Turn on thread page Beta

Is free speech important? watch

  • View Poll Results: Is free speech important?
    Yes
    49
    81.67%
    Yes, as long as it isn't offensive
    9
    15.00%
    No
    2
    3.33%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    You can't see this going terribly wrong? I mean, I imagine Kim Jong Un believes in this tripartite too, his own version of it.
    This is the problem with anything: for example, a democracy could give you Obama or Hitler. It's all about the implementation and you can't abandon an idea just because one country thinks the universe came into existence when Kim Il-sung was born. It's an outlier.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MachinesCradle)
    This is the problem with anything: for example, a democracy could give you Obama or Hitler. It's all about the implementation and you can't abandon an idea just because one country thinks the universe came into existence when Kim Il-sung was born. It's an outlier.
    It's not an outlier though, is it? Pretty much the whole of the Mid-East and Africa are ruled by dictators/theocrats who are against free speech, North Korea, the whole of Europe up to the 20th century. Hitler didn't rule through democracy or free speech. So if anything, tackling free speech seems to be correlated with people like Trump and Kim Jung Un.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    It's not an outlier though, is it? Pretty much the whole of the Mid-East and Africa are ruled by dictators/theocrats who are against free speech, North Korea, the whole of Europe up to the 20th century. Hitler didn't rule through democracy or free speech. So if anything, tackling free speech seems to be correlated with people like Trump and Kim Jung Un.
    My favourite country Singapore is an ideal model of a country which combines censorship and social restrictions with great economic and technological progress. I imagine the PRC is also going to be a big player soon. Free speech is not correlated with intellectualism, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The point about Trump is inverted: the entire campaign was an attack on left wingers who were perceived as attacking free speech. The supporters of free speech are the gun-toting, anti-intellectual Trump supporters.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MachinesCradle)
    My favourite country Singapore is an ideal model of a country which combines censorship and social restrictions with great economic and technological progress. I imagine the PRC is also going to be a big player soon. Free speech is not correlated with intellectualism, in fact I would say it's the opposite. The point about Trump is inverted: the entire campaign was an attack on left wingers who were perceived as attacking free speech. The supporters of free speech are the gun-toting, anti-intellectual Trump supporters.
    I don't know much about Singapore to be honest so I can't comment. However, what kind of censorship are you talking about? Ideological censorship? Artistic censorship? Offensive censorship?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Yes. But it must not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others, for example the right to live in security.

    As John Stuart Mill said, a person should not be permitted to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre unless there actually is a fire.
    What does that actually mean in practice? how does my saying something impinge on your right to live in security?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    I don't know much about Singapore to be honest so I can't comment. However, what kind of censorship are you talking about? Ideological censorship? Artistic censorship? Offensive censorship?
    For me ideologically I'm talking about being against socialism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism and the emotional furore of fascism. Permitted art would be esoteric that incorporates the aforementioned values of knowledge, beauty and power. I would say nothing is offensive as long as there's a valid point being made. Being offensive for the sake of being anti-social is not needed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MachinesCradle)
    For me ideologically I'm talking about being against socialism, liberalism, democracy, capitalism and the emotional furore of fascism. Permitted art would be esoteric that incorporates the aforementioned values of knowledge, beauty and power. I would say nothing is offensive as long as there's a valid point being made. Being offensive for the sake of being anti-social is not needed.
    But since speech is the way ideas propagate, and you're regulating speech, you're regulating propagation of thought. Which is, if one reads a single page of a history book would know, is very detrimental to the future of countries. Such regulation creates turmoil, hinders creativity, reduces problem solving capabilities of nations and reduces integration between the different sections of society.

    Now as for art, some of the greatest pieces of art know were once dubbed 'Entartete Kunst' or degenerate art. That was art that either belonged to hated minorities, i.e. Mendelssohn and his piano trio which is the greatest ever, or art that just challenged the chains and shackles that bound society to the past. It was art that was new and challenging, but didn't necessarily have a point. Stuff like Jazz or even modern forms of paintings.

    Being offensive for the sake of anti-socialism is already banned to a certain extent. So that's not much of a problem.

