Freedom of speech? Watch

L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 11 years ago
#41
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
By law?! :rolleyes:
I can think of one occasion where that might be true - flying the Union Flag in a very nationalist area of Northern Ireland could be counted as a breach of the peace.

Back in the old days, I believe there was an actual offence of flying the Irish tricolour under certain circumstances over there. Seem to recall the police being forced into raiding the Sinn Fein offices to remove one from the window.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 11 years ago
#42
(Original post by phawkins1988)
Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?
Yep. I'd think of all people, a Holocaust survivor would probably simply find them ridiculous.

Also - do the libertarians here believe that all land (or virtually all, presumably even the minimalist State has to have some offices, and naturally offices have to be on some land) should be privately owned?
Depends what is privately owned - the Duchy of Lancaster? the Crown Estate?

Land ownership is a very tricky issue and one which I wrestle with myself often. While I'd like to free up the system more than at present, I am not an absolutist and do not believe that land must always be fully controlled by its owner. There's certainly a difference between someone holding enough land to live on, and someone commanding vast tracks of the country that they don't even know what to do with.

A good many people wonder about private ownership of roads and such - I'm afraid I don't see the problem there. The problem is with the absolute control of land that is not used for habitation or economic activity.

So, short answer, finding an overarching theory is difficult and I remain very open minded on it. I do believe that inherently limited natural resources are not given unto individuals absolutely in the same way as the fruits of their labour are (see Locke, Nozick et al); but if you want a question answered, I suppose I'd need to ask you to be more specific.
0
quote
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 11 years ago
#43
(Original post by phawkins1988)
Do the libertarians here think that a neo-Nazi should be permitted to post leaflets denying the Holocaust through the door of a Holocaust survivor? If not, how is this reconcilable with their view of free-speech?
Well, (speaking for myself only) I don't believe in "the right to free speech" per se. I believe in people's ownership of themselves, and the associated property rights which come with that. To say that someone has the right to free speech is effectively meaningless - where do they have that right? Anywhere they like? My house, or yours? Instead, if you look at it in terms of property rights, it all makes sense - people have the right to do as they wish with their own property. So, because the action of me saying whatever I like on my own land uses only my property (namely myself and my property), I have a right to do it.

If, however, I am on someone else's property, I am only entitled to use it in a way which they have agreed in (implicitly or explicitly). Generally speaking then, it seems implicit that most people would not agree to have a Neo-Nazi on their property disseminating information they found offensive and so we'd be forced to conclude that the Nazi was infringing on people's rights by doing this.

If you want to read a bit more (put much better than I could) check out this piece from Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty where, among other things, he analyses the famous problem about whether people have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre: link

---
Also - do the libertarians here believe that all land (or virtually all, presumably even the minimalist State has to have some offices, and naturally offices have to be on some land) should be privately owned? I was rereading a paper today which discusses this with particular respect to the issue of homelessness. I might start a thread on it in the philosophy subforum in the next few days, but clearly there's no point if the libertarians here don't subscribe to that sort of libertarianism.
Personally I don't think there should even be a minimal state in the first place, so this question doesn't exactly keep me up at night. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking though - if I did grant that a minimal state should exist, I'd probably say that its offices should be considered private property, but private property of the state. I might be missing the point though, cos I don't really see a problem.
0
quote
reply
RawJoh1
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 11 years ago
#44
(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
Well presumably the door belongs to the survivor, so such leafleting would be a breach of those? I also can't see why someone would be allowed to walk down a private street doing that, unless the owner shared similar views.
Hmmm ... does this mean that I have to get someone's consent in order to post them a letter? I don't think that the fact that I own a door means that someone has to ask my explicit permission to post a leaflet through it - that sounds crazy!

