Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Justifiable reasons for limiting Freedom Of Speech watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    The truth is, you either have free speech, or you don't. And by that I don't mean 'I support free speech but there should be exceptions for when...', I mean absolute, say whatever you want free speech. That is what I believe in.
    Do you believe there should be no legal consequences for a company publishing lies about its rivals to drive down their share prices?*

    Or someone copying the writings of others wholesale for profit?

    Or someone hoaxing the emergency services?

    It's all freedom speech isn't it?*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Do you believe there should be no legal consequences for a company publishing lies about its rivals to drive down their share prices?*

    Or someone copying the writings of others wholesale for profit?

    Or someone hoaxing the emergency services?

    It's all freedom speech isn't it?*
    People should be allowed to do those things, but they have to face the consequences. As in the company would have to compensate the other company for its losses, a fine for the hoaxer of the emergency services, etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    The Constitution gave you the right to own slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment took that right away. What makes you so sure that some rights are 'god-given birthrights' while you're happy for others to be taken away?
    Slavery was not enumerated as one of our rights.

    The 13th amendment simply made illegal something that was seen as right because of it's historical and widespread practice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    People should be allowed to do those things, but they have to face the consequences. As in the company would have to compensate the other company for its losses, a fine for the hoaxer of the emergency services, etc.
    Commercial speech, including advertising speech, is usually given only " partial" or "limited" protection.

    Additionally, If a company has gone public and is traded on one of the stock exchanges then it agrees to the rules of the Securities and Exchanges Commission.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    I refuse to believe you don't get this. I'm getting tired of answering questions with the same answer.
    Well you claimed that natural law was the only possible source of human rights, that's a rather bold claim and I should like to see what you base this claim on.
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Also, I don't accept that people through time have had a very different view of very basic human rightI bet if you sat anyone from any time down and asked them to name 3 rights they could be granted they would come up with something close to what we would say today.
    Good Bloke has already answered this pretty well but I thought I'd add a little bit.The concept of universal human rights, in it's modern iteration, including the rights which we are all broadly familliar with, was a product of the enlightenment and 17th century liberalism; and even then there are marked differences between what they considered to be human rights and a modern understanding of human rights. For instance, few were supporters of universal adult sufferage, and yet this is a key part of our present understanding of human rights (e.g Article 14 and Protocool 1 Article 3 ECHR; Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Where does God grant this right? I have no idea what your asking.
    Well you said that "he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do", and I ask - how do we know that God has granted such a right?

    (Original post by richpanda)
    The truth is, you either have free speech, or you don't. And by that I don't mean 'I support free speech but there should be exceptions for when...', I mean absolute, say whatever you want free speech. That is what I believe in.
    But given without caveat, certain rights can be excersised in a manner which can lead to the right collapsing in on itself. For instance, if A uses their right to freedom of speech by inciting violence against B for advocating their own political posistion then B's right to freedom of speech has been de facto extinguished by A.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    Well you claimed that natural law was the only possible source of human rights, that's a rather bold claim and I should like to see what you base this claim on.
    Good Bloke has already answered this pretty well but I thought I'd add a little bit.The concept of universal human rights, in it's modern iteration, including the rights which we are all broadly familliar with, was a product of the enlightenment and 17th century liberalism; and even then there are marked differences between what they considered to be human rights and a modern understanding of human rights. For instance, few were supporters of universal adult sufferage, and yet this is a key part of our present understanding of human rights (e.g Article 14 and Protocool 1 Article 3 ECHR; Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).

    Well you said that "he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do", and I ask - how do we know that God has granted such a right?



    But given without caveat, certain rights can be excersised in a manner which can lead to the right collapsing in on itself. For instance, if A uses their right to freedom of speech by inciting violence against B for advocating their own political posistion then B's right to freedom of speech has been de facto extinguished by A.
    " We hold these truths to be self evident..."There's more than enough evidence to suggest that man needs no permission to express himself. He doesn't have to be taught this. It follows that if you believe you are a created being and not the offspring of a pollywog then this need to express yourself originates from the one who created you.

    You are free to attribute this right to whomever you want, your king, your government, or your mother in-law, But it's best to keep them somewhere out of reach.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Slavery was not enumerated as one of our rights.
    Neither was the right not to be enslaved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    " We hold these truths to be self evident..."There's more than enough evidence to suggest that man needs no permission to express himself.
    Three points:

    (a) You keep repeating (including, as here, by quoting someone who says exactly the same thing) that it is obvious that men have the natural right to free speech. Such repetition does not advance your argument.

    (b) We are actually discussing limits to the right to free speech . Is there an obvious natural limit to what you claim is an obvious natural right?

    (c) What is a pollywog (other than a sailor who has not crossed the equator) and how does being descended from one reduce one's rights?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by richpanda)
    People should be allowed to do those things, but they have to face the consequences. As in the company would have to compensate the other company for its losses, a fine for the hoaxer of the emergency services, etc.
    Well that's not freedom of speech then, because the state is punishing you for what you say.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Comus)
    Well you claimed that natural law was the only possible source of human rights, that's a rather bold claim and I should like to see what you base this claim on.
    Good Bloke has already answered this pretty well but I thought I'd add a little bit.The concept of universal human rights, in it's modern iteration, including the rights which we are all broadly familliar with, was a product of the enlightenment and 17th century liberalism; and even then there are marked differences between what they considered to be human rights and a modern understanding of human rights. For instance, few were supporters of universal adult sufferage, and yet this is a key part of our present understanding of human rights (e.g Article 14 and Protocool 1 Article 3 ECHR; Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).

