protect people's feelings, it would be very difficult to protect everyone's feelings. Also, preventing people from expressing negative feelings just amplifies these feelings.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 23
Avatar for Vanny17
Vanny17
19
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights all human beings should/ must have. Limiting free speech wouldn't stop some ignorant people to still habouring ''racial hatred''.
Original post by JCC-MGS
Urban myth.


Oh good. :biggrin:
No. What a preposterous idea. If we start gnawing away at freedom of speech with regards to particular issues, nothing's to stop us from gnawing away at a different issue, then another, and another.
Original post by Wednesday Bass
So ignoring any laws in place, you don't currently hold the ability to choose whether you kill a random person on the street? You don't have the choice to stay in bed or get up and do something else?

Free will is what gives us the choice to do certain things. Other factors vary our decisions. Such as staying in bed all day instead of going to work may be nice, but you won't get paid (and you've made the decision to get a job as well). We all have free will, we make decisions that alter the weighting of choices.


We are not free to act in any way other than we do. Everything that occurs is determined by prior causes.

So no, I wouldn't really have the choice not to kill someone or to get up, whatever I'd do would be determined by the exact state of the universe.
Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere
We are not free to act in any way other than we do. Everything that occurs is determined by prior causes.

So no, I wouldn't really have the choice not to kill someone or to get up, whatever I'd do would be determined by the exact state of the universe.

No. There's always a choice, whether it's an easy or difficult one. However, our morals, the law and other influences help us to make up our mind.

I don't believe this "the universe is fixed" crap. You can do whatever the hell you want.
These limits already exist.
Original post by Wednesday Bass
No. There's always a choice, whether it's an easy or difficult one. However, our morals, the law and other influences help us to make up our mind.

I don't believe this "the universe is fixed" crap. You can do whatever the hell you want.


Then you need to provide a good argument to support your view, rather than just stating that it is the case.

Obviously we can't do whatever the hell we want, otherwise I'd be flying through the sky right now incinerating birds with my flame breath
Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere
Then you need to provide a good argument to support your view, rather than just stating that it is the case.

Obviously we can't do whatever the hell we want, otherwise I'd be flying through the sky right now incinerating birds with my flame breath

I've yet to see a case from you as to how we don't have free will. All you've said is that we don't have free will because we have influences on our decisions.

Forgive me for not thinking you'd be that pedantic to say we can't do things that are physically impossible. It was pretty clear what I meant - we have free will when it comes to making decisions, not we have free will to do literally everything.
Original post by Wednesday Bass
I've yet to see a case from you as to how we don't have free will. All you've said is that we don't have free will because we have influences on our decisions.

Forgive me for not thinking you'd be that pedantic to say we can't do things that are physically impossible. It was pretty clear what I meant - we have free will when it comes to making decisions, not we have free will to do literally everything.


I'm not going to launch into an essay on metaphysics, I've given you the outline of the determinist view within the free will debate. I'm saying we don't have free will in the common understanding of the term because our actions are caused by prior events, in turn caused by events prior to those, going back to a time before we were even alive and so hence we have no control over them.

It wasn't pretty clear what you meant - you stated we can do whatever the hell we want - I offered an extreme counter-example, you're right, but it was just to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your statement.

Why is it that you believe we are capable of freely choosing?
Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere
Why is it that you believe we are capable of freely choosing?


Because we are. I can freely choose what I'm going to have for dinner tonight, it's not dictated by the universe. Prior events have weighting on our decisions but they don't actually stop you from doing things. Going to basics, burning yourself on the stove adds a weighting to your decision in the future as to how you test if the stove is hot but it doesn't stop you from touching it again - just as a basic analogy.
Original post by Wednesday Bass
Because we are. I can freely choose what I'm going to have for dinner tonight, it's not dictated by the universe. Prior events have weighting on our decisions but they don't actually stop you from doing things. Going to basics, burning yourself on the stove adds a weighting to your decision in the future as to how you test if the stove is hot but it doesn't stop you from touching it again - just as a basic analogy.


`Because we are' is not an argument. With your analogy, burning yourself on the stove causes you to react with pain, which causes you to avoid the same action in future. It's not a weighting, it's simply a causal chain. Basically if you accept the notion of causality you're have no recourse but to accept the truth of determinism.
Reply 34
Avatar for Spexzzz
Spexzzz
14
Freedom of speech even if its racist usually is countered by Freedom of punch.
Original post by The Boney King of Nowhere
`Because we are' is not an argument. With your analogy, burning yourself on the stove causes you to react with pain, which causes you to avoid the same action in future. It's not a weighting, it's simply a causal chain. Basically if you accept the notion of causality you're have no recourse but to accept the truth of determinism.

It causes pain, yes; it does not mean that it won't happen again. Another analogy: turning over sausages under the grill; if I turn over sausages on the grill and burn my fingers on the first two, I will still end up turning the rest over with my fingers. Something happening does not mean it won't happen again, it does not mean that it always affects future events. Yes some things do have an effect - through peoples thought process of "if I do x, y will happen, I don't want y to happen" - not purely because something happened.
Reply 36
Avatar for Duckelf
Duckelf
I agree that there should be extensive limits on "free speech" but not in order to prevent "incitement to racial hatred", as there probably does not exist a more bogus term, for one thing.
Reply 37
Avatar for mczack26
mczack26
There are limits on free speech. I don't get the point of this thread?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you