    What you fail to understand is that any regulation has to be done by people. People are naturally subjective, and also imperfect. Thus any regulation will have to be imperfect and subjective and thus will end up isolating a portion of society that prefers a different kind. Lack of regulation is the best thing because it allows any one to experience whatever they enjoy. It's also easier to do, costs less and is much more productive in terms of creativity and variety.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    But since speech is the way ideas propagate, and you're regulating speech, you're regulating propagation of thought. Which is, if one reads a single page of a history book would know, is very detrimental to the future of countries. Such regulation creates turmoil, hinders creativity, reduces problem solving capabilities of nations and reduces integration between the different sections of society.

    Now as for art, some of the greatest pieces of art know were once dubbed 'Entartete Kunst' or degenerate art. That was art that either belonged to hated minorities, i.e. Mendelssohn and his piano trio which is the greatest ever, or art that just challenged the chains and shackles that bound society to the past. It was art that was new and challenging, but didn't necessarily have a point. Stuff like Jazz or even modern forms of paintings.

    Being offensive for the sake of anti-socialism is already banned to a certain extent. So that's not much of a problem.

    What you fail to understand is that any regulation has to be done by people. People are naturally subjective, and also imperfect. Thus any regulation will have to be imperfect and subjective and thus will end up isolating a portion of society that prefers a different kind. Lack of regulation is the best thing because it allows any one to experience whatever they enjoy. It's also easier to do, costs less and is much more productive in terms of creativity and variety.
    Theoretically experimentation is acceptable as long as dangerous ideologues are not associated with the work, and this can be achieved by social engineering from birth. One could look at a constructivist piece of artwork and see only the state value power if the word communism does not exist. The point is the minor alteration with regard to the value system would still allow a lot of experimentation. However, for art worthy of classical appreciation I would argue there should be a certain amount of labour required. This would lead to a resurgence in futurist Baroque style art and high culture.

    Overall though I'm more of a computer person than an arts person so in my opinion functionality will become its own aesthetic and therefore beauty will occur as a byproduct of technological determinism. I also think eventually computers will move into the subjective sphere so we could have a close-to-objective standard for appreciating art.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MachinesCradle)
    Theoretically experimentation is acceptable as long as dangerous ideologues are not associated with the work, and this can be achieved by social engineering from birth. One could look at a constructivist piece of artwork and see only the state value power if the word communism does not exist. The point is the minor aleteration with regard to the value system would still allow a lot of experimentation. However, for art worthy of classical appreciation I would argue there should be a certain amount of labour required. This would lead to a resurgence in futurist Baroque style art and high culture.

    Overall though I'm more of a computer person than an arts person so in my opinion functionality will become its own aesthetic so beauty will occur as a byproduct of technological determinismm. I also think eventually computers will move into the subjective sphere so we could have a close-to-objective standard for appreciating art.
    Experimenting can't be acceptable if it is limited from producing whatever someone calls "dangerous". The dangerous ideologies are ideas that endanger the state, and if the state isn't perfect, which I bet it won't be, then those ideas are needed. So you can see that prohibiting and regulating ideas will only lead to reduction of the potential of society to improve.
    Minor alterations do allow for experimentation, but no great process or product are produced from 'minor' alterations. Einstein didn't revolutionise physics nor did Tesla revolutionise electricity through 'minor alterations'. Schoenberg didn't reinvent the musical wheel through 'minor alterations', but through major changes that prompted someone like Hitler to kick him out of Germany.

    You see, in essence, people are free to create and experience what they want as long as it is not in damage of others. That's the true meaning of freedom, your prohibitions limit that and thus I find it disgusting and unacceptable. Live free or die, that's my motto.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's a fundamental part of Western society.

    It's what differentiates us from the rudimentary Middle-East.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    Experimenting can't be acceptable if it is limited from producing whatever someone calls "dangerous". The dangerous ideologies are ideas that endanger the state, and if the state isn't perfect, which I bet it won't be, then those ideas are needed. So you can see that prohibiting and regulating ideas will only lead to reduction of the potential of society to improve.
    Minor alterations do allow for experimentation, but no great process or product are produced from 'minor' alterations. Einstein didn't revolutionise physics nor did Tesla revolutionise electricity through 'minor alterations'. Schoenberg didn't reinvent the musical wheel through 'minor alterations', but through major changes that prompted someone like Hitler to kick him out of Germany.