On property: I'll post the thread tomorrow, if I can be arsed.
0
quote
reply
RawJoh1
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 11 years ago
#45
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Personally I don't think there should even be a minimal state in the first place, so this question doesn't exactly keep me up at night. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking though - if I did grant that a minimal state should exist, I'd probably say that its offices should be considered private property, but private property of the state. I might be missing the point though, cos I don't really see a problem.
Fair enough - you don't believe in any public or common property. That's fine! That's just the sort of person my thread will be addressed at (my thread will basically be discussing Jeremy Waldron's views in Homelessness and the issue of freedom - you may have read it before [it doesn't seem to be available online, sadly]).

Will try to read the Rothbard piece soon.
0
quote
reply
ForeverIsMyName
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#46
Report 11 years ago
#46
(Original post by phawkins1988)
Hmmm ... does this mean that I have to get someone's consent in order to post them a letter? I don't think that the fact that I own a door means that someone has to ask my explicit permission to post a leaflet through it - that sounds crazy!
No, but you can explicitly forbid them from doing so. Forgive me for saying you've picked an extremely minor and irrelevant criticism of a tiny section of libertarian's views on property rights...
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#47
(Original post by hannah_dru)
I agree. If freedom of speech involves slander or libel then I'd rather be restricted.
There are already laws against slander and libel.
What is at stake here is the ability to speak our minds and express our opinions, and hate speech laws stop us from doing so.
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#48
(Original post by mudblood)
I like the idea of free speech but it's all about common sense - if you're deliberately spreading hatred for the sake of spreading hatred you deserve to get your face smashed in.
Blimey, that sounds to me as if YOU are full of hatred for anything that you disageree with!
Free speech for your hatred, but not for your opponents eh?
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#49
(Original post by fiction)
what you suggest isn't free speech
I mean lots of Government officials slander each other. While spreading pro-war views does the restriction have to in close all people’s views. If so what about papers, should all get free speech or just a select few, this is pointless each person has varying views on the subject, agreement will never be reached.
Your post is totally indecipherable Fiction, but I like your Nazi smiley!
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#50
(Original post by N_n_N)
freedom of speech is always good, because even though we may sound offensive we are being true with ourselves and in the end both parties may come to a mutual understanding instead of hiding behind false selves.
Well said N_n_N. You have spoken sense there.
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#51
(Original post by Oswy)
In America freedom of speech permits extremist Christians to shout abuse at the funerals of soldiers killed in combat - they hold up placards "God Hates Army ****" etc and shout abuse to the effect that the soldier was a "fag enabler" and "going straight to hell" etc. I'm talking about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

Freedom of speech is important up to the point that it becomes calculated abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm personally not interested in defending the freedom of speech of extremists who peddle hate and abuse. Other than this, yes freedom of speech should be supported. Extremist groups like the Nazi BNP should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews than extremist Islamicists should be allowed to call for the killing of infidels. The ironic thing is that these kinds of extremist groups who harp on about having their freedom of speech would be looking to stifle all debate should they be in power.
As you quote Karl Marx in your coda, then I asume that you are a Marxist. Well, that makes YOU an extremist.
So, hate and extremism is alright so long as it is you spreadig it?
P.S. You have libled the BNP for they are not Nazis, and have not called for the gassing of jews.
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#52
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
As far as I am concerned, relatively few rights indeed are absolute - both in practice and in principle. These include the right to life, the right to question or resist claims made against you, the assumption of personal and social liberty. All these other "rights" exist on sufferance and congingently to moral requirements. I'm pretty sick of people claiming rights out of thin air, and then raising them to the status of "inalienable".
"Human rights" a case in point.
0
quote
reply
Hengest
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#53
(Original post by Oswy)
Absolutely. Don't forget the right to "burn my pet dogs alive in the back yard" - something these libertarians defend as a matter of 'principle' it seems. :rolleyes:
Your dogs are your property, same as your children, but a healthy society will draw the line at unacceptale treatment of them.
Of course "unacceptable" will depend upon the nature of the society.
In an African society, abuse of children and animals is just the norm; but in Western society it is abhored.
0
quote
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 11 years ago
#54
(Original post by Hengest)
Your dogs are your property, same as your children, but a healthy society will draw the line at unacceptale treatment of them.
Of course "unacceptable" will depend upon the nature of the society.
In an African society, abuse of children and animals is just the norm; but in Western society it is abhored.
I'm not sure where the line should be drawn there. Obviously I'm not going to stop someone killing their own animals. Inflicting unnecessary suffering upon them is obviously a vicious and wicked thing to do and reflects horribly on an individual - but whether it's the person at fault solely or the animal that is being violated, I am unsure. Personally, I'd probably err on the side of decency and maintain laws against animal cruelty.