    Well you said that "he has a God given right to spout anything they want and if offending someone is the only way to say it then that's what they have to do", and I ask - how do we know that God has granted such a right?



    But given without caveat, certain rights can be excersised in a manner which can lead to the right collapsing in on itself. For instance, if A uses their right to freedom of speech by inciting violence against B for advocating their own political posistion then B's right to freedom of speech has been de facto extinguished by A.
    I couldn't agree more!

    Prior to the 50's or 60's there was no need for a caveat. Our institutions, our schools, churches, and even Hollywood entertainment, all helped to show everyone, in particular young people, such things as; all things in moderation, the other guys needs are as important as yours, even if you have very little always be charitable, etc. All different ways of saying, " Do unto others....."

    You can learn all these things and know their true but, if you lack discipline they will, more than likely not become lifelong habits Unfortunately, discipline is in short supply today, as is any sense of self sacrifice.

    Your taking words out of my mouth. I said natural law was the only source of
    " immutable ", human rights.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Neither was the right not to be enslaved.
    Slavery was legal in the U.S. at the time of the writing on the Declaration of Independence. It was legal in most of the world including England.

    Nobody who's serious about understanding history would judge a man living in the 18th century by 21st. century ethics.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Freedom of action, if I can call it that, is hugely limited and controlled by law. So why should freedom of speech be absolutely inviolable?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Three points:

    (a) You keep repeating (including, as here, by quoting someone who says exactly the same thing) that it is obvious that men have the natural right to free speech. Such repetition does not advance your argument.

    (b) We are actually discussing limits to the right to free speech . Is there an obvious natural limit to what you claim is an obvious natural right?

    (c) What is a pollywog (other than a sailor who has not crossed the equator) and how does being descended from one reduce one's rights?
    a). This is a statement of fact. It's a culmination to all the debate about human rights that had ever taken place.

    b) My rights end where the other persons begin. Freedom of speech ends when it becomes verbal assault without just cause.

    c) A pollywog is a small fish that is the larval stage of a frog. In my post that you refer to, I chose this fish to represent those people that take it a step further and believe a fish can evolve into modern man.
    If they were fortunate enough to be born an American citizen they have equal protection of our constitution.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Any right given to you by a mythical fairy tale character is, by necessity, fictional.

    It never ceases to amaze me that a western country with a secular constitution like that of the USA should have so many people who assign so much importance to Christianity, which is no less a superstition than the tooth fairy, goblins and Santa Claus.
    ffs are we not past these "xtrmly clever remarks" in 2016

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    ffs are we not past these "xtrmly clever remarks" in 2016
    Not if there are people in the world who believe the laws that rule us should be guided by beliefs in said fictional characters.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Slavery was legal in the U.S. at the time of the writing on the Declaration of Independence. It was legal in most of the world including England.

    Nobody who's serious about understanding history would judge a man living in the 18th century by 21st. century ethics.
    I agree. American citizens, though, were not protected against slavery in 1776. What you might call inalienable natural rights had been alienated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    a). This is a statement of fact. It's a culmination to all the debate about human rights that had ever taken place. Don't be silly. Your repeated philosophical claim does not make something a fact.

    b) My rights end where the other persons begin. Freedom of speech ends when it becomes verbal assault without just cause.

    c) A pollywog is a small fish that is the larval stage of a frog. In my post that you refer to, I chose this fish to represent those people that take it a step further and believe a fish can evolve into modern man.
    If they were fortunate enough to be born an American citizen they have equal protection of our constitution.
    See bold above. I don't think you fully understand the theory of evolution. Do you believe that a deity created the world (and man) in a short period of time less than ten thousand years ago?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Not if there are people in the world who believe the laws that rule us should be guided by beliefs in said fictional characters.
    You do realize that your view of life and a lot of what we've mentioned is the minority view in the world. Most people the world over believe in a God. The ability to believe in a God, ( faith ), is another constituent part we possess, courtesy of our creator.

    Also, it can be argued, since you bring it up, that the laws that rule us, in the West anyway are molded by customs and traditions that are a reflection of Christianity.
    Do you think we would be better off if this were not the case?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    You do realize that your view of life and a lot of what we've mentioned is the minority view in the world.
    Ah, the appeal to the majority view! Or, to put it another way Eat excrement - billions of flies cannot be wrong!

    The atheist world view is very solidly taking over in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, leaving only backward, uneducated parts of the world in Africa and South America and the wilfully superstitious in North America to follow later.

    You didn't answer my question: are you a young Earth creationist?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The atheist world view is very solidly taking over in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, leaving only backward, uneducated parts of the world in Africa and South America and the wilfully superstitious in North America to follow later.
    Being religoius and believing in a secular basis for government aren't mutually exclusive.

    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Prior to the 50's or 60's there was no need for a caveat. Our institutions, our schools, churches, and even Hollywood entertainment, all helped to show everyone, in particular young people, such things as; all things in moderation, the other guys needs are as important as yours, even if you have very little always be charitable, etc. All different ways of saying, " Do unto others....."
    I'm sorry, but this is a very rose-tinted and naive view of the past.

    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    Your taking words out of my mouth. I said natural law was the only source of
    " immutable ", human rights.
    Obviously if we are going to have human rights at all then they should be entrenched one way or another and fiercely defended, but why should they be immutable? As our understanding expands, why shouldn't out interpretation of rights?
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.