    You see, in essence, people are free to create and experience what they want as long as it is not in damage of others. That's the true meaning of freedom, your prohibitions limit that and thus I find it disgusting and unacceptable. Live free or die, that's my motto.
    I am only talking about art: scientists can do whatever they need to do because a minority of the population will see, nevermind understand, the research, and therefore it won't affect the political climate. I am at heart a technocrat so the idea that I would want to limit technological progress is absurd: it's the core of my ideology.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MachinesCradle)
    I am only talking about art: scientists can do whatever they need to do because a minority of the population will see, nevermind understand, the research, and therefore it won't affect the political climate. I am at heart a technocrat so the idea that I would want to limit technological progress is absurd: it's the core of my ideology.
    I am a technocrat too, but I don't believe that we should prohibit any kind of art. Freedom to create is not at odds with rule of technocracy.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Yes.

    But I do believe that when speech is offensive, in the wrong context/environment, then it is morally wrong.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by לזייןהאיסלאם)
    Is free speech important?
    Was the second option in the poll a serious one?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes
    Freedom of speech is what differentiates us from others it's what makes us who we are. Everyone has a right to state their view and express their opinion. It seems like you guys are being brainwashed into believing some people in society are superior...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yes, free speech is arguably even more important than democracy itself in my opinion, because free speech *precedes* democracy. democray cannot function without it and free speech has advanced our civilisation more than democracy in my opinion. science, academics, technology, etc, could not develop without it, and religion's power over the state could not be weakened without it either.

    I don't care how offensive somebody's mere words are
    so long as they are not undermining my liberty and security, I don't give a crap
    they could be a KKK, nazi, racist, communist, fascist, radical feminist etc for all I cared - I *don't* care.
    so long as nobody is being threatened or directly harmed altogether, free speech is a good value
    and free speech, on that basis, should NEVER be limited
    to limit speech via law is the same as using violence to stop non-violence which is disgraceful
    use words to combat words, not fists against words.
    if you need violence and law to defend yourself and your reputation, you don't deserve a reputation in the first place
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherub012)
    Was the second option in the poll a serious one?
    I mean, I wouldn't take it seriously, but clearly 5 people have.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it is. Free speech is one the most important freedoms in Western society.

    'Offence' should not be a reason to restrict speech. Firstly, it's highly subjective. Secondly, nothing really happens to a person when they're offended. If something offends you, how you deal with that and how it affects you is your decision. You can either ignore it, cry about it, or say something back.

    The only speech that should see any restriction and legal consequences would be things like libel and contempt. Lying, essentially. It's okay to espouse an opinion or joke, even if it offends, but lies can result in people losing money, jobs, or even being imprisoned.

    That and credible threats/harassment. Just saying "Die b**ch!" as a random troll on the internet isn't really something that needs to be taken seriously. Just block/ban where appropriate.' But when things start getting real and credible, that's when Johnny Law should step in.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It is very important. I think UK laws go to far in restricting free speech. I don't think expressing an opinion should be a crime no matter how unpleasant it is.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Free speech means that people can call you racist because of wanting to talk about immigration.

    Free speech means people can express their support for the IRA or Hezbollah.

    Free speech means people can make jokes on facebook about British soldiers being killed and say they deserve it.

    Free speech means people can say that infidels should be beheaded and Israel should be wiped off the map.
    The first could be considered slander and thus wouldn't necessarily be protected under free speech. This is an area I would say might justify some form of legal action depending on the situation. You can't just spread lies about people to hurt their careers and reputation.

    But the rest, though abhorrent and offensive, would (or at least should) be protected free speech, and most free speech advocates and I would be okay with that. At least in terms of criminality.

    The last one though may be interpreted as a threat. But this would depend on credibility and context. Also the word 'should' is important here. It makes it more of an opinion than a command, so to speak.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.