Of course, Oswy's probably one of those blasted Trots who's can't tell the difference between a cow and a sheep yet still manages to loath fox hunting for being 'cruel'. :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Tory Dan
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#55
Report 11 years ago
#55
(Original post by Oswy)
In America freedom of speech permits extremist Christians to shout abuse at the funerals of soldiers killed in combat - they hold up placards "God Hates Army ****" etc and shout abuse to the effect that the soldier was a "fag enabler" and "going straight to hell" etc. I'm talking about the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.

Freedom of speech is important up to the point that it becomes calculated abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm personally not interested in defending the freedom of speech of extremists who peddle hate and abuse. Other than this, yes freedom of speech should be supported. Extremist groups like the Nazi BNP should no more be allowed to call for the gassing of Jews than extremist Islamicists should be allowed to call for the killing of infidels. The ironic thing is that these kinds of extremist groups who harp on about having their freedom of speech would be looking to stifle all debate should they be in power.
When have the BNP advocated gassing Jews, wtf? If you don't allow allow people to choose what political parties just because they have a view that you disagree with. I disagree with you because your a socialist and hate freedom and democracy because it conflicts with your system of equality.

I really do worry about some of the people who here who are saying that freedom of speech must be restricted, God forbid the day when such measures come along and this forum goes bye bye. Perhaps we should be reminded of a little quote, one of my favourites.

"I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire.
0
quote
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#56
Report 11 years ago
#56
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
Pretty funny how you refused to reply to my post in that thread where I showed you how libertarianism can be compatible with animal rights...
Your links didn't show libertarians to be opposed to animal cruelty or support the right of society, through the state, to intervene, private property or no. They showed libertarians struggling with the monster of 'logic' they had created.

As far as I'm aware you still haven't come out and said that a person should not be free to burn their dogs in their back yard. Until you do so you're not getting any respect from me. Libertarianism is a dogma like Nazism and Stalinism - compassion and empathy is an inconvenience which must be set aside for the great 'principles' by which the believer must follow.
quote
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#57
Report 11 years ago
#57
(Original post by Hengest)
As you quote Karl Marx in your coda, then I asume that you are a Marxist.
That's a fairly silly opening assumption on which to base a series of even wilder ones.
0
quote
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#58
Report 11 years ago
#58
(Original post by Hengest)
"Human rights" a case in point.
Elaborate?
0
quote
reply
40550
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 11 years ago
#59
Why don't we have the government hold our hands day in, day out, reminding us "tut tut you can't say that". Freedom of speech is freedom in itself. Its up to the every day person to make moral decisions of what is right or wrong to say. An individual has to assess every situation, and act in the way thats best. If somebody were to shout "fire" into a cinema, the cinema owns the premises and has them taken out. If hate speech leads a person to commit an actual crime, you punish the actual crime. The last thing we need is laws stating what we can and can't say
0
quote
reply
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 11 years ago
#60
(Original post by Oswy)
Libertarianism is a dogma like Nazism and Stalinism - compassion and empathy is an inconvenience which must be set aside for the great 'principles' by which the believer must follow.
What on earth are you on about? "Compassion" and "empathy" are set aside only insomuch as they have no place in politics. By setting them aside, and maximising freedoms, you allow people to make their own choices in regards to such issues.

To include morality in politics would mean impressing said morals onto others. Being a socialist, I can see why you would agree with this, but I hardly think it's a flaw of liberalsim.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (279)
27.51%
No (735)
72.49%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed